Article

Psychiatric disorders and labor market outcomes: evidence from the National Latino and Asian American Study

National Bureau of Economic Research, USA.
Health Economics (Impact Factor: 2.14). 10/2007; 16(10):1069-90. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1210
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This paper investigates to what extent psychiatric disorders and mental distress affect labor market outcomes in two rapidly growing populations that have not been studied to date-ethnic minorities of Latino and Asian descent, most of whom are immigrants. Using data from the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), we examine the labor market effects of meeting diagnostic criteria for any psychiatric disorder in the past 12 months as well as the effects of psychiatric distress in the past year. The labor market outcomes analyzed are current employment status, the number of weeks worked in the past year among those who are employed, and having at least one work absence in the past month among those who are employed. Among Latinos, psychiatric disorders and mental distress are associated with detrimental effects on employment and absenteeism, similar to effects found in previous analyses of mostly white, American born populations. Among Asians, we find more mixed evidence that psychiatric disorders and mental distress detract from labor market outcomes. Our findings suggest that reducing disparities and expanding access to effective treatment may have significant labor market benefits-not just for majority populations, as has been demonstrated, but also for Asians and Latinos.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David Takeuchi, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
81 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Longer life expectancy and declining birth rates have contributed to an aging population in many countries. This paper addresses the relationship between mental health and employment status among the elderly in Taiwan. A simultaneous equation system is developed that accommodates the discrete and censored nature of the two endogenous variables. Using data from a nationwide survey of the elderly in Taiwan, we find that older adults with mental illness are less likely to work, while those currently working are less prone to mental illness compared to their unemployed cohort.
    Pacific Economic Review 10/2011; 16(4). DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0106.2011.00560.x · 0.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We study the relationship between early life health and adult earnings using a unique dataset that covers almost the entire population of Swedish males born between 1950 and 1970. The health information is obtained from medical examinations during the mandatory military enlistment tests at age 18, which we have further linked to register data on adult earnings. We find that most types of major diagnoses have long-run effects on future earnings with the largest effects resulting from mental conditions. Including sibling fixed effects or twin-pair fixed effects reduces the magnitudes of the estimates, although remaining substantial.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper uses the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication to estimate effects of recent psychiatric disorder on employment, hours worked, and earnings. We employ methods proposed in Altonji et al. (2005a) which use selection on observable traits to provide information regarding selection along unobservable factors. Among males, disorder is associated with reductions in labor force participation and employment. When selection on observed characteristics is set equal to selection on unobserved characteristics, the magnitudes of these effects for males are 9 and 14 percentage point reductions for participation and employment, respectively. Among females, we find negative associations between disorder and labor force participation and employment, but these estimates are more sensitive to assumptions about selection. There are no effects of disorder on earnings or hours worked among employed individuals.
    Journal of Health Economics 07/2011; 30(5):858-68. DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.06.006 · 2.25 Impact Factor