The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States
2013 · paper · Economics
Analyzes how rising Chinese import competition from 1990 to 2007 affected local U.S. labor markets. Exposed areas saw higher unemployment, lower labor force participation and lower wages; the authors say it explains about a quarter of the manufacturing employment decline.
Checked: PDF from nber.org, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
16 findings
Substance Theory appendix p. 54: "β̂OLS = −0.397, β̂2SLS = −0.746 (column 1 of Table 3), β̂e = −0.029, implying that σ²_IIV/(σ²_IIV+σ²_Ie) ≃ 0.48". Under eq. (10) these inputs give a weight of about 0.51, not 0.48. The 48% share is used on p. 21 and in the benchmarking.
- p. 54 Theory appendix, variance decomposition
(column 1 of Table 3), ˆβe = −0.029
- p. 21 Section 4.2
close to half (48%)
- p. 54 Theory appendix, variance decomposition
β̂OLS = −0.397, β̂2SLS = −0.746 (column 1 of Table 3), β̂e = −0.029, implying that
- p. 54 Theory appendix, variance decomposition
ˆβOLS = −0.397, ˆβ2SLS = −0.746 (column 1 of Table 3), ˆβe = −0.029, implying that
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p. 53 (eq. 10: β̂OLS = β̂IV·w + β̂e·(1−w)) and p. 54. Solving with the printed values gives w = 0.513. With w = 0.48 the formula returns OLS = −0.373. Equivalently, holding OLS and IV fixed, β̂e would have to be about −0.075. Three-decimal rounding cannot close the gap. Nothing in the text explains the difference, and -0.397 appears nowhere else in the extracted text. Which input, or the 0.48 itself, is inconsistent can only be settled by the authors. The 0.48 feeds the p. 21 benchmarks (16/26/21%) and later calculations.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Footnote 35: "the gain in non-manufacturing employment is 40 percent larger for workers with a four-year degree than those with some college (0.22 versus 0.14 percentage points)". 0.22 is about 57% larger than 0.14.
- p. 27 Footnote 35
the gain in non-manufacturing employment is 40 percent larger
- p. 27 footnote 35
the gain in non-manufacturing employment is 40 percent larger for workers with a four-year degree than those with some college (0.22 versus 0.14 percentage points)
- p. 27 footnote 35
is 40 percent larger for workers with a four-year degree than those with some college (0.22 versus 0.14 percentage points)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen in the p.27 crop. The first comparison, 0.66 vs 0.48, is about 38% and fits 'about 40 percent'. The second gives a ratio of 1.57, and even allowing for rounding the lowest is about 1.48. Either the percentage or the numbers are misstated; only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance "deadweight loss of $13 and $21 in these two periods, or $33 in total": 40% of $51 is about $20, not $21, and $13 + $21 = $34, not $33.
- p. 39 Section 8, para 2
of $13 and $21 in these two periods, or $33 in total
- p. 39 Section 8, para 2
deadweight loss of $13 and $21 in these two periods, or $33 in total
Judge's note: Footnote 48 and the text give exposure growth of $1,140 and $1,840, a coefficient of 57.73 (Table 8 panel B column 1), a 48% supply-shock share and a 0.40 excess burden. Recomputing gives 12.6 and 20.4, which sum to 33.0. That is consistent with $13, $20 and $33, so the printed $21 is the outlier. The ±1 SE range of $22-$44 also checks out.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Eq. (31), p. 62: "P̂N = β̂* + (1−η)(1−ρ)(B̂ − σ̄β̂*)": the system in (30) implies a leading term σ̄β̂*, not β̂*.
- p. 62 Equation (31), fifth line
ˆPN = ˆβ∗+ (1 −η) (1 −ρ)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p. 62. My own reworking: lines 1 and 3 of (30) give σ̄β̂* + (1−η)L̂N = ρσ̄β̂* + (1−ρ)B̂ − ηL̂N, so L̂N = (1−ρ)(B̂ − σ̄β̂*), which matches the printed L̂N. Substituting into line 1 gives P̂N = σ̄β̂* + (1−η)(1−ρ)(B̂ − σ̄β̂*). The printed formula lacks σ̄ on the first term. This is probably a dropped bar, and the stated sign ambiguity holds either way. Rated S1 only because the formula is wrong as printed.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Text cites "(Autor and Duggan, 2006)" (p.7) and "(Autor and Duggan, 2003 and 2011)" (p.27), but the reference list has only Autor and Duggan 2003 and 2010.
- p. 7 Introduction, top paragraph
(Autor and Duggan, 2006)
- p. 43 References
Autor, David H. and Mark Duggan. 2003.
- p. 7 Introduction, top
SSDI benefits until retirement or death (Autor and Duggan, 2006)
- p. 7 Introduction, TAA paragraph
until retirement or death (Autor and Duggan, 2006)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The page images confirm the 2006 and 2011 citations. The reference list (p.43) has only the 2003 QJE paper and the 2010 Hamilton Project report. Neither the 2006 nor the 2011 citation resolves, and only the authors can say which works are meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Hsieh and Ossa is cited as "(2010)" in footnotes 10 and 14 and as "(2012)" in the Theory Appendix, but the reference list gives "Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Ralph Ossa. 2011."
- p. 7 Footnote 10
see Hsieh and Ossa (2010)
- p. 55 Small Open Economy Model, para 1
Hsieh and Ossa (2012)
- p. 45 References
Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Ralph Ossa. 2011.
- p. 7 Footnote 10
Hsieh and Ossa (2010)
Judge's note: The images show 2010 in footnotes 10 (p.7) and 14 (p.9) and 2012 on p.55. The single reference entry (p.45) is dated 2011, NBER WP 16778.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 3 notes say "First stage estimates in Panel B also include the control variables that are indicated in the corresponding columns of Panel A", but the table's panels are labelled "I. 1990-2007 Stacked First Differences" and "II. 2SLS First Stage Estimates".
- p. 18 Table 3 notes
First stage estimates in Panel B also include the control variables
- p. 18 Table 3 notes
First stage estimates in Panel B also include the control variables that are indicated in the corresponding columns of Panel A.
- p. 18 Table 3 notes
The outsourcability index variable is standardized
- p. 18 Table 3 panel labels
II. 2SLS First Stage Estimates
Judge's note: Checked p.18. Table 3 has no Panel A or B labels, only I and II. The intended mapping is clear, but the labels are wrong.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.25 cites "(Katz and Blanchard, 1991; ...)" but the only matching reference is "Blanchard, Olivier Jean and Lawrence F. Katz. 1992. “Regional Evolutions.”"
- p. 25 Section 5.1, para 1
Katz and Blanchard, 1991
- p. 43 References
Blanchard, Olivier Jean and Lawrence F. Katz. 1992.
- p. 25 Section 5.1
(Katz and Blanchard, 1991; Glaeser and Gyourko, 2005; Notowidigdo, 2010)
- p. 43 References
Blanchard, Olivier Jean and Lawrence F. Katz. 1992. “Regional Evolutions.”
Judge's note: Checked p.25 and the reference list on p.43. There is no Katz–Blanchard 1991 entry. The same work is cited correctly as 'Blanchard and Katz, 1992' in the introduction (text line 214). Both author order and year differ.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label p.27 cites "(Autor and Duggan, 2003 and 2011)" but the reference list has Autor and Duggan entries only for 2003 and 2010.
- p. 27 Section 5.1, last paragraph
(Autor and Duggan, 2003 and 2011)
- p. 43 References
Autor, David H. and Mark Duggan. 2010. Supporting Work
Judge's note: Checked p.27 and the reference list on p.43. There is no 2011 entry. The 2010 'Supporting Work' report is presumably meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "Edwards and Lawrence (2010)" (p.29) and "Hummels (2007)" (Theory Appendix, p.54) are cited but have no entries in the reference list.
- p. 29 Section 5.2, para after Table 7
Edwards and Lawrence (2010)
- p. 54 Theory appendix, gravity model
Hummels (2007) suggests
- p. 45 References
Hummels, David, Jun Ishii, Kei-Mu Yi. 2001.
Judge's note: Checked the crops on p.29 and p.54. I searched the full text: 'Edwards' appears only in the in-text citation. The only Hummels references are Hummels, Ishii and Yi 2001 and Hummels, Jorgensen, Munch and Xiang 2010. The files contain no separate appendix bibliography.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Theory appendix p. 56 cites "(as in Hanson and Xiang, 2005)" but the only Hanson–Xiang reference entry (p. 45) is dated 2004 ("Hanson, Gordon, and Chong Xiang. 2004.").
- p. 56 Small Open Economy Model
as in Hanson and Xiang, 2005
- p. 45 References
Hanson, Gordon, and Chong Xiang.
- p. 56 footnote 56
Arkolakis, Costinot, and Rodriquez-Clare (2011)
- p. 43 References
Arkolakis, Costas, Arnaud Costinot, and Andres Rodriguez-Clare. 2012
Judge's note: Viewed p. 56 and the p. 45 reference crop. There is only one Hanson–Xiang entry, the AER 2004 paper, so the in-text year does not match. The Arkolakis et al. year/spelling mismatch in footnote 56, also raised in this cluster, is adjudicated separately under C063.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Footnote 56 (p. 56) cites "Arkolakis, Costinot, and Rodriquez-Clare (2011)"; the reference list (p. 43) and main text (p. 7) give "Rodriguez-Clare" and 2012.
- p. 56 Footnote 56
Rodriquez-Clare (2011)
- p. 43 References
Andres Rodriguez-Clare. 2012.
Judge's note: Viewed p. 56 footnote 56 and the p. 43 reference entry ('Andres Rodriguez-Clare. 2012', AER 102(1)). The main text at line 267-268 cites 'Arkolakis, Costinot, and Rodriguez-Clare, 2012'. Both the year and the name spelling in footnote 56 are inconsistent.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Appendix Table 2 notes ('The first two rows of column (3) report import volumes for the year 1991, all other variables in column (3) are based on 1990 data'; the weighting statement; ACS data 'in column (5)') do not match the printed column layout: (1)=1990/1991, (2)=2000, (3)=2007, (4)=1990-2000 change, (5)=2000-2007 change.
- p. 48 Appendix Table 2 notes
Statistics in columns (1) and (3) are weighted by 1990 population
- p. 48 Appendix Table 2 notes
The first two rows of column (3) report import volumes for the year 1991
- p. 48 Appendix Table 2 notes
The first two rows of column (3) report import volumes for the year 1991, all other variables in column (3) are based on 1990 data.
- p. 48 Appendix Table 2 notes
Statistics in columns (1) and (3) are weighted by 1990 population, statistics in columns (2) and (4) are weighted by 2000 population, and statistics in column (5) are weighted by 2007 population.
Judge's note: Page 48 image: column (1) is headed 1990/1991 and column (3) 2007, so the 1991/1990 statement belongs to column (1). The note that column (5) levels come from pooled 2006-2008 ACS data fits the 2007 levels in column (3). The weighting note (column (3) by 1990, column (4) by 2000) also looks carried over from another column order. The (4) change check works: (1.32−0.29)×10/9 = 1.14. The data are fine; the column pointers in the notes are wrong.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The theory appendix cites 'which Hummels (2007) suggests fluctuate during our sample', but there is no Hummels (2007) entry in the reference list.
- p. 54 Theory appendix, gravity model
which Hummels (2007) suggests fluctuate during our sample
Judge's note: Page 54 image shows the citation. Searching the full text, the only Hummels references are Hummels, Ishii and Yi (2001) and Hummels, Jorgensen, Munch and Xiang (2010). The cited work is missing from the reference list.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The SSDI effect is described as "about $8 per $1,000 growth of export exposure", but the Table 8 regressor is "(Δ Imports from China to US)/Worker", so this should read import exposure.
- p. 32 Section 6, para 1
growth of export exposure
- p. 31 Table 8 row label
(Δ Imports from China to US)/Worker
- p. 32 Section 6, para 1
equal to about $8 per $1,000 growth of export exposure
- p. 32 Section 6, SSDI sentence
$8 per $1,000 growth of export exposure
Judge's note: Table 8 panel B column 5 gives 8.40 for the import-exposure regressor, and Table 8 has no export-exposure regressor. The same paragraph otherwise speaks of import exposure throughout.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Below eq. (8) the paper writes 'we approximate ln (w′0/w0) ≈ α ≈ 1+ β̂w × ∆IPWut'. Since α = w′0/w0 ≈ 1, ln α ≈ α − 1, not α. This is the form eq. (8) uses.
- p. 41 Below equation (8)
we approximate ln (w′0/w0) ≈ α ≈ 1+ ˆβw × ∆IPWut
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked p.40-41. Page 40 gives h′0 ≈ h0(1 + ηh ln(w′0/w0)). Putting ln α ≈ α − 1 into this gives the factor [1 + ηh(α − 1)] in eq. (8), so eq. (8) itself stands. The chained statement ln(w′0/w0) ≈ α is false for α near 1: ln α ≈ 0 while α ≈ 1. The text probably means ln α ≈ α − 1 ≈ β̂w×ΔIPW, with α ≈ 1 + β̂w×ΔIPW. Only the printed step is faulty, so S3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
43 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label Intro: "In 1991, low-income countries accounted for just 2.9% of U.S. manufacturing imports (Table 1)... reached 5.9% and climbed to 11.7% by 2007, with China accounting for 91.5% of this growth". These shares cannot be derived from the cited Table 1.
- p. 3 Introduction, para 2
just 2.9% of U.S. manufacturing imports (Table 1)
- p. 13 Table 1 Panel A
905.8
- p. 3 Introduction, para 2
with China accounting for 91.5% of this growth
- p. 13 Table 1, Panel A
26.3
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: From Table 1 Panel A (p.13): China + other low-income as a share of all four source columns is 3.5% (1991), 6.7% (2000) and 12.8% (2007). China's share of the level growth in low-income imports is 89.0%. Table 1 may use a different base (for example all goods rather than manufacturing), but the paper does not report a base that gives 2.9/5.9/11.7. The authors should confirm the source or the denominator.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Appendix Table 3 notes define low-income countries 'according to the 1990 Worldbank classification (see Data Appendix)', while footnote 2, the Table 1 notes and the Data Appendix say 'World Bank definition in 1989'.
- p. 49 Appendix Table 3 notes
according to the 1990 Worldbank
- p. 3 Footnote 2
World Bank definition in 1989
- p. 13 Table 1 notes
classified as low-income by the World Bank in 1989
- p. 49 Appendix Table 3 notes
defined according to the 1990 Worldbank classification
Judge's note: Page 49 image shows '1990 Worldbank'. The text has 1989 at footnote 2 (p.3), the Table 1 notes (p.13), in the text near Table 1, and in the Data Appendix ('Low-income countries are defined according to the World Bank definition in 1989'). The note itself points to the Data Appendix, so the year label is inconsistent.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Abstract: "Conservatively, it explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in U.S. manufacturing employment", but Section 4.2 gives the conservative estimate as "16 percent ... 1990 and 2000, 26 percent ... 2000 and 2007, and 21 percent of the decline over the full period".
- p. 2 Abstract
Conservatively, it explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous
- p. 21 Section 4.2
26 percent of the decline between 2000 and 2007, and 21 percent of the
- p. 2 Abstract
Conservatively, it explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in U.S. manufacturing employment.
- p. 21 Section 4.2
We more conservatively estimate that Chinese import competition explains 16 percent
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked on p.2 (abstract) and pp.21-22. The abstract covers 1990-2007. The conservative full-period figure in the text is 21%, which is closer to one-fifth. 'One-quarter' matches only the 2000-2007 figure (26%). The 21% follows from 44% x 0.48. The authors should say which figure the abstract summarises.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Main text defines "ρi, the share of the current-account deficit in total expenditure in region i" and scales employment in (1) by ρi. The appendix defines "ρi ≡ WiLi/(WiLi+Bi) is the initial share of labor income in total expenditure" and scales employment by (1−ρi).
- p. 9 Section 2.1
the share of the current-account deficit in total expenditure in region i
- p. 58 Theory appendix, after (24)
is the initial share of labor income in total
- p. 9 Section 2.1
ρi, the share of the current-account deficit in total expenditure in region i
- p. 58 Theory appendix after (24)
ρi ≡ Wi Li / (Wi Li + Bi ) is the initial share of labor income in total
Judge's note: Equation (1) on p.8 has L̂Ti = ρi Σ... and the text on p.9 calls ρi the deficit share. The appendix on p.58 defines ρi as the labour-income share and derives L̂Ni = (1−ρi)(B̂i − Ŵi). Since 1−ρi = Bi/(WiLi+Bi) is the deficit share, the substance agrees. The same symbol, however, carries complementary meanings in the two places.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Footnote 16 calls the dependent variable "the change in manufacturing employment as a share of the labor force", whereas eq. (5) defines it as "the decadal change in the manufacturing employment share of the working age population".
- p. 10 Footnote 16
the change in manufacturing employment as a share of the labor force
- p. 16 Equation (5) text
manufacturing employment share of the working age
Judge's note: Checked footnote 16 (p.10) against the text after eq. (5) (p.16). The two denominators differ, and the main specification uses working-age population.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "this import value increased by a factor of 11.5, from 26 billion dollars to 330 billion dollars". The ratio 330.0/26.3 is about 12.5; 11.5 is the proportional increase (1156%, as in Table 1 and the Conclusion).
- p. 12 Section 3, para 2
this import value increased by a factor of 11.5
- p. 13 Table 1, Panel A col 1
1156%
- p. 12 Section 3, para 2
this import value increased by a factor of 11.5, from 26 billion dollars to 330 billion dollars
- p. 41 Conclusion, first sentence
increased by a staggering 1,156% from 1991 to 2007
Judge's note: Table 1 (p.13) gives 26.3 to 330.0 with growth of 1156%. 'Factor of 11.5' describes the increase rather than the ratio. This is a wording slip, and the correct values are printed next to it.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "The third and fourth columns of Panel A summarize the value of imports from Mexico and Central America, and from a set of 51 low income countries". Table 1 column 3 is Other Low-Inc. and column 4 is Mexico/Cafta, and the Data Appendix lists 52 low-income countries besides China.
- p. 13 Section 3, para after Table 1
a set of 51 low income countries
- p. 50 Data Appendix, list of low-income countries
Low-income countries are defined according to the World Bank definition in 1989. They are:
- p. 13 paragraph after Table 1
summarize the value of imports from Mexico and Central America, and from a set of 51 low income countries
- p. 13 Table 1 column headers
Imports from Other Low-Inc.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Counted the Data Appendix list (p.50): 53 countries from Afghanistan to Yemen, including China, leaves 52. Table 1 headers and notes (p.13) put low-income in column 3 and Mexico/CAFTA in column 4, the reverse of the sentence's order. The authors should check the count; one country may lack data, but the paper does not say so.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "Washington DC, New Orleans, and Orlando being the least exposed large CZs in both periods". In 1990-2000, Appendix Table 1 ranks Houston (0.45) below Orlando (0.46).
- p. 14 Section 3, para 2
New Orleans, and Orlando being the least exposed large CZs in both periods
- p. 47 Appendix Table 1, Panel B, 1990-2000 ranks 37-40
Houston, TX
- p. 14 Section 3, para 2
Washington DC, New Orleans, and Orlando being the least exposed large CZs in both periods
- p. 47 Appendix Table 1, 1990-2000 ranks 37-38
Houston, TX 0.45
Judge's note: Appendix Table 1 Panel B (p.47): in 1990-2000 the order is 37 Orlando 0.46, 38 Houston 0.45, 39 Washington 0.21, 40 New Orleans 0.19. In 2000-2007 the bottom three are Washington, New Orleans and Orlando. The claim therefore holds only for the second period. The values are close, so this is minor.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Footnote 24: "Since we use Newey-West standard errors in all models are clustered on U.S. state" is ungrammatical, and it names Newey-West errors while the table notes say "Robust standard errors in parentheses are clustered on state."
- p. 16 Footnote 24
Since we use Newey-West standard errors in all models are clustered on U.S. state
- p. 18 Table 3 notes
Robust standard errors in parentheses are clustered on state.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked the footnote on p.16 and the Table 3 notes on p.18. The sentence has two verbs and no conjunction. 'Newey-West' does not match the state-clustered robust standard errors described in the table notes. Only the authors can say which wording they meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The Conclusion's 'a differential increase in transfer payments of about $63 per capita' does not follow from the Table 8 coefficient of 57.73 times the paper's 75th–25th exposure gap of 1.06 (footnote 25), which gives about $61.
- p. 42 Conclusion, para 2
about $63 per capita
- p. 18 Footnote 25
(3.11−1.60)×0.7 = 1.06
- p. 42 Conclusion, para 2
transfer payments of about $63 per capita in the more exposed CZ
- p. 31 Table 8, Panel B, col 1
57.73
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Footnote 25 (p.18) gives the 2000-07 gap as (3.11−1.60)×0.7 = 1.06. The introduction's 4.5%/0.8 figures also use 1.06. Table 8 Panel B col 1 (p.31) shows 57.73**. The product is about 61. Even with the percentiles at their rounding extremes the result stays below 62, and $63 would need a gap of about 1.09. I found no other gap or coefficient anywhere in the text. The gap is small and the text says 'about', so this is minor; only the authors can say which inputs they used.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording p.21: "fell by 2.07 percentage points between 1990 and 2000 and by 2.00 percentage points between 2000 and 2007 (Appendix Table 2)". The 2.07 is the 10-year-equivalent change in column 4; the 2.00 is not printed as a change and equals the level difference 10.51−8.51.
- p. 21 Section 4.2
fell by 2.07 percentage points between 1990 and 2000 and by 2.00 percentage points between 2000 and 2007 (Appendix Table 2)
- p. 48 Appendix Table 2, manufacturing row
-2.07
Judge's note: Checked p.21 and Appendix Table 2 on p.48. Column 5 gives −2.73 as the 10-year equivalent for 2000-2007, which scales to 1.91 over 7 years. The 2.00 matches the raw 2000 and 2007 levels, which fits the 7-year effect of 1.10. So the two periods' benchmarks are taken on different bases: the change column for one, level differences for the other. The 1990-2000 level difference would be 2.18. Both figures can be derived from the table, so this is a consistency point, not a clear error. The stated shares follow from the printed numbers.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Section 8 says a $1,000 shock "reduces labor force participation by β̂e = −0.77 percentage points", but −0.77 is the Table 5 employment-to-population effect. Table 5 gives a non-participation rise of 0.553, and footnote 53 calls 0.77 "a reduction of the employment rate".
- p. 40 Section 8
reduces labor force participation by
- p. 26 Table 5 panel B
0.553
- p. 40 Section 8, para on elasticities
reduces labor force participation by ˆβe = −0.77 percentage points
- p. 41 Footnote 53
Given a reduction of the employment rate by 0.77 percentage points
Judge's note: Table 5 panel B (p.26 image) gives −0.596 and −0.178, which sum to 0.774 (the employment/pop fall), with 0.221 going to unemployment and 0.553 to NILF. The text on p.26 itself calls 0.77 the employment-to-population effect. The Section 8 sentence then speaks of the "fall in employment", so the phrase "labor force participation" is the misdescription.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 7 header labels the wage outcome "Avg Log Weekly Wages (in %)", while Table 6 labels the same kind of outcome "Change in Avg Log Weekly Wage (in log pts)" and the text reports the Table 7 wage coefficients in log points.
- p. 29 Table 7 title
Avg Log Weekly Wages (in %)
- p. 28 Table 6 title
Change in Avg Log Weekly Wage (in log pts)
- p. 28 Table 6 header
Avg Log Weekly Wage (in log pts)
Judge's note: Checked both table titles on the page images. Table 6 (p.28) says "(in log pts)" and Table 7 (p.29) says "(in %)". The text (main.txt l.1862-1863) reads the Table 7 wage effects as "-0.76 log points" and "0.15 log points". For changes this small the two units are nearly the same, so this is a labelling inconsistency, not a wrong number.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The text calls per-capita transfer amounts "per adult" ("$2,500 per adult in 2007", "$1,400 and $300 per adult", "$2 per adult", "$0.23 in per adult in benefits"). Appendix Table 2 and Table 8 report them per capita, and footnote 39 says transfers "are denominated by total CZ residents". The phrase "$0.23 in per adult in benefits" also has a stray "in".
- p. 31 Section 6, last paragraph
$2,500 per adult in 2007
- p. 31 Footnote 39
transfer payments are denominated by total CZ residents
- p. 32 Section 6
$0.23 in per adult
- p. 32 para 1
a small increase of $0.23 in per adult in benefits
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Appendix Table 2 rows read "Average medical/retirement/disability/TAA benefits per capita", with 2007 values of 2564, 1398, 300 and 2.2. Table 8 panel B is "Dollar Change of Transfer Receipts per Capita". Footnote 39 states that the denominator is total residents, including children and the elderly. The same paragraph also says "$18 per capita" for the same kind of quantity. So "per adult" misdescribes the denominator. The stray "in" is confirmed on the page-32 image.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Abstract: "Transfer benefits payments for unemployment, disability, ..." should read "Transfer benefit payments".
- p. 2 Abstract
Transfer benefits payments for unemployment
Judge's note: The page image of the abstract shows 'Transfer benefits payments'. The noun stack with a plural modifier is a cosmetic copy-editing slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 1 cites "Acemoglu and Autor (2010)" but the reference list gives "Autor, David H. and Daron Acemoglu. 2010." (author order reversed, filed under Autor).
- p. 3 Footnote 1
Acemoglu and Autor (2010)
- p. 43 References
Autor, David H. and Daron Acemoglu.
- p. 43 References
Autor, David H. and Daron Acemoglu. 2010.
Judge's note: The reference entry on p.43 (PDF) lists Autor first. The in-text citation on p.3 lists Acemoglu first. It is the same Handbook chapter, so this is a cosmetic inconsistency.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "UN Comrade Database" (Section 3 and Data Appendix, also "six-digit HS Comrade data") should be "UN Comtrade Database".
- p. 12 Section 3, para 2
We use data from the UN Comrade Database
- p. 50 Data Appendix, para 1-2
UN Comrade Database
- p. 12 Section 3
UN Comrade Database
- p. 50 Data Appendix
Comrade has six-digit HS trade data
Judge's note: The page images show 'Comrade' in both places. The URL printed in the Data Appendix is comtrade.un.org.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 notes: "Central American and Carribean countries" should read "Caribbean".
- p. 13 Table 1 notes
Central American and Carribean countries
- p. 13
Central American and Carribean countries covered by the CAFTA-DR
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the Table 1 notes on the page 13 image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "Panel A of Appendix Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for ΔIPWujt by time period". The regional measure is ΔIPWuit (j indexes industries).
- p. 14 Section 3, para 2
shows descriptive statistics for ∆IPWujt by time period
Judge's note: The page 14 image shows the subscript 'ujt'. Equations (3) and (5) use ΔIPWuit for the CZ-level measure.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.17: "That the estimated coefficient is of a similar in magnitude in both time periods" contains a stray word.
- p. 17 Section 4.1, top paragraph
of a similar in magnitude
- p. 17
is of a similar in magnitude in
Judge's note: Seen on the page image. It should read 'similar in magnitude' or 'of a similar magnitude'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 3 notes call the variable "The outsourcability index" while the row label reads "Average offshorability index of occupations".
- p. 18 Table 3 notes
The outsourcability index
- p. 18 Table 3 row label
Average offshorability index of
Judge's note: Checked p.18. The same variable has two names within one table. This is minor terminology.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.18: "declined by -0.65 percentage points more than in a CZ at the 25th percentile" puts a negative value after 'declined by', a double negative.
- p. 18 para 2
declined by -0.65 percentage points more than
Judge's note: Seen on p.18. Footnote 25 computes 1.06 × −0.610 = −0.65. The size is clear, but 'declined by -0.65' is sign-inconsistent wording.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.20: "the world’s dominate exporter" should be 'dominant'.
- p. 20 Section 4.1, para 1
world’s dominate exporter
- p. 20 para 1
the world’s dominate exporter
Judge's note: Seen on the page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p.20: "Such an exercises supposes" should read 'Such an exercise supposes'.
- p. 20 Section 4.2, last line
Such an exercises supposes
Judge's note: Seen at the bottom of p.20.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 28: "the 2000-2007 change is import growth is multiplied by 10/7" should read 'change in import growth'.
- p. 21 Footnote 28
the 2000-2007 change is import growth is multiplied by 10/7
Judge's note: Seen on p.21.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 5 subtitle: "10-Year Equivalent Changes in Population Log Population Counts and Population Shares" has a redundant 'Population'.
- p. 26 Table 5 subtitle
Changes in Population Log Population Counts
- p. 26 Table 5 title
Changes in Population Log Population Counts and Population Shares
Judge's note: Seen on the p.26 crop. It should probably read 'Changes in Log Population Counts and Population Shares'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Missing space before the parenthesis: "in the broader(non-local) labor market".
- p. 30 para 3
the broader(non-local) labor market
Judge's note: The page image shows "broader(non-local)" with no space, so this is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling in the Table 8 notes: "displayed in colums 2 to 9" should read "columns".
- p. 31 Table 8 notes
displayed in colums 2 to 9
Judge's note: Seen in the Table 8 notes on the page-31 image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 10 notes: "intermediate inputs import instrument in Panel C: 0.70 (0.10) for the import instrument" uses a colon where the semicolon that separates the other panels is needed.
- p. 35 Table 10 notes
intermediate inputs import instrument in Panel C: 0.70 (0.10)
Judge's note: The page image shows the colon. The other panel entries in the same list are separated by semicolons.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Subject-verb disagreement: "Panel E of Table 10 use the gravity-based approach" should read "uses".
- p. 37 para 3
Panel E of Table 10 use the gravity-based approach
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page-37 image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 47 prints "−0.57 × (1/0.70) = 0.81". The product is −0.81, so the sign is dropped on the right-hand side, although the intended magnitude (0.81 workers displaced) is clear.
- p. 38 Footnote 47
−0.57 × (1/0.70) = 0.81
Judge's note: The page image shows a leading minus on 0.57 and a positive 0.81. The Table 10 panel F column 1 coefficient is −0.57.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In equation (6), "w0uc (y + wh0, h0) = −uh (y + w0h0, h0)", the left-hand consumption argument reads "y + wh0" where it should read "y + w0h0".
- p. 39 Equation (6)
w0uc (y + wh0, h0) = −uh (y + w0h0, h0)
Judge's note: The page image confirms that the subscript is missing. The text right after the equation describes both sides as evaluated at h0 and wage w0, and the right-hand side uses w0h0. This is a notation slip and does not affect the derivation.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The sentence ending "deadweight losses at $22 to $44 per capita" has no full stop before the next paragraph.
- p. 39 para 2
deadweight losses at $22 to $44 per capita
Judge's note: The page-39 image shows no period after "per capita".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "an increase in annual transfers receipts of $32 and $51" should read "transfer receipts".
- p. 39 Sec 8 para 2
an increase in annual transfers receipts of $32 and $51
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page-39 image. Elsewhere the paper writes "transfer receipts", for example in the Table 8 title.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 53 prints "1, 140 × −0.77 × 0.48 = −0.42" and "1, 840 × −0.77 × 0.48 = −0.68". Because the coefficient is per $1,000, exposure must enter in thousands (1.14 and 1.84); as printed, the products are about −421 and −680.
- p. 41 Footnote 53
1, 140 × −0.77 × 0.48 = −0.42
Judge's note: Seen on the page-41 image. The results are right once exposure is entered in thousands, so the slip is in the units of the multipliers only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The lead-in to eq. (8) reads 'yields the welfare loss from involuntary employment,'. From context it should be 'involuntary unemployment'.
- p. 41 Lead-in to equation (8)
involuntary employment,
Judge's note: Pages 40-41: the sentence runs across the page break. The surrounding text speaks of the 'deadweight loss from involuntary unemployment' both before and right after eq. (8). This is a missing 'un', a copyedit slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The reference list entry for Hummels et al. (2010) gives the co-author as 'Jakok Munch'; it should presumably be 'Jakob Munch'.
- p. 45 References, Hummels et al. 2010
Jakok Munch
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the co-author's first name is Jakob. The crop on p.45 shows 'Jakok Munch' as printed. This is a cosmetic misspelling.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Appendix Table 1, rank 20, reads 'Forth Worth, TX'; it should read 'Fort Worth, TX'.
- p. 47 Appendix Table 1, rank 20
Forth Worth, TX
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the city is named Fort Worth. The crop on p.47 shows 'Forth Worth, TX' as printed.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Appendix Table 4 labels two panels 'C': 'C. Females' and 'C. Age 16-34'. The letters run A, B, C / C, D, E.
- p. 49 Appendix Table 4 panel headings
C. Age 16-34
- p. 49 Appendix Table 4 panel headings
C. Females
Judge's note: Page 49 image: the left block is A. Entire Working Age Population, B. Males, C. Females. The right block is C. Age 16-34, D. Age 35-49, E. Age 50-64. The duplicate C is a labelling slip; the right block should be D, E, F.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The theory appendix says 'we rewrite equation (5) above' but eq. (9) uses ΔE^m_it for the dependent variable, where eq. (5) uses ΔL^m_it.
- p. 53 Equation (9)
we rewrite equation (5) above
Judge's note: Page 53 image shows ΔE^m_it = γt + βΔIPW_uit + e_ct. Eq. (5) in the text is ΔL^m_it = γt + β1ΔIPW_uit + X′β2 + e_ct. Covariates are explicitly suppressed, but the change of symbol for the same variable is a notational inconsistency.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p. 59: "endogenous CZ variables (Ŵ_Ni, L̂Ti, L̂Ni, P̂Ni) ... (rather that for individual traded sectors)": 'rather that' should be 'rather than', and Ŵ_Ni should be Ŵ_i.
- p. 59 Theory appendix, before solutions
rather that for individual traded sectors
Judge's note: Viewed p. 59. The image shows Ŵ with subscript Ni in the list of solved variables. The wage is Ŵ_i elsewhere, including in (25) and in the solution that follows. 'rather that' is printed.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p. 61: "we have a system with six equations and xi unknowns (PN, P*N, LN, L*N, M, and M*)": 'xi' should be 'six'.
- p. 61 Two Economy Model, last line
six equations and xi unknowns
- p. 61 Two Economy Model, last line
a system with six equations and xi unknowns
- p. 61
we have a system with six equations and xi unknowns
Judge's note: Viewed p. 61. The page prints 'xi unknowns', and the list continuing on p. 62 has six unknowns.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p. 61: "is dominated in units of China's wage" and "where we dominate China values using an (∗)": the intended words are 'denominated' and 'denote'.
- p. 61 Two Economy Model
is dominated in units of China’s wage
- p. 61 Two Economy Model
where we dominate China values using an (∗)
- p. 61 Two Economy Model
we dominate China values using an (∗)
Judge's note: Viewed p. 61. Both wordings are printed as quoted.
Second check: none (judge only)