Employment and output effects of federal regulations on small business

Chambers, Dustin; Guo, Jang‐Ting

doi:10.1111/1468-0106.12353

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater regulatory entry hurdles also tend to hinder entrepreneurial entry and exacerbate inequality, at least across US states (Chambers O'Reilly 2022). Additionally, within the US, an increased regulatory burden decreases firm formation (Bailey and Thomas 2017) and for those firms that do enter, results in lower rates of employment (Chambers and Guo 2021).…”

Section: Section 2 Review Of the Relevant Literature And Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

One Size Fits All? The Differential Impact of Federal Regulation on Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity Across US States.

Dove

2023

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Section 2 Review Of the Relevant Literature And Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

One Size Fits All? The Differential Impact of Federal Regulation on Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity Across US States.

Dove

2023

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regulations are known to be associated with many regressive effects, including increased poverty (Chambers, Mclaughlin, & Stanley, 2019), higher income inequality (Chambers & O'Reilly, 2020), higher wage inequality (Mulholland, 2019), less entrepreneurship (Bailey & Thomas, 2017), and a reduction in the employment and output shares of small businesses (Chambers & Guo, 2020). Regulations have also been found to predict regressive effects on prices and wages (Bailey, Thomas, & Anderson, 2019; Chambers, Collins, & Krause, 2019).…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federal Regulation and Mortality in the 50 States

Broughel

Chambers

2021

Risk Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research speculates that some regulations are counterproductive in the sense that they increase (rather than decrease) mortality risk. However, few empirical studies have measured the extent to which this phenomenon holds across the regulatory system as a whole. Using a novel U.S. state panel data set spanning the period 2000–2014, we estimate the effect of U.S. federal regulation on state‐level mortality. We find that a 1% increase in federal regulation of state economies is associated with an increase in an index of state mortality of between 0.53% and 1.35%. These findings are robust to the form of mortality measure, choice of covariates, and the inclusion/exclusion of various regions, states, and industries. We also provide an update of the “cost‐per‐life saved cutoff,” which is the counterproductive risk threshold for expenditures. We find that expenditures in excess of $38.6 million (2019 dollars) per life saved can be expected to increase mortality risk. This article fills an important gap in the empirical literature and boosts the credibility of mortality risk analysis, whereby public policymakers weigh both the expected lives saved and lost due to a proposed regulation or other policy.

show abstract

“…(2020) reconcile these competing results, showing that differences in specification lead to different results. Federal regulation is also associated with a smaller share of both output and employment by small firms (Chambers and Guo, 2021). Similarly, Gutiérrez and Philippon (2019) suggest that regulatory barriers to entry in the US reduced the number of small firms relative to large firms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to entry, entrepreneurship and income inequality within the USA

O’Reilly

2022

JEPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeCross-country studies have shown that higher costs to starting a business tend to reduce entrepreneurship (Chambers and Munemo, 2019) and that an unfavorable environment for business can increase poverty and income inequality (Chambers et al., 2019a; Djankov et al., 2018). Building on the current literature, the authors test whether barriers to starting a business at the state and city level in the USA are associated with changes in entrepreneurship and income inequality.Design/methodology/approachMeasures of entrepreneurship (establishment entry rate and exit rate) are regressed on measures of barriers to entry in a cross-section of 50 states as well as a cross-section of 73 cities in the USA. Further, the authors regress measures of income inequality on measures of barriers to entry using the same two cross-sections. State level data on barriers to entry are from Teague (2016), published in the Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy. City level data on barriers to starting a business are from the Doing Business in North America (DBNA) dataset.FindingsResults show that there is a negative and significant association between barriers to starting a business and the rate of firm exit. A standard deviation increase in barriers to entry is associated with a five percent decrease in the firm exit rate at the state level. The authors find only limited evidence that barriers to entry are associated with income inequality.Originality/valueDespite a large volume of scholarship on how regulation and barriers to entry influence entrepreneurship, no study (to the authors’ knowledge) has investigated how general entry regulation affects the entry or exit rate of establishments at the state or municipal level in the USA.

show abstract

Employment and output effects of federal regulations on small business

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

One Size Fits All? The Differential Impact of Federal Regulation on Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity Across US States.

One Size Fits All? The Differential Impact of Federal Regulation on Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity Across US States.

Federal Regulation and Mortality in the 50 States

Barriers to entry, entrepreneurship and income inequality within the USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About