Don't Contacts Matter? The Debate on the Labor Market Effect of Used Social Capital and New Evidence

林南的社会资源理论受到莫维基于反事实框架的质疑,一场“莫林之争”持续10年。本文对双方论点进行了批判性回顾,并对合作者早期研究进行复制和拓展,分别估算了前东德职业声望和中国工资获得模型。我们将“一阶差分”与“赫克曼方法”相组合以同时纠正样本选择和遗漏变量偏误。研究结果表明,“关系人”的地位对求职结果具有显著的正向效应,且这种效应非但没有因“趋同性”被高估,而是因“趋异性”被低估。

The proposal of social resources by Nan Lin has been challenged by Ted Mouw because the relevant empirical studies espousing Lin's argument have not adequately addressed the endogeneity problem. This paper offers a critical review of the debate and a replication study to examine the effect that used social capital has on individual outcomes in East Germany and contemporary China. The Heckman two-stage method and the first-difference method are used to help identifying models. Results here demonstrate that contacts' status matters for the attained status of German respondents and for the income of Chinese respondents. More importantly, it is social heterophily rather than social homophily that confounds the effects of social resources.

欢迎阅读《社会学研究》！您是该文第3136位读者！