Abstract
Social resource theory has been challenged, as the effects of contact resources on job outcomes may be spurious given the presence of homophily. We review the Mouw–Lin debate and propose that occupational homophily moderates the role of contact resources in the labor market and that effects of resources depend on labor market institutions. We analyze data from the US, East Germany before 1989, and post-reform China, combining the first-difference method and Heckman selection procedure to deal with endogeneity. Empirical findings from different labor market contexts demonstrate that: (1) contact resources have a causal and positive role in job outcomes; (2) in a market economy, the role of resources is more salient if they provide within-occupation job-leads; (3) under state job-assignment systems occupational homophily does not pay off; and (4) job-search ties can take the form of heterophilous selection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
