Participation in Plans Plans Retirement Retirement in in Participation Participation Participation in Retirement Plans Retirement in Participation Participation in Plans Plans Retirement Retirement in in Participation Participation Retirement Plans: A Comparison of the Self-employed and and Workers

What factors influence worker participation in retirement plans? Recent data suggest that this decision is made differently by the self-employed and wage earners.

SHARON A. DEVANEY he decision to participate in a large companies participated in one or YI-WEN CHIEN retirement plan is likely to be more -based retirement Tjointly determined1 when work- plans in 1997.2 This figure is almost ers select between self-employment unchanged since its level of 78 percent and a wage-earning occupation. Bivari- in 1991. One-half (50 percent) of all full- ate probit regression with data from the time employees were enrolled in defined 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances was benefit plans in 1997 (down from 59 used to model two dichotomous deci- percent in 1991) and 57 percent were sions: Employment status and retire- enrolled in defined contribution plans ment plan participation. Some of the (up from 48 percent in 1991). (Some determinants of retirement plan partici- employees were enrolled in both types pation were similar for the self-em- of plans.) In contrast, retirement plan ployed and wage earners. Those fac- participation was lower among employ- tors were: Income, a graduate ees of small employers. In 1996, data , race, and the belief that past from the Bureau of Labor Statistics income had increased more than prices (BLS) Survey had. In addition, being older, having showed that only 46 percent of full-time some college or a bachelor’s degree, workers in small private establishments working full time, and being employed were covered by a retirement plan. Of with a larger firm were determinants of these, 15 percent participated in a de- plan participation for wage earners. The fined benefit plan, and 38 percent par- negative sign of the selection factor for ticipated in a defined contribution plan. self-employment means that unob- Although there is much research on Sharon A. DeVaney is an associate professor and Yi-Wen Chien is a doctoral candidate in served factors influencing the decision retirement planning and also on self- in the Department of Consumer Sciences and to be self-employed are likely to de- employment, there is a lack of research Retailing at Purdue University. The authors’ crease participation in retirement plans linking self-employment and retirement views are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bureau of Labor Statis- for the self-employed. Hence, more in- planning. One expert suggests that the tics or the U.S. Department of Labor. formation is needed to understand how decision to participate in a retirement Telephone: DeVaney (765) 494-8300 the self-employed plan for retirement. plan is likely to be jointly determined Chien (765) 449-4858 E-mail: [email protected] Recent data show that 79 percent of when workers, aware that they are more [email protected] full-time employees in medium and likely to be eligible for benefits when

Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 2000 31 they work for someone else, select be- Although several theories for choos- 401(k) is only one of many types of tween wage-earning occupations and ing self-employment have been ad- defined contribution plans. self-employment.3 Another concern is vanced, demographic and human capi- According to a recent study by a that some research on retirement plan- tal factors are primarily used as large investment firm of the retirement ning excludes the self-employed, either predictors of self-employment, and the plans it services, the average 401(k) plan because there is a lack of information statistical method employed for predic- worker participation rate is 75 percent.19 about self-employment, or because of tion of self-employment tends to be ei- Even though smaller firms are less likely the lack of comparability of the infor- ther logit or probit regression.14 Based than larger firms to sponsor a plan, mation.4 on previous work, the model for select- smaller firms tend to experience higher This study examines the link be- ing self-employment or wage earning participation rates when they offer tween retirement plan participation and in this study consists of demographic 401(k) plans. The average participa- employment status because, among and human capital factors. The statis- tion rate was 84 percent for plans with other reasons, there are few studies link- tical technique selected was bivariate less than 50 participants, and 64 per- ing these two variables. Workers need probit regression, which will be de- cent for plans with 10,000 or more par- to prepare financially for retirement, and scribed in the methods section. ticipants. Participation rates tend to most make informed decisions about increase with employee age and earn- retirement plan participation when they Keogh plans and Individual Re- ings. Nonparticipants are more likely choose a wage-earning occupation or tirement Accounts to have lower incomes, less education, self-employment. To meet the needs of self-employed to be male, younger, unmarried, and workers and those who are not cov- blue-collar workers. Self-employment ered by employer-sponsored retirement At least 8 percent of the work force is plans, Keogh plans and Individual Re- Method self-employed, although this statistic tirement Accounts (IRAs) provide an reflects a narrow measure of self-em- alternative.15 Contributions made by Empirical model. Because the study ployment.5 Self-employed workers are self-employed individuals to Keogh investigated two dichotomous deci- defined as those who rely on their busi- plans are not currently taxable. The sions that are likely to be jointly deter- nesses for their primary source of in- contributions and any earnings there- mined, bivariate probit regression with come. Secondary holders, who from accumulate tax free until distribu- the statistical package LIMDEP was work for in one job and have tion, at which time they are subject to used.20 The justification for using the their own unincorporated business, as normal income taxes. bivariate probit model was to examine well as owners of incorporated busi- IRAs were originally developed as whether there were any unobserved nesses, whose primary compensation a tax-deferred savings plan for workers factors that influenced both the deci- is a wage or salary, are not included in without employer . Although sion about employment status and the the official count of the self-employed. the amount of the annual contribution decision about whether to participate Several theories for choosing self- per eligible worker has remained at in a retirement plan. If the correlation employment exist. These include the $2,000 since 1974, IRAs offer advan- of disturbances, or rho, between the “engineer of creative destruction,”6 the tages to workers, especially those who two models was positive and signifi- “achievement motivation,”7 the “inter- are highly mobile. In the early- to mid- cant, it meant that there was positive nal versus external locus of control,”8 1980s, growth in IRAs was attributed self-selection—that is, the unobserved “risk,”9 and “self-esteem”10 theories. to tax deferral on IRA contributions.16 factors that influence the decision to In a recent study, “the utility derived More recently, stock market gains, not be either self-employed or a wage- from earnings, independence or unem- tax deferrals, have been the primary earner were also likely to increase par- ployment”11 was considered the most source of growth in IRAs.17 ticipation in retirement plans. If the likely determinant of self-employment. correlation was negative and signifi- In a study that permitted open-ended Employer-sponsored retirement cant, it meant that there was negative responses to a question about choos- plans self-selection—that is, the unobserved ing self-employment or wage work, Employer-sponsored retirement plans factors that influence the decision to “economic opportunity, authority, au- are categorized as two types: Defined be either self-employed or a wage- tonomy, challenge, self-realization, and benefit or defined contribution. De- earner were also likely to decrease par- participation in the whole process” fined benefit plans specify a formula ticipation in retirement plans. were identified by participants as the for determining future benefits, while The study hypothesized that demo- most important determinants of self- defined contribution plans specify em- graphic and human capital factors were employment.12 In other studies, “mari- ployer and employee contributions, but important determinants in selecting tal status, family responsibilities, and do not guarantee future benefits.18 self-employment; but additional fac- flexible working hours” were also re- Defined contribution plans are also tors, such as employment variables, lated to choosing self-employment.13 known as 401(k) plans, although the attitudes about risk in making savings

32 Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 2000 and investment decisions, and expec- prefer to invest in their business in- able was dichotomous, with 1 equal to Participation in Retirement Plans Plans Retirement Retirement in in Participation Participation Participation in Retirement Plans Retirement in Participation tations about future income, were in- stead of putting money into retirement self-employment and 0 equal to “other,” Plans Plans Retirement Retirement in in Participation Participation cluded in the model of retirement plan plans, a decision suggesting that they or, for the wage-earner equation, 1 participation. were risk tolerant, while those who were equal to wage earner and 0 to “other.” The equations for the self-employ- risk averse might be more likely to par- For the second probit regression, the ment model were: ticipate in retirement plans. dependent variable was assigned a 1 Holding the belief that past income for those who had at least one retire- Self-employment = had increased more than prices had ment plan (such as an IRA or Keogh f (Demographics, Human Capital) could mean that workers would be more plan, defined benefit plan or defined willing to participate in retirement plans, contribution plan, or both defined ben- Retirement Plan Participation = because they now have more income efit and defined contribution plans) f (Demographics, Human Capital, than expected. Also, they may be more and 0 for those who had no retirement Employment, Expectations) willing to participate in retirement plans plan. This definition of participation if future income was expected to go up was based on the descriptive statistics The equations for the wage-earner more than prices would, because this that showed both that a few self-em- model were: would create a surplus. However, wage ployed workers had employer plans in Wage-earner = earners must decide the amount of their addition to IRAs and Keoghs, and that f (Demographics, Human Capital) contribution to defined contribution some wage earners had IRA accounts plans before the contributions are with- and Keogh plans in addition to em- Retirement Plan Participation = drawn, and they would not have infor- ployer plans. f (Demographics, Human Capital, mation in advance about future prices. Employment, Expectations) Those who have a good idea about Independent variables. The indepen- next year’s income may be more likely dent variables included: Age, gender Based on human capital theory and to plan for retirement. However, self- of the household head, professional or previous studies, older workers, male- employed workers may choose to in- managerial status, education, work ex- headed households, professionals, and vest more in their business if they ex- perience, race, income, size of firm, full- those with more education and work pect income to go up. time status, hours worked per week, risk experience were hypothesized to be tolerance, and expectation factors. The more likely than other groups to choose Data and sample. Data were drawn last variables, in turn, included belief self-employment.21 It was hypoth- from the 1995 Survey of Consumer Fi- about past income in relationship to esized that younger workers with less nances (SCF), which is sponsored by prices; expectation about future income education and work experience would the Federal Reserve Board, with the in relationship to prices; and having a be more likely than other workers to cooperation of the Department of the good idea about what next year’s in- choose wage-earning occupations. Treasury.24 The purpose of the sur- come would be. Because bivariate Participation in retirement plans was vey is to provide comprehensive infor- probit regression is sensitive to vari- hypothesized to be positively related mation on the financial characteristics ables of highly different magnitudes, to age and income. Also, males, pro- of U.S. households. A multiple impu- the natural log of income was used. fessionals, and white people were be- tation technique was used to handle Coding of the independent variables lieved to be more likely than females, missing data. The 1995 SCF contains and the characteristics of wage earn- nonprofessionals and nonwhites to five implicates, meaning that five val- ers and the self-employed are shown participate in retirement plans. Those ues were known or imputed for each in table 1. who work full time and for larger firms variable. To simplify the analysis, only were expected to be more likely to par- the first implicate was used in this Results ticipate in retirement plans than were study. Descriptive statistics were part-time workers and those in smaller weighted to represent the full popula- Characteristics of workers. The char- firms. tion of the United States. Among the acteristics of self-employed workers The expectation factors included in 4,299 households in the 1995 SCF, 1,046 and wage earners were examined using the study were the relationship be- household heads identified themselves t-tests and chi-square analysis. For the tween prices and past and future in- as being self-employed, and 2,317 chi-square analysis, all of the p-values come; having an idea about next year’s household heads said that they worked were less than 0.001. For the t-tests, all income; and risk tolerance. At least for someone else—that is, they were of the p-values were less than 0.001 one study has shown that self-em- wage earners. except for household size, which was ployed workers were risk-seeking,22 0.7494, indicating no statistical differ- while another study showed low reli- Dependent variables. The first probit ence between the size of households. ability for the risk tolerance variable.23 regression modeled the choice of em- The following differences were re- Hence, self-employed workers might ployment status. The dependent vari- vealed: The self-employed were more

Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 2000 33 TABLE 1. Coding of independent variables and characteristics of wage earners and the self-employed in the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances Self-employed Wage earners Variable Coding (n = 1,046) (n = 2,317) Mean Percentage Mean Percentage

Age of household head ...... Continuous 48 – 41 – Gender of household head is male ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 87.07 – 76.57 Head is professional or managerial ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 42.44 – 26.51 Head has 12 years of education or less ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 37.82 – 43.95 13 to 16 years of education ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 41.66 – 44.32 17 or more years of education...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 20.52 – 11.73 Years worked full time since age 18 ...... Continuous 18.17 – 17.26 – Household income ...... Continuous $79,720 – $47,138 – Race of household head is white ...... 1=yes, 0 = no – 85.36 – 76.82 Household size (number of persons) ...... Continuous 2.79 – 2.82 – Size of firm (employment size) ...... Continuous 1.40 – 3.89 – Full-time worker ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 78.81 – 89.95 Hours worked per week…… ...... Continuous 45.68 – 43.25 – Belief that past income increased more than prices did ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 20.39 – 20.21 Expect future income to increase more than prices will ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 26.63 – 22.60 Have a good idea what next year’s income will be ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 53.46 – 67.32 Willing to take substantial or above-average risk ...... 1 = yes, 0 = no – 25.68 – 19.91

TABLE 2. Results of bivariate probit regression for determinants of self-employed or wage-earner status

Self-employed (n = 4,256) Wage earner (n = 4,256) Variable Parameter P-value Parameter P-value estimate estimate Age of household head ...... 0.0080 (1) -0.0518 (1) Gender of household head is male ...... 6787 (1) -.2344 (1) Professional or managerial ...... 6134 (1) .0003 0.9959 13 to 16 years of education ...... 2096 (1) -.0240 .6466 17 or more years of education ...... 3418 (1) -.1252 .0642 Years worked full time since 18 ...... 0238 (1) .0291 (1)

1 P-value is less than or equal to 0.001.

likely than wage earners to be white, Determinants of occupational status. predict participation in plans. Five fac- older, and have higher incomes; house- The parameter estimates of the probit tors were significant in the self-employ- holds of self-employed workers were models for predicting either self-em- ment model, while nine factors were sig- more likely than wage-earner house- ployment or wage-earner status are pre- nificant in the wage-earner model. The holds to be headed by a man, a person sented in table 2. Older workers, work- significance of rho was considered to with a graduate degree, or a person who ers in male-headed households, those evaluate the presence of self-selection. has a professional or managerial occu- with a college education (compared with In the self-employment model, rho was pation. The self-employed spent more those with 12 years or less of educa- significant and negative, meaning that years in full-time work since age 18, tion), and those with more work experi- unobserved factors influencing the worked more hours per week, and were ence were more likely to select self- decision to be self-employed were likely more likely both to expect future income employment. Workers who selected to decrease participation in retirement to go up more than prices would, and wage-earner status were younger and plans. In the wage-earner model, rho to say that they would take a substan- more likely to be female and, the more was negative, but not significant. This tial amount of risk when making saving years worked, the more likely they were suggests that the factors that predict and investing decisions. Wage earn- to be a wage earner. being a wage earner were not related to ers were more likely than self-employed participation in retirement plans. workers to work in a larger firm, to work Determinants of participation in re- For the self-employed, those who full time, and to have a good idea about tirement plans. Table 3 presents the were white, received higher incomes, next year’s income. (See table 1.) results of the second probit model to and had a graduate degree were more

34 Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 2000 TABLE 3. Results of bivariate probit regression for determinants of participation in retirement plans by wage Participation in Retirement Plans Plans Retirement Retirement in in Participation Participation Participation in Retirement Plans Retirement in Participation Participation in Retirement Plans Plans Retirement Retirement in in Participation Participation earners and the self-employed Self-employed (n = 1,026) Wage earner (n = 2,128) Variable Parameter Parameter P-value P-value estimate estimate Age of household head ...... -0.0057 0.1369 0.0164 (1) Gender of household head is male ...... -.2037 .2322 -.1002 0.2649 Professional or managerial ...... -.1795 .0623 .1407 .0880 13 to 16 years of education ...... 0072 .9397 .2875 (1) 17 or more years of education ...... 3432 (2) .3257 (2) LN household income ...... 1226 (1) .3007 (1) Race of household head is white ...... 2652 (3) .1849 (3) Household size ...... -.0164 .5520 .0184 .4598 Size of firm ...... 1063E04 .9997 .2565 (1) Full-time worker ...... -.1226 .3764 .6664 (1) Hours per week ...... 0009 .6617 .0035 .2844 Belief that past income increased more than prices did ...... 1749 (3) .1793 (3) Expect future income to increase more than prices will ...... -.1743 (3) -.1408 .0990 Have a good idea what next year’s income will be ...... 1358 .0661 .1934 (2) High risk tolerance ...... 0987 .2116 .1271 .1266 Rho ...... -.8157 (1) -.1882 .3651 Log likelihood ...... -2404.35 – -3225.02 –

1 P-value is less than or equal to 0.001. 2 P-value is less than or equal to 0.01. 3 P-value is less than or equal to 0.05.

likely to participate in retirement plans ers were using to take advantage of an tors that influence the decision to be than were nonwhites or those who had increase in past income in relationship self-employed are likely to decrease a high school education or less. Those to prices. Wage earners who had a participation in plans. It is possible who thought that past income had good idea about next year’s income that the study did not include all of gone up more than prices had were more were more likely to be plan partici- the factors that explain the future plans likely to be plan participants. Compared pants. of the self-employed. For example, self- with those who expected that future employed workers may be planning for income would increase less than prices Conclusions retirement through investments in their would, those who expected income in- This study attempted to link retirement business. Another possibility is that creases to be greater than price in- plan participation and employment sta- retirement is viewed differently by the creases were less likely to participate tus. Some of the determinants of plan self-employed. They may intend to in a retirement plan. This suggests that participation were comparable for wage work indefinitely and consequently the self-employed are not willing to earners and the self-employed. Those may have delayed participation in re- commit to retirement plan participation determinants were higher income, a tirement plans. These ideas could be until income is known. graduate education, being white, and explored in future studies. Also, the For wage earners, whites and those the belief that past income had in- definition used for retirement plan par- with higher incomes were more likely creased more than prices had. The only ticipation was designed to be as inclu- to be plan participants. Compared with additional factor predicting plan par- sive as possible, but it could be more those with less education, those with ticipation for the self-employed was appropriate to ask, “If you are prepar- some college or a degree were more their expectation that future income ing financially for retirement, what likely to be plan participants. Full-time would increase more than prices would. methods are you using?” workers and those who were employed However, for wage earners, being older, Small employers who do not offer by larger firms were more likely to be having some college education or a retirement plans explain that they have retirement plan participants. When baccalaureate degree, working full time lower revenues and/or employees who wage earners believed that past income and for a larger firm, and having a good are younger, earning lower , had gone up more than prices had, plan idea of next year’s income predicted with less formal education, and who participation for them was more likely participation in a retirement plan. have the tendency to work short-term.25 to occur. Contributions to IRAs can Although these results were con- Perhaps small employers would ben- be made until April 15 of the year fol- sistent with the hypotheses, the study efit from learning more about ways to lowing the year in which income was raised a question. Because rho was reduce , increase profitability, earned. This may be the retirement sav- negative for the self-employed, this and reduce taxes. ings method that both types of work- was an indication that unobserved fac- The results of the study support the

Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 2000 35 hypotheses about which wage earners wage earners may not be eligible for haps, if the nonparticipating workers are not participating in retirement plans. retirement plans because they haven’t were able to increase their education They include younger workers, non- worked long enough, or they may be and skills, they could acquire a job that whites, those with lower incomes and eligible but not participating. They may included coverage. Also, em- less education, part-time workers, and be employed at a firm that does not pro- ployers may need to increase their ef- those who work in smaller firms. These vide a retirement plan of any type. Per- forts to improve participation rates.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This research (Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1986), pp. 367- 17 Paul Fronstin, “IRA Assets Grew 23 was supported by a grant from the AARP 78. Percent During 1997,” EBRI Notes, Decem- Andrus Foundation. 11 Mark P. Taylor, “Earnings, Indepen- ber 1998, pp. 3-7. 1 “Jointly determined” means that when dence or : Why Become Self- 18 Ann C. Foster, “Factors Affecting a person chooses to be self-employed, that Employed?” Oxford Bulletin of Economics Employer-provided Retirement Benefits,” person is making an implicit decision about and Statistics, vol. 58, no. 2, 1996, pp. 1- Compensation and Working Conditions, the importance of employee benefits. 27. Winter 1998, pp. 10-17. 2 Employee Benefits in Medium and 12 Lars Kolvereid, “Organizational Em- 19 Fidelity Investments, Building Futures: Large Private Establishments, 1997, Bulle- ployment Versus Self-Employment: Reasons How American Companies Are Helping Their tin 2517 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sep- for Choice Intentions,” Entrepreneur- Employees Retire (Boston, Fidelity Invest- tember 1999). ship Theory and Practice, Spring 1996, pp. ments, 1999). 3 John Turner, “An Economic Analysis 23-31. 20 William H. Green, LIMDEP, Version 7.0 of Pensions in the Workplace,” presentation 13 Richard J. Boden, Jr., “Flexible Work- (Plainview, NY, Econometric Software, Inc., at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washing- ing Hours, Family Responsibility, and Female 1998). ton, Oct. 14, 1999. At the time of the pre- Self-Employment,” American Journal of 21 Gary S. Becker, Human Capital: A sentation, Turner was an economist with the Economics and Sociology, January 1999, pp. Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Department of Labor. 71-84; and Richard K. Caputo and Arthur Special Reference to Education (Chicago, The 4 Marjorie Honig, “Retirement Expecta- Dolinsky, “Women’s Choice to Pursue Self- University of Chicago Press, 1993); John E. tions: Differences by Race, Ethnicity, and Employment: The Role of Financial and Bregger, “Measuring self-employment in the Gender,” The Gerontologist, June 1996, pp. Human Capital of Household Members,” United States,” Monthly Labor Review, Janu- 373-82; and Kathleen McGarry and A. Dav- Journal of Small Business Management, July ary/February 1996, pp. 3-9; and Theresa J. enport, “Pensions and the Distribution of 1998, pp. 8-17. Devine, “Characteristics of self-employed Wealth: Differences by Race and Sex,” pre- 14 Timothy Bates, “Self-Employment women in the United States,” Monthly Labor sentation at the Gerontological Society of Entry Across Industry Groups,” Journal of Review, March 1994, pp. 20-34. America in Washington, Nov. 18, 1996. Business Venturing, vol. 10, 1995, pp. 143- 22 Jamie Sung and Sherman Hanna, “Fac- 5 G. T. Silvestri, “Considering self-em- 46; Caputo and Dolinsky, “Women’s Choice tors Related to Risk Tolerance,” Financial ployment: What to think about before start- to Pursue Self-Employment;” Robert W. Counseling and Planning, vol. 7, 1996, pp. ing a business,” Occupational Outlook Quar- Fairlie and Bruce D. Meyer, “Ethnic and Ra- 11-20. terly, Summer 1999, pp. 15-23. cial Self-Employment Differences and Pos- 23 Sharon A. DeVaney, Ya-ping Su, 6 Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, So- sible Explanations,” The Journal of Human Constance Y. Kratzer, and Deanna L. Sharpe, cialism, and Democracy (New York, Harper, Resources, vol. 31, no. 4, 1996, pp. 757-93; “Retirement Saving of Nonfarm Self-em- 1942). Wayne H. Stewart, Jr., Warren E. Watson, ployed Workers: An Exploratory Study,” 7 David C. McClelland, The Achieving Joann C. Carland, and James W. Carland, “A Consumer Interests Annual (Columbia, MO, Society (New York, Irvington Publishers, Proclivity for Entrepreneurship: A Compari- American Council on Consumer Interests, 1976). son of Entrepreneurs, Small Business Own- 1997), pp. 58-69. 8 Julian B. Rotter, “Generalized Expecta- ers, and Corporate Managers,” Journal of 24 Arthur B. Kennickell, Martha Starr- tions for Internal Versus External Control of Business Venturing, vol. 14, 1998, pp. 189- McCluer, and Annika E. Sunden, “Family Reinforcement,” Psychological Mono- 214; and Taylor, “Earnings, Independence Finances in the U.S.: Recent Evidence from graphs, vol. 80, no. 1, 1996, pp. 1-27. or Unemployment.” the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal 9 Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and 15 Fundamentals of Employee Benefit Reserve Bulletin, January 1997, pp. 1-24. Profit (New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1921). Programs, Fifth edition (Washington, Em- 25 Employee Benefit Research Institute, 10 Alan Carsrud, Kenneth Olum, and ployee Benefit Research Institute, 1997). Revenue Uncertainty and Worker Preference George Eddy, “Entrepreneurship: Research 16 John Sabelhaus, “Projecting IRA Bal- Key Reasons Why Small Firms Don’t Offer a in Quest of a Paradigm,” in D. Sexton and R. ances and Withdrawals,” EBRI Notes, May Retirement Plan, 1999, http:www.ebri.org/ Smilor, eds., The Art of Entrepreneurship 1999, pp. 1-4. prrel/pr481.htm (visited July 12, 1999).

36 Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 2000