Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Steinar Holden, December 2009
Wage setting and unemployment Why is there unemployment?
Frictions
• differences between
o workers’ characteristics and preferences, and
o job requirements
• takes time to find appropriate matches
But:
• differences in unemployment across countries and
over time are too large
• Different focus in most of the literature:
o why doesn’t the price clear the market?
o why doesn’t the wage fall?
• Leads to Equilibrium Unemployment Theory
o stock – wage and price curves
o flows – search models
2
Why doesn’t the wage fall?
• minimum wages – too low or non-existent in most
countries/for most workers
• efficiency wages – firms profit from high wages
o if motivation is important for efficiency
o if the wage is important for motivation
• wage bargaining
o workers/unions push wages above competitive
wage
Un U
Real wage Wage curve
Equilibrium unemployment
Price curve (labour demand)
3
Theoretical framework
Imperfectively competitive firms, facing a downward
sloping demand curve,
Production function firm i (employment N only input)
Yi = F(Ni), F’ > 0, F’’ < 0
Demand (Qi is the producer price, Q the aggregate
output price level, E is the elasticity of demand, Y
aggregate demand)
, 1E
ii
QY Y EQ
−⎛ ⎞
= >⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
Profits in firm i (Wi is nominal wage, τ is payroll tax
rate)
πi = QiF(Ni) – Wi(1+τ)Ni
4
Right-to-manage assumption:
Firms set prices (and employment) to maximize profits,
for given wages
(1 )1
1 '(.)i iQ WE
Q E F Qτ+
=−
relative price = markup * marginal cost
product market comp. up => E up => markup down
Leads to profit maximising labour demand
1 2(1 ) , , , 0, 0i
iWN N Y E N N
Qτ⎛ ⎞+
= < >⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
and indirect profit function
1 2(1 ) , , , 0, 0i
iW Y E N N
Qτπ π
⎛ ⎞+= < >⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
5
From firms’ price setting, and aggregating over firms
(Qi = Q for all i)
(1 ) 1 '( )W E F NQ Eτ+ −
=
or
1 2(1 ) , , 0, 0WN N E N NQτ⎛ ⎞+
= < >⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
• One-to-one link: employment and real wage,
o no direct effect of aggregate demand, Y, for
given real wage.
• Intuition:
o Y up => N up => marg. cost up => Qi up
=> Q up => W/Q down
(employment only increases if W/Q falls)
• More elastic product demand, E up, (greater
product market competition) leads to higher
employment for given real wage.
6
Union utility
1 2, , 0, 0ii i
Wu u N u uP
⎛ ⎞= > >⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
P is consumer prices
Wages set in firm-specific bargain,
Nash bargaining solution
0 0(1 )max , , ( , )
i
i iiW
W WY u N u U ZQ P
τπ π⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞+ ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞− −⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
• π0 , u0(U, Z) disagreement points, u01 < 0, u02> 0,
o U is unemployment and
o Z is indicator for wage pressure variables, like
unemployment benefits, “union strength”,
industrial conflict legislation, etc.
• π0 , u0: what motivates bargainers to reach
agreement, (costly delay or risk of breakdown)
o increased capital mobility weakens workers
bargaining power
7
The solution can be written on the form
(1 ) (1 ), , ,iW PW U Z EQ Q
τ τ+ −−
+
⎛ ⎞+ +⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
producer real wage
= W(wedge, U, wage pressure, prod. market comp)
+ - + -
(where the effect of aggregate output Y is subsumed
under U, invoking Okun’s law)
• Lower product market competition leads to
o Larger rents to capture
o Less elastic labour demand
8
Empirical evidence for the wage curve:
• aggregate times series
• evidence based on micro data
The Wage Curve (Blanchflower and Oswald)
• Evidence for many industrialised countries suggest
an “empirical law”, that the elasticity of real wages
wrt unemployment is about -0.1
o If unemployment doubles, real wages fall by
10 percent
• Empirical support for dynamic fluctuations around
a long-run wage curve, rather than a Phillips curve
• Evidence suggest stronger effect of unemployment
in non-union setting
o unions able to resist wage reduction when
unemployment is high
9
• Equilibrium unemployment Un given by wage and
price setting behaviour
• Increased wage pressure, Z up,
=>wage curve shifts up => W/Q up and Un up
• More elastic product demand, E up
=> price curve shifts up => W/Q up and Un down
Un U
W(1+τ)/Q real wage W(P(1+τ)/Q,U,Z,E)
wage curve
Equilibrium unemployment
[(E-1)/E] F’(1-U) price curve
10
• No direct effect of aggregate demand Y on Un.
o Price level adapts to make aggregate demand
equal to aggregate supply, at eq. U.
• This implies that there is no effect of increased public
demand on Un if the price elasticity for public demand
is the same as for private
o Increase in public demand leads to higher Un if
lower price elasticity than for private demand
Un U
W(1+τ)/Q W(P(1+τ)/Q,U, Z,E)
Equilibrium unemployment
[(E-1)/E] F’(1-U)
11
Theory: Wages and prices set in nominal terms, based
on expectations
• U < Un possible if wage and price growth above
expected levels
• Increasing wage and price growth for U < Un
o In reality wage growth may increase even if U
> Un, e.g. due to high profits
• Increase in aggregate demand leads to U > Un (just
like in traditional Keynesian models), and the
model tells what happens to wage and price growth
Un U
real wage wage curve
Increasing inflation
price curve
Decreasing inflation
12
Effect of productivity growth
• Higher productivity shifts price curve up
• Higher expected productivity growth leads to higher
wage demands which shifts wage curve up
• Equilibrium unemployment increases if
expected productivity growth > productivity growth
Un U
W(1+τ)/Q real wage
wage curve
price curve
13
Effect of immigration for domestic workers
• Wage curve down due to
o more competition for jobs
o less mismatch in labour market
• Price curve (labour demand) down due to
o Can use immigrants instead
• Effect on equilibrium unemployment ambiguous
• Dolado et al (2007): Reduction in Spanish
unemployment due to immigration lowering Un
Un U
W(1+τ)/Q real wage
wage curve
price curve (labour demand)
14
Open economy: increased aggregate demand leads to
lower equilibrium unemployment & higher cost level
In open economy:
Y up => Q up => P/Q down
=> wage curve down => Un down
• Domestic prices increase relative to foreign
prices and equilibrium unemployment falls
• Aggregate demand & fiscal policy affect eq. U
Un U
W(1+τ)/Q real wage
wage curve
price curve
15
The long run
The price curve becomes flatter, in the limit horizontal,
fixing the producer real wage, due to requirement of
o expected rate of return to capital
o balanced foreign trade
Un U
W(1+τ)/Q
Wages
Equilibrium unemployment
Prices
16
• Individually, workers and unions may still gain from
increased bargaining power
• Collectively (nationally) higher wage pressure gives
only rise to higher unemployment, with no long run
impact on real wages
o negative external effects in wage setting
on consumer and input prices,
on unemployment
public budget, and
from envy/status
• Yields strong incentives to incomes policy and
coordinated wage restraint
17
Wage setting at
• national or regional level conducive to wage
moderation,
• industry or occupation level lead to increased wage
pressure
• firm level – depends on product market competition
• wage dispersion reduced within wage setting area
A digression on efficiency:
When wages are set by bargaining or efficiency wage
considerations, one should not expect relative wages to
be socially efficient
Wages higher in firms/industries with high productivity
or large rents (weak competition or natural resources)
• leads to lower employment in these firms
• may exacerbate distortions due to weak competition
But local wage setting may improve work incentives
18
• Late 1960s and 1970s: increased wage pressure leads
to higher equilibrium unemployment
• Wage setting gradually more moderate since early
1980s
• Why did high unemployment persist?
19
Sources of persistence
• Equilibrium unemployment may increase when
unemployment is high
• Low output and lower profitability lead to lower
investment and lower capital stock
o Labour demand shifts
• Long term unemployment
o Loss of skills
o Loss of motivation
o Sorting
• Insider wage setting
o Wage setters neglect the unemployed
o More likely under decentralised wage setting
(national unions cannot neglect the
unemployed)
20
European unemployment – the aggregate evidence
Large variation over time and across countries
Econometric evidence based on panel data
• Interaction of stable institutions and shocks/baseline
variables which shift over time
o Layard et al (1991) (increased wage pressure, the
replacement ratio, real import price, etc)
o Ball (NBER, 1996) (monetary policy, institutions
and hysteresis)
o Blanchard and Wolfers (EJ, 2000) (TFP growth,
the real interest rate, labour demand shifts, etc)
• Changing institutions
o Belot and van Ours (JJIE, 2001) (interaction
between institutions)
o Nickell, Nunziata and Ochel (EJ, 2005)
Studies agree that institutions are important, but vary on
additional variables and interactions
21
Nickell, Nunziata and Ochel (EJ, 2005)
20 OECD countries, 1961 - 1995
• Higher unemployment in country-years with
o strict EPL (not significant)
o high benefit replacement ratio
o long benefit duration
o interaction of benefit duration with repl. ratio
o increased union density
o low coordination in wage setting
o low interaction of coordination and union density
o high total employment tax rate
o low interaction of coordination and empl. tax rate
o high owner occupied housing (not significant)
o labour demand shock
o TFP shock
o money supply shock (not significant)
o real interest rate (not significant)
22
• Based on dynamic simulations, Nickell et al find that
changing institutions can explain 55% of the 6.8
percentage point increase in European unemployment
from 1960s to 1990-95.
o changing benefits can explain 39%,
o increased labour taxes 26%,
o shift in union variables 19%, and
o movements in EPL 16%
• Nickell et al argue that model with institutions and
shocks make no real contribution to understanding the
change in unemployment as compared to the model
with changing institutions.
• Bassinini and Duval (OECD, 2006): Find results
along lines of Nickell et al, data 1982-2003:
o changes in institutions explain almost two-thirds
of non-cyclical unemployment changes
o replacement rate, tax wedge, product market
regulation lead to higher eq. unemployment
o corporatism and ALMP lead to lower eq U.
23
Critique of the institutional explanation
Baker, Glyn, Howell and Schmidt (2004),
Freeman (2007)
Evidence based on institutional variables fragile due to
• uncertain classification of institutional variables
• “economic Darwinism”, where measures are
constructed ex-post of researchers who were not
unaware of unemployment developments
• coefficient estimates unstable, often insignificant or
with “wrong” sign
• no apparent bilateral relationships (consistent with
evidence in OECD, 2004)
o bilateral relationships in one decade often
disappear or are reversed in the next
Sparrman (2009) – Nickell et al – explanation behaves
poorly post-sample
24
Summing up – my reading of the evidence
Some institutions are undoubtly of importance
• High unemployment benefits reduce job finding
rate for unemployed
o may increase labour force participation,
o may lead to better jobs
o effective control of job search
• Strict EPL reduces job flows
o Unclear effect on aggregate U
o Effect on subgroups
o Bad combinations exist
Must be possible to lay off employees if
there is no profitable jobs
• Large tax wedge for low income workers a problem
• Some labour market measures work, others don’t
o suitable education, training & job-search good
• Wage moderation is important, but measures of
coordination/centralisation are difficult
25
Equilibrium unemployment:
• depend on institutions and mismatch
• sets lower bound to actual unemployment rate
• but actual unemployment also affected by shocks,
and effects may persist
• monetary policy key equilibriating mechanism
o other equilibrating mechanisms are weak
26
Recent macro-unemployment research
• Reduction in unemployment during the mid 2000s
led to less interest in OECD unemployment
• More reseach on calibrated search models
o Ljungqvist and Sargent, others
• Some research on endogenous institutions
27
Algan and Cahuc AEJ-Macro, 1/2009
• Better to protect workers than jobs
o Inspired by Danish flexicurity idea: generous
unemployment benefits reduce “political
need” for strict EPL
• In countries with weak civic attitudes, workers will
cheat making it less costly to insure workers by
strict EPL, in spite of adverse efficiency effects
28
Relationship seems robust
29
Blanchard and Phillipon (2006):
• Institutions are endogenous, it is the quality of the
labor relations that is the true underlying force
o “labor/employer relations are generally
cooperative”
• Relationship holds when quality is instrumented by
o strike activity in the 1960s
o attitude towards early unions in 19th century
30
hostile in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal
neutral in Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Finland, the UK, Ireland
supportive in Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Austria