IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/brjirl/v35y1997i3p447-475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decentralization and Pay Reform in Central Government: a Study of Three Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Robert F. Elliott
  • Keith A. Bender

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert F. Elliott & Keith A. Bender, 1997. "Decentralization and Pay Reform in Central Government: a Study of Three Countries," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 447-475, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:35:y:1997:i:3:p:447-475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8543.00063
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katrin Olafsdottir, 2013. "Efficiency of Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector: a Natural Experiment," Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia, Finanza e Statistica 119/2013, Università di Perugia, Dipartimento Economia.
    2. Hasnain, Zahid & Manning, Nick & Pierskalla Henryk, 2012. "Performance-related pay in the public sector : a review of theory and evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6043, The World Bank.
    3. Philip Murphy & Paul L. Latreille & Melanie Jones & David Blackaby, 2008. "Is There a Public Sector Training Advantage? Evidence from the Workplace Employment Relations Survey," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 674-701, December.
    4. Philip Murphy & David Blackaby & Nigel O'Leary & Anita Staneva, 2020. "Understanding What Has Been Happening to the Public‐Sector Pay Premium in Great Britain: A Distributional Approach Based on the Labour Force Survey," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 273-300, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:35:y:1997:i:3:p:447-475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.