IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/metroe/v70y2019i4p711-722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When unionisation is profitable for firms in network industries

Author

Listed:
  • Luciano Fanti
  • Domenico Buccella

Abstract

In an industry characterised by the presence of network effects, this paper investigates a duopolistic game in which firms may choose whether to bargain over wages and employment with unions or to face a competitive labour market (i.e., without unions). If unions are sufficiently wage‐sensitive, it is shown that the presence of sufficiently large network effects makes unionisation the Pareto efficient sub‐game perfect Nash equilibrium outcome for firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2019. "When unionisation is profitable for firms in network industries," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 711-722, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:metroe:v:70:y:2019:i:4:p:711-722
    DOI: 10.1111/meca.12249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/meca.12249
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/meca.12249?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John H. Pencavel, 1984. "The Tradeoff Between Wages and Employment in Trade Union Objectives," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(2), pages 215-231.
    2. Kornelius Kraft, 2006. "Wage versus efficient bargaining in oligopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(7), pages 595-604.
    3. Vannini, Stefano & Bughin, Jacques, 2000. "To be (unionized) or not to be? A case for cost-raising strategies under Cournot oligopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1763-1781, October.
    4. Luciano Fanti, 2014. "When do firms and unions agree on a monopoly union or an efficient bargaining arrangement?," Discussion Papers 2014/181, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Luciano Fanti, 2015. "Union–firm bargaining agenda: right-to-manage or efficient bargaining?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 936-948.
    6. Lourdes Moreno & Diego Rodríguez, 2011. "Markups, Bargaining Power and Offshoring: An Empirical Assessment-super-1," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(9), pages 1593-1627, September.
    7. MaCurdy, Thomas E & Pencavel, John H, 1986. "Testing between Competing Models of Wage and Employment Determination in Unionized Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 3-39, June.
    8. Chirco, Alessandra & Scrimitore, Marcella, 2013. "Choosing price or quantity? The role of delegation and network externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 482-486.
    9. Brown, James N & Ashenfelter, Orley, 1986. "Testing the Efficiency of Employment Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 40-87, June.
    10. Dowrick, Steve & Spencer, Barbara J, 1994. "Union Attitudes to Labor-Saving Innovation: When Are Unions Luddites?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(2), pages 316-344, April.
    11. Oswald, Andrew J, 1985. " The Economic Theory of Trade Unions: An Introductory Survey," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 87(2), pages 160-193.
    12. Pencavel, John, 1985. " Wages and Employment under Trade Unionism: Microeconomic Models and Macroeconomic Applications," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 87(2), pages 197-225.
    13. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    14. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2016. "Bargaining Agenda and Entry in a Unionised Model with Network Effects," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 2(1), pages 91-121, March.
    15. Fanti, Luciano & Buccella, Domenico, 2015. "Bargaining agenda, timing, and entry," MPRA Paper 64089, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Bughin, J, 1993. "Union-Firm Efficient Bargaining and Test of Oligopolistic Conduct," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(3), pages 563-567, August.
    17. Stavros Drakopoulos & Ioannis Katselidis, 2014. "The Development of Trade Union Theory and Mainstream Economic Methodology," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 1133-1149, December.
    18. Hoernig, Steffen, 2012. "Strategic delegation under price competition and network effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 487-489.
    19. Petrakis, Emmanuel & Vlassis, Minas, 2000. "Endogenous scope of bargaining in a union-oligopoly model: when will firms and unions bargain over employment?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, May.
    20. Manning, Alan, 1987. "An Integration of Trade Union Models in a Sequential Bargaining Framework," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(385), pages 121-139, March.
    21. Oswald, Andrew J, 1982. "The Microeconomic Theory of the Trade Union," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 576-595, September.
    22. Bughin, Jacques, 1999. "The strategic choice of union-oligopoly bargaining agenda," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(7), pages 1029-1040, October.
    23. Trishita Bhattacharjee & Rupayan Pal, 2013. "Price vs. Quantity in duopoly with strategic delegation: Role of network externalities," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2013-010, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buccella, Domenico & Fanti, Luciano, 2020. "Do labour union recognition and bargaining deter entry in a network industry? A sequential game model," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Fanti, Luciano & Buccella, Domenico, 2015. "Bargaining agenda, timing, and entry," MPRA Paper 64089, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Fanti, Luciano & Buccella, Domenico, 2015. "Bargaining agenda in a unionised monopoly with network effects," MPRA Paper 64090, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2018. "Union–Firm Bargaining Agenda Revisited: When Unions Have Distinct Preferences," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 35-50, January.
    5. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2016. "Bargaining Agenda and Entry in a Unionised Model with Network Effects," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 2(1), pages 91-121, March.
    6. Luciano Fanti, 2015. "Union–firm bargaining agenda: right-to-manage or efficient bargaining?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 936-948.
    7. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2017. "Manager‐Union Bargaining Agenda Under Monopoly and with Network Effects," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(6), pages 717-730, September.
    8. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2017. "Bargaining agenda in a unionised monopoly with network effects: when corporate social responsibility may be welfare-reducing," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 34(3), pages 471-489, December.
    9. Fanti, Luciano & Buccella, Domenico, 2015. "Bargaining agenda in public and private monopoly," MPRA Paper 64184, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Domenico Buccella & Luciano Fanti, 2017. "A game-theoretic approach to the choice of union-oligopoly baargaining agenda," Discussion Papers 2017/214, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Luciano Fanti, 2014. "Union-Firm Bargaining agenda: Right-to manage or Efficient Bargaining?," Discussion Papers 2014/182, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Fanti Luciano & Buccella Domenico, 2016. "Privatisation or State Ownership When Labour Market is Unionised?," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 16(1), pages 21-36, December.
    13. Nicholas Lawson, 2011. "Is Collective Bargaining Pareto Efficient? A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 282-304, September.
    14. Luciano Fanti, 2014. "When do firms and unions agree on a monopoly union or an efficient bargaining arrangement?," Discussion Papers 2014/181, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Kopel, Michael & Petrakis, Emmanuel & Ressi, Anna, 2019. "Endogenous scope of firm-union bargaining with vertical pay comparisons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 39-52.
    16. Chica Páez, Yolanda & Espinosa Alejos, María Paz, 2005. "Union Formation and Bargaining Rules in the Labor Market," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    17. Luciano Fanti, 2011. "When an efficient bargaining is more "efficient" than a competitive labour market," Discussion Papers 2011/131, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    18. António Brandão & Joana Pinho, 2018. "Productivity Shocks in a Union‐Duopoly Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 86(6), pages 722-756, December.
    19. Luciano Fanti, 2011. "When do firms prefer either monopolistic unions or an efficient bargaining?," Discussion Papers 2011/130, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J51 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Trade Unions: Objectives, Structure, and Effects
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L20 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - General

    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:metroe:v:70:y:2019:i:4:p:711-722. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0026-1386 .

    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.