Why is the Public Sector More Labor-Intensive? A Distortionary Tax Argument
AbstractA relatively high labor-intensity in government-run entities need not imply slack in their organization. Rather, it is a rational reaction to various forms of wage tax advantage that the public sector has over private firms. Even though an unequal tax treatment of public and private sectors precludes production efficiency, it may improve welfare by mitigating the labor supply distortion. With inelastic labor supply, privatizing a previously government-run sector improves welfare, while with elastic labor supply a full outsourcing of government activities can never be optimal if it goes along with a decrease in net wages.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 1259.
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
public sector; labor intensity; taxation;
Other versions of this item:
- Panu Poutvaara & Andreas Wagener, 2008. "Why is the public sector more labor-intensive? A distortionary tax argument," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 105-124, July.
- Poutvaara, Panu & Wagener, Andreas, 2004. "Why Is the Public Sector More Labor-Intensive? A Distortionary Tax Argument," IZA Discussion Papers 1413, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
- H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
- L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-MIC-2004-09-12 (Microeconomics)
- NEP-PBE-2004-09-12 (Public Economics)
- NEP-PUB-2004-09-30 (Public Finance)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gordon, Roger H, 2001. "Taxes and Privatization," CEPR Discussion Papers 2977, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Alberto Alesina & Reza Baqir & William Easterly, 1998.
"Redistributive Public Employment,"
NBER Working Papers
6746, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gordon, Roger H. & Bai, Chong-En & Li, David D., 1999. "Efficiency losses from tax distortions vs. government control," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 1095-1103, April.
- Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
- European Commission, 2010. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2010 edition," Taxation trends 2010, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
- Corneo, Giacomo & Rob, Rafael, 2003.
"Working in public and private firms,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1335-1352, August.
- Andrei Shleifer, 1998.
"State versus Private Ownership,"
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 133-150, Fall.
- Andrei Shleifer, 1998. "State Versus Private Ownership," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1841, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Andrei Shleifer, 1998. "State Versus Private Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- De Fraja, Giovanni, 1993. "Productive efficiency in public and private firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 15-30, January.
- Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-De-Silanes, 1999.
"The Benefits Of Privatization: Evidence From Mexico,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242, November.
- Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane, 1997. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," NBER Working Papers 6215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1997. "The Benefits of Privatization : Evidence from Mexico," World Bank Other Operational Studies 11583, The World Bank.
- Jesus Felipe & Franklin M. Fisher, 2003. "Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2-3), pages 208-262, 05.
- Kotsogiannis, Christos & Makris, Miltiadis, 2002. "On production efficiency in federal systems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 281-287, July.
- Diamond, Peter A & Mirrlees, James A, 1971. "Optimal Taxation and Public Production: I--Production Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 8-27, March.
- Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1972. "On Optimal Taxation and Public Production," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 87-103, January.
- Eduardo Martínez Chombo, 2009. "Sources of Over-Costs and Distortions in State-Owned Utilities in Mexico," Working Papers 2009-07, Banco de México.
- Elinder, Mikael & Jordahl, Henrik, 2013.
"Political preferences and public sector outsourcing,"
European Journal of Political Economy,
Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 43-57.
- Elinder, Mikael & Jordahl, Henrik, 2011. "Political Preferences and Public Sector Outsourcing," Working Paper Series 877, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Elinder, Mikael & Jordahl, Henrik, 2012. "Political Preferences and Public Sector Outsourcing," IZA Discussion Papers 6632, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.