Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Productivity, Capital and Labor in Labor-Managed and Conventional Firms

Contents:

Author Info

  • FAKHFAKH F.
  • PEROTIN V.
  • GAGO M.

Abstract

Despite a continuing interest in the compared efficiency of labor-managed and conventional firms, only a handful of comparative empirical studies exist. These studies suggest that labor-managed firms have the same productivity levels as conventional ones, but organize production differently. However, the data used in these studies cover a single industry, or firms matched by industry and size in manufacturing, and concern a few dozen firms. In addition, the use of constant-elasticity production functions in past studies has made it difficult to distinguish the effects of incentives embodied in the factors of production from those of scale differences that could be caused by the differences in factor demand behavior between conventional and labor-managed firms hypothesized by economic theory. The paper compares the productivity of labor-managed and conventional firms using two new panel data sets covering several thousand firms from France, including representative samples of conventional firms and all worker cooperatives with 20 employees or more in manufacturing and services. We present Generalized Least Squares (GLS) and Generalized Moments Method (GMM) estimations of translog production functions industry by industry for cooperative and conventional firms and test for the equality of their total factor productivities. We also allow systematic differences in scale and technology to be determined by the ownership form. The translog specification, which allows returns to scale to vary with input levels, makes it possible to disentangle embodied incentive effects from systematic differences in scale due to underinvestment in labor-managed firms. In the process, we also propose updated "stylized facts" about labor-managed firms in comparison with conventional firms. Our production function estimates suggest that cooperatives are at least as productive as conventional firms. However, the two types of firms organize production differently. Cooperatives are mor

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://ermes.u-paris2.fr/doctrav/0910
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 500 Can't connect to ermes.u-paris2.fr:80 (10060). If this is indeed the case, please notify ()
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by ERMES, University Paris 2 in its series Working Papers ERMES with number 0910.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:erm:papers:0910

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 12, place du Panthéon, 75230 Paris Cedex 05
Phone: (33) 1 44 41 89 61 (66)
Fax: (33) 1 40 51 81 30
Web page: http://ermes.u-paris2.fr/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
  2. John T. Addison, 2005. "The Determinants of Firm Performance: Unions, Works Councils, and Employee Involvement/High Performance Work Practices," GEMF Working Papers 2005-03, GEMF - Faculdade de Economia, Universidade de Coimbra.
  3. Felix FitzRoy & Kornelius Kraft, 2005. "Co-determination, Efficiency and Productivity," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(2), pages 233-247, 06.
  4. Virginie Pe�rotin & Andrew Robinson, 2000. "Employee Participation and Equal Opportunities Practices: Productivity Effect and Potential Complementarities," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 557-583, December.
  5. Miyazaki, Hajime, 1984. "On Success and Dissolution of the Labor-Managed Firm in the Capitalist Economy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(5), pages 909-31, October.
  6. Berman, Katrina V. & Berman, Matthew D., 1989. "An empirical test of the theory of the labor-managed firm," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 281-300, June.
  7. Ben-ner, Avner, 1988. "The life cycle of worker-owned firms in market economies : A theoretical analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 287-313, October.
  8. Chris Doucouliagos, 1995. "Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(1), pages 58-77, October.
  9. Estrin, Saul, 1991. "Some reflections on self-management, social choice, and reform in eastern europe," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 349-366, June.
  10. Conte, Michael A. & Svejnar, Jan, 1988. "Productivity effects of worker participation in management, profit-sharing, worker ownership of assets and unionization in U.S. firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 139-151, March.
  11. Ahn, Seung C. & Schmidt, Peter, 1995. "Efficient estimation of models for dynamic panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 5-27, July.
  12. Perotin, Virginie, 2006. "Entry, exit, and the business cycle: Are cooperatives different?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 295-316, June.
  13. Ornella Maietta & Vania Sena, 2004. "Profit-sharing, Technical Efficiency Change and Finance Constraints," Microeconomics 0405006, EconWPA.
  14. Richard Blundell & Steve Bond, 1999. "GMM estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions," IFS Working Papers W99/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  15. Estrin, Saul & Jones, Derek C. & Svejnar, Jan, 1987. "The productivity effects of worker participation: Producer cooperatives in western economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 40-61, March.
  16. Pencavel, John & Craig, Ben, 1994. "The Empirical Performance of Orthodox Models of the Firm: Conventional Firms and Worker Cooperatives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(4), pages 718-44, August.
  17. Jerome P. Reiter & Elaine L. Zanutto & Larry W. Hunter, 2005. "Analytical modeling in complex surveys of work practices," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 59(1), pages 82-100, October.
  18. Findlay, Ronald & Jones, Ronald, 2000. "Factor bias and technical progress," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 303-308, September.
  19. Arellano, Manuel & Bond, Stephen, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 277-97, April.
  20. Ben-Ner, Avner, 1988. "Comparative empirical observations on worker-owned and capitalist firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 7-31, March.
  21. John T. Addison, 2005. "THE DETERMINANTS OF FIRM PERFORMANCE: UNIONS, WORKS COUNCILS, AND EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT/HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK PRACTICES," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(3), pages 406-450, 07.
  22. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
  23. Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson, 2007. "Paying Respect," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(4), pages 135-150, Fall.
  24. Craig, Ben & Pencavel, John, 1992. "The Behavior of Worker Cooperatives: The Plywood Companies of the Pacific Northwest," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1083-105, December.
  25. John Pencavel & Luigi Pistaferri & Fabiano Schivardi, 2006. "Wages, employment, and capital in capitalist and worker-owned firms," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 60(1), pages 23-44, October.
  26. Dow,Gregory K., 2003. "Governing the Firm," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521522212, April.
  27. Bonin, John P & Jones, Derek C & Putterman, Louis, 1993. "Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Producer Cooperatives: Will Ever the Twain Meet?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1290-320, September.
  28. Wagner, Joachim & Addison, John T. & Schnabel, Claus & Schank, Thorsten, 2004. "Works Councils, Labor Productivity and Plant Heterogeneity: Evidence from Quantile Regressions," IZA Discussion Papers 1414, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Burdín, Gabriel, 2013. "Equality under Threat by the Talented: Evidence from Worker-Managed Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 7854, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Pencavel, John, 2012. "Worker Cooperatives and Democratic Governance," IZA Discussion Papers 6932, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  3. Burdín, Gabriel, 2013. "Are Worker-Managed Firms Really More Likely to Fail?," IZA Discussion Papers 7412, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  4. Gabriel Burdin, 2014. "Are Worker-Managed Firms More Likely to Fail than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 67(1), pages 202-238, January.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erm:papers:0910. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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