IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/j9asz.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Do Americans Want From (Private) Government? Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that Americans Want Workplace Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Mazumder, Soumyajit
  • Yan, Alan

Abstract

Much of the American labor force spends time in "private governments" over which they have little say during and beyond the work day. Do Americans prefer to work for businesses that look more like democracies or autocracies? We study this question using conjoint experimental techniques on a nationally representative sample of Americans. This design allows us to vary a large number of features of the workplace--especially their governance structures and the degree to which these structures allow for meaningful democratic decision-making. We hypothesize that workers should have a preference for democratic corporate governance structures such as employee ownership, co-determination, and the direct election of management. We find strong support that Americans have a preference for workplace democratization and that the magnitude is economically significant. Overall, this article marshals new data and analyses to better understand public preferences over "corporate regime type."

Suggested Citation

  • Mazumder, Soumyajit & Yan, Alan, 2020. "What Do Americans Want From (Private) Government? Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that Americans Want Workplace Democracy," SocArXiv j9asz, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:j9asz
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/j9asz
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5f3de120f57915000deaddd5/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/j9asz?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Zhao, 2018. "How Internal Constraints Shape Interest Group Activities: Evidence from Access-Seeking PACs," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(4), pages 792-808, November.
    2. Tor Eriksson & Nicolai Kristensen, 2014. "Wages or Fringes? Some Evidence on Trade-Offs and Sorting," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(4), pages 899-928.
    3. Kostiuk, Peter F, 1990. "Compensating Differentials for Shift Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 1054-1075, October.
    4. Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2018. "Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital, and Gender," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 457-507.
    5. Alan B. Krueger & Orley Ashenfelter, 2022. "Theory and Evidence on Employer Collusion in the Franchise Sector," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(S), pages 324-348.
    6. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Explaining Causal Findings Without Bias: Detecting and Assessing Direct Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 512-529, August.
    7. Jeffrey A. Flory & Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2015. "Do Competitive Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 122-155.
    8. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "Power in a Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(2), pages 387-432.
    9. Frymer, Paul, 2005. "Racism Revised: Courts, Labor Law, and the Institutional Construction of Racial Animus," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 373-387, August.
    10. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    11. Christian Dippel, 2014. "Forced Coexistence and Economic Development: Evidence From Native American Reservations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 2131-2165, November.
    12. Hacker, Jacob S., 2004. "Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 243-260, May.
    13. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 2000. "Investor protection and corporate governance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 3-27.
    14. Efraim Benmelech & Nittai K. Bergman & Hyunseob Kim, 2022. "Strong Employers and Weak Employees: How Does Employer Concentration Affect Wages?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(S), pages 200-250.
    15. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    16. Orley C. Ashenfelter & Henry Farber & Michael R Ransom, 2010. "Labor Market Monopsony," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 203-210, April.
    17. Ciepley, David, 2013. "Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 139-158, February.
    18. Bachrach, Peter & Baratz, Morton S., 1962. "Two Faces of Power1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 947-952, December.
    19. Chwe, Michael Suk-Young, 1990. "Why Were Workers Whipped? Pain in a Principal-Agent Model," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(403), pages 1109-1121, December.
    20. Suresh Naidu, 2010. "Recruitment Restrictions and Labor Markets: Evidence from the Postbellum U.S. South," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 413-445, April.
    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. Roger Blair & Perihan Saygin, 2021. "Uncertainty and the marginal revenue product–wage gap," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 564-569, April.
    2. Haoran He & David Neumark & Qian Weng, 2021. "Do Workers Value Flexible Jobs? A Field Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 709-738.
    3. Haoran He & David Neumark & Qian Weng, 2019. "Do Workers Value Flexible Jobs? A Field Experiment on Compensating Differentials," Natural Field Experiments 00667, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. David N. F. Bell & David G. Blanchflower, 2021. "Underemployment in the United States and Europe," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(1), pages 56-94, January.
    5. Anna Sokolova & Todd Sorensen, 2021. "Monopsony in Labor Markets: A Meta-Analysis," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(1), pages 27-55, January.
    6. Olle Folke & Johanna Rickne, 2022. "Sexual Harassment and Gender Inequality in the Labor Market [High Wage Workers and High Wage Firms]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 137(4), pages 2163-2212.
    7. Akin A. Cilekoglu, 2023. ""Labor Market Monopsony and Firm Behavior: Evidence from Spanish Exporters"," IREA Working Papers 202307, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jul 2023.
    8. MORIKAWA Masayuki, 2018. "Uncertainty over Working Schedules and Compensating Wage Differentials: From the viewpoint of labor management," Discussion papers 18015, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    9. Kevin Rinz, 2018. "Labor Market Concentration, Earnings Inequality, and Earnings Mobility," CARRA Working Papers 2018-10, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    10. Olle Folke & Johanna Rickne, 2023. "Sexual Harassment and Gender Inequality in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(4), pages 2163-2212.
    11. Chong-En Bai & Zhigang Tao & Changqi Wu, 2004. "Revenue Sharing and Control Rights in Team Production: Theories and Evidence from Joint Ventures," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(2), pages 277-305, Summer.
    12. Marco Zanobio, 2012. "Aspetti teorici della Corporate Governance," DISEIS - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo dis1202, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo (DISEIS).
    13. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Desiere, Sam & Walter, Christian, 2023. "The Shift Premium: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 16460, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Fernández-Villaverde, Jesús & Mandelman, Federico & Yu, Yang & Zanetti, Francesco, 2021. "The “Matthew effect” and market concentration: Search complementarities and monopsony power," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 62-90.
    16. Guidi, Marco G.D. & Hillier, Joe & Tarbert, Heather, 2010. "Successfully reshaping the ownership relationship by reducing ‘moral debt’ and justly distributing residual claims: The cases from Scott Bader Commonwealth and the John Lewis Partnership," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 318-328.
    17. Burbano, Vanessa & Padilla, Nicolas & Meier, Stephan, 2020. "Gender Differences in Preferences for Meaning at Work," IZA Discussion Papers 13053, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Steven Berry & Martin Gaynor & Fiona Scott Morton, 2019. "Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 44-68, Summer.
    19. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    20. Non, Arjan & Rohde, Ingrid & de Grip, Andries & Dohmen, Thomas, 2022. "Mission of the company, prosocial attitudes and job preferences: A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:j9asz. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.