IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/cvv/eslbks/978-625-7501-20-0.html

Demand and Institutional Wage Movements

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Paula Martins

    (Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal)

Abstract

Chapter 1. The analysis discusses the labor market equilibrium under union oligopoly, where unions represent homogeneous workers and use employment strategies. The following points are addressed: 1. The labor market outcomes in the presence of; a. uncooperative behavior among unions; b. uncooperative environment with a leading union; c. collusive (coordinated unions) behavior among unions; d. globally efficient bargaining, are confronted. A specific example with a Stone-Geary utility function and linear demand is forwarded. 2. Supply dynamics may push up employment and, therefore, the number of unions. In equilibrium, some bounds exist to the number of unions the market can support, which are investigated in the example. Five supply dynamics are considered: a. reservation wage restriction; b. a standard labor supply constraint; c. number of unions equal demand; d. individualistic unions; e. existence of a minimum (employed) membership requirement. The equilibrium number of unions for the Cournot-Nash, Stackelberg and efficient bargaining structures is derived for the case where unions exhibit Stone-Geary preferences and labor demand is linear.Chapter 2. In this chapter we present and confront the expected outcome of a raise in earnings taxes on the regional or sectoral allocation of labor force and employment. The basic frameworks are the benchmark dualistic scenarios. A single-input analysis of an homogeneous product economy is provided once extensions were designed to highlight the role of mobility barriers and how they interact with local wage-setting rules to determine regional allocation rather than trade issues or factor substitution. We report the main effects on equilibrium local after-tax wages, supply, employment and aggregate welfare surplus of a unilateral as well as a simultaneous unit tax increase of the (a) basic two-sector model in six different scenarios: free market; partial (one-sector) coverage with perfect intersector mobility; partial (one-sector) coverage with imperfect mobility (Harris-Todaro); multiple (two-sector) coverage with imperfect mobility (Bhagwati-Hamada); partial (one-sector) coverage with affiliation restrictions in the covered sector; partial (one-sector) coverage with limited employment generation ability in the traditional uncovered sector. Needless to say, the results would apply to any other production factor, one or other scenario being more appropriate for inference of the consequences of differential taxation systems.Chapter 3. This chapter analyzes the labor market outcome when there are two unions in the industry, representing homogeneous workers (hence, unions use employment strategies), in the presence of union employment (quantity) constraints. Three strategic environments are considered: Nash-Cournot duopoly, Stackelberg duopoly and efficient cooperation between the two unions. Employment constraints -ceilings and floors- originate kinks and/or discontinuities in the reaction functions, leading to corner solutions and special features of the labor market equilibrium. Two types of constraints are discussed. One is insufficient employed membership (ceiling) for the interior solution. Then it may be optimal for a Stackelberg leader to push the other to the bound. The other case considered is the legal requirement of a minimum number of employed members that the union must have to be constituted. Entry-deterrence strategies of the leading union may then emerge.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Paula Martins, 2021. "Demand and Institutional Wage Movements," EconSciences Library Books, EconSciences Library Books, edition 1, number 978-625-7501-20-0.
  • Handle: RePEc:cvv:eslbks:978-625-7501-20-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econsciences.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/978-625-7501-20-0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grossman, Gene M, 1983. "Union Wages, Temporary Layoffs, and Seniority," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(3), pages 277-290, June.
    2. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    3. 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.
    4. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    5. Davidson, Carl, 1988. "Multiunit Bargaining in Oligopolistic Industries," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(3), pages 397-422, July.
    6. Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1981. "Duopoly Models with Consistent Conjectures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 934-945, December.
    7. Lars Calmfors, 1993. "Centralisation of Wage Bargaining and Macroeconomic Performance: A Survey," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 131, OECD Publishing.
    8. McDonald, Ian M & Solow, Robert M, 1981. "Wage Bargaining and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 896-908, December.
    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. Thorsten Upmann & Julia Müller, 2014. "The Structure of Firm-Specific Labour Unions," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 170(2), pages 336-364, June.
    2. Ana Paula Martins, 2009. "Union duopoly with heterogeneous labor: the effect of minimum wage regulation," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 36(5), pages 580-607, April.
    3. Dhillon, Amrita & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2002. "A generalised wage rigidity result," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 285-311, March.
    4. Swagel, Phillip, 2000. "Union behavior, industry rents, and optimal policies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 925-947, August.
    5. repec:pri:indrel:dsp01cc08hf62w is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Franz, Wolfgang, 1995. "Theoretische Ansätze zur Erklärung der Arbeitslosigkeit: Wo stehen wir 1995?," Discussion Papers 27, University of Konstanz, Center for International Labor Economics (CILE).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Marcus Dittrich, 2010. "Minimum Wages and Unemployment Benefits in a Unionized Economy: A Game-Theoretic Approach," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 11(2), pages 209-229, November.
    10. Minas Vlassis & Stefanos Mamakis, 2016. "Is Price Competition More Efficient than Quantity Competition? A Reversal with Unionized Oligopolists," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 49(1), pages 103-126, August.
    11. Gaston, N., 2000. "Unions and the Decentralisation of Collective Bargaining in a Globalising World," ISER Discussion Paper 0495, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    12. Louis N. Christofides & Andrew J. Oswald, 1991. "Efficient and Inefficient Employment Outcomes: A Study Based on Canadian Data," NBER Working Papers 3648, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. repec:ehu:dfaeii:6745 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Tito Boeri & Jan van Ours, 2013. "The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets: Second Edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10142, December.
    15. Bill Yang, 1995. "Unionized oligopoly, labor-management cooperation, and international competitiveness," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 33-53, February.
    16. António Brandão & Joana Pinho, 2018. "Productivity Shocks in a Union‐Duopoly Model," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 86(6), pages 722-756, December.
    17. Paul Heidhues, 2000. "Employers’ Associations, Industry-wide Unions, and Competition," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-11, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    18. Elizabeth Schroeder & Victor J. Tremblay, 2014. "Union Bargaining in an Oligopoly Market with Cournot-Bertrand Competition: Welfare and Policy Implications," Economies, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Joseph S. Tracy, 1986. "Seniority Rules and the Gains from Union Organization," NBER Working Papers 2039, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Dittrich, Marcus, 2007. "Minimum Wages and Union Bargaining in a Dual Labour Market," Dresden Discussion Paper Series in Economics 13/07, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Economics.
    21. Swati Basu & Saul Estrin & Jan Svejnar, 2005. "Employment Determination in Enterprises under Communism and in Transition: Evidence from Central Europe," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 58(3), pages 353-369, April.
    22. Peter J. Luke & Mark E. Schaffer, 1999. "Wage Determination in Russia: An Econometric Investigation," CERT Discussion Papers 9908, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • O44 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Environment and Growth

    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:cvv:eslbks:978-625-7501-20-0. 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: Bilal KARGI (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econsciences.com .

    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.