IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Product and labor market imperfections and scale economies: Micro-evidence on France, Japan and the Netherlands

  • Sabien Dobbelaere
  • Kozo Kiyota
  • Jacques Mairesse

Allowing for three labor market settings (perfect competition or right-to-manage bargaining, efficient bargaining and monopsony), this paper relies on two extensions of Hall's econometric framework for estimating simultaneously price-cost margins and scale economies. Using an unbalanced panel of 17,653 firms over the period 1986-2001 in France, 8,728 firms over the period 1994-2006 in Japan and 7,828 firms over the period 1993-2008 in the Netherlands, we first apply two procedures to classify 30 comparable manufacturing industries in 6 distinct regimes that differ in terms of the type of competition prevailing in product and labor markets. For each of the predominant regimes in each country, we then investigate industry differences in the estimated product and labor market imperfections and scale economies. Consistent with differences in institutions and in the industrial relations system in the three countries, we find important regime differences across the three countries and also observe differences in the levels of product market imperfections and scale economies within regimes.

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://www.nber.org/papers/w19059.pdf
Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 19059.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: May 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:19059
Note: PR
Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Web page: http://www.nber.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Daniel Sullivan, 1989. "Monopsony Power in the Market for Nurses," NBER Working Papers 3031, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Douglas Staiger & Joanne Spetz & Ciaran Phibbs, 1999. "Is There Monopsony in the Labor Market? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," NBER Working Papers 7258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. V. Bhaskar & Ted To, 1996. "Minimum Wages for Ronald McDonald Monopsonies: A Theory of Monopsonistic Competition," Labor and Demography 9603001, EconWPA, revised 21 May 1996.
  4. Chad Syverson, 2010. "What Determines Productivity?," NBER Working Papers 15712, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Ebell, Monique & Haefke, Christian, 2006. "Product Market Regulation and Endogenous Union Formation," IZA Discussion Papers 2222, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  6. Hervé Boulhol & Sabien Dobbelaere & Sara Maioli, 2011. "Imports as Product and Labour Market Discipline," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 49(2), pages 331-361, 06.
  7. Booth, Alison L & Katic, Pamela, 2010. "Estimating the Wage Elasticity of Labour Supply to a Firm: What evidence is there for Monopsony?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7993, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Boulhol, Herv, 2009. "Do capital market and trade liberalization trigger labor market deregulation?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 223-233, April.
  9. Jan De Loecker & Frederic Warzynski, 2012. "Markups and Firm-Level Export Status," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2437-71, October.
  10. Nicola Brandt & Jean-Marc Burniaux & Romain Duval, 2005. "Assessing the OECD Jobs Strategy: Past Developments and Reforms," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 429, OECD Publishing.
  11. Dobbelaere, Sabien & Mairesse, Jacques, 2007. "Panel data estimates of the production function and product and labor market imperfections," Working Paper Series 0782, European Central Bank.
  12. Torberg Falch, 2001. "Decentralized Public Sector Wage Determination: Wage Curve and Wage Comparison for Norwegian Teachers in the Pre‐WW2 Period," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 15(3), pages 343-369, 09.
  13. William M. Boal, 1995. "Testing for Employer Monopsony in Turn-of-the-Century Coal Mining," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 519-536, Autumn.
  14. Filip Abraham & Jozef Konings & Stijn Vanormelingen, 2009. "The effect of globalization on union bargaining and price-cost margins of firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 13-36, April.
  15. Jacques Mairesse & Jordi Jaumandreu, 2005. "Panel-data Estimates of the Production Function and the Revenue Function: What Difference Does It Make?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(4), pages 651-672, December.
  16. Jozef Konings & Patrick Van Cayseele & Frederic Warzynski, 1999. "The Dynamics of Industrial Markups in Two Small Open Economies: Does National Competition Policy Matter ?," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces9914, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
  17. Alan Manning & Ted To, 2002. "Oligopsony and Monopsonistic Competition in Labor Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 155-174, Spring.
  18. McDonald, Ian M & Solow, Robert M, 1981. "Wage Bargaining and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 896-908, December.
  19. Dobbelaere, Sabien, 2004. "Estimation of price-cost margins and union bargaining power for Belgian manufacturing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 1381-1398, December.
  20. FUKAO Kyoji & HAMAGATA Sumio & INUI Tomohiko & ITO Keiko & Hyeog Ug KWON & MAKINO Tatsuji & MIYAGAWA Tsutomu & NAKANISHI Yasuo & TOKUI Joji, 2007. "Estimation Procedures and TFP Analysis of the JIP Database 2006 Provisional Version," Discussion papers 07003, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  21. William M. Boal & Michael R. Ransom, 1997. "Monopsony in the Labor Market," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 86-112, March.
  22. Kyoji Fukao & Hyeog Ug Kwon, 2005. "Why Did Japan's TFP Growth Slow Down in the Lost Decade? An Empirical Analysis Based on Firm-Level Data of Manufacturing Firms," Discussion papers 05004, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  23. KIYOTA Kozo, 2010. "Productivity, Markup, Scale Economies, and the Business Cycle: Estimates from firm-level panel data in Japan," Discussion papers 10040, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  24. Kozo Kiyota & Takanobu Nakajima & Kiyohiko G. Nishimura, 2009. "Measurement of the market power of firms: the Japanese case in the 1990s," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 381-414, June.
  25. Katayama, Hajime & Lu, Shihua & Tybout, James R., 2009. "Firm-level productivity studies: Illusions and a solution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 403-413, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:19059. 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.