IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

How Much Has De-Unionisation Contributed to the Rise in Male Earnings Inequality?

  • Richard B. Freeman

This paper estimates the effect of changing union density on earnings differentials and inequality among male workers in the U.S. and on industry earnings differentials among OECD countries. For the U.S. the evidence indicates that the fall in union density contributed to the 1980s increase in earnings inequality. Cross section-based estimates of union wage effects suggest that 40-50% of the rise in the white collar premium. 15-40% of the rise in the college premium. and 20% of the rise in the standard deviation of In earnings for all men are attributable to the fall in union density. Longitudinal-based estimates of union wage effects suggest that deunionization contributed less to the rise in differentials. Still. the dispersion of earnings grew as much among organized workers as among otherwise comparable nonunion workers, so that overall dispersion would have risen substantially even if the entire work force had been organized. Deunionization was thus a factor in the rise in inequality but not the factor. The cross-country comparisons show that earnings distributions are more compact among union workers than among nonunion workers in OECD countries with different union densities, types of union movements, and with very different union/nonunion wage differentials, making the relation between unionism and dispersion a general outcome of unionism. not something specific to U.S. institutions. In addition, they indicate that earnings differentials by industry are smaller and increased less in the 1980s in highly unionized countries than in less unionized countries, suggesting that strong national union movements can partially offset market pressures for rising inequality.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 3826.

in new window

Date of creation: Aug 1991
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Danziger, Sheldon and Peter Gottschalk (eds.) Uneven Tides. NY: Sage Press, 1992,
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:3826
Note: LS
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:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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:3826. 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.