IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nip/nipewp/14-2019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does remote work improve or impair firm labour productivity? Longitudinal evidence from

Author

Listed:
  • Natália P. Monteiro

    (NIPE and Department of Economics, University of Minho)

  • Odd Rune Straume

    (NIPE and Department of Economics, University of Minho)

  • Marieta Valente

    (NIPE and Department of Economics, University of Minho)

Abstract

Whether or not the use of remote work increases firm labour productivity is theoretically ambiguous. We use a rich and representative sample of Portuguese firms, and within-firm variation in the policy on remote work, over the period 2011-2016, to empirically assess the causal productivity effect of remote work. Our findings from estimations of models with firm fixed effects suggest that the average productivity effect of allowing remote work is significantly negative, though relatively small in magnitude. However, we also find a substantial degree of heterogeneity across different categories of firms. In particular, we find evidence of opposite effects of remote work for firms that do not undertake R&D activities and for firms that do, where remote work has a significantly negative (positive) effect on labour productivity for the former (latter) type of firms. Negative effects of remote work are also more likely for small firms that do not export and employ a workforce with a below-average skill level.

Suggested Citation

  • Natália P. Monteiro & Odd Rune Straume & Marieta Valente, 2019. "Does remote work improve or impair firm labour productivity? Longitudinal evidence from," NIPE Working Papers 14/2019, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
  • Handle: RePEc:nip:nipewp:14/2019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/62137/1/NIPE_WP_14_2019.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George A. Akerlof & Janet L. Yellen, 1990. "The Fair Wage-Effort Hypothesis and Unemployment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 255-283.
    2. Alexandre Mas & Enrico Moretti, 2009. "Peers at Work," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 112-145, March.
    3. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    4. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408.
    5. Nicholas Bloom & James Liang & John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, 2015. "Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 130(1), pages 165-218.
    6. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2010. "Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Fauver, Larry & McDonald, Michael B. & Taboada, Alvaro G., 2018. "Does it pay to treat employees well? International evidence on the value of employee-friendly culture," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 84-108.
    8. 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.
    9. Dickinson, David & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2008. "Does monitoring decrease work effort?: The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 56-76, May.
    10. Nick Bloom & Tobias Kretschmer & John Van Reenen, 2011. "Are family-friendly workplace practices a valuable firm resource?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 343-367, April.
    11. Beauregard, T. Alexandra & Henry, Lesley C., 2009. "Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 25224, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. George A. Akerlof, 1982. "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 543-569.
    13. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2001. "How To Compete: The Impact Of Workplace Practices And Information Technology On Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(3), pages 434-445, August.
    14. Alan Felstead & Nick Jewson & Sally Walters, 2003. "Managerial Control of Employees Working at Home," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 241-264, June.
    15. Glenn Dutcher, E., 2012. "The effects of telecommuting on productivity: An experimental examination. The role of dull and creative tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 355-363.
    16. Akerlof, George A & Yellen, Janet L, 1988. "Fairness and Unemployment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 44-49, May.
    17. Beckmann, Michael & Cornelissen, Thomas & Kräkel, Matthias, 2017. "Self-managed working time and employee effort: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-302.
    18. Ichniowski, Casey & Shaw, Kathryn & Prennushi, Giovanna, 1997. "The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 291-313, June.
    19. M. Pagano & P. F. Volpin, 2005. "Managers, Workers, and Corporate Control," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(2), pages 841-868, April.
    20. Peter Cappelli & David Neumark, 2001. "Do “High-Performance†Work Practices Improve Establishment-Level Outcomes?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 54(4), pages 737-775, July.
    21. Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson, 2008. "Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 990-1008, June.
    22. Blount, Yvette, 2015. "Pondering the Fault Lines of Anywhere Working (Telework, Telecommuting): A Literature Review," Foundations and Trends(R) in Information Systems, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 163-276, December.
    23. Dickinson, David & Villeval, Marie-Claire, 2008. "Does monitoring decrease work effort?: The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 56-76, May.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    2. Pouliakas, Konstantinos, 2020. "Working at Home in Greece: Unexplored Potential at Times of Social Distancing?," IZA Discussion Papers 13408, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Ourania Tzoraki & Svetlana Dimitrova & Marin Barzakov & Saad Yaseen & Vasilis Gavalas & Hani Harb & Abas Haidari & Brian P. Cahill & Alexandra Ćulibrk & Ekaterini Nikolarea & Eleni Andrianopulu & Miro, 2021. "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Working Conditions, Employment, Career Development and Well-Being of Refugee Researchers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, July.

    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. Natália P. Monteiro & Odd Rune Straume & Marieta Valente, 2019. "Does Remote Work Improve or Impair Firm Labour Productivity? Longitudinal Evidence from Portugal," CESifo Working Paper Series 7991, CESifo.
    2. Monteiro, Natália P. & Straume, Odd Rune & Valente, Marieta, 2021. "When does remote electronic access (not) boost productivity? Longitudinal evidence from Portugal," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    3. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    4. Viete, Steffen & Erdsiek, Daniel, 2018. "Trust-based work time and the productivity effects of mobile information technologies in the workplace," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-013, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Beckmann, Michael, 2016. "Self-managed working time and firm performance: Microeconometric evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145623, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Beckmann, Michael, 2016. "Self-managed working time and firm performance: Microeconometric evidence," Working papers 2016/01, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    7. Katrin Schmelz & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2020. "Reactions to (the absence of) control and workplace arrangements: experimental evidence from the internet and the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 933-960, December.
    8. Viete, Steffen & Erdsiek, Daniel, 2020. "Mobile Information Technologies and Firm Performance: The Role of Employee Autonomy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    9. Adrian Chadi & Mario Mechtel & Vanessa Mertins, 2022. "Smartphone bans and workplace performance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 287-317, February.
    10. Katrin Schmelz & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2015. "Social Distance and Control Aversion: Evidence from the Internet and the Laboratory," TWI Research Paper Series 100, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    11. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Stephen Rassenti, 2011. "Real Effort, Real Leisure and Real-time Supervision: Incentives and Peer Pressure in Virtual Organizations," Working Papers 11-05, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Manthei, Kathrin & Sliwka, Dirk & Vogelsang, Timo, 2019. "Talking about Performance or Paying for it? Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 12446, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Vera Popva, 2010. "What renders financial advisors less treacherous? - On commissions and reciprocity -," Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-036, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2013. "Intention-based reciprocity and the hidden costs of control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-65.
    15. Nicholas Bloom & Christos Genakos & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2011. "Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," CEP Discussion Papers dp1109, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. Grossmann, Volker, 2002. "Is it rational to internalize the personal norm that one should reciprocate?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 27-48, February.
    17. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Mitchell Hoffman & Nick Zubanov, 2019. "What Do Employee Referral Programs Do? Measuring the Direct and Overall Effects of a Management Practice," NBER Working Papers 25920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Rebitzer, James B. & Taylor, Lowell J., 2011. "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motives: Standard and Behavioral Approaches to Agency and Labor Markets," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 8, pages 701-772, Elsevier.
    19. Margaret A. Abernethy & Chung-Yu Hung & Laurence van Lent, 2020. "Expertise and Discretionary Bonus Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 415-432, January.
    20. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2012. "The Impact of Social Comparisons on Reciprocity," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(4), pages 1346-1367, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Remote work; firm labour productivity; panel data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • L23 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Organization of Production
    • M54 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Labor Management

    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:nip:nipewp:14/2019. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nipampt.html .

    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: NIPE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nipampt.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.