IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/ecoaaa/1026-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Moving Towards a Single Labour Contract: Pros, Cons and Mixed Feelings

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Lepage-Saucier

    (Sciences Po, Paris)

  • Juliette Schleich

    (Sciences Po, Paris)

  • Etienne Wasmer

    (Sciences Po, Paris)

Abstract

This paper discusses the pros and cons of a single labour contract. After reviewing the current state of dualism in labour markets and the recent labour reforms in Europe, we discuss the various proposals to eliminate dualism. Next, we emphasise the costs of dualism and discuss whether they would be addressed by introducing a single labour contract. We notably introduce a distinction between reforms based on introducing a single contract with progressive seniority rights (CPSR) or a single contract with long probation periods (CLPP).We argue that their gains and costs are very different, especially with regards to the stigma effects and dualism. We also consider alternative reforms: the introduction of a single labour contract as such, and alternative reforms independent of the labour contract but addressing the issue of dualism (training, access to housing and to credit) and compare their costs and benefits. We then build a simple model where both temporary and permanent contracts are available to firms. We use it to describe the demand for temporary contracts and the potential consequences of removing them and reach the following conclusions. First, employment protection has a moderate negative impact on employment, which can be mitigated when temporary contracts are available. Second, the elimination of temporary contracts decreases total employment (by 7 percentage points according to our calculations). Offsetting this effect would require an ambitious reform of employment protection laws of permanent contracts (in this specific setup, amounting to a cut in layoff costs by two thirds). Finally, the coexistence of temporary and permanent contracts may also have negative effects on social norms within the firm and workers' motivation and eliminating temporary contracts could therefore enhance productivity in this context. We conclude that while there are costs to dualism, these are not as obvious and well established as the ones triggered by employment protection itself. Further, the single employment contract may partly be a qui pro quo (misunderstanding) Instead, more clarity on the objectives of a labour reform is needed. Vers un contrat unique, vraiment ? : Les avantages et les inconvénients Ce texte discute des avantages et des inconvénients du contrat de travail unique. Après une discussion du dualisme et des réformes récentes du marché du travail en Europe, nous décrivons les différentes propositions visant à éliminer le dualisme. Nous soulignons ensuite les coûts du dualisme et tentons de comprendre si la création d'un contrat unique les supprimerait. Nous introduisons notamment une distinction entre les réformes basées sur un contrat unique à droits progressifs (CUDP, ou CPSR pour l'acronyme anglais), ou sur un contrat avec une période d'essai allongée (CPEA ou CLPP pour l'acronyme en anglais). Les gains et les coûts sont très différents selon l'hypothèse retenue, en particulier par rapport aux effets de stigmatisation des travailleurs et par rapport à la persistence du dualisme. Nous envisageons aussi d'autres réformes: outre celle de l'introduction d'un contrat unique, nous discutons de différentes réformes indépendantes du contrat de travail mais modifiant les conséquences du dualisme du marché du travail (accès à la formation, au marché du crédit, au logement) et en comparons les coûts et avantages. Nous élaborons ensuite un simple modèle où les contrats permanents et temporaires sont tous deux à disposition des entreprises et coexistent en leur sein. Nous utilisons cette structure théorique pour décrire la demande de contrats temporaires et les conséquences potentielles d'en supprimer l'usage. Nous en concluons: premièrement, que la protection de l'emploi a un impact négatif mais modéré sur l'emploi total, qui est précisément atténué par l'existence de contrats temporaires; deuxièmement, que l'élimination des contrats temporaires diminue l'emploi total (de 7 points de pourcentage selon notre modèle); pour anihiler cet eet négatif, il faudrait une réforme radicale des contrats permanents (qui dans le cas d'espèce diminuerait des deux tiers les coûts des licenciements associés aux contrats permanents); enn, la coexistence de contrats temporaires et permanents peut aussi avoir des conséquences négatives au niveau des normes sociales au sein de l'entreprise et sur la motivation des salariés; éliminer les contrats temporaires serait alors une amélioration de la productivité des entreprises. Nous concluons sur le fait que si les coûts du dualisme sont réels, ils sont moins évidents et moins bien démontrés que ceux engendrés par la protection de l'emploi elle-même. De plus, le contrat unique pourrait être en partie un qui pro quo. Il serait au contraire utile de clarifier les objectifs fondamentaux des réformes du marché du travail.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Lepage-Saucier & Juliette Schleich & Etienne Wasmer, 2013. "Moving Towards a Single Labour Contract: Pros, Cons and Mixed Feelings," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1026, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:ecoaaa:1026-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4c0vvc4zxv-en
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Bassanini & Luca Nunziata & Danielle Venn, 2009. "Job protection legislation and productivity growth in OECD countries," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 24, pages 349-402, April.
    2. Juan J. Dolado & Salvador Ortigueira & Rodolfo Stucchi, 2016. "Does dual employment protection affect TFP? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 421-459, November.
    3. Federico Cingano & Marco Leonardi & Julián Messina & Giovanni Pica, 2010. "The effects of employment protection legislation and financial market imperfections on investment: evidence from a firm-level panel of EU countries," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 25, pages 117-163, January.
    4. Andrew Clark & Fabien Postel-Vinay, 2009. "Job security and job protection," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 207-239, April.
    5. Gilles Saint-Paul, 2002. "The Political Economy of Employment Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(3), pages 672-701, June.
    6. Bertola, Giuseppe, 1994. "Flexibility, investment, and growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 215-238, October.
    7. David H. Autor & William R. Kerr & Adriana D. Kugler, 2007. "Do Employment Protections Reduce Productivity? Evidence from U.S. States," NBER Working Papers 12860, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Shutao Cao & Enchuan Shao & Pedro Silos, 2010. "Fixed-term and permanent employment contracts: theory and evidence," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2010-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    9. Fabien Postel-Vinay & Anne Saint-Martin, 2004. "Comment les salariés perçoivent-ils la protection de l'emploi ?," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 372(1), pages 41-59.
    10. Wasmer, Etienne, 1999. "Competition for Jobs in a Growing Economy and the Emergence of Dualism," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(457), pages 349-371, July.
    11. Pierre Cahuc & Olivier Charlot & Franck Malherbet, 2016. "Explaining The Spread Of Temporary Jobs And Its Impact On Labor Turnover," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57, pages 533-572, May.
    12. Acemoglu, Daron & Pischke, Jorn-Steffen, 1999. "Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labour Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 112-142, February.
    13. Charlot, Olivier & Malherbet, Franck, 2013. "Education and employment protection," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 3-23.
    14. Javier Andrés Domingo & José Emilio Boscá & Rafael Domenech Vilariño & Javier Ferri, 2009. "Job Creation in Spain: Productivity Growth, Labour Market Reforms or both?," Working Papers 0903, International Economics Institute, University of Valencia.
    15. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & Nicolás Porteiro, 2011. "Optimal Coexistence of Long-term and Short-term contracts in Labor Markets," Working Papers 11.08, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    16. Fabio Berton & Pietro Garibaldi, 2012. "Workers and Firms Sorting into Temporary Jobs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(562), pages 125-154, August.
    17. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2005. "The consequences of labor market flexibility: Panel evidence based on survey data," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 1225-1259, July.
    18. Hopenhayn, Hugo & Rogerson, Richard, 1993. "Job Turnover and Policy Evaluation: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(5), pages 915-938, October.
    19. Alexandre Janiak & Etienne Wasmer, 2012. "EPL and capital-labor ratios," Documentos de Trabajo 288, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    20. Shapiro, Carl & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1984. "Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 433-444, June.
    21. David H. Autor & William R. Kerr & Adriana D. Kugler, 2007. "Does Employment Protection Reduce Productivity? Evidence From US States," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(521), pages 189-217, June.
    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. Berson, Clémence & Ferrari, Nicolas, 2015. "Financial incentives and labour market duality," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 77-92.
    2. Elsa Fornero, 2013. "Reforming labor markets: reflections of an economist who (unexpectedly) became the Italian Minister of Labor," IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Elvire Guillaud & Paul Marx, 2013. "Preferences for employment protection and the insider-outsider divide," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00965174, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    chômage; contrat unique; contrats de travail; dualism; dualisme; employment contracts; labour market reform; réforme du marché du travail; single labour contract; unemployment;

    JEL classification:

    • J41 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Labor Contracts
    • J42 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Monopsony; Segmented Labor Markets
    • J80 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - General

    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:oec:ecoaaa:1026-en. 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: http://edirc.repec.org/data/edoecfr.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 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.

    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.