IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tep/teppwp/wp11-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Productivity, Capital and Labor in Labor-Managed and Conventional Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Fathi Fakhfakh
  • Virginie Perotin
  • Monica Gago

Abstract

Despite a continuing interest in the compared efficiency of labor-managed and conventional firms, only a handful of comparative empirical studies exist. These studies suggest that labor-managed firms have the same productivity levels as conventional ones, but organize production differently. However, the data used in these studies cover a single industry, or firms matched by industry and size in manufacturing, and concern a few dozen firms. In addition, the use of constant-elasticity production functions in past studies has made it difficult to distinguish the effects of incentives embodied in the factors of production from those of scale differences that could be caused by the differences in factor demand behavior between conventional and labor-managed firms hypothesized by economic theory. The paper compares the productivity of labor-managed and conventional firms using two new panel data sets covering several thousand firms from France, including representative samples of conventional firms and all worker cooperatives with 20 employees or more in manufacturing and services. We present Generalized Least Squares (GLS) and Generalized Moments Method (GMM) estimations of translog production functions industry by industry for cooperative and conventional firms and test for the equality of their total factor productivities. We also allow systematic differences in scale and technology to be determined by the ownership form. The translog specification, which allows returns to scale to vary with input levels, makes it possible to disentangle embodied incentive effects from systematic differences in scale due to underinvestment in labor-managed firms. In the process, we also propose updated "stylized facts" about labor-managed firms in comparison with conventional firms. Our production function estimates suggest that cooperatives are at least as productive as conventional firms. However, the two types of firms organize production differently. Cooperatives are mor
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Fathi Fakhfakh & Virginie Perotin & Monica Gago, 2011. "Productivity, Capital and Labor in Labor-Managed and Conventional Firms," TEPP Working Paper 2011-08, TEPP.
  • Handle: RePEc:tep:teppwp:wp11-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tepp-repec.eu/RePEc/files/teppwp/tepp-wp-11_8-ff-vp-mg.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
    2. Addison, John T., 2005. "The Determinants of Firm Performance: Unions, Works Councils, and Employee Involvement/High Performance Work Practices," IZA Discussion Papers 1620, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    3. Conte, Michael A. & Svejnar, Jan, 1988. "Productivity effects of worker participation in management, profit-sharing, worker ownership of assets and unionization in U.S. firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 139-151, March.
    4. Pencavel, John & Craig, Ben, 1994. "The Empirical Performance of Orthodox Models of the Firm: Conventional Firms and Worker Cooperatives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(4), pages 718-744, August.
    5. Estrin, Saul & Jones, Derek C. & Svejnar, Jan, 1987. "The productivity effects of worker participation: Producer cooperatives in western economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 40-61, March.
    6. Craig, Ben & Pencavel, John, 1992. "The Behavior of Worker Cooperatives: The Plywood Companies of the Pacific Northwest," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1083-1105, December.
    7. Virginie Pe´rotin & Andrew Robinson, 2000. "Employee Participation and Equal Opportunities Practices: Productivity Effect and Potential Complementarities," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 557-583, December.
    8. Jerome P. Reiter & Elaine L. Zanutto & Larry W. Hunter, 2005. "Analytical Modeling in Complex Surveys of Work Practices," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 59(1), pages 82-100, October.
    9. Felix FitzRoy & Kornelius Kraft, 2005. "Co-determination, Efficiency and Productivity," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(2), pages 233-247, June.
    10. John Pencavel & Luigi Pistaferri & Fabiano Schivardi, 2006. "Wages, Employment, and Capital in Capitalist and Worker-Owned Firms," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 60(1), pages 23-44, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Chris Doucouliagos, 1995. "Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(1), pages 58-77, October.
    13. Wagner, Joachim & Addison, John T. & Schnabel, Claus & Schank, Thorsten, 2004. "Works Councils, Labor Productivity and Plant Heterogeneity: Evidence from Quantile Regressions," IZA Discussion Papers 1414, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    14. Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson, 2007. "Paying Respect," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(4), pages 135-150, Fall.
    15. Findlay, Ronald & Jones, Ronald, 2000. "Factor bias and technical progress," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 303-308, September.
    16. Richard Blundell & Stephen Bond, 2000. "GMM Estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 321-340.
    17. Bonin, John P & Jones, Derek C & Putterman, Louis, 1993. "Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Producer Cooperatives: Will Ever the Twain Meet?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1290-1320, September.
    18. Berman, Katrina V. & Berman, Matthew D., 1989. "An empirical test of the theory of the labor-managed firm," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 281-300, June.
    19. Ben-ner, Avner, 1988. "The life cycle of worker-owned firms in market economies : A theoretical analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 287-313, October.
    20. Ornella Maietta & Vania Sena, 2004. "Profit-sharing, Technical Efficiency Change and Finance Constraints," Microeconomics 0405006, EconWPA.
    21. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    22. Ben-Ner, Avner, 1988. "Comparative empirical observations on worker-owned and capitalist firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 7-31, March.
    23. Perotin, Virginie, 2006. "Entry, exit, and the business cycle: Are cooperatives different?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 295-316, June.
    24. Estrin, Saul, 1991. "Some reflections on self-management, social choice, and reform in eastern europe," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 349-366, June.
    25. Ahn, Seung C. & Schmidt, Peter, 1995. "Efficient estimation of models for dynamic panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 5-27, July.
    26. Miyazaki, Hajime, 1984. "On Success and Dissolution of the Labor-Managed Firm in the Capitalist Economy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(5), pages 909-931, October.
    27. John T. Addison, 2005. "THE DETERMINANTS OF FIRM PERFORMANCE: UNIONS, WORKS COUNCILS, AND EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT/HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK PRACTICES," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(3), pages 406-450, July.
    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. Mikko MAKINEN & Derek C. JONES, 2015. "Comparative Efficiency Between Cooperative, Savings And Commercial Banks In Europe Using The Frontier Approach," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(3), pages 401-420, September.
    2. Carmen Guzmán Alfonso & Francisco J. Santos Cumplido & María de la O Barroso González, 2016. "Cooperativismo, factor empresarial y desarrollo económico: propuesta de un modelo teórico de enlace
      [Cooperativism, entrepreneurship and economic development: a linking theoretical model]
      ," REVESCO: Revista de estudios cooperativos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Escuela de Estudios Cooperativos, issue 122, pages 110-134.
    3. Ichiro Iwasaki & Satoshi Mizobata & Alexander A. Muravyev, 2017. "Ownership Dynamics and Firm Performance in an Emerging Economy: A Meta-Analysis of the Russian Literature," KIER Working Papers 955 Classification-JD22, , Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    4. Gabriel Burdín, 2016. "Equality Under Threat by the Talented: Evidence from Worker‐Managed Firms," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(594), pages 1372-1403, August.
    5. Ignacio Bretos Fernández & Jon Morandeira Arca, 2016. "La economía social ante la actual crisis económica en la comunidad autónoma del País Vasco
      [Social economy and economic crisis in the basque country]
      ," REVESCO: Revista de estudios cooperativos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Escuela de Estudios Cooperativos, issue 122, pages 07-33.
    6. Virginie Pérotin, 2013. "Worker Cooperatives: Good, Sustainable Jobs in the Community," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 2(2), pages 34-47, May.
    7. Pencavel, John, 2015. "The labor supply of self-employed workers: The choice of working hours in worker co-ops," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 677-689.
    8. John Pencavel, 2013. "Worker cooperatives and democratic governance," Chapters,in: Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 24 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Sebastián Berazategui & Emilio Landinelli & Daniel Ramírez, 2013. "Una comparación del comportamiento innovador entre Cooperativas de Trabajo y Empresas Capitalistas en Uruguay," Documentos de Investigación Estudiantil (students working papers) 13-02, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    10. Burdín, Gabriel, 2013. "Are Worker-Managed Firms Really More Likely to Fail?," IZA Discussion Papers 7412, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    11. Gabriel Burdín, 2014. "Are Worker-Managed Firms More Likely to Fail Than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 67(1), pages 202-238, January.
    12. L.F.M. Groot & D.E. van der Linde, 2015. "The Labor Managed Firm: Permanent or Start Subsidies?," Working Papers 15-04, Utrecht School of Economics.

    More about this item

    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:tep:teppwp:wp11-08. 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: (Sylvain). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/teppnfr.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.