IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/7862.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Getting Together and Breaking Apart: The Decline of Centralized Collective Bargaining

In: Differences and Changes in Wage Structures

Author

Listed:
  • Richard B. Freeman
  • Robert S. Gibbons

Abstract

This paper studies the stability of centralized wage-setting systems in light of the on-going decentralization of labor relations in much of the Western world. It takes the decline of peak level bargaining in Sweden, the traditional archetype of centralized collective bargaining, as its key case for study, but is intended to speak to other cases as well. Like many earlier analysts, we argue that centralization offers potential economic gains by internalizing the costs of inefficient wage inflation. With this potential benefit, however, comes a cost: centralized decisions are not sufficiently responsive to local conditions. To avoid excessive inflexibility, the center can allow for "wage drift" at the local level (i.e., local wage settlements above the central agreement), but once the center allows wage drift, it becomes difficult to distinguish between justifiable drift due to local economic conditions and unjustifiable drift in the self-interest of local bargaining pairs. Thus, centralized wage-setting systems face a tradeoff: allowing less drift makes it easier to monitor local bargaining pairs but harder to achieve the appropriate responsiveness to local conditions. We develop a game-theoretic model of this tradeoff, and consider how the center's optimal policy moves towards decentralization (i.e., towards allowing more drift) as the cost of inflexibility rises. We then interpret the evolution of centralized bargaining in Sweden in light of the model. We argue that centralized bargaining flourished when the private-sector blue-collar workers (represented by LO) dominated the workforce, but began to wane as public-sector and white-collar unions grew in strength, as skill differentials in decentralized labor markets grew in size, and as product-market competition intensified (especially through the shortening of product lifecycles).
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Richard B. Freeman & Robert S. Gibbons, 1995. "Getting Together and Breaking Apart: The Decline of Centralized Collective Bargaining," NBER Chapters, in: Differences and Changes in Wage Structures, pages 345-370, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:7862
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7862.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Horn, Henrik & Wolinsky, Asher, 1988. "Worker Substitutability and Patterns of Unionisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 484-497, June.
    2. Harry C. Katz, 1993. "The Decentralization of Collective Bargaining: A Literature Review and Comparative Analysis," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 47(1), pages 3-22, October.
    3. Lundberg, Erik, 1985. "The Rise and Fall of the Swedish Model," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-36, March.
    4. Lindbeck, A., 1990. "The Swedish Experience," Papers 482, Stockholm - International Economic Studies.
    5. repec:bla:econom:v:53:y:1986:i:211:p:281-302 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988. "Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
    7. Holmlund, Bertil & Zetterberg, Johnny, 1991. "Insider effects in wage determination : Evidence from five countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 1009-1034, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Luciano Fanti & Nicola Meccheri, 2017. "Unionization Regimes, Capacity Choice by Firms and Welfare Outcomes," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 85(6), pages 661-681, December.
    2. Filippo Vergara Caffarelli, 2007. "Merge and Compete: Strategic Incentives for Vertical Integration," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 97(5), pages 203-244, September.
    3. Horn, Henrik, 2020. "International Jurisdiction over Standard-Essential Patents," Working Paper Series 1314, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 13 Feb 2023.
    4. Hyung Bae, 2005. "Impact of labour unions on the merger incentive of firms," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 91-94.
    5. Michele Santoni, 2009. "Does product market integration lead to decentralised wage bargaining institutions?," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1091, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.
    6. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2003. "Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
    7. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    8. Sara Fisher Ellison & Christopher M. Snyder, 2010. "Countervailing Power In Wholesale Pharmaceuticals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 32-53, March.
    9. Arijit Mukherjee & Kullapat Suetrong, 2012. "Unionisation Structure and Outward Foreign Direct Investment," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(2), pages 266-279, June.
    10. Stennek, Johan, 2015. "Why Unions Reduce Wage Inequality, II: The Relation between Solidarity and Unity," Working Papers in Economics 625, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Kitamura, Hiroshi & Matsushima, Noriaki & Sato, Misato, 2018. "Exclusive contracts with complementary inputs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 145-167.
    12. Asher Wolinsky, 2000. "A Theory of the Firm with Non-Binding Employment Contracts," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 875-910, July.
    13. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2007. "Buyer power and supplier incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 647-667, April.
    14. Carraro, Carlo & Galeotti, Marzio & Gallo, Massimo, 1996. "Environmental taxation and unemployment: Some evidence on the 'double dividend hypothesis' in Europe," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1-2), pages 141-181, October.
    15. Baldursson, Fridrik M. & Johannesson, Sigurdur, 2005. "Kaupendamáttur á sementsmarkaði [Buyer power in the cement industry]," MPRA Paper 14742, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Aviv Nevo & Robert Town, 2015. "Mergers When Prices Are Negotiated: Evidence from the Hospital Industry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 172-203, January.
    17. Nicola Meccheri & Luciano Fanti, 2012. "Managerial Delegation Schemes in a Duopoly with Endogenous Production Costs: A Comparison of Sales and Relative Profit Delegation under Centralised Unionisation," Working Paper series 44_12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    18. Daniel P. O'Brien, 2014. "The welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination in intermediate good markets: the case of bargaining," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 92-115, March.
    19. Ramon Fauli-Oller & Borja Mesa-Sánchez, 2015. "Losses from Horizontal Merger: an Extension to a Successive Oligopoly Model with Product Differentiation," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(5), pages 604-621, September.
    20. Moene, Karl Ove & Wallerstein, Michael, 1997. "Pay Inequality," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(3), pages 403-430, July.

    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:nbr:nberch:7862. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.