工作分担:效率-工资分析

Thomas Moutos, W. Scarth
{"title":"工作分担:效率-工资分析","authors":"Thomas Moutos, W. Scarth","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.260027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper evaluates two approaches to work-sharing by examining both within the same macro model. The standard approach involves imposing a quantity constraint on labour market participants (a maximum number of standard hours for each worker). This approach is compared to a revenue-neutral employment subsidy financed by a tax on overtime hours ? an initiative intended to harness market incentives. The paper shows that the second approach brings much preferred results ? it involves lower unemployment, higher investment, and no reduction in the wage earnings of those already employed. The analysis suggests that policymakers should not reject work-sharing just because they are (justifiably) skeptical of mandated reductions in hours. The model involves the following features: (i) it is optimization-based (so there is a well-defined reason for labour market failure); (ii) it facilitates the investigation of trade-offs (so it can be determined whether improvements in unemployment must be accompanied by reductions in productivity, investment, average hours or wage rates); (iii) it involves a small open economy (so concerns about the limits to independent policy in this setting are respected); and (iv) it can be readily calibrated (so empirically relevant quantitative results are derived).","PeriodicalId":407537,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Empirical Studies of Employment & Labor Law (Topic)","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Work-Sharing: An Efficiency-Wage Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Moutos, W. Scarth\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.260027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper evaluates two approaches to work-sharing by examining both within the same macro model. The standard approach involves imposing a quantity constraint on labour market participants (a maximum number of standard hours for each worker). This approach is compared to a revenue-neutral employment subsidy financed by a tax on overtime hours ? an initiative intended to harness market incentives. The paper shows that the second approach brings much preferred results ? it involves lower unemployment, higher investment, and no reduction in the wage earnings of those already employed. The analysis suggests that policymakers should not reject work-sharing just because they are (justifiably) skeptical of mandated reductions in hours. The model involves the following features: (i) it is optimization-based (so there is a well-defined reason for labour market failure); (ii) it facilitates the investigation of trade-offs (so it can be determined whether improvements in unemployment must be accompanied by reductions in productivity, investment, average hours or wage rates); (iii) it involves a small open economy (so concerns about the limits to independent policy in this setting are respected); and (iv) it can be readily calibrated (so empirically relevant quantitative results are derived).\",\"PeriodicalId\":407537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Empirical Studies of Employment & Labor Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Empirical Studies of Employment & Labor Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.260027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Empirical Studies of Employment & Labor Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.260027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文通过在同一宏观模型中检查两种工作共享方法来评估这两种方法。标准办法涉及对劳动力市场参与者施加数量限制(每个工人的最大标准工时数)。这种方法与一种收入中性的就业补贴相比,这种补贴是由加班时间税提供资金的。一项旨在利用市场激励机制的倡议。本文表明,第二种方法带来了更理想的结果。它包括更低的失业率、更高的投资,以及那些已经就业的人的工资收入不会减少。分析表明,政策制定者不应该仅仅因为他们(有理由)对强制减少工作时间持怀疑态度,就拒绝工作分担。该模型涉及以下特征:(i)它是基于优化的(因此劳动力市场失灵有一个明确的原因);(ii)它有助于对权衡的调查(因此可以确定失业率的改善是否必须伴随着生产率、投资、平均工作时间或工资率的降低);(iii)它涉及一个小型的开放经济(因此,在这种情况下,对独立政策的限制的担忧得到了尊重);(iv)它可以很容易地校准(因此得出了与经验相关的定量结果)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Work-Sharing: An Efficiency-Wage Analysis
This paper evaluates two approaches to work-sharing by examining both within the same macro model. The standard approach involves imposing a quantity constraint on labour market participants (a maximum number of standard hours for each worker). This approach is compared to a revenue-neutral employment subsidy financed by a tax on overtime hours ? an initiative intended to harness market incentives. The paper shows that the second approach brings much preferred results ? it involves lower unemployment, higher investment, and no reduction in the wage earnings of those already employed. The analysis suggests that policymakers should not reject work-sharing just because they are (justifiably) skeptical of mandated reductions in hours. The model involves the following features: (i) it is optimization-based (so there is a well-defined reason for labour market failure); (ii) it facilitates the investigation of trade-offs (so it can be determined whether improvements in unemployment must be accompanied by reductions in productivity, investment, average hours or wage rates); (iii) it involves a small open economy (so concerns about the limits to independent policy in this setting are respected); and (iv) it can be readily calibrated (so empirically relevant quantitative results are derived).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信