Advertisement

Equilibrium unemployment as a worker insurance device: wage setting in worker owned enterprises

  • Marina AlbaneseEmail author
  • Cecilia Navarra
  • Ermanno Tortia
Original Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Worker co-operatives have been shown as characterised by higher wage volatility while providing higher employment stability compared with investor-owned firms (IOFs). These stylised facts show co-operatives’ stronger tendency to preserve employment more than maximising members’ incomes or profits. Most empirical tests in different national contexts also provide evidence of lower wages in worker co-operatives than in IOFs. Such evidence is unexplained to date. To fill this explanatory gap, we resort to the Shapiro and Stiglitz (Am Econ Rev 74(3):433–444, 1984) model of unemployment as a worker discipline device. Given lower agency costs, more efficient monitoring and the absence of wage premiums compensating for the expected costs of contractual failures, we show that equilibrium wages in co-operatives can be lower than in IOFs, while employment, ceteris paribus, is always higher. We draw the following conclusions: (1) Equilibrium unemployment can be at least partly interpreted as a negative external effect of labour contract failures and bilateral opportunism. (2) Shapiro and Stiglitz’s (1984) result is a special case of a broader class of equilibria characterised by contractual imperfections in the agency relation. (3) Various ownership forms can have different impacts on equilibrium unemployment and wages.

Keywords

Efficiency wage Contractual failure Opportunism Monitoring Abuse of authority Worker-owned enterprises 

JEL Classification

D21 D86 J31 J54 J64 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author writes in her personal capacity. The content of the paper is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. We are grateful to Avner Ben-Ner, Carlo Borzaga, Alessandro Fedele for useful comments and suggestions. Usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Albanese, M., Navarra, C., & Tortia, E. (2015). Employer moral hazard and wage rigidity. The case of worker owned and investor owned firms. International Review of Law and Economics, 43(C), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.Google Scholar
  3. Alves, G., Burdín, G., & Dean, A. (2016). Workplace democracy and job flows. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(2), 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arando, S., Freundlich, F., Gago, M., Jones, D. C., & Kato, T. (2010). Assessing Mondragon: Stability and managed change in the face of globalization. Working Paper No. 1003. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, William Davidson Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Bailly, F., Chapelle, K., & Prouteau, L. (2017). Wage differentials between conventional firms and non-worker cooperatives: Analysis of evidence from France. Competition and Change, 21(4), 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, W., Cable, J., Estrin, S., Jones, D., & Smith, S. (1992). Labor managed cooperatives and private firms in North Central Italy: An empirical comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(1), 03–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartling, B., Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2012). Use and abuse of authority: A behavioral foundation of the employment relation. Bonn: IZA DP no. 7029 (online). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.8257&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 03 Aug 2018.
  8. Belloc, F. (2017). What deters labor-owned firm creation? Evidence from Italian manufacturing sectors. Journal of Comparative Economics, 45(1), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Ner, A. (1988). The life cycle of worker-owned firms in market economies. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 10(3), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bisio, L., Cardinaleschi, S., & Leoni, L. (2017). Contrattazioni integrative aziendali e produttività: nuove evidenze empiriche sulle imprese italiane. Paper presented at the 58th SIE annual meeting (Italian Economic Association). University of Calabria, Oct. 2017 (online). http://www.siecon.org/online/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bisio.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct.
  11. Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonin, J. P. (1981). The theory of the labor-managed firm from the membership’s perspective with implications for Marshallian industry supply. Journal of Comparative Economics, 5(4), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonin, J. P., Jones, D., & Putterman, L. (1993). Theoretical and empirical studies of producer cooperatives: Will the twain ever meet?. Journal of Economic Literature, 31(3), 1290–1320.Google Scholar
  14. Borzaga, C., & Depedri, S. (2005). Interpersonal relations and job satisfaction: Some empirical results in social and community care services. In B. Gui & R. Sugden (Eds.), Economics and social interaction: Accounting for interpersonal relations (pp. 132–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. C. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public and non-profit social services. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. C. (2017). Cooperation as coordination mechanism: A new approach to the economics of cooperative enterprises. In J. Michie, J. R. Blasi, & C. Borzaga (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mutual, cooperative, and co-owned business (pp. 55–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1987). Democracy and capitalism: Property, community, and the contradictions of modern social thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1993a). The revenge of homo economicus: Contested exchange and the revival of political economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(1), 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1993b). A political and economic case for the democratic enterprise. Economics and Philosophy, 9(1), 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1998). Mutual monitoring in teams: The effects of residual claimancy and reciprocity. Working Paper No. 98-08-074e. Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2008). The democratic firm: An agency-theoretic evaluation. In S. Bowles, H. A. Gintis, & B. Gustafsson (Eds.), Markets and democracy: Participation, accountability and efficiency (pp. 11–39). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Burdín, G. (2016). Equality under threat by the talented: Evidence from worker-managed firms. The Economic Journal, 126(594), 1372–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burdín, G., & Dean, A. (2009). New evidence on wages and employment in worker cooperatives compared with capitalist firms. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(4), 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chang, J. J., Lai, C. C., & Lin, C. C. (2003). Profit sharing, worker effort, and double-sided moral hazard in an efficiency wage model. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(1), 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clemente, J., Diaz-Foncea, M., Marcuello, C., & Sanso-Navarro, M. (2012). The wage gap between cooperative and capitalist firms: Evidence from Spain. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83(3), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Craig, B., & Pencavel, J. (1992). The behavior of workers cooperatives: The plywood companies of the Pacific Northwest. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1083–1105.Google Scholar
  27. Craig, B., Pencavel, J., Farber, H., & Krueger, A. (1995). Participation and productivity: A comparison of worker cooperatives and conventional firms in the plywood industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1995, 121–174.Google Scholar
  28. Dean, A., 2018. Employee buyouts in Uruguay. Paper presented at the IAFEP (International Association for the Economics of Participation) in Ljubljana, 13-15 July 2018 (online). http://www.iafep.org/papers-and-presentations. Accessed 29 July 2018.
  29. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Delbono, F., & Reggiani, C. (2013). Cooperative firms and the crisis: Evidence from some Italian mixed oligopolies. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 84(4), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Domar, E. D. (1966). The Soviet collective farm as a producer cooperative. American Economic Review, 56(4), 734–757.Google Scholar
  34. Dow, G. K. (2003). Governing the firm. Workers’ control in theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dow, G. K. (2018). The labor-managed firm: Theoretical foundations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Drèze, J. H. (1976). Some theory of labor management and participation. Econometrica, 44(6), 1125–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ellerman, D. (1986). Horizon problems and property rights in labor-managed firms. Journal of Comparative Economics, 10(1), 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Estrin, S. (1991). Some reflections on self-management: Social choice and reform in Eastern Europe. Journal of Comparative Economics, 15(2), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eswaran, M., & Kotwal, A. (1984). The moral hazard of budget-breaking. The Rand Journal of Economics, 15(4), 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Euricse. (2015). Terzo rapporto Euricse sull’economia cooperativa. Trento: European Research Institute on Cooperatives and Social Enterprises (online). http://www.euricse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/00-ECONOMIA-COOPERATIVA.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2018.
  41. Faria, J. R. (2000). Supervision and effort in an intertemporal efficiency wage model: The role of the Solow condition. Economics Letters, 67(1), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. Frohlich, N., Godarda, J., Oppenheimer, J. A., & Starke, F. A. (1998). Employee versus conventionally-owned and controlled firms: An experimental analysis. Managerial and Decions Economics, 19(4–5), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Furubotn, E. G., & Pejovitch, S. (1970). Tax policy and investment decisions of the Yugoslav firm. National Tax Journal, 23(3), 431–454.Google Scholar
  45. Greenberg, E. S. (1986). Workplace democracy: The political effects of participation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Guerrazzi, M. (2008). Dynamic efficiency-wage model with continuous effort and externalities. Economic Issues, 13(2), 37–58.Google Scholar
  47. Guerrazzi, M. (2012). On involuntary unemployment: Notes on efficiency-wage competition. MPRA Paper No. 38140 (online). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/38140/. Accessed 27 July 2018.
  48. Guest, D. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing: Building the worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, MA: The Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hansmann, H. (1999). Cooperative firms in theory and practice. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 4, 387–403.Google Scholar
  51. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Horvat, B. (1986). The theory of the worker-managed firm revisited. Journal of Comparative Economics, 10(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jossa, B. (2014). Producer cooperatives as a new mode of production. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jossa, B. (2017). Labour managed firms and post-capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Kruse, D. (2016). Does employee ownership improve performance? IZA World of Labor: 311 (online).  https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.311. Accessed 27 Oct 2018.
  58. MacLeod, W. B. (1984). A theory of cooperative teams. CORE Discussion Papers 1984041 (online). https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvco/1984041.html. Accessed 6 Aug 2018.
  59. Meade, J. E. (1972). Agathotopia: The economics of partnership. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mikami, K. (2011). Enterprise forms and economic efficiency: Capitalist, cooperative and government firms. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Miyazaki, H., & Neary, H. M. (1983). The Illyrian firm revisited. Bell Journal of Economics, 14(1), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Montias, J. M. (1986). On the labor-managed firm in a competitive environment. Journal of Comparative Economics, 10(1), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nantz, K., & Sparks, R. (1990). The labor-managed firm under imperfect monitoring: Employment and work effort responses. Journal of Comparative Economics, 14(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of the groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pencavel, J. (2002). Worker participation: Lessons from the workers co-ops of the Pacific Northwest. New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Pencavel, J., & Craig, B. (1994). The empirical performance of orthodox models of the firm: Conventional firms and worker cooperatives. Journal of Political Economy, 102(4), 718–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pencavel, J., Pistaferri, L., & Schivardi, F. (2006). Wages, employment, and capital in capitalist and worker-owned firms. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. The Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 7–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Putterman, L. (1984). On some recent explanations of why capital hires labor. Economic Inquiry, 22(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Roelants, B., Dovgan, D, Eum, H., & Terrasi, E. (2012). The resilience of the cooperative model: How worker cooperatives, social cooperatives and other worker-owned enterprises respond to the crisis and its consequences. CECOP, Bruxelles (online). http://www.cecop.coop/IMG/pdf/report_cecop_2012_en_web.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  72. Sacconi, L. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance. Working paper 38, Econometica (online). http://www.econometica.it/wp/wp38.pdf . Accessed 30 July 2018.
  73. Screpanti, E. (2001). The fundamental institutions of capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Shapiro, C., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1984). Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. American Economic Review, 74(3), 433–444.Google Scholar
  75. Tortia, E. C. (2003). Distribution of value added, and accumulation of capital in labour-managed firms. Economia Politica, 19(2), 251–286.Google Scholar
  76. Tortia, E. C. (2018). The firm as a common. Non-divided ownership, patrimonial stability and longevity of cooperative enterprises. Sustainability, 10, 1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vanek, J. (1970). The general theory of labor-managed market economies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Ward, B. (1958). The firm in Illyria: Market syndicalism. American Economic Review, 48(4), 566–589.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.European Parliamentary Research ServiceBruxellesBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations