Skip to main content
Log in

Does International Outsourcing Really Lower Workers’ Income?

  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze the impact of international outsourcing on income, if the domestic labor market is imperfect, i.e. there is a bilateral bargaining between a firm and a labor union. In our analysis we distinguish between the cases where the parties negotiate over the wage only and where they negotiate over both wage and profit sharing. We find in the first case that outsourcing has an ambiguous effect on the workers’ income, while it increases the workers’ income in the second case. For the optimal amount of international outsourcing, we find that, depending on the wage effect of outsourcing, in a pure wage bargaining system it can be higher or lower than the level where domestic and foreign marginal labor costs are the same. In contrast, in a wage and profit share bargaining system, the amount of outsourcing lies below this level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Empirical studies like Hummels et al. (1998, 2001) or Yeats (2001) show the increase of imported intermediate goods over the last 30 years.

  2. For an overview concerning the debate on employment effects due to outsourcing see Freeman (1995) and Bhagwati et al. (2004).

  3. In the committed case, outsourcing takes place before wage bargaining. Thus, the external procurement is seen as a long-term contract or investment that fixes the amount of outsourcing. An overview about the relationship between outsourcing and wage bargaining is presented by Perry (1997).

  4. Similar findings are shown in Hasan et al. (2007).

  5. Empirical studies as Pendleton et al. (2001) show that profit sharing is an often used compensation scheme in many OECD countries. For further evidence regarding the incidence of profit sharing see also Estrin et al. (1997) and Conyon and Freeman (2004).

  6. However, empirical studies show that the productivity effect is ambiguous. For an increasing effect on productivity see Cable and Fitzroy (1980), while Jones and Pliskin (1991) and Kruse (1992) demonstrate a negative productivity effect of profit sharing.

  7. There are some studies that analyze the implementation of profit sharing in collective bargaining, e.g. Holmlund (1990) and Jerger and Michaelis (1999). Concerning the efficiency property, Pohjola (1987) and Anderson and Devereux (1989) show that also without an employment determination the outcome of a collective bargaining is efficient by introducing bargaining over wages and profit sharing. However, all studies abstract from outsourcing.

  8. See Skaksen (2004) and Braun and Scheffel (2007) for this strand of the literature, i.e. the case of flexible outsourcing.

  9. A survey concerning outsourcing and incomplete contracts is presented by Spencer (2005). The “hold-up”-problem describes the opportunistic behavior by the input producer, if special investments are needed.

  10. Notice, that also in the presence of a bargained profit share, where the profit of the firm is \( \left( {1 - \tau } \right) \cdot \pi \), we obtain the same labor demand reactions, since profit sharing works as a profit tax. Due to the neutrality of this kind of tax, also in the case of a bargained profit share the domestic labor demand does not depend on profit sharing.

  11. For notational convenience we use in the next calculations the subscript as a characterization of the first derivative, i.e. \( {\eta_w} = \partial \eta /\partial w \).

  12. While in most European countries as Germany or Finland the wage is the central determinant in a bargaining between the union and the firm, in France there exists an obligatory profit share system for firms with more than 50 workers. However, in the bargaining round the firm and the labor union determine the details such as the calculation formula or the duration. Moreover, in the final section we briefly discuss the endogenous choice of the regime by the bargaining parties.

  13. Since η > 1, it is obvious that the relative bargaining power of the labor union will have a positive effect on the mark-up in the general case of \( 0 < \gamma < 1 \), i.e. \( A_{\gamma} > 0\).

  14. A similar result is obtained by Koskela and Stenbacka (2009). However, they use a model where only our Y-production characterizes the production technology and focus on the unemployment effects of outsourcing in a general equilibrium model, while we concentrate on the comparison of different bargaining regimes concerning the income effects of outsourcing in a partial analysis. Thus, we show whether this unclear result in the classical approach also holds for a more realistic description of the production technology with more than one production chain. Additionally, we can answer if this unclear result depends on the bargaining regime. For that reason, the detailed presentation of a known result is used for a better understanding and a complete analysis.

  15. The idea behind this is that the worker are assumed as a team, where the whole team gets the profit share τπ, which is then distributed equally among the members.

  16. For this standard result see also Holmlund (1990).

  17. For a graphical argumentation see Koskela and Schöb (2010).

  18. According to (13), the profit share mark-up is \( \Phi = \frac{{{\pi^*} + bM}}{{{\pi^*} + bM - f(M)}} \).

  19. Also Lommerud et al. (2009) have found a negative relationship of union’s bargaining power and the amount of outsourcing. However, as mentioned earlier, their analysis differs with respect to their assumptions concerning the production technology and they model only the classical wage bargaining. Nevertheless, the argument for explaining the result is the same.

References

  • Anderson S, Devereux M (1989) Profit Sharing and Optimal Labor Contracts. Can J Econ 89:425–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwati J, Panagariya A, Srinivasan TN (2004) The Muddles over Outsourcing. J Econ Perspect 18:93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun FD, Scheffel J (2007) A Note on the Effect of Outsourcing on Union Wages. Humboldt Universität Berlin SFB 649 Discussion Paper No. 34

  • Cable JR, FitzRoy FR (1980) Cooperation and Productivity: Some Evidence from West Germany’s Experience. Econ Anal Workers Manage 14:163–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyon M, Freeman R (2004) Shared Modes of Compensation and Firm Performance: U.K. Evidence. In: Card D, Blundell R, Freeman RB (eds) Seeking a Pemier Economy: The Economic Effects of British Economy Reforms 1980–2000, pp 109–146

  • Danthine J-P, Hunt J (1994) Wage Bargaining Structure, Employment and Economic Integration. Econ J 104:528–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrin S, Perotin V, Robinson A, Wilson N (1997) Profit-Sharing in OECD Countries: A Review and Some Evidence. Bus Strategy Rev 8:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra R, Hanson G (1999) The Impact of Outsourcing and High-technology Capital on Wages: Estimates for the United States 1979–1990. Q J Econ 114:907–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RB (1995) Are Your Wages Set in Beijing? J Econ Perspect 9:15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass AJ, Saggi K (2001) Innovation and Wage Effects of International Outsourcing. Eur Econ Rev 45:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geishecker I, Görg H (2008) Winners and Losers: A Micro-Level Analysis of International Outsourcing and Wages. Can J Econ 41:243–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg H, Hanley A (2005) Labor Demand Effects of International Outsourcing: Evidence from Plant-Level Data. Int Rev Econ Finance 14:365–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasan R, Mitra D, Ramaswamy RV (2007) Trade Reforms, Labor Regulations, and Labor-Demand Elasticities: Evidence from India. Rev Econ Stat 89:466–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmlund B (1990) Profit Sharing Wage Bargaining and Unemployment. Econ Inq 28:257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels D, Rapoport D, Yi K-M (1998) Vertical Specialization and the Changing Nature of World Trade. Econ Policy Rev 4:79–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummels D, Ishii J, Yi K-M (2001) The Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World Trade. J Int Econ 54:75–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerger J, Michaelis J (1999) Profit Sharing Capital Formation and the NAIRU. Scand J Econ 101:257–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DC, Pliskin J (1991) The Productivity Effects of Profit Sharing and Worker Representation on the Board. Hamilton College Working Paper No. 91

  • Koskela E, Schöb R (2010) Outsourcing of Unionized Firms and the Impact of Labor Market Policy Reforms. Rev Int Econ 18:682–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskela E, Stenbacka R (2009) Equilibrium Unemployment with Outsourcing under Labour Market Imperfections. Labour Econ 16:284–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskela E, Stenbacka R (2010) Equilibrium Unemployment with Outsourcing and Wage Solidarity. Eur Econ Rev 54:376–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse DL (1992) Profit Sharing and Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence from the United States. Econ J 102:24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lommerud KE, Meland F, Straume OR (2009) Can Deunionization Lead to International Outsourcing? J Int Econ 77:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor R (1998) International Trade and Economic Integration when Labour Markets are Generally Unionized. Eur Econ Rev 42:1252–1267

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor R (1999) Union Wage Strategies and International Trade. Econ J 109:102–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendleton A, Poutsma E, van Ommeren J, Brester C (2001) Employee Share Ownership and Profit Sharing in the European Union. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry CR (1997) Outsourcing and Union Power. J Labor Res 18:521–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohjola M (1987) Profit Sharing, Collective Bargaining and Employment. J Institutional Theor Econ 143:334–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Senses MZ (2010) The Effects of Offshoring on the Elasticity of Labor Demand. J Int Econ 81:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaksen JR (2004) International Outsourcing when Labour Markets are Unionized. Can J Econ 37:78–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaksen MY, Sorensen JR (2001) Should Trade Unions Appreciate Foreign Direct Investments. J Int Econ 55:379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer BJ (2005) International Outsourcing and Incomplete Contracts. Can J Econ 38:1107–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (1987) Steady State Unemployment under Profit Sharing. Econ J 97:86–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeats A (2001) Just how big is Global Production Sharing? In: Arndt SW, Kierzkowski H (eds) Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy, pp 108–143

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan König.

Additional information

We are grateful for useful comments by an anonymous referee to improve the paper. Koskela thanks the Academy of Finland (grant No. 1217622) for financial support and Freie Universität Berlin for good hospitality. König thanks the University of Helsinki for good hospitality.

Appendices

Appendix A: Derivation of the Wage Effects

As the mark-up we have \( A = \frac{{\gamma \cdot \eta \left[ {\eta \left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) - \left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)} \right] + \left( {1 - \gamma } \right)\left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)}}{{\left( {\eta - 1} \right)\gamma \cdot \left[ {\eta \left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) - \left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)} \right] + \left( {1 - \gamma } \right)\left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)}} = \frac{T}{Z} \), which depends on the wage and the amount of outsourcing. The wage impact is shown by \( {A_w} = \frac{{{T_w} \cdot Z - T \cdot {Z_w}}}{{{Z^2}}} \), where \( {T_w} = \gamma \cdot {\eta_w} \cdot \left( {\left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) + {M \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {M L}} \right.} L}} \right) - \gamma \cdot \eta \frac{M}{{{L^2}}}{L_w} \) and \( {Z_w} = {T_w} + \gamma \cdot \frac{M}{{{L^2}}}{L_w} \). Using this, we obtain

$$ {A_w} = \frac{\gamma }{{{Z^2}}}\left[ { - {\eta_w} \cdot \gamma \cdot {{\left( {\left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) + \frac{M}{L}} \right)}^2} - \frac{M}{L}\frac{\eta }{w}\left( {1 - \gamma } \right)\left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)} \right]. $$
(A1)

Since \( {\eta_w} = \frac{1}{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}\frac{\eta }{w}\frac{M}{L} > 0 \), we have Aw < 0 and thus \( 1 - \frac{{{A_w}w}}{A} > 0 \).

The impact of outsourcing can be analyzed in a similar way. Here we have \( {A_M} = \frac{{{T_M} \cdot Z - T \cdot {Z_M}}}{{{Z^2}}} \), where \( {T_M} = \gamma \cdot {\eta_M} \cdot \left( {\left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) + \frac{M}{L}} \right) + \gamma \cdot \eta \frac{{L - M \cdot {L_M}}}{{{L^2}}} \) and \( {Z_M} = {T_M} - \gamma \cdot \frac{{L - M \cdot {L_M}}}{{{L^2}}} \). Using these expressions we find that

$${A_M} = \frac{\gamma }{{{Z^2}}}\frac{\eta }{L}\left[ { - \gamma {{\left[ {\eta \cdot \left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) - \left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)} \right]}^2} + \left( {1 - \gamma } \right)\left( {\alpha + \beta } \right)\left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right)} \right]. $$
(A2)

From (A2) we obtain

$${A_M}\left\{ \begin{gathered} < \hfill \\= \hfill \\> \hfill \\\end{gathered} \right\}0. $$
(A3)

Appendix B: Relationship between Profit Sharing and Outsourcing

Equation (13) can be reformulated to \( \tau = \gamma \cdot \frac{{V + bM}}{{V + bM - f(M)}} \), where \( V = {b^{ - \frac{{\alpha + \beta }}{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}}} \cdot {\alpha^{\frac{\alpha }{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}}} \cdot {\beta^{\frac{\beta }{{1 - \alpha - \beta }}}} \cdot \left( {1 - \alpha - \beta } \right) \). Thus, the effect of outsourcing on bargained profit sharing is \( \frac{{\partial \tau }}{{\partial M}} = \gamma \cdot \frac{{ - f(M) \cdot b + f\prime (M) \cdot V + f\prime (M) \cdot bM}}{{{{\left( {V + bM - f(M)} \right)}^2}}} \). Using \( f(M) = \frac{1}{2}c{M^2} \), we can write the effect of outsourcing on the profit share as

$$ \frac{{\partial \tau }}{{\partial M}} = \gamma \cdot \frac{{cM \cdot \left[ {V + \frac{1}{2}bM} \right]}}{{{{\left( {V + bM - f(M)} \right)}^2}}}, $$
(B1)

which equals Eq. (14).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

König, J., Koskela, E. Does International Outsourcing Really Lower Workers’ Income?. J Labor Res 32, 21–38 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-010-9100-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-010-9100-7

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation