Skip to main content
Log in

Profit Related Pay and the U.K. Small Firm Labour Market

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper critically examines the relevance of profit related pay (PRP) for the U.K. small firm sector. Since 1986, the U.K. government has actively encouraged PRP, which attracts generous tax breaks, because it believed that PRP would make pay more flexible downwards and would significantly improve employee identification, morale and productivity. An analysis of the theoretical arguments and the assumptions made regarding the nature of the U.K. small firm sector that underlay these claims suggests, however, that the likelihood of achieving either of these alleged benefits is small. An appraisal of the available empirical evidence on the practical implementation and operation of PRP schemes suggests that the tax relief simply encourages firms to introduce ‘cosmetic’ schemes that have no appreciable impact upon the behaviour of either firms or employees. Moreover, the experience of some firms that adopted PRP schemes indicates that, far from increasing morale and productivity, PRP often creates new tensions and conflict between owners and employees. These and other unintended consequences illustrate the inherent difficulties of government attempts to use the tax system to alter the behaviour of agents engaged in a wide variety of complex and very heterogeneous bargaining situations.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bhargava, S., 1994, ‘Profit Sharing and the Financial Performance of Companies: Evidence from U.K. Panel Data’, The Economic Journal 104, 1044-1056.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G. and A. J. Oswald, 1988, ‘Profit-related Pay: Prose Discovered’, The Economic Journal 98, 720-730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blinder, A.S. (ed.), 1990, ‘Paying for Productivity’, The Brookings Institution, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, J. and N. Wilson, 1989, ‘Profit-Sharing and Productivity: An Analysis of U.K. Engineering firms’, The Economic Journal 99, 366-376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. H., 1986, ‘Profit Sharing and Employee Share Ownership’, Fiscal Studies 7(2), 54-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, C., 1988, ‘Why Profit Related Pay Will Fail’, Industrial Relations Journal 19, 186-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrin, S. and R. Shlomowitz, 1988, ‘Income Sharing, Employee Ownership and Worker Democracy’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 59, 43-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., 1992, ‘Profit-linked Pay Breaks the Chains’, The Independent on Sunday, 20 December, 1992.

  • FitzRoy, F. and K. Kraft, 1987, ‘Cooperation, Productivity and Profit Sharing’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 12, 23-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, C. and R. Watson, 1990, ‘Profit Sharing and Company Performance: Some Empirical Evidence for the U.K.’, chapter 10 of Jenkins and Poole (eds.) (1990), pp. 165-182.

  • Hart, O. and B. Holmstrom, 1987, ‘The Theory of Contracts’, in T. Bewley (ed.), Advances in Economic Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Incomes Data Services (IDS), 1990, ‘Profit-Related Pay’, Report Number 471, December.

  • Incomes Data Services (IDS), 1992, ‘Profit-Related Pay’, Report Number 520, December.

  • Incomes Data Services (IDS), 1994, ‘Profit-Related Pay’, Report Number 564, October 1994.

  • Jenkins and Poole (eds.), 1990, New Forms of Ownership, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S., 1993, ‘Tax-Free Pay for Accountants’, Accountancy,May, p. 51.

  • Keasey, K and R. Watson, 1993, ‘Small Firm Management: Ownership, Finance and Performance’, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, D. L., 1992, ‘Profit Sharing and Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence from the United States’, The Economic Journal 102, 24-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luther, R., 1992, ‘Profit Related Pay: Practice and Theory’, ICAEW, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meade, J. E., 1986, ‘Alternative Systems of Business Organisation and of Workers Remuneration’, Allen and Unwin.

  • Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts, 1992, ‘Economics, Organisation and Management’, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. J. B., D. Lewin and E. E. Lawler, 1990,’ Alternative Pay Systems, Firm Performance, and Productivity ’,chapter 2 of Blinder (ed.) (1990), pp. 15-88.

  • Ogden, S., 1992, ‘The Limits to Employee Involvement: Profit Sharing and Disclosure of Information, Journal of Management Studies 29(2)(March), 229-248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, S., 1993, ‘The Limitations of Agency Theory: The Case of Accounting Based Profit Sharing Schemes’, Critical Perspectives of Accounting 4(2), 179-206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M. and C. Sabel, 1984, ‘The Second Industrial Divide’, New York, Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanworth, J. and C. Gray (eds.), 1991, Bolton 20 Years On,London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J., 1994, Understanding the Small Business Sector, London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachter, M. and R. Wright, 1990, ‘The Economics of Internal Labour Markets’, Industrial Relations 29, 240-262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., 1990, ‘Employment Change, Profits and Directors' Remuneration in Small and Closely-Held U.K. Companies’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy 37, 259-274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, M., 1984, ‘The Share Economy’, Harvard University Press.

  • Weitzman, M., 1985, ‘The Simple Macroeconomics of Profit Sharing’, American Economic Review 75(5), 937-953

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, M. and D. L Kruse, 1990, ‘Profit Sharing and Productivity’, chapter 3 of Blinder (ed.) (1990), pp. 95-140.

  • Wilson, N. and M. Peel, 1990, ‘The Impact of Profit-sharing, Worker Participation, and Share Ownership on Absenteeism and Quits: Some U.K. Evidence’, chapter 12 of Jenkins and Poole (eds.) (1990), pp. 205-232.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ciancanelli, P., Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J. et al. Profit Related Pay and the U.K. Small Firm Labour Market. Small Business Economics 9, 225–238 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017953716908

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017953716908

Keywords

Navigation