Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 819–847 | Cite as

The effects of the distribution of mortgage credit on the wage share: Varieties of residential capitalism compared

  • James D. G. WoodEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The financialisation of advanced economies has developed in part through the widespread engagement of workers with the financial sector, specifically through the increasing adoption of household debt. Taking on debt establishes “investor identities” for borrowers, which disciplines borrowers to demand employment and marginalises worker bargaining power. Although increased levels of household debt have been linked with a declining wage share of national income, there has been little examination of the effects of the specific channel of mortgage credit, the largest source of household debt, on the wage share. A series of regression models were implemented to test the relationship between the total mortgage stock and the wage share of GDP in four different countries, across three different Varieties of Residential Capitalism. While the panel data results demonstrate a negative relationship between mortgage credit and the wage share across the typologies, the relationship is concentrated in the liberal markets of the UK and the USA, and does not hold independently in Sweden and Denmark. There are four important differences that may explain the divergent results: (1) mortgages in liberal markets are provided at a higher cost than in non-liberal markets; (2) the use of mortgage bonds in non-liberal markets facilitates renegotiations in periods of borrower uncertainty; (3) the level of collective bargaining in Social Democratic states may strengthen worker wage negotiations; and (4) workers in liberal markets are reliant on mortgage finance to access the home as a financial asset in systems of asset-based welfare. The combination of which may explain how the increased disciplinary effects of mortgage finance have resulted in the reproduction of the conditions for capital accumulation in liberal capitalist states.

Keywords

financialisation wage share mortgage debt asset-based welfare 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2015 International Political Economy workshop at King’s College London, as well as at the 2015 Department of Business and Politics internal seminar at Copenhagen Business School. I would like to thank the participants in both workshops for their insightful comments on this paper. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their constructive and challenging feedback that allowed me to adjust the manuscript substantially. Additionally, I am particularly indebted to the assistance of Dr Lee Savage for his repeated comments that have led to the refinement of the econometric models in this paper. However, responsibility for all errors and omissions made in this paper must lie solely with me as the author. I am also grateful to acknowledge receipt of a funding award from the King’s College London Interdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral Training Centre.

References

  1. Aalbers, M.B. (2008) The financialization of home and the mortgage market crisis. Competition & Change 12: 148–166.Google Scholar
  2. Abiad, A.G., Detragiache, E. and Tressel, T. (2008) A New Database of Financial Reforms. IMF Working Papers. Vol.08/266. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  3. Abildgren, K. (2012) Financial structures and the real effects of credit-supply shocks in Denmark 1922–2011. European Review of Economic History 16: 490–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Achen, C. H. (2002) Toward a new political methodology: Microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science 5: 423–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. AMECO 2015. Annual macro-economic database. European Commission’s Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs.Google Scholar
  6. Ansell, B. (2014) The political economy of ownership: Housing markets and the welfare state. American Political Science Review 108: 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aron, J. and Muellbauer, J. (2010) Modelling and forecasting UK mortgage arrears and possessions. Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series (Ref: 499). University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Barba, A. and Pivetti, M. (2009) Rising household debt: Its causes and macroeconomic implications—A long-period analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics 33: 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck, N. and Katz, J. N. (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review 89: 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E. and Welsch, R.E. (1980) Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity, New York; Chichester, Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bengtsson, E. and Ryner, M. (2015) The (international) political economy of falling wage shares: Situating working-class agency. New Political Economy 20: 406–430.Google Scholar
  12. Castles, F. G. (1998) The really big trade-off: Home ownership and the welfare state in the new world and the old. Acta Politica 33: 5–19.Google Scholar
  13. Castles, F. G. 2005. The Kemeny thesis revisited. Housing, Theory and Society 22: 84–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chernick, M. R. (2008) Bootstrap Methods : A Guide for Practitioners And Researcers. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley; Chichester: Wiley [distributor].Google Scholar
  15. Clark, K. A. and Hyson, R. (2000) Measuring the demand for labor in the United States: The job openings and labor turnover survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, S. (1990) The Marxist theory of overaccumulation and crisis. Science & Society 54: 442–467.Google Scholar
  17. Council of Mortgage Lenders. (1997) Compendium of Housing Finance Statistics, Council of Mortgage Lenders.Google Scholar
  18. Council of Mortgage Lenders. 2015. Mortgage arrears and repossessions continue to fall in second quarter [Online]. Council of Mortgage Lenders. Available: https://www.cml.org.uk/news/press-releases/mortgage-arrears-and-repossessions-continue-to-fall-in-second/ [Accessed 18/04 2016].
  19. Dana, J. and Dawes, R. M. (2004) The superiority of simple alternatives to regression for social science predictions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29: 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diamond, D. W. & Rajan, R. (2009) The credit crisis: Conjectures about causes and remedies. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  21. Doling, J. and Ford, J. (2007) A union of home owners. International Journal of Housing Policy 7: 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dünhaupt, P. (2013) Determinants of functional income distribution: theory and empirical evidence. Working Paper No. 18. Geneva: Global Labour UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Duxbury, C. and Gauthier-Villars, D. (2016) Negative Rates Around the World: How One Danish Couple Gets Paid Interest on Their Mortgage [Online]. Wall Street Journal. Available: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-upside-down-world-of-negative-interest-rates-1460643111?shareToken=ste5035b6f78914085ac35f70e3f4288cb&mod=e2tw [Accessed 20/04 2016].
  24. Ehrenberg, R.G. & Smith, R.S. (2009) Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy. Boston, Mass.; London, Pearson/Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge, Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (US). (2015) Mortgage Debt Outstanding [Online]. Available: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MDOAH/, [Accessed August 16 2015].
  27. Ford, J., Bretherton, J., Jones, A. & Rhodes, D. (2010) Giving up home ownership: A qualitative study of voluntary possession and selling because of financial difficulties. Centre for Housing Policy, University of York; Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  28. Froud, J., Johal, S. and Williams, K. (2002) Financialisation and the coupon pool. Capital & Class 26: 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gemenis, K. (2013) What to do (and not to do) with the comparative manifestos project data. Political Studies, 61: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gross, D. A. and Sigelman, L. (1984) Comparing party systems: A multidimensional approach. Comparative Politics 16: 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. W. (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrits, G. S., Prieur, A., Rosenlund, L. and Skjott-Larsen, J. 2010. Class and Politics in Denmark: Are both old and new politics structured by class? Scandinavian Political Studies 33: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IMF (2014) Recovery Strengthens, Remains Uneven. In: Furceri, D. and Pescatori, A. (eds.) World Economic Outlook. International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  35. IMF (2007) The Globalization of Labor. World Economics Outlook April 2007. Washington, DC: IMF.Google Scholar
  36. Kemeny, J. (1980) Home ownership and privatization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 4: 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kemeny, J. (2005) “The Really Big Trade-Off” between home ownership and welfare: Castles’ evaluation of the 1980 thesis, and a reformulation 25 years on. Housing, Theory and Society 22: 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Köhler, K., Guschanski, A. and Stockhammer, E. (2015) How does financialisation affect functional income distribution? A theoretical clarification and empirical assessment. Economics Discussion Paper No. 2015-5. Kingston University. Available: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/32032/1/2015_005.pdf.
  39. Korpi, W. (2002) The great trough in unemployment: A long-term view of unemployment, inflation, strikes, and the profit/wage ratio. 30: 365–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krueger, A. B. (1999) Measuring labor’s share. The American Economic Review 89: 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lakshminaryanan, V., Keith Chen, M. and Santos, L.R. (2008) Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 363: 3837–3844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lane, P.R. and Milesi-Ferretti, G.M. (2007) The external wealth of nations mark II: Revised and extended estimates of foreign assets and liabilities, 1970–2004. Journal of international Economics 73: 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Langley, P. (2007) Uncertain subjects of Anglo-American financialization. Cultural Critique 65: 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Langley, P. (2014) Equipping entrepreneurs: Consuming credit and credit scores. Consumption Markets & Culture 17: 448–467.Google Scholar
  45. Lapavitsas, C. (2009) Financialised capitalism: Crisis and financial expropriation. Historical Materialism 17: 114–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laver, M. (2014) Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science 17: 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lazzarato, M. (2012) The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  48. Mann, M. (1988) States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Martin, L.W. and Stevenson, R.T. (2010) The conditional impact of incumbency on government formation. American Political Science Review 104: 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mawson, P. (2002) Measuring Economic Growth in New Zealand. Working Paper 02/14. New Zealand Treasury.Google Scholar
  52. Milne, R. (2015) Denmark highlights naked truth about negative lending [Online]. The Financial Times. Available: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f4e2f4c-dde3-11e4-9d29-00144feab7de.html [Accessed 20/04 2016].
  53. Montgomerie, J. and Büdenbender, M. (2015) Round the houses: Homeownership and failures of asset-based welfare in the United Kingdom. New Political Economy 20: 386–405.Google Scholar
  54. Noel, A. D., & Therien, J. P. (2008). Left and Right in Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD. (2015a) The Labour Share in G20 Economies [Online]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available: http://www.oecd.org/g20/meetings/antalya/The-Labour-Share-in-G20-Economies.pdf [Accessed December 8th 2015].
  56. OECD. (2015b) Level of GDP per capita and productivity [Online]. OECD. Available: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV# [Accessed December 9th 2015].
  57. Plümper, T., Troeger, V. E. and Manow, P. (2005) Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research 44: 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Realkreditraadet. (2015) Total Mortgage Outstanding [Online]. Association of Danish Mortgage Banks. Available: http://www.realkreditraadet.dk/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fEngelsk%2fStatistics%2fLending+Activity%2fLending_data_Q4_2014+.xlsx [Accessed 3/24 2015].
  59. Realkreditraadet. (2016) Arrears [Online]. Association of Danish Mortgage Banks. Available: http://www.realkreditraadet.dk/Statistics/Arrears.aspx [Accessed 18/04 2016].
  60. Rex, S. (2013) Yearbook 2013–2014. Building Societies Association.Google Scholar
  61. Ricardo, D. (1821) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Kitchener: Batoche Books.Google Scholar
  62. Rodrik, D. (1998) Capital Mobility and Labor. Draft Paper Prepared for the NBER Workshop on Trade. Technology, Education, and the U.S. Labor Market: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  63. Rognile, M. (2015) Deciphering the Fall and Rise in the Net Capital Share. BPEA Conference Draft, March 19–20, 2015. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.Google Scholar
  64. Schwartz, H. (2008) Housing, global finance, and american hegemony: Building Conservative politics one brick at a time. Comparative European Politics 6: 262–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartz, H. and Seabrooke, L. (2008) Varieties of residential capitalism in the international political economy: Old welfare states and the new politics of housing. Comparative European Politics 6: 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seabrooke, L. (2002) Bringing Legitimacy Back Into Neo-Weberian State Theory and International Relations. Working Paper 2002/6. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  67. Sefton, T. (2002) Recent Changes in the Distribution of the Social Wage. LSE STICERD Research Paper No. CASE062. London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, A. (1976) An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, S.J. and Searle, B.A. (2008) Dematerialising money? Observations on the flow of wealth from housing to other things. Housing Studies 23: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Solow, R. M. (1958) A skeptical note on the constancy of relative shares. The American Economic Review 48: 618–631.Google Scholar
  71. Statistics Sweden. (2015) Finding Statisitcs [Online]. Available: http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/ [Accessed 5/10 2015].
  72. Stockhammer, E. (2010) Neoliberalism, Income Distribution and the Causes of the Crisis. Research on Money and Finance, Discussion Paper No. 19.Google Scholar
  73. Stockhammer, E. (2013) Why Have Wage Shares Fallen? A Panel Analysis of the Determinants of Functional Income Distribution. Conditions of Work and Employment Series; No.35. International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  74. Stockhammer, E. (2015) Determinants of the wage share: A panel analysis of advanced and developing economies. British Journal of Industrial Relations. doi: 10.1111/bjir.12165.
  75. Stockhammer, E. and Ederer, S. (2008) Demand effects of the falling wage share in Austria. Empirica 35: 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Talani, L.S. (2012) Globalization, Hegemony and the Future of the City of London. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tronti, M. (1966) Operai e capitale, Torino.Google Scholar
  78. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business. S251–S278.Google Scholar
  79. Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthief, T., Merz, N., Regel, S. and Werner, A. (2015) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2015a, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f¸r Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
  80. Wiley, N.F. (1983) The congruence of Weber and Keynes. In: COLLINS, R. (ed.) Sociological Theory.Google Scholar
  81. Winnett, R. and Wallop, H. (2009) Banks triple profit margin on mortgages, despite low interest rates [Online]. The Daily Telegraph. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/6163205/Banks-triple-profit-margin-on-mortgages-despite-low-interest-rates.html [Accessed 20/04 2016].
  82. World Bank. (2015) World Bank Data [Online]. Available: http://data.worldbank.org [Accessed December 8th 2015].
  83. Wright, E.O. and Perrone, L. (1977) Marxist class categories and income inequality. American Sociological Review 42: 32–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of European and International StudiesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations