Skip to main content
Log in

Labour market institutions and the industry wage distribution

Evidence from Austria, Norway and the U. S.

  • Published:
Empirica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper studies the industry wage structures of Austria, Norway, the union sector of the U. S. as well as the non-union sector of the U. S. We make comparable regressions for each country, and are thus able to compare the sectoral earnings patterns controlling for the usual individual characteristics. Our results confirm the hypothesis that the pattern of the inter-industry pay structure is largely independent of labour market institutions: High paying industries in a non-union environment tend to pay high wages also in regimes where bargaining is very centralised and coordinated.

This, however, does not mean that collective bargaining does not matter. The influence is mainly on the amount of wage dispersion: We find considerably lower industry pay gaps in centralised Austria and Norway than in decentralised U. S. Within the U. S., pay differentials within the union sector slightly exceed those of the non-union sector.

The results give support to non-competitive explanations of the labour market. If efficiency wage mechanisms are the reason for wage differentials we expect central bargainers to internalise these effects. Competitive explanations, on the other hand, would predict no difference between the non-union outcome and a central agreement aiming at achieving full employment.

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

  • Akerlof, G. A., “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1982, 97, pp. 543–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albaek, K., Arai, M., Asplund, R., Barth, E., Strøjer Madsen, E., “Inter-Industry Wage Differentials in the Nordic Countries”, in Westergaard-Nielsen, N. (Ed.), Wage Differentials in the Nordic Countries, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993 (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arai, M., “Industry Wage Premiums and Efficiency Wages: A Study of the Industry Wage Structure in Sweden”, University of Stockholm, Swedish Institute for Social Research, Dissertation Series, 1990, (15).

  • Barth, E., “Why Do Some Firms Pay More?”, University of California, Berkeley, Institute for Industrial Relations, Working Paper, 1992, (43).

  • Blanchflower, D. G., Freeman, R. B., “Unionism in the United States and Other Advanced OECD Countries”, Industrial Relations, 1992, 31, pp. 56–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., Medoff, J., “The Employer Size-Wage Effect”, Journal of Political Economy, 1989, 97, pp. 1027–1059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calmfors, L., Driffil, J., “Bargaining Structure, Corporatism and Macroeconomic Performance”, Economic Policy, 1988, 6, pp. 13–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, W., Wages, Employment and the Threat of Collective Action by Workers, University of California, Berkeley, 1986 (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, W. T., Katz, L. F. (1987A), “Inter-Industry Wage Differences and Industry Characteristics”, in Lang, K., Leonard, J. (Eds.), Unemployment and the Structure of Labor Markets, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, W. T., Katz, L. F. (1987B), “Inter-Industry Wage Differences and Theories of Wage Determination”, NBER Working Paper, 1987, (2271).

  • Edin, P.-A., Zetterberg, J., “Inter-Industry Wage Differentials: Evidence from Sweden and a comparison with the United States”, American Economic Review, 1992, 82 (forthcoming).

  • Frank, R. H., Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., “Labor Market Institutions and Economic Performance”, Economic Policy, 1988, 6, pp. 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoel, M., “Efficiency Wages and Local versus Central Bargaining”, Economics Letters, 1989, 30, pp. 175–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalleberg, A., Colbjørnsen, T., “Unions and the Structure of Earnings Inequality: Cross National Patterns”, Social Science Research, 1990, 19, pp. 348–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. B., Summers, L. H., “Reflections of the Inter-Industry Wage Structure”, in Lang, K., Leonard, J. (Eds.), Unemployment and the Structure of Labor Markets, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. B., Summers, L. H., “Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure”, Econometrica, 1988, 56, pp. 259–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R., Nickell, S., Jackman, R., Unemployment, Macroeconomic Performance and the Labor Market, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moene, K. O., Wallerstein, M., “Bargaining Structure and Economic Performance”, in: FIEF's Studies in Labor Markets and Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992 (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan, W., “Lohnpolitik und Einkommensverteilung”, in Abele, H., Nowotny, E., Schleicher, St., Winckler, G. (Eds.), Handbuch der österreichischen Wirtschaftspolitik, Manz, Wien, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan, W., “Lohnunterschiede in der Industrie”, WIFO-Monatsberichte, 1990, 63(11), pp. 616–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rødseth, A., “Efficiency Wages and Local vs. Central Bargaining”, London School of Economics, CEP, Discussion Paper, 1992, (29).

  • Rødseth, A., Holden, S., “Wage Formation in Norway”, in Calmfors, L. (Ed.) Wage Formation and Macroeconomic Policy in the Nordic Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlicht, E., “Labor Turnover, Wages, Structural and Natural Unemployment”, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 1975, pp. 337–346.

  • Shapiro, C., Stiglitz, J. E., “Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device”, American Economic Review, 1984, 74(3), pp. 433–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slichter, S. H., “Notes on the Structure of Wages”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1950, 32(1), pp. 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J., “An International Comparison of Sector Wage Differentials”, Economics Letters, 1990, 34, pp. 93–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, M., “Centralized Bargaining and Wage Restraint”, American Journal of Political Science, 1990, 43, pp. 982–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A., Efficiency Wages. Models of Unemployment, Layoffs and Wage Dispersion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter-Ebmer, R., Endogenous Growth, Human Capital and Industry Wages, University of Linz, 1992 (mimeo).

  • Zanchi, L., Inter-Industry Wage Differentials and Institutional Conditions for Wage Bargaining: Empirical Evidence for Germany Using Microdata and a Comparison with the U. S. and Sweden, European University Institute, Florence, 1991, (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweimüller, J., “Survey Non-Response and Biases in Wage Regressions”, Economics Letters, 1992 (forthcoming).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This work was conducted while we were both affiliated with the University of California at Berkeley, and we thank the Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of California, Berkeley, for its support and hospitality. The research was supported by the Austrian “Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung” under the project JO548-SOZ (Zweimüller) and the Norwegian NORAS under the “LOS program” (Barth). A preliminary version of the paper was presented at the Labour Seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We thank the participants, especially Bill Dickens and Jonathan Leonard for valuable comments. We are indebted to Bill Dickens also for giving us access to the U. S. data set CPS 1983. Thanks also to Herbert Walther for useful comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barth, E., Zweimüller, J. Labour market institutions and the industry wage distribution. Empirica 19, 181–201 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00924960

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00924960

Keywords

Navigation