1 / 25

Comments on: Labor market effects of worksharing arrangements in Europe

Comments on: Labor market effects of worksharing arrangements in Europe. Jan van Ours Tilburg University. Long history. May 1, 1886 – Chicago Eight hour song We want to feel the sunshine (…) 8 hrs for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will Chapman (EJ 1909) – Hours of labor

kermit-slater
Download Presentation

Comments on: Labor market effects of worksharing arrangements in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comments on:Labor market effects of worksharing arrangements in Europe Jan van Ours Tilburg University

  2. Long history • May 1, 1886 – Chicago • Eight hour song • We want to feel the sunshine (…) • 8 hrs for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will • Chapman (EJ 1909) – Hours of labor • Why work 10 hours per day if 9 is optimal?

  3. Annual changes in hours actually worked per employee

  4. Decomposition – 2002

  5. Decomposition – 2002

  6. Decomposition – 2002

  7. Decomposition – 2002

  8. Decomposition – 2002

  9. Work-sharing arrangements • Standard hours per week  • France, Germany • Weeks per year: • Sweden • Part-time work , employment  • Netherlands • Extensive margin: • Italy

  10. Common elements • Downward trend in average working week • More flexibility • Germany – increase working time • Netherlands – part-time work • Worksharing – no positive employment effects • Employment rates of men slowly falling • Employment rates of women strong increase

  11. Main differences • Forced – voluntary • France  the rest • France: strong government influence – massive subsidies

  12. Main differences • Forced – voluntary • France  the rest • France: strong government influence • Opposition against part-time work • Netherlands  the rest • NL: at first opposition of unions

  13. Main differences • Forced – voluntary • France  the rest • France: strong government influence • Opposition against part-time work • Netherlands  the rest • NL: at first opposition of unions • Availability of childcare facilities • Netherlands  the rest • NL: still few formal childcare facilities

  14. Dichotomy • France and Germany • Position of male full-time workers • Events similar • Sweden and the Netherlands • Combining work and family life • Different routes

  15. Comments Nice and interesting paper/chapter overview of many studies & empirical observations French bias almost 60% of the authors theoretical model France (& Germany) French lazy & crazy: decreasing productivity, rising wages, government intervention

  16. Main comments - theory • Interesting reduction of standard working hours • Upper limit working hours “over the hill” • Small decreases: employment • Big decreases: employment

  17. Main comments - theory • Interesting reduction of standard working hours • Upper limit working hours “over the hill” • Small decreases: employment • Big decreases: employment • Explanation • Non-competitive world: Monopsony/bargaining • State regulation may be required

  18. Main comments - theory • Interesting reduction of standard working hours • Upper limit working hours “over the hill” • Small decreases: employment • Big decreases: employment • Explanation • Non-competitive world: Monopsony/bargaining • State regulation may be required • Other forms of working time reduction: part-time work & leave policies • Theory less clear

  19. Main comments - theory • Interesting reduction of standard working hours • Upper limit working hours “over the hill” • Small decreases: employment • Big decreases: employment • Explanation • Non-competitive world: Monopsony/bargaining • State regulation may be required • Other forms of working time reduction: part-time work & leave policies • Theory less clear • Interaction between extension margin of labor supply (participate or not) and the intensive margin of labor supply

  20. Main comments - II • Growth of part-time work in NL – “Butterfly effect”? • “In no country work-sharing per se has created employment” • Not sure: part-time work encouraged increase of labor supply • Competitive world: employment is determined by labor market participation

  21. Main comments - III • Sweden – no working hours reduction but leave facilities • Almost 1 week in 5 is lost due to “absence for other reasons than holidays” • For competitive reasons? • More flexibility? • Conclusion: “work sharing through career interruptions is not an attractive policy option” • Question: “why is it maintained?”

  22. Conclusions – worksharing • Normative point of view • nothing against; preferences • Economic efficiency • does not reduce unemployment • difficult to persuade non-economists • Actual hours follow standard hours • norms follow actual changes

  23. Are Europeans lazyor Americans crazy? • Suggests that one of the two is true

  24. Are Europeans lazyor Americans crazy? • Suggests that one of the two is true • Maybe both are true

  25. Are Europeans lazyor Americans crazy? • Suggests that one of the two is true • Maybe both are true • “Are some Europeans more crazy than others?”

More Related