Journals / Akademik Hassasiyetler / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 10

DISCUSSING THE POTENTIAL DETERMINANTS OF DECLINING LABOR’S SHARE: A DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH FOR OECD AND NON-OECD COUNTRIES

AZALAN EMEK PAYININ POTANSİYEL BELİRLEYİCİLERİNİN TARTIŞILMASI: OECD VE OECD-DIŞI ÜLKELER İÇİN BETİMSEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Pages
271–304
Publication Date
2018-12-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, the comprehensive analysis of income distribution should consider the interaction terms of some crucial determinants as well as the weakened bargaining power of workers which have started to exaggerate in the early 1980s.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Numerous studies have empirically analyzed the reasons for the declining labor share of income, but only a few have found a common explanation in case of an aggregate economic structure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Moreover, some of these stylized facts are integrated into the basic framework as they, more or less, affect each sample country over time, especially under the use of liberalization policies imposed by recognized institutions such as IMF, World Bank, and Bank for International Settlements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, the comprehensive analysis of income distribution should consider the interaction terms of some crucial determinants as well as the weakened bargaining power of workers which have started to exaggerate in the early 1980s.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Emek Payı · Fonksiyonel Gelir Dağılımı · Sermaye Hesabı Açıklığı

Abstract

Numerous studies have empirically analyzed the reasons for the declining labor share of income, but only a few have found a common explanation in case of an aggregate economic structure. In this study, a major channel through which potential determinants may affect labor share of income is descriptively examined: the distribution/allocation channel. In this regard, the main feature of this study is to focus primarily on openness measures of trade regime and the financial sector. In addition, the institutional side of finance is included in the study in terms of financial development index comprising of both markets and institutions dataset of finance. While these indicators constitute the major body of the study, the other variables are added into the descriptive analysis. Moreover, some of these stylized facts are integrated into the basic framework as they, more or less, affect each sample country over time, especially under the use of liberalization policies imposed by recognized institutions such as IMF, World Bank, and Bank for International Settlements. This article suggests that the distributional variances not only depend on partial effect of a single indicator but also on their interactions with each other. Therefore, the comprehensive analysis of income distribution should consider the interaction terms of some crucial determinants as well as the weakened bargaining power of workers which have started to exaggerate in the early 1980s.

Özet

Pek çok çalışma azalan emek gelir payının ardındaki nedenleri ampirik olarak analiz etmiştir, ancak sadece birkaçı bütüncül ekonomik yapı durumunda ortak bir açıklama bulmuştur. Bu çalışmada, emek gelir payını etkileyebilecek potansiyel belirleyicilerin başlıca bağlantısı betimsel olarak incelenmektedir: bölüşüm/dağılım bağlantısı. Bu bağlamda, çalışmanın temel özelliği öncelikli olarak ticaret rejiminin ve finansal sektörün açıklık ölçütlerine odaklanmasıdır. Ayrıca, finansın kurumsal yanı, hem piyasaların hem de kurumların finansal veri setlerinden oluşan finansal gelişme endeksi yönünden çalışmaya dahil edilmektedir. Bu göstergeler çalışmanın ana gövdesini oluştururken, diğer değişkenler de aynı zamanda betimsel analize dahil edilmektedir. Dahası, bu stilize olguların bazıları, özellikle IMF, Dünya Bankası ve Uluslararası Ödemeler Bankası gibi tanınmış kurumların liberalleşme politikalarını uyguladıkları her bir örnek ülkeyi zaman içinde az çok etkilemesi nedeniyle temel yapıya entegre edilmektedir. Bu makale, bölüşümsel farklılaşmaların sadece tek bir değişkenin kısmi etkisine bağlı kalmadığını, aynı zamanda birbirleriyle etkileşimlerine de bağlı olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Bu nedenle, gelir dağılımının kapsamlı analizi, 1980’lerin başlarında artmaya başlayan emeğin pazarlık gücündeki zayıflama kadar bazı kritik öneme sahip belirleyenleri de dikkate almalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDEMİR, O. (2018). DISCUSSING THE POTENTIAL DETERMINANTS OF DECLINING LABOR’S SHARE: A DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH FOR OECD AND NON-OECD COUNTRIES. Akademik Hassasiyetler, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 10, 271–304. https://ajindex.com/articles/51883

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Acemoğlu, D. (2008). Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. Princeton University Press.
  2. Ahsan, R. N., and Mitra, D. (2014). “Trade liberalization and labor’s slice of the pie: Evidence from Indian firms”, Journal of Development Economics, Volume: 108, pp. 1-16.
  3. Alcala, F. and Ciccone, A. (2004). “Trade and Productivity”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume: 119, No: 2, pp. 613-646.
  4. Arestis, P. and Caner, A. (2009). “Capital account liberalisation and poverty: how close is the link?”, The Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume: 34, No: 2, pp. 295- 323. Atiyas, I. (2009). “Recent Privatization Experience of Turkey: A Reappraisal”, Turkey and the Global Economy: Neo-liberal Restructuring and Integration in the PostCrisis Era, in Ziya Öniş and Fikret Şenses (eds.), pp. 101-123, London and New York: Routledge. Azmat, G., Manning, A. and Reenen, J. V. (2012). “Privatization and the Decline of Labour’s Share: International Evidence from Network Industries”, Economica, Volume: 79, Issue: 315, pp. 470-492.
  5. Barro, R. and Sala-i Martin, J. X. (2003). Economic Growth. 2nd edition, The MIT Press.
  6. Bentolila, S. and Saint-Paul, G. (2003). “Explaining Movements in the Labor Share”, Contributions in Macroeconomics, Volume: 3, Issue: 1, ISSN (Online) 1534-6005.
  7. Blanchard, O. and Giavazzi, F. (2001). “Macroeconomic Effects of Regulation and Deregulation in Goods and Labor Markets”, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper Series No: 8120, February. Blaug, M. (1996). Economic Theory in Retrospect. 5th edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bluestone, B. (1995). “The Inequality Express”, The American Prospect, Winter. Boggio, L., Dall’Aglio, V. and Magnani, M. (2010). “On Labour Shares in Recent Decades: A Survey”, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, Volume: 118, No: 3, pp. 283-333.
  9. Boulhol, H. (2009). “Do Capital Market and Trade Liberalization Trigger Labor Market Deregulation?”, Journal of International Economics, Volume: 77, pp. 223-233.
  10. Cassette, A., Fleury, N. and Petit, S. (2012). “Income Inequalities and International Trade in Goods and Services: short- and Long-run Evidence”, The International Trade Journal, Volume: 26, Issue: 3, pp. 223-254.
  11. Chinn, M. D. and Ito, H. (2006). “What Matters for Financial Development? Capital Controls, İnstitutions, and İnteractions”, Journal of Development Economics, Volume: 81, Issue: 1, pp. 163-192.
  12. Chinn, M. D. and Ito, H. (2008). “A New Measure of Financial Openness”, Journal of Comparative Po