Dependent self-employment as a way to evade employment protection legislation
This paper examines whether the strictness of employment protection legislation encourages employers to contract out work to their own paid employees by the formula of dependent self-employment, while making transitions to independent self-employment less likely by altering the relative valuation of risk between salaried work and self-employment in favour of the former. In conducting this analysis, discrete choice models are applied to data drawn from the European Community Household Panel from 1994 to 2001. To test the hypotheses, a tentative individual measure of the potential severance payment that a worker would receive in the case of dismissal is included as well as aggregated variables that try to capture differences in labour market institutions and macroeconomic conditions. Evidence for a positive impact of the strictness of employment protection legislation and the potential severance payment on transitions to dependent self-employment is found. The opposite effects, however, are detected for individuals becoming independent self-employed.
KeywordsEntrepreneurship Self-employment Dependency Contracting out Occupational choice Labour market institutions
JEL ClassificationsJ24 J38 J65 K31 L24 L26
The authors would particularly like to thank the editor, Simon Parker, two anonymous referees and María Rochina for their helpful comments and suggestions. They also thank Jolanda Hessels, Juan Máñez, Juan Sanchis, Roy Thurik, Mirjam van Praag, André van Stel, Ingrid Verheul, Sander Wennekers and participants at an EIM Business and Policy Research Seminar (Zoetermeer, 2008), the ERIM Research Workshop on Institutions and Entrepreneurship (Rotterdam, 2008), the XI World Economy Meeting (Huelva, 2009) and the XII Applied Economics Meeting (Madrid, 2009). This research is part of the project PRY115/09, which has been funded by the Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces (5th announcement for research projects grants). The usual disclaimer applies.
- Böheim, R., & Müehlberger, U. (2009). Dependent self-employment: Workers between employment and self-employment in the UK. Journal of Labour Market Research, 42(2), 182–195.Google Scholar
- Boone, J., & van Ours, J. C. (2004). Effective active labor market policies. IZA Discussion Papers 1335, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
- Bruce, D., & Schuetze, H. J. (2004). Tax policy and entrepreneurship. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 2(11), 233–265.Google Scholar
- Burchell, B., Deakin, S., Honey, S. (1999). The employment status of individuals in non-standard employment. Employment relations Research Series 6. London: Department of Trade and Industry. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11628.pdf.
- Caliendo, M., & Kritikos, A. S. (2009). Start-ups by the unemployed: Characteristics, survival and direct employment effects. Small Business Economics. doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9208-4.
- Carling, K., & Richardson, K. (2004). The relative efficiency of labor market programs: Swedish experience from the 1990’s. Labour Economics, 11(3), 335–354.Google Scholar
- Centeno, M. (2000). Is self-employment a response to labour market rigidity? Economic Bulletin, Banco de Portugal, December, 37–44.Google Scholar
- Delage, B. (2002). Results from the survey of self-employment in Canada. Hull, QC: Human Resources Development Canada.Google Scholar
- Grubb, D., & Wells, W. (1993). Employment regulation and patterns of work in EC countries. OECD Economic Studies, 21, 7–58.Google Scholar
- Henrekson, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and institutions. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 28, 717–742.Google Scholar
- Henrekson, M., & Roine, J. (2007). Promoting entrepreneurship in the welfare state. In D. B. Audretsch, I. Grilo, & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), The handbook of research on entrepreneurship policy (pp. 64–93). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Hessels, J., van Stel, A., Brouwer, P., & Wennekers, S. (2007). Social security arrangements and early-stage entrepreneurial activity. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 28, 743–774.Google Scholar
- ILO. (2003). The scope of the employment relationship. Report V. International Labour Conference. 91st Session. Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc91/pdf/rep-v.pdf.
- Meager, M., Bates, P., & Cowling, M. (2003). An evaluation of business start-up support for young people. National Institute Economic Review, 186, 59–72.Google Scholar
- Mortensen, D. (1986). Job search and labor market analysis. In O. C. Ashenfelter & R. Layard (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. II, pp. 849–919). North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- OECD. (1992). The employment outlook (Chap. 4). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- OECD. (1999). The employment outlook (Chap. 2). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2000). The employment outlook (Chap. 5). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2004). The employment outlook (Chap. 2). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2009). The economic outlook 85 database. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Parker, S. C. (2007). Law and the economics of entrepreneurship. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 28(4), 695–716.Google Scholar
- Parker, S. C. (2010). Contracting out, public policy and entrepreneurship. Scottish Journal of Political Economy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Pedersini, R. (2002). Economically dependent workers, employment law and industrial relations. European industrial relations observatory (EIRO) comparative study. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/05/study/tn0205101s.htm.
- Perry, G. (2006). Are business start-up subsidies effective for the unemployed: Evaluation of enterprise allowance. Working Paper, Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
- Perulli, A. (2003). Economically dependent/quasi-subordinate (parasubordinate) employment. Legal, social and economic aspects. Report for DG Employment and Social Affairs. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Robson, M. T. (2007). Explaining cross-national variations in entrepreneurship: The role of social protection and political culture. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 28, 863–892.Google Scholar
- Scarpetta, S., Hemmings, P., Tressel, T., Woo, J. (2002). The role of policy and institutions for productivity and firm dynamics: Evidence from micro and industry data. OECD Economics Department Working Paper, 329, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Schoukens, P. (1999). Comparison of the social security law for the self-employed persons in the member-states of the European Union. In D. Pieters (Ed.), EISS yearbook 1999—Work patterns and social protection. Amsterdam: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
- Sciarra, S. (2005). The evolution of labour law (1992–2003). General report, based on a comparative analysis in 15 Member States of the EU. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
- Supiot, A. (2001). Beyond employment. Changes in work and the future of labour law in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Waite, M., & Will, L. (2001). Self-employed contractors in Australia: Incidence and characteristics. Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.Google Scholar