Advertisement

Does an Employment Protection Law Matter? A Panel Data Analysis of Selected OECD Countries, 1985–2012

  • Prabirjit Sarkar
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

This study examines the economic effects of employment protection law (EPL) between 1985 and 2012 in 26 OECD countries through a dynamic panel data analysis. It uses three alternative dynamic panel data models—dynamic fixed effect, mean group, and pooled mean group models—and examines the short-term as well as long-term effects of employment protection on various measures of unemployment rate—overall unemployment rate, long-term total unemployment rate, and long-term youth unemployment rate. Apart from the effect on the unemployment rate, it also considers the impact on union density and labor share. To supplement the dynamic panel data modeling, it uses vector rrror correction (VEC) Granger causality tests. This study shows that EPL does not increase long-term unemployment rate irrespective of whether one considers total or youth working population. Nor is there any impact on labor share. The causal impact of EPL on trade union penetration (as measured by union density) is also insignificant. There is no reverse causality. The implication is: EPL is independent of union penetration—they are not related in a bond of mutual causation. Furthermore, the unemployment scenario does not lead to relaxation of EPL and vice versa.

Keywords

Gross Domestic Product Labor Regulation Union Density Employment Protection Labor Share 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Acharya V, Baghai RP, Subramanian KV (2012) Labor laws and innovation NBER Working Paper No. 16484Google Scholar
  2. Baker D, Glyn A, Howell D, Schmitt J (2004) Unemployment and labour market Institutions: the Failure of the Empirical Case for Deregulation, ILO Working Paper No. 43Google Scholar
  3. Baker D, Glyn A, Howell D, Schmitt J (2005) Labour market institutions and unemployment: assessment of the cross-country evidence. In: Howell D (ed) Fighting unemployment: the limits of free market orthodoxy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 72–118Google Scholar
  4. Besley T, Burgess R (2004) Can labour regulation hinder economic performance? Evidence from India. Quart J Econ 199:91–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhaduri A, Marglin S (1990) Real wages and unemployment: the economic basis for contesting political ideologies. Cambridge J Econ 14:375–393Google Scholar
  6. Blackburne EF III, Frank MW (2007) Estimation of non-stationary heterogeneous panels. Stata J 7:197–208Google Scholar
  7. Botero JC, Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2004) The regulation of labor. Q J Econ 119(4):1339–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deakin S, Sarkar P (2008) Assessing the long-run economic impact of labour law systems: a theoretical reappraisal and analysis of new time series data Industrial. Relat J 39:453–487Google Scholar
  9. Deakin S, Sarkar P (2011) Indian labour law and its impact on unemployment, 1970–2006: a leximetric study. Indian J Labour Econ 54(4):607–629Google Scholar
  10. Deakin S, Lele P, Siems M (2007) The evolution of labour law: calibrating and comparing regulatory regimes. Int Lab Rev 146:133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deakin S, Malmberg J, Sarkar P (2014) Do labour laws increase equality at the expense of higher unemployment? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970–2010. Int Lab Rev 153(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutt AK (1984) Stagnation, income distribution and ’monopoly power. Camb J Econ 8:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallon P, Lucas R (1993) The impact of changes in job security legislation in India and Zimbabwe. World Bank Econ Rev 5:395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman RB (1992) Labour market institutions and policies: help or hindrance to economic development? Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 117–144Google Scholar
  15. Freeman RB (2005) Labour market institutions without blinders: the debate over flexibility and labour market performance. Int Econ J 19:129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman J, Pagés C (2004) Introduction. In: Heckman J, Pagés C (eds) Law and employment: lessons from Latin America and the Caribbean. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1994) OECD jobs study, evidence and explanations, Part I: labor market trends and underlying forces of change, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Amer Stat Assoc 94:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers J, Streeck W (1995) Works councils: consultation, representation and cooperation in industrial relations. University of Chicago, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarkar P (1992) Industrial growth and income inequality: an examination of ‘Stagnationism’ with special reference to India. J Quant Econ 8:125–138Google Scholar
  21. Sarkar P (1993) Distribution and growth: a critical note on ‘stagnationism’. Rev Radic Politic Econ 25:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarkar P (2013) Does an employment protection law lead to unemployment? A panel data analysis of OECD countries, 1990–2008. Camb J Econ 37(4):1335–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sengenberger W, Campbell D (1994) Creating Opportunities: role of labour standards in industrial restructuring. International Institute for Labour Studies, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. Supiot A (2012) The spirit of Philadelphia: social justice vs. The Total Market. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Venn D (2009) Legislation, collective bargaining and enforcement: updating the OECD employment protection indicators, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  26. World Bank (2007) Doing Business 2008: Comparing Regulation in 178 Economies. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics DepartmentJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations