1 / 22

Enrico Marelli, Marcello Signorelli and Joanna Tyrowicz

Crises and Joint Employment-Productivity Dynamics: A Comparative Perspective for European Countries. Enrico Marelli, Marcello Signorelli and Joanna Tyrowicz. Motivation. Motivation. B usiness cycle theory: any change in labor usage can be decomposed into

wade-hooper
Télécharger la présentation

Enrico Marelli, Marcello Signorelli and Joanna Tyrowicz

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. Crises and Joint Employment-Productivity Dynamics: A Comparative Perspective for European Countries Enrico Marelli, Marcello Signorelli and Joanna Tyrowicz

  2. Motivation

  3. Motivation • Business cycle theory: • any change in labor usage can be decomposed into • a movement along a marginal productivity schedule • and a shift of the schedule • Mulligan (2009) decomposes this differential for the current crisis and compares to the previous ones

  4. Intuition • At the „hip” of the cycletwothingscoincide: • high demand for products • high demand for labour and high labourproductivity • Just after the „hip” demand no longerincreases => adjustmentsnecessary • either on labourdemand with unchangeddemand/productivityschedules • or on productivity – upwardshift of the demand/productivityschedules • Overlongerhorizon • adjustment of type (a) leads to permamentreduction in employment (tillnextpositivedemandshock) • adjustment of type (b) impliesgrowinglabourproductivity => efficiency and TFP

  5. Outline • Method • Data • Findings • Conclusions

  6. Method • Have to find a „hip” in the cycle… • … anchor on the „hip” the changes in productivity and employment • how to measure productivity? • how to measure employment? • At the end we expect rather coherent: • shifts OF the demand/productivity schedules and • shifts ALONG the demand/productivity schedules • We do that for EU countries for as many countries as there is data

  7. Method – step by step • Identify the boom and the bust • Find peak and anchor there • Compute cummulated change of labour use and productivity • Graph them one against the other • Repeat for all countries for all cycles

  8. Method – 1. finding the hip • Short term and long term fluctuations - HP filter • After filtering away the trend – identify peaks Second Third First ?

  9. Method – 2. measuring productivity and employment • Employment • Ideally: hoursworked in economy • Reality: not available for any of the EU countries • Working/employed/FTE – hugedifferences • Eventually: working, no FTE • Labourproductivity: • Essentially: output per hourworked • Reality: no output (GDP) no hoursworked (heads) • Eventually: GDP/working

  10. Method – 3. link labour productivity and employment • Refresh Mulligan • Nice RBC-coherent pattern • In reality for European economies? ???

  11. Data

  12. Results - identified „hips”

  13. Results – identified „hips”

  14. Results – identified „hips”

  15. Results – groups of countries • Analysis reveals few adjustment patterns in the last crisis • (a) a canonical RBC; • (b) reduced (or absent) change in employment and reductions in productivity; • (c) a contemporaneous reduction in both productivity and employment (profound recession); • (d) a growth or preservation of both employment and productivity. • These reactions are not like in the past.

  16. Group 1 – RBC consistent • Note: solid black line (late 2000s); dashed black line (late 1990s for Hungary and early 1990s for Spain)

  17. Group 2 – eventually RBC consistent

  18. Group 3 – productivity drop

  19. Group 4 – both drop

  20. Group 5 – all quiet

  21. Conclusions • We applied simpletool to seeifrecentcrisisis RBC type in Europe • We alsocompareit to previouscrises • Many of the past were RBC in nature • Now – onlyfewcountrieshave „adjustment” patterns as economistswouldlikeit • Policies to stop employmentadjustmentat the expense of productivity • Somecountries „on the safeside” evenif GDP contracts • Somecountries in deeprecession

  22. Thankyou for yourattention!

More Related