Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 8, 2014

Threat Effects and Trade: Wage Discipline through Product Market Competition

Arindrajit Dube and Sanjay G. Reddy

Abstract

We present a model of the effect of heightened product market competition induced by trade liberalization on the distribution of income between profits and wages. Integration increases the employment cost of wage demands, thereby decreasing bargained wages and the share of rents accruing to workers. This effect is amplified because of the existence of strategic complementarities which bring about a race to the bottom. Wage discipline induced by trade liberalization reduces the negative impact of increased competition on firm rents, and may even raise profits.

JEL Codes: F12; F15; F16; D31; D33; J3; J5

Corresponding author: Arindrajit Dube, Department of Economics, Thompson Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01002, USA, e-mail:

Appendix: Proofs of Propositions

Proposition 1: For a given average wage faced by its competitors, w˜i, labor demand at firm i becomes more elastic with respect to its own wage with scale of integration, k.

Proof. First, we define the average wage of competitors

w˜i=jiwj(fk1).

Substituting w˜i into expression (6) produces

ni(wi,wi)=kb(a(1+fk)+(fk1)w˜i(1+fk)fk(1+fk)wi).

Own wage elasticity of labor demand is defined as η=ni(wi,w˜i)wiwini,

which in turn is equal to fkwi(a+(1fk)wi+(fk1)w˜i)=fkwi(w˜iwi)+((aw˜i+wi)fk).

Differentiating η with respect to k produces

dηdk=f2kwi(aw˜i+wi)((w˜iwi)+((aw˜i+wi)fk))2(fk)2.

The denominator is positive, and the non-negativity condition on firm profits requires that (aw˜i)0, implying that the numerator is negative, and that dηdk<0. In other words, demand becomes more elastic as k rises.   □

Proposition 2: Workers’ share of the surplus, σ, and hence the equilibrium bargained wage, w*, fall with the level of integration k, i.e., dwdk<0

Proof. Differentiating (10) with respect to k, we obtain:

dwdk=((aw0)f[(fkϕλ+fk+(θγ)fθfk+1)]2)(ϕλ+1θ), which is negative as long as a>w0, and is always true in the economically relevant region (i.e., when production is profitable). Further differentiating dwdk shows that d2wdw0dk>0,d2wdadk<0, and d2wdk2>0.   □

Proposition 3: Profits eventually fall with integration, k. Moreover, profits rise with k for sufficiently small values of k (although possibly for the economically irrelevant case of k<1). There exist cases in which profits rise between k=1 and k=2.

Proof. The first statement follows from the fact that the cubic term of the derivative, with respect to k, is negative, and this dominates other terms for a large enough k. The second statement follows from the fact that the derivative at k=0 is equal to 2–λ+λβ>0. Finally, it can be shown that profits rise between k=1 and k=2 iff f2((21/2–4)+(21/2–4)ϕ+2θ+(2–21/2)γ)+f(21/2–4)+(21/2–2)ϕ+θ+(1–21/2)γ)+(21/2–1)>0. There exist admissible values of the parameters for which the statement is true.

Proposition 4: For the case of complete organization, real wage wp is a U shape function of the total number of firms in all regions, F=fk, there exists a critical value F^, such that:

dwpdF<0ifF<F^dwpdF=0ifF=F^dwpdF>0ifF>F^

Proof. Differentiating the real wage expression with respect to F, we find that dwpdF=(a+F(a+δa)+F2δw0)(a+δw0+2Fδw0)(a+F(a+δw0)+F2δw0)(a+δa+2Fδw0)=a2δ+aF2δ2w0+aδw0F2δ2w02=F2(aδ2w02δ2w02)+(aδw0a2δ).

Note that δ>0, i.e., βλ+2>2λ, as λ≤1, and β>0. It then follows that dwpdF<0 if x2δw0(aw0)+a(w0a)<0 which is equivalent to the condition F2δw0a=F2[2+βλ2]w0a<0, i.e., F<F^=a(2λ2+β)w0. Moreover, dwpdF>0 when F>F^=a(2λ2+β)w0.   □

Proposition 5: In the short run, integration of a sufficient number of regions k raises real wages as trade increases competition and reduces prices. However, for k less than a critical value k^, real wages decline with integration. This range where real wages fall with integration may be economically irrelevant if k^<2.

Proof. In the short run, f is fixed. Substituting F=fk, we can rewrite the cutoff in terms of level of integration, k. A sufficient condition for the real wage to fall when moving from integration level k to k+1 is that dwpdx<0 at k+1. Rewriting F^=a(2λ2+β)w0 in terms of a cutoff k^, we derive the sufficient condition:

k+1<k^=af2(ϕλ)w0ork<af2(ϕλ)w01=af2(2λ2+β)w01

Note that this is a sufficient condition in light of the integer constraint. As a continuous function of F, the real wage wp may fall when going from k to k+1 sometimes when dwpdF>0 at k+1, but dwpdF<0 at k.   □

Proposition 6: In the long run, with free entry by firms and an entry cost proportional to production (cn), the real wage wp(k) is constant across different degrees of integration, k (up to integer constraints).

Proof. As equation (27) shows, the total number of firms F* is invariant to the level of integration k. Additionally, equation (25) shows that the real wage wp is only a function of level of x*. As a result, wp is invariant to k.   □

  1. 1

    Organized workers exist whenever coalitions form within firms and exercise a degree of power. These organized workers may act as if exhibiting concern both for their own wages and for the level of employment of their fellow workers. In this sense, the “workers’ objectives” might be thought of as a reduced form behavioral response which could reside in internal labor markets, norms, etc. The use of “organized workers” rather than “unions” through much of the paper is meant to assert that workers can have bargaining power within the firm even in the absence of unionization but it is not meant to deny that formal unions may be an especially important vehicle for workers to achieve their goals.

  2. 2

    In the Dixit-Stiglitz model, profit maximization implies that the markup depends only on consumers’ elasticity of substitution between differentiated products. This in turn implies that the labor demand of a particular firm is not directly dependent on the wage bargains struck elsewhere and therefore there is no strategic complementarity in wage-setting between unions.

  3. 3

    This observation goes back to Dunlop (1950) and Slichter (1950), but has also received more recent support. It has been observed, for example, that in two different segments of the trucking industry in the United States (namely that for “full truckloads” and that for “less-than-truckloads”) which have very different degrees of competitiveness (in the latter the largest four carriers accounted for 11% of revenues and in the former they accounted for 37%) the level of union wages was dramatically different (28.4 cents per mile vs. 35.8 cents per mile, and a union to non-union wage ratio of 1.23 vs. 1.34, respectively) [Belzer (1998, 1995), Ehrenberg and Smith (1997)]. An independent example involving the trucking industry is that deregulation is reported to have led to “substantial relative wage reductions for union truckers and much less wage response for non-union truckers following deregulation,” a view that is interpreted as “consistent” with the judgment that wages respond to increased product market competition [Freeman and Katz (1991), see also Rose (1987)]. Similarly, when deregulation of the airline industry in the United States increased competition on many routes after 1978, there were substantial reductions in the wages of unionized pilots, as a result of requests for concessions by airlines which were accepted by unions. By 1987, the real earnings of pilots had fallen 17% below the levels in 1978, and the real earnings of airline mechanics had fallen by 13% [Card (1986, 1989), Johnson (1991)]. Abowd and Lemieux (1993) find that, instrumenting quasi-rents by import competition shocks, firm-level wage bargains are considerably influenced by product market competition. Blanchflower et al. (1996), using an un-balanced panel from the US manufacturing sector, find strong evidence of a rise in a sector’s profitability leading to an increase in the level of wages in that sector over time. Blanchflower and Machin (1996) find limited support from establishment-level data for an impact of product market competition on wages in Britain and Australia. Christofides and Oswald (1992) find from Canadian labor contract data that real wages are an increasing function of profitability in an industry. Nickell et al. (1994) similarly find evidence from a large sample of British manufacturing firms that a firm’s market power has a positive impact on wages, which is however not dependent on union status, suggesting that the sharing of rents is not dependent on unionization as such.

  4. 4

    This view is contrary to that presented by Lawrence and Lawrence (1985). Their so-called “end-game” interpretation describes the possibility of unions in a declining industry, who see little future for it, seeking to maximize their extraction of surplus in the short run, and therefore raising wages.

  5. 5

    However, trade related measures appear to incompletely explain this rise.

  6. 6

    The more general case of uniformly convex or concave demand curves is considered by Reddy (2000). It is argued there that liberalization induced reductions in bargained wages and in workers’ share of available rents can arise in such a context if the the derived labor demand curves of firms are “not too convex to the origin in the region of the wage adjustment.”

  7. 7

    The assumption of rent maximizing worker-collective behavior has been widely justified on the grounds that it has plausible “micro-foundations.” Specifically, risk-neutral workers can under specific assumptions be expected to form rent-maximizing worker-collectives [see, for example, Oswald (1982)]. However, some empirical evidence suggests that unions pursue employment objectives to a larger extent than suggested by the “rent maximization” model [see Macurdy and Pencavel (1986), McDonald and Solow (1981), etc.]. As well alternative theories which assign a greater decision making role to older and more senior employee (who for example would be likely to prevail in a median voter model of worker-collective behavior) would suggest that worker-collectives pursue wage objectives to a larger extent than suggested by the “rent maximization” model. The characterization of worker-collective objectives here is meant to accommodate all of these possibilities. It does however have the feature of suggesting that the interests of the unemployed are at least partially taken account of in worker-collective decision making. This view, consonant with McDonald and Solow (1981) is disputed by, among others, Layard et al. (1991). An alternative rationalization is that “union bosses” have employment as an objective as it is a component of total rent, or alternatively of derived social or political power.

  8. 8

    A straightforward way to generalize these assumptions is to parametrize the degree of competition or collusion by using a conjectural variations model. The central result that we derive – in which decreases in bargained wages and in the share of rents accruing to workers (perhaps sufficient to cause profit increases) are a result of increased integration – can be derived in this more general case. Under Bertrand competition among firms, wages are generally set at the competitive level and no such consequences arise.

  9. 9

    The central conclusion of our analysis – that integration results in decreases in bargained wages as a result of a diminished share of available rents for workers, possibly sufficient to raise profits – can be derived in a model in which intra-firm bargaining is efficient (because it is over wages and employment jointly). Reddy (2000) demonstrates that our results can be arrived at when the outside options of the parties are endogenous by considering a model in which non-unionized workers threaten to unionize if they are not provided with at least as high an increment to total compensation as they would receive if they were unionized and engaged in the bargaining game described in this paper. The meaning of “unionization” here is simply the imposition upon the firm of the non-cooperative game in which bargaining is inefficient. Product market competition can, by shifting the labor demand curve that would be made recourse to in the event that the threat was realized, lead to changes in the distribution of surplus. These changes arise even though the threat is never realized in equilibrium. This form of efficient bargaining is of the same general form as the “Separate Spheres” bargaining model described by Lundberg and Pollak (1993). Chapter two of Reddy (2000) identifies further cases in which changes in bargained shares can result from changes in product market competition even when outside options are not endogenous. See also Mezzetti and Dinopoulos (1991).

  10. 10

    Layard et al. (1991) state that “employment is almost never bargained over as such.” Moreover they report that US contracts typically include a “management rights” clause, asserting “that the company ‘will determine the extent of any required force adjustments’.” Further, strike in pursuit of an employment objective is in the US typically illegal, in the sense that doing so risks loss of protection of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Board. They also report the results of Oswald (1982) to the effect that only five out of 120 British and American unions surveyed reported that they “normally negotiate over the number of jobs as well as over wages and conditions.” Hall and Lilien (1979) also find that firms often set employment unilaterally.

  11. 11

    In this model, the form of product demand, bargaining and the Cournot-Nash competition lead to a unique equilibrium in spite of the presence of strategic complementarity. This is evident from the linearity of the reaction function in equation (8). In an extended model, the strategic complementarity could be stronger and lead to multiple self-fulfilling equilibria. These possibilities are explored in Reddy (2000).

  12. 12

    We refer to unions rather than worker collectives in this section and the next section as it is realistic to assume a degree of formality of worker organization when worker are organized at a level beyond the individual enterprise.

References

Abowd, J. M. and T. Lemieux (1991) “The Effects of International Competition on Collective Bargaining Outcomes: A Comparison of the United States and Canada.” In: (J. M. Abowd and R. Freeman, eds. ) Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991.Search in Google Scholar

Abowd, J. M. and T. Lemieux (1993) “The Effects of Product Market Competition on Collective Bargaining Agreements: The Case of Foreign Competition in Canada,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, CVIII:983–1014.10.2307/2118457Search in Google Scholar

Autor, D. H., D. Dorn and G. H. Hanson (Forthcoming) “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States,” American Economic Review.Search in Google Scholar

Belzer, M. H. (1995) “Collective Bargaining After Deregulation: Do the Teamsters Still Count?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XLVIII:636–655.10.1177/001979399504800403Search in Google Scholar

Belzer, M. H. (1998) Paying the Toll: Economic Deregulation of the Trucking Industry. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute.Search in Google Scholar

Bhagwati, J. (1998) Play it Again Sam: A New Look at Trade and Wages. Columbia University, mimeo, 1998.Search in Google Scholar

Bhagwati, J. and M. Kosters (1994) Trade and Wages: Leveling Wages Down? Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute.Search in Google Scholar

Blanchower, D. G. and S. Machin (1996) “Product Market Competition, Wages and Productivity: International Evidence from Establishment-Level Data,” Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, XLI-XLII:219–253.10.2307/20066470Search in Google Scholar

Blanchard, O., and F. Giavazzi (2003) “Macroeconomic Effects of Regulation and Deregulation in Goods and Labor Markets,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXVIII:879–907.10.1162/00335530360698450Search in Google Scholar

Blanchflower, D. G., A. J. Oswald and P. Sanfey (1996) “Wages, Profits and Rent-Sharing,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXI:227–251.10.2307/2946663Search in Google Scholar

Bombardini, M. (2008) “Firm Heterogeneity and Lobby Participation,” Journal of International Economics, LXXV:329–348.10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.03.003Search in Google Scholar

Brander, J. A. and P. Krugman (1983) “A ’Reciprocal Dumping’ Model of International Trade Policy,” Journal of International Economics, XV:313–321.10.1016/S0022-1996(83)80008-7Search in Google Scholar

Card, D. (1986) “The Impact of Deregulation on the Employment and Wages of Airline Mechanics,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review XXXIX:527–538.10.1177/001979398603900406Search in Google Scholar

Card, D. (1989) Deregulation and Labor Earnings in the Airline Industry. Industrial Relations Section Working Paper No. 247, Princeton University, 1989.Search in Google Scholar

Christofides, L. and A. Oswald (1992) “Real Wage Determination and Rent-Sharing in Collective Wage Agreements,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, CVII:985–1002.10.2307/2118371Search in Google Scholar

Currie, J. and A. Harrison (1997) “Sharing the Costs: the Impact of Trade Reform on Capital and Labor in Morocco,” Journal of Labor Economics, XV:S44–S72.10.1086/209876Search in Google Scholar

Davis, D. and J. Harrigan (2011) “Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, and Trade Liberalization,” Journal of International Economics, 84:26–36.10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.03.005Search in Google Scholar

Driffill, J. and F. van der Ploeg (1995) “Trade Liberalisation with Imperfect Competition in Goods and Labour Markets,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, XCVII:223–243.10.2307/3440526Search in Google Scholar

Dunlop, J. (1950) Wage Determination Under Trade Unions. New York, NY, USA: A.M.Kelly.10.2307/2550025Search in Google Scholar

Ehrenberg, R. G. and R. S. Smith (1997) Modern Labor Economics. New York, NY, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

Feliciano, Z. (2001) “Workers and Trade Liberalization: The Impact of Trade Reforms in Mexico on Wages and Employment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, LV:95–115.10.1177/001979390105500106Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, R. (1997) Spurts in Union Growth: Defining Moments in Social Processes. NBER Working Paper No. 6012.10.3386/w6012Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, R. and L. Katz (1991) “Industrial Wage and Employment Determination in an Open Economy.” In: (J.M. Abowd and R. Freeman, eds.) Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Galiani, S. and P. Sanguinetti (2003) “The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Wage Inequality: Evidence from Argentina,” Journal of Development Economics, LXXII:497–513.10.1016/S0304-3878(03)00117-2Search in Google Scholar

Hall, R. E. and D. M. Lilien (1979) “Efficient Wage Bargains Under Uncertain Supply and Demand,” American Economic Review, LXIX:868–879.10.3386/w0306Search in Google Scholar

Hamermesh, D. (1932) Labor Demand. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hanson, G.H. and A. Harrison (1995) Trade, Technology and Wage Inequality. NBER Working Paper No. 5110.10.3386/w5110Search in Google Scholar

Hanson, G.H. and A. Harrison (1999) “Trade Liberalization and Wage Inequality in Mexico,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, LII:271–288.10.1177/001979399905200207Search in Google Scholar

Harrison, A. (2002) Has Globalization Reduced Labor’s Share? Some Cross-Country Evidence. University of California at Berkeley, mimeoSearch in Google Scholar

Helpman, E. and P. Krugman (1989) Trade Policy and Market Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Helpman, E., O. Itskokhi and S. Redding (2010) “Inequality and Unemployment in a Global Economy,” Econometrica, 78(4):1239–1283.10.3982/ECTA8640Search in Google Scholar

Hicks, J. R. (1932) The Theory of Wages. London: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Hicks, J. R. (1968) The Theory of Wages. New York, NY: London: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Huizinga, H. (1993) “International Market Integration and Union Wage Bargaining,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, XCV:249–255.10.2307/3440411Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, N. B. (1991) “Airline Workers’ Earnings and Union Expenditures Under Deregulation,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XLV:154–165.10.1177/001979399104500111Search in Google Scholar

Krugman, P. and R. Z. Lawrence (1993) Trade, Jobs and Wages. NBER Working Paper No. 4478, 1993.10.3386/w4478Search in Google Scholar

Lawrence, C. and R. L. Lawrence (1985) “Relative Wages in U.S. Manufacturing: an Endgame Interpretation,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1):47–116.Search in Google Scholar

Layard, R., S. Nickell and R. Jackman (1991) Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levinsohn, J. (1993) “Testing the Imports-as-Market-Discipline Hypothesis,” Journal of International Economics, XXXV:1–22.10.1016/0022-1996(93)90002-FSearch in Google Scholar

Lundberg, S. and R. Pollak (1993) “Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market,” Journal of Political Economy, CI:988–1010.10.1086/261912Search in Google Scholar

Marshall, A. (1949) Principles of Economics. New York, NY, USA: McMillan.Search in Google Scholar

Macurdy, T. E. and J. Pencavel (1986) “Testing Between Competing Models of Wage and Employment Determination in Unionized Markets,” Journal of Political Economy, XCIV:S3–S39.10.1086/261398Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, I. M. and R. M. Solow (1981) “Wage Bargaining and Employment,” American Economic Review, LXXI:896–908.Search in Google Scholar

Melitz, M. J. (2003) “The Impact of Trade on Intra‐industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity,” Econometrica, 71(6):1695–1725.10.1111/1468-0262.00467Search in Google Scholar

Melitz, M. J., and G. I. Ottaviano (2008) “Market size, Trade, and Productivity,” The Review of Economic Studies, 75(1):295–316.10.1111/j.1467-937X.2007.00463.xSearch in Google Scholar

Mezzetti, C. and E. Dinopoulos (1991) “Domestic Unionization and Import Competition,” Journal of International Economics, XXXI:79–100.10.1016/0022-1996(91)90057-DSearch in Google Scholar

Mitra, D. (1999) “Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long Run Model of Trade Policy Determination,” American Economic Review LXXXIX:1116–1134.10.1257/aer.89.5.1116Search in Google Scholar

Munch, J. B. and J. R. Skaksen (2002) “Product Market Integration and Wages in Unionized Countries,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, CIV:289–299.10.1111/1467-9442.00287Search in Google Scholar

Naylor, R. (1998) “International Trade and Economic Integration When Labor Markets are Generally Unionised,” European Economic Review XLII:1251–1267.10.1016/S0014-2921(97)00075-5Search in Google Scholar

Nickell, S. J., Vainiomaki and S. Wadhwani (1994) “Wages and Product Market Power,” Economica LXI:457–473.10.2307/2555033Search in Google Scholar

Oswald, A. (1982) “The Microeconomic Theory of the Trade Union,” The Economic Journal, XCII:576–595.10.2307/2232551Search in Google Scholar

Rama, M. and G. Tabellini (1998) “Lobbying by Capital and Labor Over Trade and Labor Market Policies,” European Economic Review, XLII:1295–1316.10.1016/S0014-2921(97)00079-2Search in Google Scholar

Reddy, S. (2000) Bargaining and Distribution: Essays on International Integration and National Regulation. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Economics, Harvard University.Search in Google Scholar

Revenga, A. L. (1997) “Employment and Wage Effects of Trade Liberalization: The Case of Mexican Manufacturing,” Journal of Labor Economics, XV:S20–S43.10.1086/209875Search in Google Scholar

Richardson, J. D. and E. Khripounova (1996) Estimating the “Market-Power” Component of International Trade’s Impact on U.S. Labor. Syracuse University, unpublished working paper.Search in Google Scholar

Rodriguez, F. and D. Ortega (2006) Trade Policy and Factor Prices: An Empirical Strategy. Wesleyan Economics Working Paper No. 2005-004. Available at: http://repec.wesleyan.edu/pdf/frrodriguez/2005004_rodriguez.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Rodrik, D. (1997) Has Globalization Gone too Far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.10.2307/41165897Search in Google Scholar

Rose, N. L. (1987) “Labor Rent-Sharing and Regulation: Evidence from the Trucking Industry,” Journal of Political Economy, XCV:1146–1178.10.1086/261509Search in Google Scholar

Skillman, G. (2000) The Impact of Liberalization on Wage Levels: Considerations Raised by Strategic Bargaining Analysis. Wesleyan University. Available at: http://gskillman.web.wesleyan.edu/research/barg.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Slaughter, M. (1998) “International Trade and Labor-Market Outcomes: Results, Questions and Policy Options,” The Economic Journal, CVIII:1452–1462.10.1111/1468-0297.00353Search in Google Scholar

Slaughter, M. (2000) “What are the Results of Product-Price Studies and What Can We Learn From Their Differences?” In: (R. C. Feenstra, ed.) The Impact of International Trade on Wages. NBER Conference Volume, pp. 284–291.Search in Google Scholar

Slaughter, M. (2001) “International Trade and Labor-Demand Elasticities” Journal of International Economics, LIV:27–56.10.1016/S0022-1996(00)00057-XSearch in Google Scholar

Slichter, S. (1950) “Notes on the Structure of Wages.” Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXII:80–91.10.2307/1928282Search in Google Scholar

Spector, D. (2004) “Competition and the Capital-labor Conflict,” European Economic Review, XLVIII:25–38.10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00322-7Search in Google Scholar

Svejnar, J. (1986) “Bargaining Power, Fear of Disagreement, and Wage Settlements: Theory and Evidence from US Industry,” Econometrica, LVI:1055–1074.10.2307/1912322Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2014-3-8

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston