Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Globalization and Development

Ed. by Stiglitz, Joseph / Emran, M. Shahe / Guzman, Martin / Jayadev, Arjun / Ocampo, José Antonio / Rodrik, Dani

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.30

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.167
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.519

Online
ISSN
1948-1837
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The Declining Labor Share of Income

Francisco Rodriguez / Arjun Jayadev
  • Corresponding author
  • Economics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrisey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-03-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jgd-2012-0028

Abstract

We use two separate panel datasets, one at the economy-wide level and one for the manufacturing sector alone to examine trends in the labor share over the last three decades. Both datasets show that labor shares have decreased, starting from about 1980, in most regions of the world. This finding is robust to adjustments for self-employment as well as adjustments for the unbalanced panel structure of both datasets. Furthermore, we present evidence that as a first approximation, this decrease is driven by declines in intra-sector labor shares as opposed to movements in activity towards sectors with lower labor shares. Finally, we show that global labor share at the economy wide level has been falling.

References

  • Bentolilla, S. and G. Saint-Paul (2003) “Explaining Movements in the Labor Share,” Contributions to Macroeconomics, 3(1):Article 9.Google Scholar

  • Bernanke, B. S. and R. S. Gürkaynak (2002) “Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil Seriously.” In: (B. S. Bernanke and K. Rogoff, eds.) NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2001. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 11–57.Google Scholar

  • Caselli, F. (2005) “Accounting for Cross-Country Income Differences,” Handbook of Economic Growth, 1:679–741.Google Scholar

  • Gollin, D. (2002) “Getting Income Shares Right,” Journal of Political Economy, 110(2):458–474.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guscina, A. (2007) “The Effect of Globalization on the Labor Share of Income.” IMF Working Paper, Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06294.pdf.

  • Harrison, A. E. (2004) Has Globalization Eroded Labour’s Share. Mimeo: University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar

  • Jayadev, A. (2007) “Capital Account Openness and the Labor Share of Income,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(3):423–443, doi:10.1093/cje/bel037.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, D. G. (1954) “The Functional Distribution of Income in the United States, 1850–1952,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 36:175–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kaldor, N. (1961) “Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth.” In: (F. Lutz, ed.) The Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan. pp. 177–222.Google Scholar

  • Kalecki, M. (1969) Theory of Economic Dynamics: An Essay on Cyclical and Long-Run Changes in Capitalist Economy. New York: AM Kelley.Google Scholar

  • Keynes, J. M. (1939) “Relative Movements of Real Wages and Output,” Economic Journal, 49(193):34–51.Google Scholar

  • Kravis, I. B. (1962) The Structure of Income: Some Quantitative Essays. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar

  • Kravis, I. B. (1968) “Income Distribution.” In: (D. L. Sill, ed.) I Functional share, International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan Free Press, 7:132–145.Google Scholar

  • Krueger, A. B. (1999) “Measuring Labour’s Share.” NBER Working Paper, No. 7006. Kuznets, S. (1933) National Income. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 11. New York: Macmillan. Repr. in Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, selected by a committee of the American Economic Association. Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1946.Google Scholar

  • Kuznets, S. (1959) “Quantitative aspects of the economic growth of nations IV: distribution of national income by factor shares,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 7(3,Part II):1–100.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuznets, S. (1966) Modern Economic Growth. Rate, Structure, and Spread. New Haven: CT Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Milanovic, B. (2002) “True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First Calculations Based on Household Surveys Alone,” Economic Journal, 112(476):51–92.Google Scholar

  • Milanovic, B. (2005a) Worlds Apart: Global and International Inequality 1950–2000. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ortega, D. and F. Rodriguez (1999) Openness and Factor Shares. mimeo.Google Scholar

  • Ortega, D. and F. Rodriguez (2006) “Are Capital Shares Higher in Poor Countries? Evidence from Industrial Surveys.”Google Scholar

  • Ricardo, D. (1891) Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. G.Bell and Sons.Google Scholar

  • Smith, A. (1776) The Wealth of Nations: Books I–III. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986.Google Scholar

  • Solow, R. M. (1957) “Technical Change and The Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39:312–320.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Solow, R. M. (1958) “A Skeptical Note on the Constancy of Relative Shares,” American Economic Review, 48:618–631.Google Scholar

  • Syrquin, M. (1988) “Patterns of Structural Change.” In: (H. B. Chenery, T. N. Srinivasan, eds.) Handbook of Development Economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 203–273.Google Scholar

  • Timmer M. P. and A. Szirmai (2000) Productivity growth in Asian manufacturing: the structural bonus hypothesis examined. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(2000): 371–392.Google Scholar

  • Wooldridge, J. (2007) What’s New in Econometrics? Lecture 12 Missing Data; Available at: http://www.nber.org/WNE/Slides8-1-07/sllides_12_missingl.pdf.

About the article

Corresponding author: Arjun Jayadev, Economics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrisey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USA


Published Online: 2013-03-27


One could begin indeed with Adam Smith, 1776 and continue through David Ricardo 1891; Karl Marx 1861; John Maynard Keynes 1939; Simon Kuznets 1933, 1959, 1966; D. Gale Johnson 1954; Robert Solow 1957, 1958; Nicholas Kaldor 1961; Irving Kravis 1962, 1966 and through to more recent times.

It is important to note a few issues with the data. While, in theory, the informal sector is to be included in the data, in practice, by their very nature, enterprises from this sector may not be. Gollin (2002), Bernanke and Gurunayak (2002) and Krueger (1999) flag another connected problem. They all note that the earnings of self-employed persons are not included in the series and, as such, their earnings are falsely considered as accruing to capital.

The results of our analysis do not alter significantly if we use compensation of employess+operating surplus as the denominator rather than gross value added, thereby expunging the effects of indirect taxes and subsidies.

For more details about this dataset and its appropriateness for examining cross national differences in factor shares, see Ortega and Rodriguez (2006).

This adjustment assumes that the entire operating surplus in unincorporated enterprises is wage income. The correlation is still present when one uses other adjustments as well.

The interested reader can see Syrquin (1984) or Timmer and Szirmai (2000) for a detailed exposition of the methodology. Those papers deal with a shift share analysis of labor productivity changes, but the analysis can be carried over directly into an analysis of the labor share by simply changing labels.

We chose the wage bill as the weighting variable rather than value added to avoid negative weights that occur when value added is negative for some sectors.

Another point of evidence for the dominance of within sector effects is given by an examination of the trends for each subsector. In the UN dataset seven out of 11 subsectors show statistically significant time trends for labor share in the period, and two out of 11 subsectors show statistically significant positive time trends. In the UNIDO dataset seven out of 29 subsectors show statistically significant negative time trends for labor share in the period, and only one out of 29 subsectors show statistically significant positive time trends.

Data on the labor force was obtained from the world development indicators.


Citation Information: Journal of Globalization and Development, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 1–18, ISSN (Online) 1948-1837, ISSN (Print) 2194-6353, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jgd-2012-0028.

Export Citation

©2012 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Sharmila Gamlath and Radhika Lahiri
Journal of Economic Studies, 2018, Volume 45, Number 5, Page 1054
[2]
Pablo Gabriel Bortz, Gabriel Michelena, and Fernando Toledo
Journal of Globalization and Development, 2018, Volume 0, Number 0
[3]
Charles Umney, Ian Greer, Özlem Onaran, and Graham Symon
Capital & Class, 2017, Page 030981681773831
[4]
Hyein Shim, Chune Young Chung, and Doojin Ryu
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 2017, Volume 0, Number 0
[5]
Kade Finnoff and Arjun Jayadev
Development and Change, 2014, Volume 45, Number 5, Page 1155

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in