Search

Begin New Search Topic Labor Issues Author Robert Z. Lawrence

1. Climate action: Implications for factor market reallocation

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
This paper considers climate policies, not from the perspective of their environmental impacts, but rather their likely effects on labor and investments. While the aggregate impact of the green transition on jobs and investment may be modest, it will require significant reallocation of labor and capital within and across industries. Although the green transition brings new opportunities for employment and investment in renewable technologies, many workers and communities tied to the fossil fuel industry may not benefit from these advances due to skills mismatch and geographic constraints. Both the United States and the European Union acknowledge the importance of achieving “climate justice” and “leaving no one behind” in their decarbonization efforts. However, current policies and resources in the United States may fall short, with inadequate assistance reaching too many communities and a narrow focus on green jobs. In Europe, while the Just Transition Fund complements existing programs, effective implementation of place-based policies remains challenging due to the need for specific, localized responses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Labor Issues, European Union, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Trade surplus or deficit? Neither matters for changes in manufacturing employment shares

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Many countries have launched industrial policy programs to improve their manufacturing competitiveness based on the idea that countries with larger trade surpluses or smaller deficits in manufacturing will have higher shares of manufacturing employment. And as countries try to generate a recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, these programs are being enlarged. But while the higher productivity in manufacturing that these programs generate may initially increase manufacturing output and expand trade surpluses in manufacturing, it will also reduce the manufacturing jobs required to manufacture those goods for domestic spending and generating the larger trade balances. As a result, the impact on employment is likely to be substantially smaller than might be expected. Improved productivity implies that goods can be manufactured more cheaply using fewer workers, so unless there is high enough demand at home and abroad for the lower-priced or new products that productivity growth generates, any additional jobs created could be substantially lower than might be expected. This is not just a theoretical possibility. Using data from a sample of 60 countries, this paper shows that between 1995 and 2011, on average countries with trade surpluses in manufacturing experienced declines in manufacturing employment shares that were slightly larger than the declines in countries with manufacturing trade deficits. Additionally, the declines in manufacturing employment shares were as large in countries where the manufacturing trade balance moved in a positive direction as in those where it declined. This suggests that even if industrial policies generate larger trade surpluses in manufacturing, they may not succeed in reversing the trend declines in manufacturing employment shares that have persisted in many countries for several decades.
Topic:
Labor Issues, Employment, Manufacturing, Trade Policy, Protectionism, and Trade Deficit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Recent Declines in Labor's Share in US Income: A Preliminary Neoclassical Account

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Over the past decade, the US economy has been plagued by sluggish wage growth and rising income inequality. The debate over inequality in the 1980s and 1990s focused on the growing disparity between the earnings of skilled and unskilled workers and the earnings of the super-rich. Growing inequality between capital and labor income has now been added to these concerns. Remarkably, the growth in real GDP per worker over the decade of the 2000s, which averaged 1.7 percent annually, was actually more rapid than in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s, yet in the 2000s workers saw almost no increase in their take-home pay. Consistent with this gap between labor productivity and wage growth was a pronounced decline in the share of US national income earned by workers. As labor's share has declined, the share of capital has risen and has been especially concentrated in corporate profits. As profits are far less equally distributed than wages, this increase has contributed to rising income inequality. There are several plausible reasons for this development—globalization, automation, weak bargaining power of labor, political capture, higher markups—but the natural starting point for explaining factor income shares is the neoclassical theory of the functional distribution of income enumerated by John Hicks and Joan Robinson in the 1930s. In this framework there are two possible explanations for labor's recent declining share. The first is that capital and labor are gross substitutes, and the second is that capital and labor are gross complements. Several papers have explained the recent decline in labor's share in income by claiming that capital has been substituted for labor. Lawrence puts forward the alternative "gross complements" explanation for the declining US labor share. He shows that despite a rise in measured capital-labor ratios, labor-augmenting technical change in the United States has been sufficiently rapid that effective capital-labor ratios have actually fallen in the sectors and industries that account for the largest portion of the declining labor share in income since 1980. In combination with estimates that corroborate the consensus in the literature that the elasticity of substitution is less than 1, these declines in the effective capital-labor ratio can account for much of the recent fall in labor's share in US income at both the aggregate and industry level. Paradoxically, these results also suggest that increased capital formation, ideally achieved through a progressive consumption tax, would raise labor's share in income.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, Markets, and Labor Issues
Political Geography:
United States

4. US Trade and Wages: The Misleading Implications of Conventional Trade Theory

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence and Lawrence Edwards
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Conventional trade theory, which combines the Heckscher-Ohlin theory and the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, implies that expanded trade between developed and developing countries will increase wage equality in the former. This theory is widely applied. It serves as the basis for estimating the impact of trade on wages using two-sector simulation models and the net factor content of trade. It leads naturally to the presumption that the rapid growth and declining relative prices of US manufactured imports from developing countries since the 1990s have been a powerful source of increased US wage inequality.
Topic:
Economics, Political Theory, and Labor Issues
Political Geography:
United States

5. Do Developed and Developing Countries Compete Head to Head in High Tech?

Author:
Robert Z. Lawrence and Lawrence Edwards
Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Concerns that growth in developing countries could worsen the US terms of trade and that increased US trade with developing countries will increase US wage inequality both implicitly reflect the assumption that goods produced in the United States and developing countries are close substitutes and that specialization is incomplete. In this paper we show on the contrary that there are distinctive patterns of international specialization and that developed and developing countries export fundamentally different products, especially those classified as high tech. Judged by export shares, the United States and developing countries specialize in quite different product categories that, for the most part, do not overlap. Moreover, even when exports are classified in the same category, there are large and systematic differences in unit values that suggest the products made by developed and developing countries are not very close substitutes—developed country products are far more sophisticated.
Topic:
Development, Emerging Markets, International Trade and Finance, Markets, Science and Technology, and Labor Issues
Political Geography:
United States