After three decades of fast growth, China has become one of
the world’s largest economies, and its labor movement is arguably the world’s
largest. But we are still lacking systematic evidence on the effect of Chinese unions
on wages, employment, and other important economic variables, such as labor
productivity and economic growth. With my friends and colleagues Wei Chi, Yijiang
Wang, and Qianyun Xie, I have just published a study in the Journal of Labor Research that uses provincial-level
data to analyze such effects.
In a Western context, it’s common to think of unions as
having two faces, a monopoly face and a voice face. In the monopoly face, labor
unions use their power, derived from the threat of imposing costs on the
organization through strikes and other means, to increase wages and benefits
above what the nonunion labor market would provide. So unions are associated
with higher wages. Moreover, if this higher compensation provides additional
motivation or attracts higher-quality workers, then unions would also be
associated with productivity gains, albeit suboptimally (if a firm wants to
raise wages to boost productivity, it doesn’t need a union to do so!). Alternatively,
unions might reduce productivity if their monopoly power allows them to extract
more favorable working conditions. As such, unions in the monopoly face benefit
union workers, but generally at the expense of others.
In contrast, the collective voice face of unions occurs when
unions convey information preferences to managers who are then better able to shape
terms and conditions of employment that fit employee preferences. Productivity
can improve via improved employee satisfaction and also via a direct channel of
employee voice that identifies process improvements and resolves problems.
Unlike in the monopoly face, these dynamics do not distort competitive labor
market outcomes, and therefore the collective voice face can be socially
beneficial.
Unions might act the same way in China. Or not. Unions in
China are generally not independent of the business. Indeed, Chinese union leaders
have traditionally been appointed by the Communist Party rather than elected by
union members and Chinese unions are partly funded by the company and the
government. By law, the Chinese labor movement has a single hierarchical
structure; all unions are affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade
Unions (ACFTU) and there is no inter-union competition between unions. And
Chinese Union Law does not allow workers to strike nor does it protect strikers
from discrimination or retaliation by their employer. So Chinese unions might
lack real power, and might serve more as an extension of political and business
interests than as a advocate for workers’ interests.
In our analyses, we use provincial-level data spanning 15
years from 1994 through 2008 to estimate the relationship between union density
and various economic outcomes. As an aside, provincial-level analyses are
somewhat old-fashioned because of the greater level of aggregation compared to
enterprise- or individual-level studies. So it is hard to disentangle the
reasons that underlie various the statistical results. But we think this is a
useful exercise because the existing micro-level studies are all drawn from
limited samples (for example, a notable recent study uses data from a limited number of medium to
large cities, excludes small establishments, and might be biased because the
focus of the survey was corporate social responsibility practices). Our
provincial approach therefore captures a much broader spectrum of the geography
and economy of China than the previous studies. The use of provincial data also
allows for a fuller identification of the overall effects of unions if there
are externalities, spillovers, or aggregate-level effects that might be
under-estimated by firm-level or individual-level data.
No comments:
Post a Comment