Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract Numerous studies on firm-level data have reported higher average wages in foreignowned firms than in domestically-owned firms. This, however, does not necessarily imply that the individual worker's wage increase with foreign ownership. Using detailed matched employer-employee data on the entire Swedish private sector, we examine the effect of foreign ownership on individual wages, controlling for individual and firm heterogeneity as well as for possible selection bias in foreign acquisitions. We distinguish between foreign greenfields and takeovers and compare foreign owned firms with both domestic multinationals and local firms. Our results show a considerably smaller wage premium in foreign owned firms than what has been found in studies conducted at a more aggregate level. Moreover, foreign takeovers of Swedish firms tend to have no or even a negative effect on wages. Terms of use: Documents in JEL: F23, J31, C23

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractAnalyzing a large panel that matches public firms with worker-level data, we find that managerial entrenchment affects workers' pay. CEOs with more control pay their workers more, but financial incentives through ownership of more cash flow rights mitigate such behavior. These findings do not seem to be driven by productivity differences, and are unaffected by a series of robustness tests. Further evidence suggests that higher pay comes with non-pecuniary private benefits for a CEO, such as lower-effort wage bargaining with aggressive workers and their unions. Moreover, we find that entrenched CEOs pay more to employees who are closer to them in the firm's hierarchy, such as CFOs, vice-presidents and other executives, and whitecollar workers who work at or geographically close to the corporate headquarters. The evidence is consistent with an agency model in which managers have a taste for both profits and highly paid employees, and implies that corporate governance can be of importance for labor market outcomes such as workers' pay.

This paper uses a large matched employer-employee data set for Sweden to analyse several predictions from tournament theory. For white-collar workers, a positive effect of intra-firm wage dispersion on profits and average pay is found. This result is robust to controls for human capital characteristics and firm fixed-effects as well as to instrumenting the wage dispersion variable. Using data on around 10,000 managers, the same relationships are also found for executives. Further results include a positive relationship between market demand volatility and wage dispersion for managers, and a negative effect of the number of managers (contestants) on managerial pay spread.

Numerous studies based on firm-level data have reported higher average wages in foreign-owned firms than in domestically-owned firms. This, however, does not necessarily imply that the individual worker's wage increases with foreign ownership. Using detailed matched employer-employee data, we examine the effect of foreign ownership on individual wages, controlling for individual and firm heterogeneity as well as for possible selection bias in foreign acquisitions. We distinguish between foreign greenfields and takeovers and compare foreign ownership with both domestic multinationals and local firms. Our results indicate that employees in foreign-owned firms do not have systematically higher wages than comparable workers in similar Swedish owned firms.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractAnalyzing a large panel that matches public firms with worker-level data, we find that managerial entrenchment affects workers' pay. CEOs with more control pay their workers more, but financial incentives through ownership of more cash flow rights mitigate such behavior. These findings do not seem to be driven by productivity differences, and are unaffected by a series of robustness tests. Further evidence suggests that higher pay comes with non-pecuniary private benefits for a CEO, such as lower-effort wage bargaining with aggressive workers and their unions. Moreover, we find that entrenched CEOs pay more to employees who are closer to them in the firm's hierarchy, such as CFOs, vice-presidents and other executives, and whitecollar workers who work at or geographically close to the corporate headquarters. The evidence is consistent with an agency model in which managers have a taste for both profits and highly paid employees, and implies that corporate governance can be of importance for labor market outcomes such as workers' pay.