Monetary Institutions, Monopolistic Competition, Unionized Labor Markets and Economic Performance

Is there any scope for corporatism in macroeconomic policies?

“…a simple policy game between the government and a representative union of the kind of Gylfason and Lindbeck (1994)-extensively used in the literature. 12 Then we extend our discussion to the case of multiple unions emphasized by the recent literature and consider unionized segmented-labor markets and monopolistic competition in the goods markets (as in Soskice and Iversen 1998;or Coricelli et al 2006). For the sake of brevity, we expose the model in the simplest and most compact way leaving further details to our references.…”

“…7 Alternatively, firms can be considered as a player (follower) that, given the real wage, sets employment and output as a strategic variable. See, e.g., Coricelli et al (2006). However, the issue is a purely terminological one.…”

“… See Soskice and Iversen (1998, 2000),Coricelli et al (2006),Cukierman and Lippi (2002),Lawler (2005).…”

The relationship between product market competition and unemployment with profit sharing

“…In our framework the number of firms is assumed to be fixed. A similar way of characterizing product market imperfections has been used by, for example, Coricelli et al (2006), to study the relationship between monetary institutions, monopolistic product market competition, unionized labour markets and economic performance. 3 This follows from maximizing the utility function subject to the budget constraint (see, for example, the seminal paper by Dixit and Stiglitz (1977)).…”

Productivity, indexation and macroeconomic outcomes: The implications of goods market competition and wage bargaining structure

“…To consider this issue, a framework is developed which allows analysis of the strategic indexation choices of a finite number of unions, each representing a non-negligible fraction of the economy's total labor force, but which also encompasses both the possibility of a single economy-wide union and that of a continuum of atomistic unions as limiting cases. A substantial body of work concerned with the macroeconomic implications of strategic behavior by non-atomistic unions now exists: see, for example, Skott (1997), Cukierman and Lippi (1999), Lawler (2000Lawler ( , 2001, Soskice and Iversen (2000), Lippi (2003), Holden (2005), and Coricelli, Cukierman, and Dalmazzo, (2006). The focus of this literature has, however, been almost exclusively on the consequences of the interaction between union wage setting and the conduct of monetary policy for optimal policy design.…”