2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-232x.2010.00618.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Impact of Wage Bargaining Regime on Firm‐Level Competitiveness and Wage Inequality: The Case of Ireland

Abstract: This paper uses a linked employer-employee dataset to analyse the impact of institutional wage bargaining regimes on levels of average labour costs and within firm wage dispersion in private sector companies in Ireland. The results show that while centralised bargaining reduced labour costs within both the indigenous and foreign-owned sectors, the relative advantage was greater among foreign-owned firms. The analysis suggests that there are potentially large competitiveness gains to multinational companies tha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the whole period was covered by centralized wage bargaining, we are not in a position to test the effect of wage bargaining on wage inequality in Ireland. However, preliminary evidence for 2003 suggests that, compared with individual‐level agreements, national‐ and industry‐level wage agreements tend to reduce wage dispersion (McGuinness et al ., 2008). This would suggest that the existence of centralized wage bargaining may have played a role in reducing wage inequality, although it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of this effect and it may have been small.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the whole period was covered by centralized wage bargaining, we are not in a position to test the effect of wage bargaining on wage inequality in Ireland. However, preliminary evidence for 2003 suggests that, compared with individual‐level agreements, national‐ and industry‐level wage agreements tend to reduce wage dispersion (McGuinness et al ., 2008). This would suggest that the existence of centralized wage bargaining may have played a role in reducing wage inequality, although it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of this effect and it may have been small.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For unions, this partnership approach was introduced to protect against Thatcherite neoliberalism and to strengthen union legitimacy (D'Art and Turner 2005). This public ordering with respect to pay setting significantly facilitated Ireland's remarkable economic success (Baccaro and Simoni 2007; McGuinness, Kelly, and O'Connell 2010), notwithstanding current economic difficulties.…”
Section: The United Kingdom and Irelandmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Benchmarking Report produced no evidence to support the assumption that public sector wages had fallen behind, and ignored research demonstrating that public sector workers enjoyed a wage premium before the benchmarking process (Boyle et al 2004). Subsequent papers by Kelly et al (2009) and McGuinness et al (2010) have shown that the public sector pay gap rose sharply between 2003 and 2006, by about 12 percentage points, to between 22 and 26 per cent, depending on the estimation procedure. The public sector premium was highest for those in the lower income deciles.…”
Section: Wages and Pensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Industrial relations were dominated by centralized wage bargaining under tripartite social partnership arrangements for over two decades, from 1987 to the onset of the present crisis. Indeed, Irish social partnership was developed as a strategic response to the fiscal and economic crisis of the 1980s, and initially entailed an exchange of wage restraint and industrial peace for state commitment to reduce income tax (McGuinness et al 2010). In early 2009, employers and the government declined to pay the increases due under the then current National Agreement, 'Towards 2016', which had been negotiated in September 2009, on the basis of inability to pay.…”
Section: Industrial Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%