Inequality, Aggregate Demand and Crises Matthieu Charpe ∗
Stefan K¨uhn†
International Labour Organization
International Labour Organization
April 23, 2012
Abstract This paper discusses the impact of inequality on output and employment using a DSGE model. In particular, the model looks at the impact of lower bargaining power of workers on aggregate demand via the labour share of income. To address this issue, the model combines a search and matching model with Nash bargaining over income distribution with ruleofthumb households, nominal price rigidities, CES production function and lower zero bound on monetary policy. The model features an endogenous labour share of income arising from the wage bargaining. Ruleofthumb households create a transmission channel going from functional income distribution to consumption decisions, which feed back on aggregate demand through nominal price rigidities. Low substitution between labour and capital limits the increase in labour demand following a decline in wages, while the lower zero bound prevents an investment boom to overbalance the decline in consumption. The main result is that following a decline in the bargaining power of workers, the resulting drop in the labour share of income lowers consumption and aggregate demand. It follows that downward wage rigidities such as minimum wage limit the fall in output and employment. These results stand in contrast with standard NewKeynesian models. ——————— Keywords: Inequality, labour share, search, matching, crisis. JEL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: E24, E32, E62.
∗ Corresponding
author,
[email protected], Bureau International du Travail, 4 route des Morillons 1211 Gen`eve  CH, +41 22 799 64 43 †
[email protected], Bureau International du Travail, 4 route des Morillons 1211 Gen` eve  CH, +41 22 799 68 67
1
1 Introduction This paper contributes to the literature connecting inequality and business cycle models. It presents a DSGE model in which rising inequality leads to an economic crisis through its negative effect on consumption and aggregate demand. Our contribution is to show that the transmission channel between inequality and macroeconomics takes place via aggregate demand effects rather than supply side or financial effects. This paper does not claim that these latter effects did not contribute to the actual crisis, but that the aggregate demand channel has been understudied in the existing literature. A number of contributions have documented the increase in inequality before the 2007 crisis. Piketty and Saez (2003) as well as Atkinson et al. (2011) have described the concentration of income in the top deciles of the population. Acemoglu (2003) and Lemieux (2006) review evidence and factors explaining increasing wage dispersion between high skilled and low skilled workers. Looking at functional income distribution, Blanchard (1997) and Blanchard and Giavazzi (2003) illustrate the decline in the labour share of income. In this paper, we are interested in the functional rather than the personal income distribution. Figure 1 shows that the labour share of income has declined in three fourth of the 16 high income countries for which data are available over the period 19602010. Section 2 further details the decline in the labour share of income in high income countries. Two fundamentally different explanations for the fall in the labour share exist. The first claims that technological progress favored capital return, while the second identifies institutional changes as the cause of this development. All explanations require a departure from the assumption of unitary elasticity of substitution in the production function, which is usually made in RBC models. Choi and RiosRull (2009) and Arpaia et al. (2009) study the importance of the elasticity of substitution ζ between factors of produc
2
tion on their relative shares.1 Institutional factors to explain a changing labour share can range from lower unionization rates to globalization pressure, but are usually modelled as a fall in worker’s bargaining power.2 This paper utilizes a general constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function as well as a labour market featuring bargaining over wages and employment. As such, this model allows both for technological as well as institutional factors to affect the labour share of income. There are few attempts to link inequality and the crisis in the DSGE literature. In standard New Keynesian models with a search and matching friction and bargaining over income distribution, such as Sala et al. (2008), a decline in the labour share of income increases output and employment. The main reason is that lower wages increase labour demand by firms. Since the surplus from an additional match accruing to firms increases, they have an incentives to post more vacancies. A strong supply side effect follows, raising output. Additionally, changes in the income distribution have no effect on consumption and saving decisions since the representative household receives both labour and profit income. The model presented in this paper differs from standard New Keynesian models along three dimensions. First, the model creates a channel between income distribution and consumption / saving decisions using households’ heterogeneity. A first type of household is optimizing and makes consumption, saving and investment decisions to smooth intertemporal consumption based on its permanent income. Additionally, a second type 1 Choi and RiosRull (2009) show that an elasticity of substitution below unity (ζ
= 0.75 in their model) is required for a DSGE model to qualitatively reproduce empirical cyclical wage share properties in response to technology shocks. In contrast, Arpaia et al. (2009) take the presence of low and highskilled labour into account when investigating the impact of technical change and changes in the relative composition in the labour force. 2 Berthold et al. (2002) model puttyclay technology and capital, thereby featuring low substitutability between capital and labour in the short run and high substitutability in the long run. Under these assumptions, a fall in workers’ bargaining power will temporarily reduce the labour share. Blanchard and Giavazzi (2003) focus on firm entry costs and show that lower bargaining power, through raising employment, raises the number of firms and thereby competition in the market, thus lowering the price markup. By abstracting from aspects of technology and factor substitution, they establish that the labour share will ultimately be related to frictional costs, like entry costs, imposed on firms.
3
of household, called ruleofthumb household, has no access to financial markets, and thus no saving or borrowing.3 This household relies exclusively on labour income when employed or the replacement wage when unemployed. The presence of rule of thumb households generates a transmission channel going from income distribution to consumption decisions and aggregate demand. Second, the paper introduces the possibility of a liquidity trap implemented with a lower bound on the nominal interest rate, as in Christiano et al. (2009). In a liquidity trap, a shortage of demand, causing deflation, cannot be met by a fall in the nominal interest rate. As a result, the real interest rate rises, further lowering consumption and investment demand. This paper shows that the negative aggregate demand effect caused by lower workers’ bargaining power far outweighs the positive supply effects in a liquidity trap. This channel is especially relevant in the 2008 crisis, when the collapse of the financial system required central banks to reduce interest rates to very low levels. Section 5 shows that the mechanism underlined in this paper are also relevant in the absence of a lower zero bound. However, the liquidity trap amplifies the mechanism at work. Third, the model assumes a CES production function, which encompasses both CobbDouglas as well as Leontief production functions. Low degree of substitution between labour and capital implies that a decline in wages does not trigger a large increase in labour demand. This effect both produces fluctuations in the labour share of income as well as reduces the size of the transmission channel going from wages to labour demand. Summarizing, this paper highlights the importance of labour income as a driver of aggregate demand. Additionally, the relevance of this effect is underlined by conducting an experiment where a lower floor on real wages is introduced. Such a floor can be motivated by the downward rigidity of nominal wages, or by policy action in the form of a minimum wage. Under such circumstances, the crisis induced by increased inequality 3 There is a large literature on rule of thumb households, see for instance Gal´ı et al. (2007) or Bosc´ a et al. (2001).
4
is actually less severe since aggregate demand does not fall as strong. The paper conceptually closest is Kumhof and Ranciere (2010). These authors also investigate the potential crisisinducing impact of rising inequality. In their paper, workers react to falling wage income by increasing indebtedness, which eventually can cause an economic crisis. In contrast to this paper, Kumhof and Ranciere (2010) disregard aggregate demand effects by using a highly stylized model, assuming constant employment and abstracting from capital accumulation. The next section reviews empirical evidence on the time series properties of the functional income distribution. Section 3 presents the mathematical derivation of the model used. Section 4 outlines the calibration strategy used, while Section 5 presents the simulation results. Finally, the last Section concludes.
2 Trends in the labour share of income Figure 1 illustrates the decline in the labour share of income, which has taken place in the majority of 16 high income countries for which data exist over the period 19602010. Data are taken from the AMECO database. The adjusted wage share is defined as percentage of GDP at current factor cost (Compensation per employee as percentage of GDP at factor cost per person employed.) The decline has been gradual and continuous in 11 out of 16 countries over the period 19602010. The largest drop took place in Ireland, Japan and Austria with an annual growth decline of 0.54 percent, 0.38 percent and 0.38 percent respectively. Italy, Norway and Finland displays declines around 0.30 percent annual, while the USA and Canada are close to 0.2 percent. More moderate declines took place in France 0.17 and Sweden 0.10. Interestingly, this decline has mainly taken place over the past two decades. In Australia and the Netherlands, the labour share is constant but displays a large increase in the 1970’s and a long correction thereafter. Contrastingly, in Denmark and the UK, the labour share has been fluctuating
5
around a constant trend. Lastly, Belgium is the sole country in which the labour share has been increasing at an annual rate of 0.17 percent. [Figure 1 about here.] These relatively large fluctuations in the labour share of income confirm existing studies. Blanchard (1997) and Blanchard and Giavazzi (2003) for instance make a similar analysis and point to labour market rigidities as a source of these fluctuations.4 However, this result is not consensual since Kaldor predicted that the labour share is constant around 65%. Picketty (2001) for instance makes a similar statement based on long term time series. Contrastingly, Solow (1958) argues that while constant at the aggregate level, the wage share displays excessive fluctuations at the sectoral level. Recently, as a similar analysis has been conducted on US data by Young (2010). A reason to explain the absence of a consensus on the trends in the labour share of income is the measurement difficulties. A first issue is the treatment of quasi public administration and the financial sector in measuring the value added. A second issue is the contribution of stock options and the income of the selfemployed in the compensation of labour. Askenazy (2003) shows for instance that correcting for the selfemployed as well as for quasi public administration affects the trends in the labour share significantly in France and the USA. This paper does not intend to engage in the debate of the long run properties of the labour share. However, since the undershooting in the labour share is a short to medium run phenomena, it raises the question of the economic consequence of this deviation on aggregate demand and economic activity. 4 See
Bentolila and SaintPaul (2003) for a similar analysis.
6
3 Model 3.1 Households’ heterogeneity and aggregate quantities There are two types of households, optimizing households denoted by subscript o and rule of thumb households denoted by subscript r. We define the total number of households, consumption, employment and total labour endowment (labour supply) of each household type as ϒi,t , Ci,t , Ni,t and Li,t for i = [o, r], respectively. The total aggregate quantities are then given by the sums of these, thus Ct = Co,t +Cr,t and the equivalents. Consumption per household ct = Cϒtt is then given by ct = øc co,t + (1 − øc )cr,t , where øc = Ci,t ϒi,t
ϒo,t ϒt
(1)
is the share of optimizing consumers in the total population, and ci,t =
for i = [o, r]. We assume that each household has a maximum labour endowment
of unity. We assume that rule of thumb households fully use their labour endowment, thus Lr,t = ϒr,t . For optimizing consumers, we assume that their labour supply can be a fraction υ , thus Lo,t = υ ϒo,t .5 This allows the model to encompass different cases. The standard ruleofthumb setup as presented in Gal´ı et al. (2007) corresponds to υ = 1. The polarized case where optimizing households are capitalists and rule of thumb households are workers as in ? is given by υ = 0. The standard New Keynesian model with a single optimizing households is achieved by assuming øc = υ = 1. The employment rate nt =
Nt Lt
is given by
nt =øn no,t + (1 − øn )nr,t , where øn =
υ øc øp
(2)
is the share of optimizing consumers in the workforce and ø p = 1 − (1 −
υ )øc . When υ = 1, then øn = øc and ø p = 1. The aggregate employment per household is given by
Nt ϒt
= ø p nt
5 We
set this fraction exogenously. A model extension could have this value be determined endogenously, for example as a function of wealth.
7
Since only optimizing households hold a capital stock, per household investment and capital stock are defined as xt =øc xo,t
(3)
kt =øc ko,t
(4)
3.2 Labour Market Flows In the model presented in this paper, all households face equal probabilities of finding or loosing a job. Hence, we specify the labour market flows in aggregate quantities only. All workers not working in a period are unemployed and looking for a job. The pool of unemployed (relative to the labour force L) is given by ut = 1 − nt−1 . Unemployed workers can be matched to a job and start working immediately in that period. The γ 1−γ
matching function (again specified as relative to the labour force L) is mt = γm ut vt
,
where mt are new matches, vt are posted vacancies, γ is the elasticity of matching to unemployed workers and γm is the overall matching efficiency. Three definitions are used to describe the labour market: the probability of filling a vacancy, qt = mt /vt , the job finding probability pt = mt /ut and labour market tightness
θt =
vt 1−nt .
The model assumes quadratic employment adjustment cost ϕn,t ht following
Gertler and Trigari (2009), which are specified in terms of the hiring rate ht =
mt 6 nt−1 .
Jobs separation probability is 1 − ρ . Employment at t is given by the remaining stock of workers plus new matches. nt = ρ nt−1 + qt vt
(6)
Thus, workers that were employed at t − 1 and who loosed their job are immediately in 6 The
functional form used is as in Gertler and Trigari (2009)
ϕn,t =
κ 2 h nt−1 2 t
8
(5)
the pool of unemployed and are able to find a job in period t again. The probability of filling a vacancy, qt and the job finding probability pt are given by: ( qt =γm ( pt =γm
1 − nt−1 vt vt 1 − nt−1
)γ (7) )1−γ (8)
3.3 Households Optimizing and rule of thumb households maximize their intertemporal utility function ∞
maxUi,t =
∑ β t+ j u(ci,t+ j )
for i = [o, r],
(9)
j=0
where β is the time discount factor and the period utility function u(ci,t ) is defined as u(ci,t ) =
σ c1− i,t
i
1−σi
for i = [o, r].
Both types of households face the employment dynamics constraint. ni,t = ρ ni,t−1 + pt (1 − ni,t−1 ) for i = [o, r]. 3.3.1
(10)
Rule of Thumb Households
Rule of thumb households do not have access to financial markets. Therefore, their budget constraint is given by their labour income plus their unemployment benefit payments wu . cr,t ≤ wt nr,t + wu (1 − nr,t ),
(11)
The household maximizes its utility (9) subject to the employment and budget constraints, (10) and (11). The consumption of rule of thumb households is given by their
9
budget constraint (eq 11), which is always binding. Furthermore, the marginal utility of consumption λr,t (the Lagrange multiplier on the budget constraint) is given by σ λr,t = c− r,t
r
(12)
The first derivative of the utility function Ur,t with respect to nr,t yields Vr,t = λr,t (wt − wu ) + β Et [Vr,t+1 (ρ − pt+1 )] , where Vr,t is the Lagrange multiplier on the employment dynamics constraint (10), and can thus be interpreted as the marginal utility value of a job to a household. It is useful to define the value of a job in terms of a consumption good, thus we define Hnr ,t =
Vr,t λr,t .
We then obtain [ r ] (ρ − pt+1 ) Hnr ,t+1 , Hnr ,t =wt − wu + β Et Λt,t+1 r where Λt,t+1 =
3.3.2
λr,t+1 λr,t
(13)
is the stochastic discount factor for rule of thumb consumers.
Optimizing Consumers
Like rule of thumb households, optimizing households also earn labour income and unemployment benefits. These quantities have to be scaled by the relative labour market participation υ when expressing in perhousehold terms. Additionally, they can invest in bonds paying a gross nominal interest rate Rn,t . When Bo,t is the total nominal quantity of bonds held by optimizing households, then bo,t =
Bo,t Pt ϒo
is the real stock of bonds per
optimizing household. Finally, they can accumulate physical capital ko,p,t subject to the accumulation function ko,p,t = (1 − δ )ko,p,t−1 + xo,t (1 − ϕk,t ),
(14)
where ϕk,t are capital adjustment costs.7 7 Capital
adjustment costs follow the usual specification ϕk,t =
steady state.
10
ηk 2
(
xo,t xo,t−1
)2 − 1 , so that ϕk = 0 at the
Optimizing households are allowed to vary the usage of physical capital by the factor uk,t , to earn a return uk,t rk,t on their physical capital stock. There is a cost ℑ(uk,t ) associated with capacity over or underutilization.8 Actual capital is determined by ko,t =uk,t ko,p,t−1
(15)
The budget constraint of optimizing households is given by co,t + xo,t + bo,t + ℑ(uk,t )ko,p,t−1 ≤ wt υ no,t + wu υ (1 − no,t ) + rk,t uk,t ko,p,t−1 + where Πt are profit receipts from firms, πt =
Pt Pt−1
Rn,t−1 bo,t−1 − τo,t + Πt , πt
(16)
is the gross price inflation rate and Pt is
the aggregate price level. The household maximizes its utility (9) subject to the employment dynamics constraint (10), the capital accumulation (14) and the budget constraint (16). We define the Lagrange multipliers on the employment constraint as Vo (thus the marginal value of a job), the budget constraint as λo (thus the marginal utility of consumption), and the capital accumulation constraint as λk (thus the marginal utility value of a unit of capital). Defining φt =
λk,t λo,t
(Tobin’s q), the first order conditions are given by
λo,t = co,t −σ
o
(17)
1 πt+1 β Rn,t ( o [ ]) φt = β Et Λt,t+1 rk,t+1 uk,t+1 − ℑ(uk,t+1 ) + φt+1 (1 − δ ) { )} ( o )2 ( xt+1 xt+1 o 1 − β Et φt+1 Λt,t+1 xo xt − 1 t ( )) ( φt = o xt −1 1 − ϕt + xxot ηk xt−1
o Λt,t+1 =
(18) (19)
(20)
t−1
rk,t = rk e
ψ (uk,t −1)
(21)
Vo,t = λo,t υ (wt − wu ) + β Et [Vo,t+1 (ρ − pt+1 )] , 8 The
functional form is ℑ(uk,t ) =
rk ψ
(
) eψ (uk,t −1) − 1 , so that ℑ(1) = 0 and
11
∂ ℑ(uk,t ) ∂ uk,t
> 0.
o where Λt,t+1 =
λo,t+1 λo,t
is the stochastic discount factor for optimizing households.
Similarly to rule of thumb households, we define the value of a job in terms of a consumption good Hno ,t =
Vo,t λo,t .
We then obtain
[ o ] Hno ,t =υ wt − υ wu + β Et Λt,t+1 (ρ − pt+1 ) Hno ,t+1 ,
3.4 The Wholesale Good Firm Wholesale good firms produce output using capital and labour using a production function of the form Ytw = F(Kt , Nt ). We specify a CES production function, which is homogeneous of degree one. Therefore, output per household can be expressed as ytw
] ζ [ ζ −1 ζ −1 ζ −1 , = α (Bk kt ) ζ + (1 − α )(Bn ø p nt ) ζ
(22)
where ζ is the elasticity of substitution, Bk and Bn are technology (scaling) parameters and α is a share parameter. The CobbDouglas case occurs when ζ = 1. The firm maximizes its value Ft , expressed as per household, by selling output at the real price ptw ,9 renting capital kt at price rk,t , and hiring labour nt at price wt , subject to the dynamic equation governing employment as well as the quadratic employment adjustment cost. The value is given by [ o ] κ Ft+1 , Ft = ptw ytw − wt ø p nt − ht2 nt−1 − rtk kt + β Et Λt,t+1 2
(23)
o where Λt,t+1 is also the firms’ discount factor as they are owned by optimizing house
holds. The first order conditions with respect to k, h and n (where we do not evaluate 9 Section
3.7 specifies ptw .
12
∂ h/∂ n as each firm is small) are given, in that order, by rk =
ptw α (Bk )
ζ −1 ζ
(
ytw kt
)1 ζ
(24)
κ ht = Jt
[ [ o ] κ 2 ] o Jt = ptw atn − ø p wt + β Et Λt,t+1 Jt+1 ht+1 + β ρ Et Λt,t+1 2 )1 ( ( ) ζ −1 ytw ζ ν n ζ at = (1 − α ) zn,t Bn kg,t ø p nt
(25) (26) (27)
The marginal productivity of labour is given by an . Jt is the Lagrange multiplier on the ”budget” constraint of employment dynamics (6), and thus can be interpreted as the marginal value to the firm of having another worker.
3.5 Bargaining Firms and workers engage in Nash Bargaining over the joint surplus, the outcome of which is the wage wt∗ . ηt is the workers relative bargaining power and is time dependant since the experiment considered in this paper is a temporary shock on ηt .
wt∗
} { ηt 1−ηt ≡ max (Ht ) (Jt ) ,
0 < ηt < 1
(28)
The bargaining solution implies ηt Jt = (1 − ηt )Ht , where the aggregate worker surplus is given as a weighted average of the individual surpluses according to their share in the labour force, Ht = øn Hno ,t + (1 − øn )Hnr ,t . The bargaining set, the total surplus, is given by St = w¯ t − wt , where w¯ t is the maximum wage when firms’ surplus Jt = 0, and wt is the minimum wage when workers surplus Ht = 0. The negotiated wage is the weighted average of these reservation wages, t vt wt∗ = ηt w¯ t + (1 − ηt )wt . By substituting Jt = κ nqt−1 , we obtain
13
{ } 1 w n 1 o pt at + (1 − ηt ) wu + ηt β Et Jt+1 Λt,t+1 pt+1 øp øb ( ) { } [ o ] 1 κ 1 1 2 o + ηt β Et Λt,t+1 (ht+1 ) + ηt ρβ Et Λt,t+1 − Jt+1 øp 2 ø p øb { } 1 − øn o r + (1 − ηt ) β Et Hnr ,t+1 (ρ − pt+1 )(Λt,t+1 − Λt,t+1 ) øb
wt∗ =ηt
(29)
Hall (2005) demonstrates that real wage stickiness greatly improves the ability of a search and matching model to match empirical employment dynamics. For this reason, we follow him by utilizing the following wage rule wt =ρw wt−1 + (1 − ρw )wt∗
(30)
The actual wage is a weighted average between the Nash bargained wage and the past period’s wage.
3.6 The Final Goods Firm The final good (expressed per household), yt , is produced in a competitive market according to the following CES technology: (∫ yt =
0
1
)µ yi,t di 1 µ
µ ≥1
where each input yi,t is a differentiated intermediate good. The term
(31) 1 1−µ
indicates the
price elasticity of the demand for any intermediate good i. Each period, final goods producers choose a continuum of differentiated intermediate goods, yi,t at price Pi,t , to maximize their profits subject to the CES technology (31). The demand function for intermediate goods can be derived as follow: (
Pi,t yi,t = Pt
14
)
µ 1−µ
yt
(32)
3.7 Intermediate Good Firms Intermediate good firms purchase homogeneous goods from the wholesale sector and relabel them to produce differentiated goods. These differentiated goods are then sold in a monopolistic competitive market to the final good firms. Furthermore, we assume that intermediate good firms are subject to price stickiness, whereby a fraction χ1 cannot reset its price in a certain period and set price Pt−1 . Of the fraction 1 − χ1 that is able to reset its price, only a fraction χ2 performs a full optimization of its reset price, setting Pt∗ , while a fraction 1 − χ2 resets its price according to the simple rule Pb,t = Pt−1 πt−1 . The aggregate price Pt is given by Pt = χ1 Pt−1 + (1 − χ1 )P˜t , where P˜t = χ2 Pt∗ + (1 −
χ2 )Pb,t is the aggregate reset price. Normalizing these equations by Pt , we get: 1 =χ1 πt−1 + (1 − χ1 ) p˜t p˜t =χ2 pt∗ + (1 − χ2 ) where pt∗ =
Pt∗ Pt
(33)
πt−1 πt
(34)
is the ”real” optimized reset price.
Firms being able to optimize choose price pt∗ by maximizing their discounted stream of real profits. [
∞
∑
o max Et (χ1 β )s Λt,t+s Pt∗ s=0
] Pt∗ w − pt+s yi,t+s Pt+s
(35)
subject to the demand equation (32). ptw represents the (real) purchasing price of wholesale goods, and thus the marginal costs. The first order condition is f1,t =
1 f2,t µ
(36)
where −µ
1−µ −1 f1,t = (pt∗ ) 1−µ yt ptw + Λt,t+1 χ1 β πt+1
µ
1
f2,t = (pt∗ ) 1−µ yt
−µ 1−µ
+ Λt,t+1 χ1 β πt+1 15
(
(
pt∗ ∗ pt+1
pt∗ ∗ pt+1 ) 1
)
µ 1−µ
f1,t+1
(37)
1−µ
f2,t+1
(38)
Firms set their price not at the current optimal level but at the level they deem optimal over the expected lifetime of their set price. In the presence of inflation, this means that firms having reset their price earlier will have a lower relative price than firms that just reset their price, and will therefore have a higher share of aggregate demand. This means that marginal products are not equal across firms, but that there will be inefficiencies due to price dispersion, denoted with the symbol st . This means that the quantity available for aggregate demand, yt , is not necessarily equal to the quantity from the per firm production function ytw , but only a fraction
1 st
of it. Hence, we have the relationships
ytw =st yt
(39) − 1−1 µ
st =(1 − χ1 ) p˜t
1
+ χ1 πt1−µ st−1
In a zero inflation steady state the optimal reset price will be given by
(40) 1 µ
= pw . Thus,
firms set price as a markup on nominal marginal costs.
3.8 Policies and resource constraint Due to the lower zero bound on monetary policy, the interest rate set by the Central Bank is the maximum of the interest rate as determined by a Taylor rule Rtn∗ and zero. Rtn = max [Rtn∗ , 0]
(41)
The implementation of the zero bound is presented in Appendix B. The Taylor rule sets the interest rate according to a criteria of interest rate smoothing, and measures of inflation and output. ϕm is the parameter driving the Taylor rule inertia, while ϕπ and ϕy are the parameters setting the response of the interest rate to inflation and output. { n∗ }ϕm {( ) ( )ϕy }1−ϕm Rt−1 Rtn∗ πt ϕπ yt = Rn Rn π y
16
(42)
The government pays unemployment benefits and finances these using lump sum taxes on optimizing households, which is thus equivalent to debt financing.10 Therefore, rule of thumb households are not subjected to cyclical tax fluctuations. The resource constraint is given by summing the budget constraints of both type of households (11), (16) as well as the profit equation of firms. yt =ct + xt +
κ qt2 vt2 + ℑ(uk,t )øc ko,p,t−1 2 nt−1
(43)
Finally, the exogenous process subjected to a shock in this paper is ηt , which evolves according to the autoregressive process
ηt = (1 − ρη )η + ρη ηt−1
(44)
3.9 Equilibrium The stationary equilibrium consists in processes for the flow variables [y, yw , c, co , cr , x, xo , an ], ˜ p∗ , f 1 , f 2 , s], the stock variables [n, no , nr , k, ko , ko,p ], the prices [Rn , rk , φ , uk , w, w∗ , pw , π , p, the labour market rates [q, v, p] and the utility and discount rates [J, Hr , λo , Λo , λr , Λr ] , given the structural parameters [øc , υ , σ o , σ r , β , δ , ψ , ηk ], the labour market parameters [κ , ρ , γm , γ , ρw ], the production parameters [α , Bk , Bn , ζ ], the pricing parameters [µ , χ1 , χ2 ], the policy parameters [wu , ρm , ϕπ , ϕy , τr , τo ] and the exogenous process [η , ρη ] satisfying the equilibrium conditions given by equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (10), (7), (8), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), (24), (25), (26), (27), (29), (30), (33), (34), (36), (37), (38), (39), (40), (42), (43) and (44) and the i definitions Λt,t+1 =
4
λi,t+1 λi,t
for i = [o, r].
Steady State and Calibration
The steady state of the model is given when all variables are constant over time. In principle, the steady state can be solved given all structural parameters. In practice, it 10 τ o,t
= wu (1 − nr,t + υ (1 − no,t ))
17
is usual procedure to calibrate target values for certain variables and derive structural parameters from these. First, this paper calibrates a zero inflation steady state and normalizes the price level to unity. Next, this paper calibrates the job separation rate ρ , the job finding rate p and labour market tightness θ to match empirically observed values, and uses these to derive the structural parameters γm and κ . Furthermore, it is useful with CES production functions to normalize steady state output to unity. This requires the technology parameters Bk and Bn to be computed as the inverse of the steady states of the factors of production, k and n. These steady state values are easily derived using knowledge of the real interest rate (given the discount parameter β ) and the job separation and finding rate. Table 1 shows the parameter calibration used for the numerical simulations carried out further below. The parameters are essentially taken from Gertler and Trigari (2009), who estimated a similar model for the US economy. The relative risk aversion is identical for both households σ o = σ r and is set at 1. It follows that the utility function takes the form of a logarithmic function. The time discount factor β is set at 0.992, generating an annual interest rate of 3.2%. Capital depreciates at a rate of 2.5% per quarter, which corresponds to 10% annual rate of depreciation. The cost of capital adjustment ηk is 3 and the cost of capacity utilization is set at 0.7 following the estimation made by Sala et al. (2008) for the US economy. The parameters of the labour market are conventional and taken from Shimer (2005). The job surviving rate ρ is set at 90%, while the job finding probability p and the labour market tightness are equal to 0.95 and 0.5 at the steady state respectively. The elasticity of matching to unemployed workers γ is 0.5. An important parameter in search and matching models is the replacement ratio ω . In models without strong wage stickiness, a high value is needed to generate realistic employment fluctuations. Gertler and Trigari (2009) estimate this value to be 0.72 in a model with wage stickiness and 0.98 in a model
18
without wage stickiness. We choose an intermediate value ω = 0.9. Since restrictions are placed on two variables p and θ , the steady states for labour market variables are found by solving endogenously for the two parameters γm , the efficiency of the matching function, and κ , the employment adjustment cost. They are respectively equal to 1.345 and 0.6572. These parameters produces an employment rate n of nearly 90% at the steady state. Finally, wage rigidity is moderate with ρw = 0.3. [Table 1 about here.] The capital share α is set at 0.3 and µ is set at 1.11 for a mark up of 11%, generating a labour share of income of 63% at the steady state. The coefficient Bk and Bn are equal to 0.1223 and 1.3003 respectively, which corresponds to the inverse of the steady state value of the capital stock and employment in order to normalize the CES production function. The set of parameters related to nominal price rigidities is conventional. 75% of firms are unable to adjust their price to the optimal price every period. There is no price indexation
χ2 = 1. Monetary policy inertia ρm is set at 0.8, while the reaction of the interest rate to inflation and output are 1.7 and 0.2 respectively. Lastly, the experiment undertaken consists in a negative shock on the bargaining power of workers η , which is equal to 0.5 at the steady state. The shock is given by ε = 0.05η and produces a 1.5% decline in the labour share of income in the baseline calibration. The persistence of the shock ρη is 0.9. We define the baseline model when optimizing households’ participation to the labour market is given by υ = 0.5. The share of rule of thumb households (1 − øc ) is 70% as in Gal´ı et al. (2007). Furthermore, the production function assumes a lower degree of substitution between labour and capital, ζ = 0.6, an intermediate value between the CobbDouglas case ζ = 1 and the Leontief case ζ = 0. To simulate a standard New Keynesian model, we set the share of optimizing households and the elasticity of substitution between capital and labour to unity (øc = 1, υ = 1, ζ = 1). We also consider another
19
extreme case where optimizing households are identified as capitalists, thus not earning labour income (υ = 0). All intermediate calibrations are possible.
5
Results
5.1
Baseline results
This section presents the simulated results of a fall in worker’s bargaining power using the model described in this paper. The solid line in Figure 2 shows the baseline calibration, while the dashed line shows a standard New Keynesian model with search and matching in the labour market.11 The figures for output, consumption and investment below represent percentage point deviations in terms of GDP, which in turn is normalized to one in steady state. Inflation, employment and the labour share are represented as percentage point deviations. [Figure 2 about here.] The fall in bargaining power causes a fall in the labour share for three reasons. First, workers can only bargain for lower wages, leading to a fall in real wages. Second, employment adjusts slowly with search and matching in the labour market. Third, with low substitution between capital and labour, the price effect from a fall in the wage is not countered fully by the quantity effect from an eventual rise in employment. In the standard New Keynesian model, only the first two effects are present, explaining why the labour share quickly returns to its baseline value. Contrastingly, the labour share falls by more than 1% on impact and stay below steady state for more than 15 quarters in the baseline calibration. 11 The
baseline calibration includes rule of thumb households øc = 0.3 and full participation of optimizing households in the labour market υ = 0.5. The production function has low degree of substitution between labour and capital ζ = 0.6. The parameters are presented in Table 1. The standard New Keynesian calibration assumes away rule of thumb households øc = 1, while optimizing households participate in the labour market υ = 1. The production function is CobbDouglas ζ = 1, while there is no bound on the interest rate and no wage rigidity ρw = 0. Remaining parameters are identical to the parameters of the baseline model.
20
The experiment of lowering workers’ bargaining power usually raises output, consumption, investment and employment in a Standard New Keynesian model. Firms’ surplus from employment relationships rises, thus increasing vacancies, the number of matches, employment and output. This increases both the marginal product of capital and aggregate saving, thus raising investment. Consumption rises since permanent income increases. Inflation falls since the increase in employment and the fall in wages lowers marginal costs. The baseline calibration additionally takes several aspects into account that are ignored by the standard New Keynesian model. First, the presence of rule of thumb consumers makes the income distribution an important driver of aggregate demand. This channel is absent in the standard model since a representative household earns all income. Second, a lower elasticity of substitution between capital and labour implies a larger fall in the labour share due to a fall in bargaining power since the price and substitution effects from a fall in wages do not cancel. Third, the baseline simulation allows for the presence of a liquidity trap. The fall in aggregate demand lowers inflation, in response to which the central bank should lower the nominal interest rate. In the presence of a lower bound on the nominal interest rate, the fall in inflation actually raises the real interest rate. This has a threefold effect. Vacancy posting falls since the surplus from a match decreases, investment demand falls, and consumption demand by optimizing households falls as well. Summarizing, the baseline simulation allows for strong aggregate demand effects in response to a falling bargaining power of workers to occur. The solid line in Figure 2 shows that under such circumstances a fall in workers’ bargaining power leads to longlasting reductions in important macroeconomic variables. Aggregate consumption declines by 1.2 percent on impact. Output declines by 2.3 percent and employment by 1.7 percent. Additionally, investment also falls for 3 quarters. It follows that a reduction
21
in worker’s bargaining power in a situation of economic recession with low interest rates further depresses economic activity on impact.
5.2 Sensitivity analysis This section presents some sensitivity analysis to illustrate the importance of the different transmission channels at work in the baseline calibration. Figure 3 presents the sensitivity analysis concerning the impact of the income distribution as a driver of aggregate demand. The solid line shows the baseline calibration as presented above. The dashed line shows a calibration of limited labour market participation, where optimizing households behave purely as capitalists and do not participate in the labour market υ = 0. As a result, a larger share of total consumption cannot be smoothed intertemporally.12 A fall in bargaining power therefore leads to a larger fall in aggregate demand, and consequently to a more severe depression of economic activity. Furthermore, the model is moved closer to an instability region, thus producing a kink in the dynamic path of the variables.13 The dasheddotted line represents the case where there are no ruleofthumb consumers, thus there is no demand effect from changes in the functional income distribution (øc = 1 and υ = 1). However, the case still allows for the economy to be facing a liquidity trap. In this case, the increase in aggregate saving described above, combined with the fall in inflation, do not boost investment but cause the lower bound on the nominal interest rate to be binding. Compared to the baseline model, the absence of income distribution effects on aggregate demand cancels the importance of the lower bound. [Figure 3 about here.] Figure 4 shows that the mechanisms introduced by this paper, the importance of the income of workers to support aggregate demand, induces a fall in output and employment 12 The
wage share is more or less fixed due to our calibration strategy. price stickiness or decreasing ζ moves the economy closer to the instability.
13 Increasing
22
after a fall in bargaining power even in the absence of a liquidity trap. The calibration has been changed to have a low elasticity of substitution (ζ = 0.05), no lower bound on monetary policy, while the share of optimizing households remains constant at υ = 0.5. [Figure 4 about here.] The solid line in Figure 4 shows that output and employment fall on impact. Due to the low elasticity of substitution, the fall in bargaining power has a strong effect on the labour share, which, coupled with price stickiness and the impossibility of consumption smoothing, induces a strong negative demand effect. Nevertheless, the fall of the real interest rate combined with the saving shock increase investment, which causes a quick rebound of output. Although consumption falls on impact and stays below zero for 4 quarters, output increases. In the absence of a liquidity trap, the nominal interest rate falls with inflation leading to a decline in the real interest rate. It follows that both labour demand and investment react positively. The speed at which output recovers is partly determined by the existence of capital adjustment costs, which delays investment decisions. Monetary policy shortens the recession by stimulating both supply and demand channels. This simulation assumes very low elasticity of substitution between labour and capital. The distinction between Leontief and CobbDouglas production function is a central element of the literature discussing changes in the labour share. Following a change in wages, the degree to which firms substitute capital and labour affects the level of employment. The labour share drops by 0.37 percentage point for an elasticity of substitution of 0.05 (in the Figure 4).14 The impact on output and employment is however quasi null, given the strength of the other transmission channels. The dashed line in Figure 4 corresponds to a case in which there is no participation of optimizing households to the labour market υ = 0. This polarized distribution of income between workers and optimizing households amplifies the wageaggregate demand 14 The
elasticity of substitution is 0.6 in the baseline case in Figure 2.
23
channel. Output declines by 0.5 percentage point and stays negative for 2 quarters. The fall in the labour share is also more pronounced at 0.5 percentage point. The dashed doted line in Figure 4 shows the importance of nominal price rigidities. The transmission channel between lower consumption and output depends on the presence of price stickiness. Increasing price rigidity from 4 quarters to 8 quarters magnifies the demand side effects (dashed line). The fall in worker’s bargaining power lowers the labour share further producing a larger drop in output and employment. Output and employment drop by 0.6 percentage point and 0.5 percentage point on impact respectively, while they both stay negative for 3 quarters.
5.3 Minimum wage as a lower bound on wage Figure 2 has illustrated the importance of labour income for aggregate demand in the proximity of the lower zero bound in monetary policy. The transmission channel going from labour income to aggregate demand modifies the traditional views on minimum wage. In a standard NewKeynesian model, the minimum wage is seen as hampering the downward adjustment in wages. This in turn limits labour demand of firms and amplifies business cycle fluctuations. Contrastingly, in the present model, the minimum wage sets a lower floor on labour income, which sustains consumption and aggregate demand. The direct negative effect of the minimum wage on labour demand is balanced by its positive impact on aggregate demand. In this section, minimum wage is modelled in a similar way than the lower zero bound in monetary policy. The actual wage is the maximum between the wage rule (eq 30) and the minimum wage.
wt = max [wtr , wmin ]
(45)
with wt the actual wage, wtr the wage according to the wage rule in eq 30 and wmin the 24
minimum wage. Figure 5 Panel A reproduces the baseline simulation with (dashed line) and without a minimum wage (solid line). The calibration is similar to the baseline model presented in Figure 2. The main result is that the minimum wage reduces the size of the recession following a decline in the bargaining power of workers. The minimum wage reduces the drop in output from 2.2 percentage point to 1.5 percentage point on impact. The drop in the labour share of income is also smaller from 1 percentage point to 0.67 percent on impact. It follows that the drop in consumption is significantly lower than in the absence of a lower bound on wages, sustaining aggregate demand. A secondary effect is related to the adjustment in price. Since inflation declines less in the presence of the minimum wage, the increase in the real interest rate is more moderate, which is less detrimental to investment and labour demand. The adjustment in the markup also sustains the surplus from an additional match, which affects the hiring decisions of firms. In Figure 5 Panel B, a similar mechanism takes place although the minimum wage is applied to the set of parameters described in Figure 4. The dashed line shows that a lower bound on the real wage also works in the absence of a liquidity trap. Income and consumption of rule of thumb consumers is supported, which stabilizes aggregate demand and lessens the negative impact of the fall in bargaining power. [Figure 5 about here.]
6 Conclusion The model presented in this paper shows that under certain conditions a change in income distribution in favor of capital leads to lower employment and output. This result stands in contrast with the conclusion from a standard New Keynesian model, which finds virtue to wage moderation. To reach this result, the modelling strategy has been to reinforce the transmission channel from income distribution to consumption decisions by combining 25
ruleofthumb households and nominal price rigidities. This transmission is strengthened in the presence of a lower zero bound in monetary policy. In the NewKeynesian model, the main transmission channel goes through labour demand. The increase in consumption and investment follows from the increase in employment and permanent income. Contrastingly, in the present model, consumption drops due to the presence of ruleofthumb households, while investment is negatively affected by the increase in the real interest rate. The lower zero bound also affects labour demand negatively. It follows that lower bargaining power leads to lower output and employment in the presence of a liquidity trap. An important implication of this model is that downward wage rigidity sustains aggregate demand and reduces the fall in output. Two extensions to the present paper can be envisioned. The first is to allow workers to have some access to financial markets, and thus engage in some limited borrowing. This allows the study of the effect of inequality on household indebtedness, thereby following Kumhof and Ranciere (2010). Second, the extension to a two country model allows to study a number of research questions present on the current political agenda. In an open economy, a falling wage will additionally raise export demand, depending on the exchange rate regime. However, such a policy could be a beggarthyneighbor policy by raising unemployment in the foreign country. Furthermore, international imbalances might result. Given the results obtained in this paper, an interesting addition to the policy debate is likely to result from these extensions.
26
A Steady State In a zero inflation steady state with π = 1, we can normalize the price level to unity, and thus obtain p˜ = 1, s = 1 and pw = µ1 . Furthermore, capital utilization is at unity uk = 1, while Tobin’s q is unity φ = 1. Therefore, we can derive Rn =
1 β (
(46)
1 rk = −1+δ β
) (47)
Given ρ and p, and calibrating γ , we can derive
γm =
p
(48)
θ 1−γ
q =γm θ −γ n=
(49)
p 1−ρ + p
(50)
v =θ (1 − n)
(51)
Since the replacement wage is the same for both types of households, the employment ratio will also be the same in steady state, thus n = no = nr . The number of optimizing consumers in employment approaches zero as υ → 0. When using a CES production function, it is useful to normalize output at unity, thus y = 1. This requires to set the technology parameters multiplying the factors at the inverse of the factor’s steady state values. rk α pw 1 Bn = ø pn Bk =
(52) (53)
a =(1 − α ) (Bn ø p ) n
ζ −1 ζ
( )1 1 ζ n
(54)
Using this procedure, α actually represents the steady state factor share of capital. The steady state value of capital is thus k = 1/Bk , while the steady state value of investment is x = δ k. 27
Furthermore, it is useful to define the replacement wage as a fraction ω of the steady state real wage, thus wu = ω w. Using this equation as well as the steady state versions of the labour market equations (25), (26), and (29), we can derive the steady state values of w, and the parameter κ required for the labour market to solve to the equilibrium values calibrated above. The system of equations to be solved is given by [ ] qv qv κ [ qv ]2 w n κ =p a − ø p w + β κ ρ + n n 2 n 1 1 qv w∗ =η pw an + (1 − η ) wu + η β κ p øp øb n ( ) 1 κ 1 qv 1 + η β h2 + ηρβ − κ øp 2 ø p øb n
(55)
(56)
w is be larger the smaller is ø p . The intuition is that we calibrate output per household to unity, while the labour share in the production function is α . A smaller labour force participation (as is implied by smaller ø p ) requires a larger real wage. This will also increase the consumption share of ruleofthumb households. We then get the steady state for Hnr Hnr =
(1 − ω )w 1 − β (ρ − p)
(57)
The steady state of aggregate consumption is a residual of the resource constraint: c =y − x −
κ q2 v2 2 n
(58)
Lastly, consumption steady states of both type of households are defined as follow: cr =wn + wu (1 − n) − τr
(59)
c − (1 − øc )cr øc
(60)
co =
B Zero Bound The procedure for the introduction of a lower bound on a variable into a stochastically simulated model in Dynare is described in Holden (2011). To introduce a bound on a 28
variable, a sequence of nonautoregressive, one period, preknown shocks to the variable in question are introduced into the model. For each of these shocks, the impulse response functions for all variables can be computed. Then, a linear combination of these shocks is computed using an optimization procedure such that the added impulse response functions from all these individual shocks plus the IRF of the original shock allow the bound to hold on the variable in question. Finally, the IRF for all variables can be computed given the linear combination of the lower bound shocks.
C Detailed Derivations C.1 Household heterogeneity and aggregate quantities The derivation of the rates øn and ø p surrounding (2) is given by Lt =Lo,t + Lr,t = υ ϒo,t + ϒr,t Lo,t Lr,t Nt = no,t + nr,t Lt Lt Lt ϒr,t υ ϒo,t nt = + υ ϒo,t + ϒr,t υ ϒo,t + ϒr,t
nt =
ϒo,t ϒt nt = υ ϒ +ϒ o,t r,t ϒt
υ
nt =
+
ϒr,t ϒt υ ϒo,t +ϒr,t ϒt
υ øc 1 − øc + υ øc + 1 − øc υ øc + 1 − øc
(61) (62) (63) (64) (65)
which equals the equations in the main text. Furthermore, we show that Nt Lt = nt ϒt ϒt υ ϒo,t + ϒr,t = nt ϒt =(υ øc + 1 − øc )nt
29
(66)
C.2 Optimizing households The first order condition w.r.t. investment is
∂ ϕk,t ∂ ϕk,t+1 − λk,t+1 xo,t+1 ∂ xo,t ∂ xo,t ( )) ( ) ( ) ( xo,t+1 2 xo,t+1 xo,t xo,t o −1 1 =φt 1 − ϕk,t − ηk + φt+1 Λt,t+1 β −1 xo,t−1 xo,t−1 xo,t xo,t (67)
λo,t =λk,t (1 − ϕk,t ) − λk,t xo,t
All remaining foc are straight forward.
C.3 Wholesale Good Firm The production function of the wholesale good firm is Ytw = F(Kt , Nt ), which can be specified as Ytw =F ϒt
(
Kt Nt , ϒt ϒt
) (68)
The ”constraint” of employment dynamics can be written as nt = ρ nt−1 + ht nt−1
(69)
The Lagrange multiplier on this constraint is defined as Jt . Given this, the derivation of the foc w.r.t. nt yields ] [ o ] [ o ] κ [ o 2 ht+1 Jt+1 + β ρ Et Λt,t+1 Jt+1 Jt = ptw atn − ø p wt − β Et Λt,t+1 ht+1 + β Et Λt,t+1 2 (70) which solves to (26) when using Jt+1 = κ ht+1 .
C.4 Bargaining The maximum and minimum wage in bargaining, w¯ t when Jt = 0 and wt when Ht = 0, are given by [ [ o ] 1 w n 1 κ 2 ] 1 o pt at + β Et Λt,t+1 ht+1 + β ρ Et Λt,t+1 Jt+1 øp øp 2 øp [ ( )] 1 o r wt =wu − β Et (ρ − pt+1 ) øn Λt,t+1 Hno ,t+1 + (1 − øn )Λt,t+1 Hnr ,t+1 øb w¯ t =
30
(71) (72)
where we define øb = υ øn + 1 − øn . Using the bargaining solution Ht =
ηt 1−ηt Jt
as well as
the definition Ht = øn Hno ,t + (1 − øn )Hnr ,t , we can substitute for Hno ,t Ho,t =
ηt 1 1 − øn Jt − Hnr ,t 1 − ηt øn øn
(73)
Applying wt∗ = ηt w¯ t + (1 − ηt )wt , we obtain { } 1 w n 1 o pt at + (1 − ηt ) wu + ηt β Et Jt+1 Λt,t+1 pt+1 øp øb ( ) { } ] [ o 1 κ 1 1 2 o + ηt β Et Λt,t+1 (ht+1 ) + ηt ρβ − Et Λt,t+1 Jt+1 øp 2 ø p øb } 1 − øn { o r + (1 − ηt ) β Et Hnr ,t+1 (ρ − pt+1 )(Λt,t+1 − Λt,t+1 ) øb
wt∗ =ηt
Finally, the substitutions ht =
qt vt nt−1
(74)
t vt and Jt = κ nqt−1 are made.
C.5 Intermediate Good Firms Maximization of the profit function (35) w.r.t. the demand function (32) yields ∗ µ 1 Pt 1−µ 1−µ ∗ 1−1 µ
1 P µ t 
∞
−
1
s=0 ∞
−
1
o Pt+s1−µ yt+s = ∑ (χ1β )sΛt,t+s
− µ ∗ µ −1 ∞ µ o w Pt 1−µ ∑ (χ1 β )s Λt,t+s pt+1 Pt+s1−µ yt+s 1−µ s=0 ∗ 1−µ µ ∞
o Pt+s1−µ yt+s = Pt ∑ (χ1β )sΛt,t+s
s=0
{z
}
−
µ
o w pt+1 Pt+s1−µ yt+s ∑ (χ1β )sΛt,t+s
s=0

{z
f2,t
(75)
}
f1,t
Deriving f2,t ∗ 1−1 µ ∞
(
−
1
o Pt+s1−µ yt+s ∑ (χ1β )sΛt,t+s
f2,t =Pt
s=0
∗)
P = t Pt
1 1−µ
∗ 1−1 µ ∞
yt + Pt
−
1
o Pt+s1−µ yt+s ∑ (χ1β )sΛt,t+s
s=1
∗ 1−1 µ ∞
1
(
Pt∗ ∗ Pt+1
o + χ1 β Λt,t+1
1
− 1−1 µ o + χ1 β Λt,t+1 πt+1
=(pt∗ ) 1−µ yt
1
s=0
1
=(pt∗ ) 1−µ yt
−
1−µ o Pt+1+s yt+1+s ∑ (χ1β )sΛt+1,t+1+s
o =(pt∗ ) 1−µ yt + χ1 β Λt,t+1 Pt
)
1 1−µ
f2,t+1 (
An equivalent derivation holds for f1 ,t. 31
pt∗ ∗ pt+1
)
1 1−µ
f2,t+1
(76)
References Acemoglu, D. (2003). Crosscountry inequality trends. Journal of economic litterature 113, 121–149. Arpaia, A., E. P´erez, and K. Pichelmann (2009). Understanding labour income share dynamics in europe. European Economy Economic Papers (379). Askenazy, P. (2003). Partage de la valeur ajout´e et rentabilit´e du capital en france et aux etatsunis: une r´ee´ valuation. Economie et statistique 363(1), 167–179. Atkinson, A., T. Piketty, and E. Saez (2011). Top incomes in the long run of history. Journal of economic litterature 49, 3–71. Bentolila, S. and G. SaintPaul (2003). Explaining movements in the labor share. Contributions to Macroeconomics 3. Berthold, N., R. Fehn, and E. Thode (2002). Falling labor share and rising unemployment: Longrun consequences of institutional shocks? German Economic Review 3(4), 431–459. Blanchard, O. (1997). The medium run. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2, 89–158. Blanchard, O. J. and F. Giavazzi (2003). Macroeconomic effects of regulation and deregulation in goods and labor markets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(3), 879– 907. Bosc´a, J. E., J. Ferri, and R. Dom´enech (2001). Search, nash bargaining and rule of thumb consumers. European Economic Review 55(7), 927–942. Choi, S. and J.V. RiosRull (2009). Understanding the dynamics of labor share: The role of noncompetitive factor prices. Annals of Economics and Statistics 95/96, 251–278. 32
Christiano, L., M. Eichenbaum, and S. Rebelo (2009). When is the government spending multiplier large? NBER Working Paper 15394, 1–68. Gal´ı, J., J. D. L´opezSalido, and J. Vall´es (2007, March). Understanding the effects of government spending on consumption. Journal of the European Economic Association 5(1), 227–270. Gertler, M. and A. Trigari (2009). Unemployment fluctuations with staggered nash wage bargaining. Journal of Political Economy 117(1), 38–86. Hall, R. E. (2005). Employment fluctuations with equilibrium wage stickiness. American Economic Review 95(1), 50–65. Holden, T. (2011). Products, patents and productivity persistence: A DSGE model of endogenous growth. Dynare Working Paper (4). Kumhof, M. and R. Ranciere (2010). Inequality, leverage and crises. IMF Working Papers 10/268. Lemieux, T. (2006). Increasing residual wage inequality: Composition effects, noisy data, or rising demand for skill? The American Economic Review 96(3), 461–498. Picketty, T. (2001). Les hauts revenus en France au XXe si`ecle. Paris, Grasset. Piketty, T. J. and E. Saez (2003). Income inequality in the united states, 19131998. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 1–39. Sala, L., U. Soderstrom, and A. Trigari (2008). Monetary policy under uncertainty in an estimated model with labor market frictions. Journal of Monetary Economics 55 (5),, pp. 983–1006. Shimer, R. (2005). The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies. American Economic Review 95(1), 25–49. 33
Solow, R. (1958). A skeptical note on the constancy of relative shares. The American Economic Review 48(4), 618–631. Young, A. T. (2010). One of the things we know that ain’t so: Is us labor’s share relatively stable? Journal of Macroeconomics 32(1).
34
Figures
Figure 1: (adjusted) labour share of income (at factor cost)
2020
1960
2000
2020
1980
2000
2020
1980
2000
2020
2020
1980
2000
2020
2000
2020
1980
2000
2020
1980
2000
1960
1980
2000
2020
1960
United Kingdom
2020
2000
2020
1980
2000
2020
Norway
1980
2000
2020
United States
7072747678 1960
1980
50 60 70 80 1960
Sweden 65 70 75 80
1980
1960
Ireland
60 65 70 75 1960
Spain
1960
2020
Netherlands
65 70 75 80 2000
1960
Japan
60 65 70 75
1980
2000
65 70 75 80 1960
Italy
1960
1980
France
6065707580 1960
1960
Finland
65 70 75
Denmark
1980
5055606570
2000
6466687072
1980
60 65 70 75
60 1960
Canada
60 65 70 75
Belgium
80
60 65 70 75
Austria
60 65 70 75
labour share of income (in percentage)
Australia
1960
year Graphs by country
35
1980
2000
2020
1960
1980
2000
2020
Figure 2: Standard New Keynesian vs baseline model Output
Consumption 0.5%
0%
0%
−1%
−0.5% −1%
−2% 0
5
10
15
−1.5%
0
Investment
5
10
15
Employment
0.5%
0.5% 0% −0.5%
0%
−1% −1.5%
−0.5%
0
5
10
−2%
15
0
Labour Share
5
10
15
10
15
Inflation
0%
0%
−0.5% −0.5% −1% −1.5%
0
5
10
−1%
15
Baseline Model with lzb
36
0
5
Standard New Keynesian Model
Figure 3: Sensitivity Analysis: Income Distribution Output
Consumption 0.5%
0%
0%
−1%
−0.5%
−2%
−1%
−3%
−1.5%
−4%
0
5
10
−2%
15
0
Investment
5
10
15
Employment
0.5% 0% −1%
0%
−2% −0.5%
0
5
10
−3%
15
Labour Share 0%
−0.5%
−0.5%
−1%
−1%
0
5
10
5
10
15
Inflation
0%
−1.5%
0
15
−1.5%
0 5 Baseline Model no participation
Baseline Model with lzb
37
10 15 Baseline Model no RoT consumers
Figure 4: Sensitivity Analysis: CES and Price Stickiness Output
Consumption
0.5%
0.5%
0% 0% −0.5% −1%
0
5
10
15
−0.5%
0
Investment
5
10
15
Employment
0.5%
0.5%
0.4% 0%
0.3% 0.2%
−0.5%
0.1% 0%
0
5
10
−1%
15
0
Labour Share
5
10
15
10
15
Inflation
0%
0% −0.1% −0.2%
−0.5%
−0.3% −0.4%
−1%
0
5 10 15 Baseline no lzb + low substitution CES
−0.5%
0
no participation
38
5
High price rigidity
Figure 5: Minimum wage Output
Consumption
0.5%
0.5%
0% 0% −0.5% −1%
−0.5%
−1.5% −1% −2% −2.5%
0
5
10
15
−1.5%
0
5
10
15
Labour Share 0%
Baseline Model with lzb
−0.5%
With minimum wage
−1%
−1.5%
0
5
10
15
(a) Panel A Output
Consumption
0.5%
0.5%
0% 0% −0.5%
−1%
0
5
10
15
−0.5%
0
5
10
15
Labour Share 0% −0.2% High price rigidity −0.4% −0.6% −0.8% −1%
0
5
10
15
(b) Panel B
39
With minimum wage
Tables Table 1: Calibration: baseline model Structural parameters Share of Optimizing Consumers Labour market participation of optimizing consumers Relative risk aversion parameters Discount factor Capital depreciation rate Capital adjustment cost Capital utilization cost Labour market parameters Exogenous job loss probability Target job finding probability Labour market tightness Matching elasticity Implied matching function parameter Implied employment adjustment cost Implied employment rate wage rigidity Production parameters Capital share Elasticity of substitution Capital technology Labour technology Pricing parameters Demand elasticity Price stickiness Price indexation Policy parameters Replacement rate Interest rate smoothing Inflation response Output response Bargaining power Bargaining power autoregressive coefficient
40
øc = 0.3 υ = 0.5 σo = σr = 1 β = 0.992 δ = 0.025 ηk = 3 ψ = 0.7 1 − ρ = 0.1 p = 0.95 θ = 0.5 γ = 0.5 γm = 1.345 κ = 0.6605 n = 0.9048 ρw = 0.3
α = 0.3 ζ = 0.6 Bk = 0.1223 Bn = 1.3003 µ = 1.11 χ = 0.75 χ1 = 1 ω = 0.9 ρm = 0.8 ϕπ = 1.7 ϕy = 0.2 η = 0.5 ρη = 0.9