The End of Full Employment? on Economic Development in Industrialized Countries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Appelbaum, Eileen; Schettkat, Ronald Article — Digitized Version The end of full employment? On economic development in industrialized countries Intereconomics Suggested Citation: Appelbaum, Eileen; Schettkat, Ronald (1994) : The end of full employment? On economic development in industrialized countries, Intereconomics, ISSN 0020-5346, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, Vol. 29, Iss. 3, pp. 122-130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02926349 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/140451 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu UNEMPLOYMENT Eileen Appelbaum* and Ronald Schettkat** The End of Full Employment? On Economic Development in Industrialized Countries In view of high and rising jobless rates in the industrialized countries the solution of the unemployment problem becomes a cardinal question for pofiticians and economists. What factors have determined the unemployment trend since the 1960s and what conclusions can be drawn for employment policy? n the 1960s the unemployment rate in the main many consumer durables has declined over time as I industrialized countries (the G7 countries plus Sweden) household wealth and the accumulation by households of was about 2 percent or even lower with the exception of the these durable goods grew over time. Our analytical model US and Canada where approximately 5 percent of the allows us to explain why the industrialized economies labor force was without a job. Twenty years later experienced a "virtuous circle" of full employment and unemployment in these countries had risen to about real income growth in the 1950s and 1960s, and why 10 percent, and only Sweden and Japan still experienced unemployment and low income growth have become unemployment rates of roughly 2 percent. By the early problems in the 1980s. The core features of our model are 1990s even Japan and Sweden suffered from increasing the easily observable facts that productivity developments unemployment. In 1992 Sweden's unemployment rate differ among industries and that the goods and services was 5.3 percent and by the end of 1993 it was around produced by these industries have different price and 9.0 percent? Why did the industrialized economies income elasticities of demand. These price and income experience such dramatic increases in unemployment elasticities of demand depend, in part, on how large a and why, nevertheless, did the employment to population quantity of each good or service is demanded at current ratio develop so differently in these countries (see prices, while current prices reflect productivity conditions Table 1)? in the various industries7 Economists' explanations for this dramatic increase in In the discussion that follows, we showwhy productivity unemployment range from the impact of deflationary growth, employment, and income all developed so policies that reduce demand to the lingering effects of the favorably after World War II. The theory we offer for these negative exogenous supply shocks that occurred in the phenomena also explains why the highly industrialized 1970s, and from structural shifts in technology or labor economies no longer experience low unemployment. force characteristics that increase the natural rate of Furthermore, our model explains why employment rates unemployment to institutional features of an economy (the employment to population ratio) in these economies such as the strength of unions, welfare state institutions, have diverged since then. and unemployment insurance. While some of these We identify three distinct economic policy approaches explanations may capture part of the story, and exogenous to these employment problems that have been adopted by factors have exacerbated the difficulties industrialized the industrialized economies: economies have had in generating jobs and raising real wages, we argue that the fundamental force behind the [] a Iowtax burden combined with other policiesthat allow shift from full employment to unemployment is the high wage and income differentiation, endogenous development process itself. Our explanation rests on the fact that the price elasticity of demand for OECD: Main Economic Indicators, December 1993. 2 For a more comprehensive description see E. Appelbaum, R. Schettkat: Employment Developments in Industrialized * Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Economies: Explaining Common and Diverging Trends, Discussion Paper FS I 93-313, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f~r Sozialforschung ** Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, Germany. 1993. 122 INTERECONOMICS, May/June 1994 UNEMPLOYMENT [] active welfare state policies, and wage and income differentiation and low tax burdens. [] passive welfare state policies. In addition, the Japanese retained a high share of employment in manufacturing as a result of success in The US and Japan are examples of the first policy world markets, due in part to Japanese trade and industrial approach. Both countries experienced employment policies. Sweden provides an example of the second expansions in private services made possible by high policy approach. Sweden experienced an expansion of Table 1 Economic Indicators Germany Japan 1963 1973 1983 1989 1991 1963 1973 1983 1989 1991 Employment Trends (1963 = 100) Overall 100.0 100.3 93.8 103.4 108.4 100.0 114.5 124.8 133.4 138.6 Agriculture 100.0 61.2 40.6 32.1 30.4 100.0 59.0 44.5 38.8 35.8 Industry 100.0 97.9 83.5 84.4 87.2 100.0 134.4 136.9 144.2 150.6 Manufacturing 100.0 97.8 n.a. 86.6 89.8 100.0 130.2 126.9 133.9 139.9 Services 100.0 115.3 133.6 148.6 158.3 100.0 133.4 164.9 183.4 192.6 Employment Shares Agriculture 11.9 7.3 5.0 3.7 3.4 26.0 13.4 9.3 7.6 6.7 Industry 48.7 47.5 41.5 39.8 39.2 31.7 37.2 34.8 34.3 34.4 Manufacturing 37.7 36.7 n.a. 31.6 31.2 24.1 27.4 24.5 24.2 24.3 Services 39.3 45.2 53.6 56.5 57.4 42.3 49.3 56.0 58.2 58.8 Employment Rates (% of population 15 to 65 years) Employment, overall 69.1 66.8 58.2 62.7 64.3 72.4 70.8 71.1 71.7 73.6 Agriculture 8.3 4.9 3.0 2.3 2.2 18.8 9.5 6.6 5.4 4.9 Industry 33.7 31.8 25.3 24.9 25.2 22.9 26.4 24.7 24.5 25.4 Manufacturing 26.0 24.5 n.a. 19.8 20.0 17.5 19.4 17.4 17.4 17.9 Services 27.2 30.2 32.6 35.4 36.9 30.6 34.9 39.8 41.7 43.3 Other Indicators Labor Force Participation Rate 69.6 67.5 63.6 67.4 68.1 73.3 71.7 73.0 73.3 75.2 Unemployment Rate 0.7 1.0 8.4 7.0 5.6 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.3 2.1 Transfers/GDP in % 14.4 17.1 21.3 20.4 19.6 n.a. 10.1 17.4 16.4 16.5 Taxes/GDP in % 34.1 38.4 41.5 41.8 41.9 n.a. 21.3 27.1 30.2 30.8 Sweden USA 1963 1973 1983 1989 1991 1963 1973 1983 1989 1991 Employment Trends (1963 = 100) Overall 100.0 106.0 115.5 122.1 118.4 100.0 125.5 148.8 173.2 172.5 Agriculture 100.0 58.4 48.4 33.6 30.2 100.0 74.2 73.5 70.1 70.4 Industry 100.0 95.1 84.1 87.6 83.3 100.0 118.7 118.8 131.6 124.3 Manufacturing n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 100.0 116.8 110.7 120.1 113.4 Services 100.0 129.0 162.2 177.6 180.2 100.0 136.0 176.2 211.1 214.3 Employment Shares Agriculture 12.9 7.1 5.4 3.6 3.2 7.1 4.2 3.5 2.9 2.9 Industry 41.0 36.8 29.9 29.4 28.2 35.1 33.2 28.0 26.7 25.3 Manufacturing n.a. 27.5 22.3 21.9 20.1 26.6 24.8 19.8 18.5 17.5 Services 46.1 56.0 64.7 67.0 68.5 57.8 62.6 68.5 70.5 71.8 Employment Rates (% of population 15 to 65 years) Employment, overall 72.4 73.6 78.5 81.7 78.4 60.0 63.4 64.8 71.6 70.5 Agriculture 9.4 5.2 4.3 2.9 2.6 4.3 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.0 Industry 29.7 27.1 23.5 24.1 22.6 21.0 21.0 18.2 19.1 17.8 Manufacturing n.a.