اتحادیه ها، استخدام دولتی، و اقتصاد سیاسی توزیع درآمد در مناطق شهری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3173||2007||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Volume 25, Issue 1, 1st Quarter 2007, Pages 1–12
Long-term declines in union membership and the ascendance of neoliberal government policies may have weakened the potential for unions and government employment to reduce income inequality. Using data on 160 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) from the 2000 census, this research examines how quintile shares of size-adjusted family income are impacted by union density and federal, state, and local government employment. Importantly, the use of quintile shares of income allows this study to reveal a more nuanced picture of how unions and government employment influence the distribution of income. The principal findings of this study are: (1) union density has a progressive effect that benefits middle and upper-middle income families, (2) federal government employment has a strong progressive effect on the entire income distribution, (3) state government employment has a progressive effect on middle and upper-middle income families, and (4) local government employment mainly impacts families in the bottom forty percent of the income distribution. Although there have been long-run declines in regulatory labor market institutions, unions and government employment are still important components of the political economy of social stratification in U.S. metropolitan areas.
The institutional arrangements around which U.S. labor markets are organized have undergone a dramatic change in the last thirty years. A capital-labor accord in which workers received higher wages, seniority rights, pensions, and employment security in exchange for relinquishing control over the labor process has given way to a neoliberal climate characterized by the deregulation of labor markets, public disinvestment, and increased capital mobility (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982; Grant, 1995; Brady & Wallace, 2000; Campbell & Pedersen, 2001; Fantasia & Voss, 2004; Kotz, 2003 and Prasad, 2006). These changes have left labor in a weakened position and capital in a more powerful position. One of the central manifestations of the declining of the capital-labor accord is the vanishing share of labor union membership in the United States (Bowles, Gordon, & Weisskopf, 1990; Clawson, 2003, Lippit, 1997 and Nelson, 1995; Wallace, Leicht, & Raffalovich, 1999). Union membership declined from a high of 35.5 percent of the labor force in the 1940s to about 14 percent by the end of the 1990s (Cornfield & Fletcher, 2001) and to about 12.5 percent by 2005 (c.f. Hirsch & Macpherson, 2003). Such declines signify the ascendancy of capital over labor in the U.S. labor market and are likely to have profound consequences for the distribution of income. In this same neoliberal climate, business-friendly tax policies and widespread public disinvestment have also become more prevalent. Given such a state of affairs, government employment, one of the largest fractions of public expenditure, may be less effective at reducing income inequality than it was in the past (Zipp, 1994 and Lobao and Hooks, 2003). The “social equity function” promoted by government employment may have been subverted by the neoliberal assault on big government beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Stever, 1988). Given the decline of labor market institutions and the rise of neoliberal approaches to the labor market, labor unions and government sector employment may be less effective at reducing income inequality than in the past.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
At the end of the twentieth century, we can assess the effects of nearly thirty years of the neoliberal institutional and economic restructuring of the U.S. political economy. This study focused on two institutional dimensions: labor unions and public employment. Both unions and government employment have been weakened by neoliberalism (Clawson, 2003; Lobao & Hooks, 2003; Prasad, 2006 and Stever, 1988). To the extent that these institutions have been weakened, do they still impact the distribution of income? To answer that question, this study employed cross-sectional data from the late 1990s to determine whether or not an inverse cross-sectional relationship between unions, government employment, and income inequality still holds in metropolitan areas. The short answer is in the affirmative: unions and government employment reduce inequality in the distribution of income in metro areas, even at the end of the 1990s—a point at which the long-run changes associated with neoliberal anti-unionism and government privatization had taken full effect. Importantly, this study adds to the literature on the political economy of social stratification (Lobao & Hooks, 2003; Lobao et al., 1999; Lorence & Nelson, 1993; Sakamoto, 1988; Volscho & Fullerton, 2005; Brady & Wallace, 2000) in several ways. The methodology of using quintile shares allows us to gauge how different variables impact the income distribution in terms of magnitude and location. That is, we can get a clearer picture of which income groups, and substantively by how much, are impacted by different determinants of income distribution. Implementing this method, I found that while union density does reduce inequality, it mainly has an impact on the families in the middle and upper-middle parts of the income distribution. The richest twenty percent obtain a lower relative share of the income pie, on average, in MSAs with higher levels of union density. The income shares of families in the bottom forty percent of the income distribution are unaffected by labor unions in metropolitan areas. Thus, unions reduce the inequality of income between high income and middle and upper-middle income families.