Labour Market flexibility

I will also differentiate the role of economic shocks with labor market institutions, to come to a conclusion on what the real cause of unemployment is, and hence, discover whether there is Euro-sclerosis existent, and if so, how to control it through labor reforms. Labor market flexibility is defined by how far and quickly wages adjust to clear labor markets, and thus, I will analyze how effective various mechanisms are in shifting labor from various declining industries to expanding ones.

Labor market policies are set by the government to Improve these various factors. Throughout the ass’s-ass’s, economists maintained the theory that high OLL price shocks were the cause of high European unemployment rates, however, since then the unemployment have remained high, which led them to believe that labor market rigidities were the main cause of the high unemployment rates.

To understand the concept of this piece, you must understand, the basics of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of unemployment (NAIRA), and a very brief history of unemployment in Europe, and the United States of America. The NAIRA is the amount of unemployment that is required to prevent the inflation from rising. Some arguments of high unemployment come from the idea that, during the late sass’s, Europe had an unsustainable low unemployment rate, it was called the “unemployment miracle” of which Blanchard, O. (2004) stated In his article.

This came to an end In the sass’s when the unemployment rate Increased due to shocking rise In OLL prices, leading to decreased investments and output hence, decreased aggregate supply, some say that the fall In demand resulting from this caused hysterics In Europe, as the aggregate demand fell massively, so did the investment and capital to labor ratio, and hence, the natural ate of unemployment rose massively, leaving people unemployed for long periods, with skills inappropriate for the labor forces demanded, hence, causing structural unemployment.

Two more recessions hit in 1980 and 1990 through oil price shocks, the USA responded to the shocks much better from more flexible labor markets, and achieved a lower unemployment rate than Europe in 1984, and from then on, remained lower up until The Great Recession of 2008. In figure 1, we compare the EX. g’s unemployment (Germany, France, Italy and Spain), with the Aqua’s.

From this, we an see that despite the recession causing E unemployment to rocket, the E 4 remain constantly around two percentage points above the US from the rend sass’s, therefore, economists have persistently been trying to find the main cause of this high unemployment rate within Europe. FIGURE 1- US and EYE unemployment rate (1970-2006) Source- (2010). Macroeconomics, A European Perspective. The reason for the European countries. Through adding more countries our results would be very different, this is because of the large differences in unemployment rates between the

European countries in the present day, which therefore would provide us with very misleading results, therefore when we talk about Europe, we must do so in a relaxed manor as a resemblance of certain European countries; for example, the UK remained at an unemployment rate of 4. 8%, in comparison to Germany’s rate at 1 1. 3% in 2005, whilst the EX. as a whole averaged at 9. 2% according to Rheostat’s sources. Figure 2 – European unemployment rate (2001-2012) Rheostat – 2013 – When looking at the causes of unemployment, there are two major streams, they are, arrest institutions, and economic shocks.

The key differences between the EX. and the USA are in the different government policies used to control the labor market institutions. In comparison to the EX., the USA embraces low employment insurance related to the wage levels, very short term benefits, a relatively low minimum wage, a greater wage differentiation, less legal restriction on employing and discharging workers, a smaller density of trade unions, and a lower income-tax wedge.

All these factors provide a flexible wage level, strong incentive to work, and restrict wages to a owe equilibrium level, reducing the amount of involuntary employment, and providing people with a large amount of low paid Jobs, helping the unemployment rate stay low, and also helping the labor market respond to shocks much more rapidly in comparison to Europe, for example, “The average duration of unemployment is now slightly more than one year in Europe compared to around four months in the USA. ” (Blanchard, O, Gnashing, A, and Giovanni, F 2010). To back this Lorenz E.

Vernal- Verdure, Divide Furrier, and Dominique Gallinule (2012) concluded through their arioso tests and regressions that “Increases in the flexibility of labor market regulations and institutions have a statistically significant negative impact both on the level and the change of unemployment outcomes”. However, although It looks as though that these labor market rigidities must be the persistent causes of high unemployment rates, Stephen Nickel (1997) and Robert Solos (2000) refuted this theory, and argued that, firstly, “In the asses the unemployment rankings across countries were completely different but .. The labor market institutions were the same. So how can the labor market institutions have anything to do with unemployment? ” Secondly, “One of the two big increases in unemployment took place in the early asses, although there was no change in labor-market regulation to account for it. ” Hence, labor market institutions cannot be the main reason for high unemployment within Europe in previous years, especially as the countries with the most labor market regulations such as Sweden have maintained the lowest unemployment, hence, it must be an external factor creating the unemployment, such as aggregate demand.

Robert Jackson (1997) backed this point in stating that, The United States experienced a substantial fiscal boost in the early asses resulting from the Reagan tax cut initiative and the deficits which followed it. By contrast, most European countries followed orthodox fiscal and monetary policies and demand was held back, and even reduced sharply in some countries such as the I-J. ” somewhat merged together; there is no outright cause of unemployment, or, way of maintaining low unemployment, it is a contribution of a number of factors.

Economic shocks such as rising oil prices have inflators effects on prices, forcing the cost of reduction up, and forcing firms to make a percentage of their workforce redundant. The unemployment that it causes can last a varied length of time, of which, is dependent on the flexibility of the labor force and the wages in returning back to the natural rate, and preventing large increases in unemployment.

Stephen Nickel, Luck Annunciate and Wolfgang Cloche (2005) found evidence to show that “Changes in labor market institutions explain around 55% of the rise in European unemployment from the asses to the first half of the asses, much of the remainder being due to the deep recession ruling in the latter period. Hence, reiterating my conclusion, labor market flexibilities help to control the extent and the duration of how long unemployment persists after a shock before it drops to its natural rate, but they cannot maintain low and stable unemployment in the medium run due to the external supply and demand shocks.

There are differences also between the medium and the short run, in the short run, labor market institutions such as trade unions or employment protection help reduce the unemployment rate, however in the medium to long run, it increases the wage bargaining powers of workers, hence wages are forced up, this ores firms to lay off workers who may have still been happy to work at the smaller wage, thus, there is an increase in involuntary unemployment in the medium to long run from labor market institutions.