Labor Noncompete Agreements: Tool for Economic Efficiency or Means to Extract Value from Workers?

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2021-09-30 DOI:10.1177/0003603X211045443
David J. Balan
{"title":"Labor Noncompete Agreements: Tool for Economic Efficiency or Means to Extract Value from Workers?","authors":"David J. Balan","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211045443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A number of theoretical arguments have been offered in favor of noncompete provisions in labor agreements. While there has been considerable empirical research on the effects of those provisions, there has been little direct evaluation of the arguments themselves. In this article, I lay out and evaluate three commonly heard arguments, namely, (1) the voluntary nature of labor agreements justifies a strong inference that the terms of those agreements, including noncompete provisions, are beneficial for both workers and firms and that they are economically efficient, 2(A) noncompetes facilitate efficient knowledge transfer from firms to workers, and 2(B) noncompetes encourage efficient firm-sponsored investment in worker training. These arguments, though not entirely without merit, mostly do not survive close scrutiny, and in fact such scrutiny reveals strong arguments that point in the opposite direction. In addition, noncompetes may cause important additional harms that are not measured in conventional economic research.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"66 1","pages":"593 - 608"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211045443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A number of theoretical arguments have been offered in favor of noncompete provisions in labor agreements. While there has been considerable empirical research on the effects of those provisions, there has been little direct evaluation of the arguments themselves. In this article, I lay out and evaluate three commonly heard arguments, namely, (1) the voluntary nature of labor agreements justifies a strong inference that the terms of those agreements, including noncompete provisions, are beneficial for both workers and firms and that they are economically efficient, 2(A) noncompetes facilitate efficient knowledge transfer from firms to workers, and 2(B) noncompetes encourage efficient firm-sponsored investment in worker training. These arguments, though not entirely without merit, mostly do not survive close scrutiny, and in fact such scrutiny reveals strong arguments that point in the opposite direction. In addition, noncompetes may cause important additional harms that are not measured in conventional economic research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
劳动竞业禁止协议:提高经济效率的工具还是从工人身上获取价值的手段?
在劳动协议中支持竞业禁止条款的理论论据有很多。虽然对这些规定的影响进行了大量的实证研究,但对这些论点本身的直接评价却很少。在本文中,我列出并评估了三个常见的论点,即:(1)劳动协议的自愿性质证明了一个强有力的推论,即这些协议的条款,包括竞业禁止条款,对工人和企业都有利,而且它们具有经济效率;(a)竞业禁止促进了企业向工人的有效知识转移;(B)竞业禁止鼓励了企业在工人培训方面的有效投资。这些论点,虽然不是完全没有价值,但大多经不起仔细审查,事实上,这种审查揭示了指向相反方向的强有力的论点。此外,竞业禁止可能会造成传统经济研究无法衡量的重要额外损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1