垄断权力与工资:来自丹麦农奴制引进的证据

Kathryn E. Gary, P. S. Jensen, M. Olsson, C. Radu, Battista Severgnini, P. Sharp
{"title":"垄断权力与工资:来自丹麦农奴制引进的证据","authors":"Kathryn E. Gary, P. S. Jensen, M. Olsson, C. Radu, Battista Severgnini, P. Sharp","doi":"10.1093/ej/ueac037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We exploit a large historical shock to the Danish labour market to provide evidence of how restrictions on labour mobility increase monopsony power and thereby reduce wages. By severely limiting the possibility of the rural population to work beyond their place of birth, the reintroduction of serfdom in 1733 aimed to increase monopsony power and secure cheaper labour in the countryside. Using a unique data source based on the archives of estates from the eighteenth century, we test whether serfdom affected the wages of farmhands more strongly than other groups in the labour market, and results based on a difference-in-differences approach reveal evidence consistent with a strong negative effect following its introduction. This is confirmed when we use a different control group from the Swedish province of Scania. We also investigate whether one mechanism was that boys with rural backgrounds were prevented from taking up apprenticeships in towns and find suggestive evidence that this was indeed the case.","PeriodicalId":85686,"journal":{"name":"The Economic journal of Nepal","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monopsony Power and Wages: Evidence from the Introduction of Serfdom in Denmark\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn E. Gary, P. S. Jensen, M. Olsson, C. Radu, Battista Severgnini, P. Sharp\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ej/ueac037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n We exploit a large historical shock to the Danish labour market to provide evidence of how restrictions on labour mobility increase monopsony power and thereby reduce wages. By severely limiting the possibility of the rural population to work beyond their place of birth, the reintroduction of serfdom in 1733 aimed to increase monopsony power and secure cheaper labour in the countryside. Using a unique data source based on the archives of estates from the eighteenth century, we test whether serfdom affected the wages of farmhands more strongly than other groups in the labour market, and results based on a difference-in-differences approach reveal evidence consistent with a strong negative effect following its introduction. This is confirmed when we use a different control group from the Swedish province of Scania. We also investigate whether one mechanism was that boys with rural backgrounds were prevented from taking up apprenticeships in towns and find suggestive evidence that this was indeed the case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":85686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Economic journal of Nepal\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Economic journal of Nepal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Economic journal of Nepal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们利用对丹麦劳动力市场的巨大历史冲击来提供证据,证明对劳动力流动的限制如何增加垄断力量,从而降低工资。1733年,农奴制的重新引入,通过严格限制农村人口在出生地以外工作的可能性,旨在增加垄断力量,并确保农村的廉价劳动力。使用基于18世纪庄园档案的独特数据源,我们测试农奴制对农场工人工资的影响是否比劳动力市场上的其他群体更强烈,基于差异中的差异方法的结果揭示了与引入农奴制后的强烈负面影响相一致的证据。当我们使用来自瑞典斯堪尼亚省的另一个对照组时,这一点得到了证实。我们还调查了是否有一种机制是农村背景的男孩被阻止去城镇当学徒,并发现了暗示的证据,证明确实如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Monopsony Power and Wages: Evidence from the Introduction of Serfdom in Denmark
We exploit a large historical shock to the Danish labour market to provide evidence of how restrictions on labour mobility increase monopsony power and thereby reduce wages. By severely limiting the possibility of the rural population to work beyond their place of birth, the reintroduction of serfdom in 1733 aimed to increase monopsony power and secure cheaper labour in the countryside. Using a unique data source based on the archives of estates from the eighteenth century, we test whether serfdom affected the wages of farmhands more strongly than other groups in the labour market, and results based on a difference-in-differences approach reveal evidence consistent with a strong negative effect following its introduction. This is confirmed when we use a different control group from the Swedish province of Scania. We also investigate whether one mechanism was that boys with rural backgrounds were prevented from taking up apprenticeships in towns and find suggestive evidence that this was indeed the case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Real Exchange Rates and the Earnings of Immigrants Persuadable or Dissuadable Altruists? The Impact of Information of Recipient Characteristics on Giving The Promises and Pitfalls of Using (Mostly) Low-Touch Coaching Interventions to Improve College Student Outcomes Correction to: Sentiments and Economic Activity: Evidence from US States Labour Mobility and Earnings in the UK, 1992-2017
×
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