IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jeczfn/v94y2008i2p105-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why is the public sector more labor-intensive? A distortionary tax argument

Author

Listed:
  • Panu Poutvaara
  • Andreas Wagener

Abstract

Government-run entities are often more labor-intensive than private companies, even with identical production technologies. This need not imply slack in the public sector, but may be a rational response to its wage tax advantage over private firms. A tax-favored treatment of public production precludes production efficiency. It reduces welfare when labor supply is constant. With an elastic labor supply, a wage tax advantage of the public sector may improve welfare if it allows for a higher net wage. This would counteract the distortion of labor supply arising from wage taxation. Full privatization is never optimal if the labor supply elasticity is positive but small.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Panu Poutvaara & Andreas Wagener, 2008. "Why is the public sector more labor-intensive? A distortionary tax argument," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 105-124, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:94:y:2008:i:2:p:105-124
    DOI: 10.1007/s00712-008-0002-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00712-008-0002-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00712-008-0002-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrei Shleifer, 1998. "State versus Private Ownership," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 133-150, Fall.
    2. Alesina, Alberto & Baqir, Reza & Easterly, William, 2000. "Redistributive Public Employment," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 219-241, September.
    3. European Commission, 2010. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2010 edition," Taxation trends 2010, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    4. Sijbren Cnossen & Hans-Werner Sinn (ed.), 2003. "Public Finance and Public Policy in the New Century," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262033046, April.
    5. Gordon, Roger H. & Bai, Chong-En & Li, David D., 1999. "Efficiency losses from tax distortions vs. government control," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 1095-1103, April.
    6. Takayama,Akira, 1985. "Mathematical Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521314985, October.
    7. Partha Dasgupta & Joseph Stiglitz, 1972. "On Optimal Taxation and Public Production," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 39(1), pages 87-103.
    8. Paul H. Malatesta & Kathryn L. DeWenter, 2001. "State-Owned and Privately Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 320-334, March.
    9. Megginson, William L & Nash, Robert C & van Randenborgh, Matthias, 1994. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(2), pages 403-452, June.
    10. Diamond, Peter A & Mirrlees, James A, 1971. "Optimal Taxation and Public Production: I--Production Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 8-27, March.
    11. Jesus Felipe & Franklin M. Fisher, 2003. "Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2‐3), pages 208-262, May.
    12. Rafael La Porta & Florencio López-de-Silanes, 1999. "The Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1193-1242.
    13. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    14. M.C. Wassenaar & R.H.J.M. Gradus, 2004. "Contracting out: The Importance of a Solution for the VAT Distortion," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 50(2), pages 377-396.
    15. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1993. "Productive efficiency in public and private firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 15-30, January.
    16. European Commission, 1998. "Structures of the taxation systems in the European Union 1970-1996," Taxation trends 1998, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    17. Corneo, Giacomo & Rob, Rafael, 2003. "Working in public and private firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1335-1352, August.
    18. David Parker & David Saal (ed.), 2003. "International Handbook on Privatization," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2330.
    19. Pint, Ellen M., 1991. "Nationalization vs. regulation of monopolies : The effects of ownership on efficiency," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 131-164, March.
    20. European Commission, 2006. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2006 edition," Taxation trends 2006, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    21. Atkinson, Scott E. & Halvorsen, Robert, 1986. "The relative efficiency of public and private firms in a regulated environment: The case of U.S. electric utilities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 281-294, April.
    22. Kotsogiannis, Christos & Makris, Miltiadis, 2002. "On production efficiency in federal systems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 281-287, July.
    23. Gordon, Roger, 2001. "Taxes and Privatization," CEPR Discussion Papers 2977, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niklas Potrafke, 2019. "Does Public Sector Outsourcing Decrease Public Employment? Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 65(4), pages 464-484.
    2. Panu Poutvaara & Henrik Jordahl, 2020. "Public sector outsourcing," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-65, November.
    3. Kai A. Konrad & Sebastian G. Kessing, 2008. "Time Consistency and Bureaucratic Budget Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Franco Mariuzzo & Patrick Paul Walsh & Ciara Whelan, 2004. "EU Merger Control in Differentiated Product Industries," CESifo Working Paper Series 1312, CESifo.
    5. Akalbeo, Benard & Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & Yedgenov, Bauyrzhan, 2023. "Fiscal decentralization and structural versus cyclical unemployment levels," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Elinder, Mikael & Jordahl, Henrik, 2013. "Political preferences and public sector outsourcing," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 43-57.
    7. Martínez Chombo Eduardo, 2009. "Sources of Over-Costs and Distortions in State-Owned Utilities in Mexico," Working Papers 2009-07, Banco de México.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Filippo Belloc, 2014. "Innovation in State-Owned Enterprises: Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 821-848.
    2. Boardman, Anthony E. & Vining, Aidan R. & Weimer, David L., 2016. "The long-run effects of privatization on productivity: Evidence from Canada," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1001-1017.
    3. Willner, Johan & Parker, David, 2002. "The Relative Performance of Public and Private Enterprise Under Conditions of Active and Passive Ownership," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30591, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    4. O'Toole, Conor M. & Morgenroth, Edgar L.W. & Ha, Thuy T., 2016. "Investment efficiency, state-owned enterprises and privatisation: Evidence from Viet Nam in Transition," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 93-108.
    5. Gong, Stephen X.H. & Cullinane, Kevin & Firth, Michael, 2012. "The impact of airport and seaport privatization on efficiency and performance: A review of the international evidence and implications for developing countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 37-47.
    6. Laura Cabeza García & Silvia Gómez Ansón, 2012. "What Drives the Operating Performance of Privatised Firms?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 59(1), pages 1-27, February.
    7. Alberto Chong & Florencio de, 2003. "The Truth about Privatization in Latin America," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm436, Yale School of Management.
    8. repec:zbw:bofitp:2020_020 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hao, Liang & Rong, Wang & Haikun, Zhu, 2020. "Growing up under Mao and Deng : On the ideological determinants of corporate policies," BOFIT Discussion Papers 20/2020, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    10. Chen, Gongmeng & Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver, 2006. "Have China's enterprise reforms led to improved efficiency and profitability?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 82-109, March.
    11. Esfahani, Hadi Salehi, 2000. "Institutions and government controls," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 197-229, December.
    12. Lähdemäki, Sakari, 2024. "Privatization in competitive environment: Evidence from Finland's manufacturing sector," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 402-421.
    13. Feng, Xunan & Johansson , Anders C. & Wang, Ying, 2018. "Strengthened State Capitalism: Nationalized Firms in China," Stockholm School of Economics Asia Working Paper Series 2018-51, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm China Economic Research Institute.
    14. George C. Bitros, 2003. "Firm Ownership and Economic Efficiency," Microeconomics 0303002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Arocena, Pablo & Oliveros, Diana, 2012. "The efficiency of state-owned and privatized firms: Does ownership make a difference?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 457-465.
    16. Haikun Zhu, 2018. "Social Stability and Resource Allocation within Business Groups," Working Papers Series 79, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    17. Orietta DESSY & Massimo FLORIO, 2004. "Workers' earnings in the UK before and after privatisation: a study of five industries," Departmental Working Papers 2004-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    18. Kai A. Konrad & Sebastian G. Kessing, 2008. "Time Consistency and Bureaucratic Budget Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Bram De Lange & Bruno Merlevede, 2020. "State-Owned Enterprises across Europe: Stylized Facts from a Large Firm-level Dataset," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 20/1006, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    20. Seung‐Doo Choi & Inmoo Lee & William Megginson, 2010. "Do Privatization IPOs Outperform in the Long Run?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(1), pages 153-185, March.
    21. Shibata, Takashi & Nishihara, Michi, 2011. "Interactions between investment timing and management effort under asymmetric information: Costs and benefits of privatized firms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 688-696, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public sector; Labor intensity; Taxation; L33; J45; D24; H21;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
    • J45 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Public Sector Labor Markets
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:94:y:2008:i:2:p:105-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.