IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00157177.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nouvelles conditions de travail : satisfaction ou résignation ?

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Claire Villeval

    (GATE - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - ENS LSH - Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

L'analyse des conditions de travail en relation avec les modes d'organisation du travail a longtemps été l'apanage des sociologues, psychologues, ergonomes et gestionnaires plus que des économistes du travail. Si en dehors des grands auteurs classiques, les économistes se sont intéressés plus récemment que les chercheurs d'autres disciplines aux questions relatives aux conditions de travail, ce n'est nullement parce que la science économique n'offre pas les outils d'analyse pertinents. La recherche de modes efficients d'allocation et de mobilisation des ressources passe nécessairement par l'analyse de la façon dont le travail est organisé, exercé, valorisé ou subi. Mais il est vrai que les économistes du travail se sont longtemps intéressés davantage aux marchés externes qu'aux marchés internes du travail (Doeringer and Piore, 1971). Les développements de la théorie des jeux non coopératifs et de l'analyse des asymétries d'information et des incitations ont fait évoluer l'économie du travail vers l' « économie des ressources humaines » comme elle a fait basculer l'économie industrielle vers l' « organisation industrielle »L'analyse des conditions de travail en relation avec les modes d'organisation du travail a longtemps été l'apanage des sociologues, psychologues, ergonomes et gestionnaires plus que des économistes du travail. Si en dehors des grands auteurs classiques, les économistes se sont intéressés plus récemment que les chercheurs d'autres disciplines aux questions relatives aux conditions de travail, ce n'est nullement parce que la science économique n'offre pas les outils d'analyse pertinents. La recherche de modes efficients d'allocation et de mobilisation des ressources passe nécessairement par l'analyse de la façon dont le travail est organisé, exercé, valorisé ou subi. Mais il est vrai que les économistes du travail se sont longtemps intéressés davantage aux marchés externes qu'aux marchés internes du travail (Doeringer and Piore, 1971). Les développements de la théorie des jeux non coopératifs et de l'analyse des asymétries d'information et des incitations ont fait évoluer l'économie du travail vers l' « économie des ressources humaines » comme elle a fait basculer l'économie industrielle vers l' « organisation industrielle » (Malgrange, Rulliere et Villeval, 2004). De nouvelles perspectives se sont ouvertes avec la constitution depuis les années quatre-vingts d'un nouveau champ défini comme « l'économie des ressources humaines » . De nouvelles perspectives se sont ouvertes avec la constitution depuis les années quatre-vingts d'un nouveau champ défini comme « l'économie des ressources humaines »

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Claire Villeval, 2005. "Nouvelles conditions de travail : satisfaction ou résignation ?," Post-Print halshs-00157177, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00157177
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00157177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00157177/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness, 2004. "Attribution and Reciprocity in an Experimental Labor Market," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(3), pages 665-688, July.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Georg Kirchsteiger & Arno Riedl, 1993. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(2), pages 437-459.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter & Georg Kirchsteiger, 1997. "Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 833-860, July.
    4. Freeman, Richard B, 1978. "Job Satisfaction as an Economic Variable," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 135-141, May.
    5. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 1997. "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 746-755, September.
    6. Philippe Askenazy & Ève Caroli & Vincent Marcus, 2002. "New Organizational Practices and Working Conditions . Evidence from France in the 1990's," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 68(1), pages 91-110.
    7. John M. Abowd & Francis Kramarz & David N. Margolis, 1999. "High Wage Workers and High Wage Firms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(2), pages 251-334, March.
    8. Brown, James N & Ashenfelter, Orley, 1986. "Testing the Efficiency of Employment Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 40-87, June.
    9. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Rudisill, McAndrew, 2003. "Fairness, escalation, deference, and spite: strategies used in labor-management bargaining experiments with outside options," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 427-442, August.
    10. Clark, Andrew E. & Oswald, Andrew J., 1996. "Satisfaction and comparison income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 359-381, September.
    11. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    12. Simon G�chter & Armin Falk, "undated". "Work motivation, institutions, and performance," IEW - Working Papers 062, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. MacLeod, W Bentley & Malcomson, James M, 1988. "Reputation and Hierarchy in Dynamic Models of Employment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 832-854, August.
    14. Kristensen, Nicolai & Westergård-Nielsen, Niels C., 2004. "Does Low Job Satisfaction Lead to Job Mobility?," IZA Discussion Papers 1026, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Casey Ichniowski & Kathryn Shaw, 2003. "Beyond Incentive Pay: Insiders' Estimates of the Value of Complementary Human Resource Management Practices," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 155-180, Winter.
    16. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    17. Clark, Andrew E., 2001. "What really matters in a job? Hedonic measurement using quit data," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 223-242, May.
    18. Green, Francis & McIntosh, Steven, 2001. "The intensification of work in Europe," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 291-308, May.
    19. Nathalie Greenan & Jacques Mairesse, 1999. "Organizational Change in French Manufacturing: What Do We Learn From Firm Representatives and From Their Employees?," NBER Working Papers 7285, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Treble, John & van Gameren, Edwin & Bridges, Sarah & Barmby, Tim, 2001. "The internal economics of the firm: further evidence from personnel data," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 531-552, December.
    21. George Baker & Michael Gibbs & Bengt Holmstrom, 1994. "The Internal Economics of the Firm: Evidence from Personnel Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 881-919.
    22. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst, 2003. "Why labour market experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 399-406, August.
    23. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10101 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Caroline Lanciano-Morandat & Hiroatsu Nohara & Robert Tchobanian, 2009. "Les centres d'appel en France: mobilisation et mobilité des salariés face à un système hybride de travail," Post-Print halshs-00433051, HAL.

    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. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    2. Andrew E. Clark & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2006. "Effort and comparison income: Survey and experimental evidence," Working Papers halshs-00590552, HAL.
    3. Getinet A. Haile, 2015. "Workplace Job Satisfaction in Britain: Evidence from Linked Employer–Employee Data," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 29(3), pages 225-242, September.
    4. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    5. Andrew E. Clark & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2010. "Effort and Comparison Income: Experimental and Survey Evidence," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 63(3), pages 407-426, April.
    6. Agnès Festré & Luca Giustiniano, 2011. "Relational capital and appropriate incentives," Post-Print hal-01300674, HAL.
    7. Duersch, Peter & Oechssler, Jörg & Vadovic, Radovan, 2012. "Sick pay provision in experimental labor markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-19.
    8. Gächter, Simon & Thöni, Christian, 2010. "Social comparison and performance: Experimental evidence on the fair wage-effort hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 531-543, December.
    9. Grund, Christian, 2002. "The Wage Policy of Firms: Comparative Evidence for the U.S. and Germany from Personnel Data," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 30/2002, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    10. Theodossiou, I. & Zangelidis, A., 2009. "Career prospects and tenure-job satisfaction profiles: Evidence from panel data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 648-657, August.
    11. Michael Waldman, 2012. "Theory and Evidence in Internal LaborMarkets [The Handbook of Organizational Economics]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    12. Paul, Maureen, 2006. "A cross-section analysis of the fairness-of-pay perception of UK employees," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 243-267, April.
    13. Irlenbusch, Bernd & Sliwka, Dirk, 2005. "Incentives, Decision Frames, and Motivation Crowding Out – An Experimental Investigation," IZA Discussion Papers 1758, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Alexandre Mas & Enrico Moretti, 2009. "Peers at Work," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 112-145, March.
    15. Sliwka, Dirk, 2003. "On the Hidden Costs of Incentive Schemes," IZA Discussion Papers 844, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Johansson, Edvard, 2004. "Job Satisfaction in Finland - Some results from the European Community Household Panel 1996-2001," Discussion Papers 958, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    17. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2014. "Don't Ask Me If You Will Not Listen: The Dilemma of Consultative Participation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 560-585, March.
    18. Brandes, Leif & Franck, Egon, 2012. "Social preferences or personal career concerns? Field evidence on positive and negative reciprocity in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 925-939.
    19. Fehr, Ernst & Falk, Armin, 2002. "Psychological foundations of incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 687-724, May.
    20. Harbring, Christine & Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2009. "Sabotage in Tournaments: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 4205, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00157177. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.