Click here to download

Il "welfare bilaterale" e i suoi effetti sull’occupazione
Journal Title: QUADERNI DI ECONOMIA DEL LAVORO 
Author/s: Giuseppe Croce 
Year:  2015 Issue: 103 Language: Italian 
Pages:  22 Pg. 223-244 FullText PDF:  138 KB
DOI:  10.3280/QUA2015-103010
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


A large number of companies provide social benefits to their employees on a voluntary basis. In most cases such social schemes are jointly established and managed by companies and trade unions at the firm or, more frequently, at a sectoral level through bipartite funds. From an economic point of view, the evaluation of the "bipartite welfare" crucially depends on its effects on the employment level, an aspect so far mostly neglected. This paper takes into account the lessons from the literature on the incidence of labour taxation to analyse the case of social policies delivered by bipartite sectoral funds. The intuition is that their peculiar institutional profile may favour the internalization of benefits by the unions. If this actually occurs, it can be expected that the costs of the benefits will be shared between the employers and the workers. As a consequence, the costs of the benefits exert a less detrimental effect on the labour cost and on employment levels than in the case of public schemes. However the exact institutional profile of the funds crucially affects the degree of internalization. In particular, it is argued that this may actually occur provided that the bipartite sectoral funds are sufficiently autonomous from government interference.

  1. Adema W., Fron P. e Ladaique M. (2011). Is the European welfare state really more expensive? OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, 124. Parigi: OECD Publishing.
  2. Adema W., Ladaique M. (2005). Net social expenditure. 2005 Edition: More comprehensive measures of social support. OECD Social, employment and migration working papers, 29. Parigi: OECD Publishing.
  3. Alesina A. e Perotti R. (1997). The welfare state and competitiveness. American economic review, 87 (5): 921-939.
  4. Arpaia A. e Carone G. (2004). Do labour taxes (and their composition) affect wages in the short and in the long run? European Economy, 216. European Commission.
  5. Ascoli U., Mirabile M.L. e Pavolini E. (2012). Dal welfare di cittadinanza al welfare nel lavoro? Contrattazione collettiva e iniziativa d’impresa in Italia. Italian journal of social policy, 3: 53-76.
  6. Bellardi L. e De Santis G. (2011). La bilateralità tra tradizione e rinnovamento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Bergström O. (2009). Anticipating and managing restructuring in Sweden. European Commission and International Training Centre.
  8. Calmfors L. e Driffil J. (1988). Bargaining structure, corporatism and macroeconomic performance. Economic Policy, 6: 13-62.
  9. Carone G. e Salomäki A. (2001). Reforms in tax-benefit systems in order to increase employment incentive in the EU. European Economy. Economic Papers, 160. Bruxelles.
  10. Carone G., Nicodème G. e Schmidt J.H. (2007). Tax revenues in the European Union: recent trends and challenges ahead. European Economy. Economic Papers, 280. Bruxelles.
  11. Daveri F. e Tabellini G. (2000). Unemployment growth and taxation in industrial countries, Economic Policy, April: 47-88.
  12. Ebbinghaus B. (2010a). Reforming Bismarckian corporatism: the changing role of social partnership in Continental Europe. In: Palier B., editor, A long goodbye to Bismarck. The politics of welfare reforms in Continental Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  13. Ebbinghaus B. (2010b). Unions and employers. In: Castles F.G., Leibfried S., Lewis J., Obinger H., Pierson C., editors, The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Faioli M. (2010). Indagine sulla bilateralità nel terziario. Torino: Giappichelli.
  15. Ferrera M. e Hemerijck A. (2003). Recalibrating European welfare regimes. In: Zeitlin J. and Trubeck D., editors, Governing work and welfare in a new economy: European and American experiments: 88-128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Ferrera M. e Maino F. (2014). Social innovation beyond the state. Italy’s Secondo Welfare in a European perspective, working paper Centro Einaudi, 2.
  17. Fondazione Brodolini (2014). Indagine sulla Bilateralità in Italia e in alcuni Paesi europei (Francia, Germania, Spagna e Svezia). Indagine per conto del Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali.
  18. Goerke L. (1996). Taxes on payroll, revenues and profits in three models of collective bargaining. Scottish journal of political economy, 43, 5: 549-565.
  19. Gruber J. (1997). The incidence of payroll taxation: evidence from Chile. Journal of labor economics, 15 (3): S72-S101.
  20. Gruber J. e Kruger A.B. (1990). The incidence of mandated employer-provided insurance: lessons from workers’ compensation insurance, NBER w.p. 3557, Cambridge, Mass.
  21. Kiander J., Kilponen J. e Vilmunen J. (2004). Labor taxation, public finance, and wage determination: evidence from OECD countries, European journal of political economy, 20: 983-999.
  22. Leonardi S. e Ciarini A. (2013). Welfare occupazionale e bilateralismo, strutture e diversità settoriali. In: Pavolini E., Ascoli U. e Mirabile M.L., a cura di, Tempi moderni. Il welfare nelle aziende in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  23. Leonardi S. (2004). Bilateralità e servizi: quale ruolo per il sindacato? IRES.
  24. Mares I. (2004). Wage bargaining in the presence of social services and transfers. World politics, 57, 1: 99-142.
  25. Melguizo A. e González-Páramo J.M. (2012). Who bears labour taxes and social contributions? A meta-analysis approach. SERIEs.
  26. Morel N. e Palme J. (2012). Financing the welfare state and the politics of taxation. In: Greve B., editor, The Routledge handbook of the welfare state. Abingdon: Routledge.
  27. Musgrave R.A. (1959). The theory of public finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  28. Natali D. e Pavolini E. (2014). Comparing (voluntary) occupational welfare in the EU: evidence from an international research study. OSE paper series, 16. Bruxelles.
  29. OECD (2007). Employment Outlook. Parigi.
  30. OECD (2004). Employment Outlook. Parigi.
  31. Ooghe E., Schokkaert E. e Flechet J. (2003). The incidence of social security contributions: an empirical analysis. Empirica, 30: 81-106.
  32. Paparella D. (2001). La bilateralità nel sistema di relazioni industriali italiane. In: Cella G.P. e Provasi G., a cura di, Lavoro sindacato partecipazione. Scritti in onore di Guido Baglioni, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  33. Pavolini E., Ascoli U. e Mirabile M.L. (2013). Gli ambivalenti processi di trasformazione del welfare in Italia fra Stato, imprese e sindacato. In: Pavolini E., Ascoli U. e Mirabile M.L., a cura di, Tempi moderni. Il welfare nelle aziende in Italia. Bologna: il Mulino.
  34. Perulli P. (1997). Origine e scenari per l’esperienza bilaterale. In: Squarzon C., a cura di, Il vantaggio competitivo del Nord Est. Problematiche e tendenze dell’artigianato in Veneto. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  35. Sebardt G. (2005). Redundancy and the Swedish model. Uppsala: Iustus Forlag.
  36. Stiglitz J.E. (1999). Taxation, public policy, and dynamics of unemployment. International tax and public finance, 6: 239-262.
  37. Summers L., Gruber J. e Vergara R. (1993). Taxation and the structure of labor markets: the case for corporatism. Quarterly journal of economics, 108: 385-412.
  38. Summers L.H. (1989). ‘Some simple economics of mandated benefits’. American economic review, 79, 2: 177-183.
  39. Tachibanaki T. (2003). The Role of Firms in Welfare Provision. In: Ogura S., Tachibanaki T. e Wise D.A., editors, Labor Markets and Firm Benefit Policies in Japan and the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giuseppe Croce, in "QUADERNI DI ECONOMIA DEL LAVORO" 103/2015, pp. 223-244, DOI:10.3280/QUA2015-103010

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content