Search

Economic inequality is soaring and the consensus in some circles is that corporations' myopic focus on profits is largely to blame. At first glance a stakeholder approach would seem an appealing solution: surely if the purpose of corporations was not wealth maximization for shareholders, but rather to create value for all constituents--thus including employees, customers, suppliers, and communities--we would make strides towards combatting inequality, the theory goes. Corporations themselves, through their powerful lobbying group, the Business Roundtable, recently disclaimed shareholder primacy and embraced stakeholder theory. However, far from successfully redressing inequality, a stakeholder approach is unlikely to achieve meaningful redistribution of power and resources to weaker constituents and would likely work in the opposite direction. We suggest that a stakeholder approach gives corporate executives both a sword and a shield with which to preserve their advantageous status quo. First, executives can justify stepped up lobbying efforts as part of their mandate to consider the interests of all constituents, capturing the agenda with respect to distributing more power and resources to weaker constituents. Second, because a switch to a stakeholder approach would appear as a significant change--despite not actually accomplishing meaningful redistribution--it would require significant political capital to be adopted, and once adopted would occupy an outsized portion of legislative and regulatory space, depleting energy and resources necessary to pass reform that is more likely to actually impact inequality. In fact, in reviewing the likely drivers of inequality, we find that key factors include higher concentration leading to the shrinking of the labor share and increased monopsony in labor markets, the gradual weakening of worker protections from labor market institutions, and giving up on progressive taxation as a redistributive mechanism. Broadening corporate purpose alone would do next to nothing to impact these fields, so to address rampant economic inequality corporate scholars will need to eschew the academic silo and reach across disciplines to identify more effective policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically assesses the empirical evidence on the relationship between immigration and African American employment. Studies using various methodologies and data are reviewed: natural experiments, time series, and cross-sectional studies of local labor markets and intertemporal changes in the national labor market. We find that for African Americans as a whole, immigration may have little effect on mean wages and probability of employment. However, there is some evidence that immigration may have had an adverse impact on the labor market outcomes of African Americans belonging to low education-experience groups. However, even this modest conclusion must be qualified: the literature has many unresolved econometric issues that might easily undermine the received wisdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article tests whether places with higher exposure to unionization during the 1940s, due to their pre‐existing industrial composition, tended to have larger declines in wage inequality, conditional on local economic and demographic observables and regional trends. We find a strong negative correlation between exposure to unionization and changes in local inequality from 1940–50 and 1940–60. This does not appear to be underpinned by skill‐specific sorting of workers or by firms leaving places with high exposure to unionization. We also find that the correlation between exposure to unionization in the 1940s and the change in inequality after 1940 persists in long‐difference regressions to the end of the twentieth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal for Labour Market Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article is concerned with the measurement of jobless recoveries and the elements that may explain their emergence. We first introduce a measure that maps the various elements that define a jobless recovery into a single number that we label the jobless recovery depth. We then construct a database of 389 state-level observations and study the cross-sectional variations that emerge. We find that jobless recoveries in the United States are not a nation-wide phenomena, but a local event confined within a cluster of states that expands slowly between 1975 and 2015. We find the state-level evidence to be consistent with theories that link jobless recoveries to unusually long expansionary periods, less dynamic labor markets, and the advent of the great moderation. The evidence is not consistent with theories that link them to decreases in union power, increases in income inequality, or increases in health care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]