Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T15:04:26.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DUAL LABOR MARKET AND ENDOGENOUS FLUCTUATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2005

FRANCESCO DE PALMA
Affiliation:
Louis Pasteur University
THOMAS SEEGMULLER
Affiliation:
CNRS and EUREQua
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the influence of wage differential on the emergence of endogenous fluctuations. In this way, we introduce a dual labor market, based on the Shapiro–Stiglitz efficiency wage theory in an overlapping generations model. We show that wage inequality is a source of endogenous fluctuations. Indeed, a sufficiently strong wage differential leads to the occurrence of cycles of period 2 and local indeterminacy. Moreover, in contrast to several existing contributions, these results depend neither on increasing returns to scale nor on the degree of capital–labor substitution.

Type
ARTICLES
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we focus on the role of labor market imperfections in the emergence of endogenous fluctuations. More precisely, we analyze the effect of a wage inequality on local stability of the steady state and occurrence of bifurcations.

For the past 20 years, a lot of economists have been interested in the emergence of endogenous fluctuations in macroeconomic models.1

For a survey, see Benhabib and Farmer (1999) or Guesnerie and Woodford (1992).

However, most of these authors consider the labor market as perfectly competitive [see, e.g., Benhabib and Nishimura (1985, 1998), Grandmont (1985), Reichlin (1986), Grandmont et al. (1998)]. Recently, in some articles, imperfections in labor market have been introduced. For example, Jacobsen (2000) considers a monetary economy characterized by monopolistic competition on goods and labor markets. In that model, cycles of period 2 can emerge in an economy where involuntary unemployment takes place. Coimbra et al. (2005) introduce unions in an overlapping generations model. In an efficient bargaining framework, these authors conclude that the bargaining power of unions influences the local indeterminacy and occurrence of endogenous cycles.2

See also Lloyd-Braga and Modesto (2003) who introduce unions in a model à la Woodford (1986).

Coimbra (1999) analyzes the effect of the indivisible labor hypothesis on the emergence of endogenous fluctuations, assuming an efficiency wage in the labor market. He obtains two labor market regularities: employment is more volatile than real wages and real wages are acyclical.

Nevertheless, in this field of research, the literature has ignored an important stylized fact of the labor market, namely, the existence of wage differentials. Indeed, empirical studies by Dickens and Katz (1987), Krueger and Summers (1987), Katz and Summers (1989), Gibbons and Katz (1992), and Abowd Kra et al. (1994) highlight the existence and the persistence of wage inequalities in most industrialized countries. A lot of factors can explain these wage differentials, such as the size of the firms, the gender, or the union rate. However, most of these empirical studies show that the existence of wage gaps between employees results from differences in individuals' characteristics, notably skill. Thus, it seems to be important to take into account a wage inequality, based on skilled heterogeneity, in a macroeconomic dynamic perspective. New labor market approaches allow us to explain this wage differential theoretically. In particular, the dual labor market approach, based on the efficiency wage theory developed by Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984), provides an explanation to the rational existence of wage inequalities [Bulow and Summers (1986), Jones (1987a,b), Saint-Paul (1996), or Agenor and Aizenman (1997)].3

See Yellen (1984), Akerlof and Yellen (1986), or Weiss (1991) for a survey on the efficiency wage theory.

We thus introduce this new labor market approach in a dynamic macroeconomic model, in order to study the influence of wage inequality on the emergence of endogenous fluctuations.4

The aim of this paper is not to provide an explanation of the existence of dual labor market [Rebitzer and Taylor (1991), Saint-Paul (1991, 1996), Albrecht and Vroman (1992), Teulings (1993)], but rather to show implications of such labor market structure on the dynamic stability. Furthermore, it is important to note that our version of efficiency wage does not correspond to the dynamic approach of Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984). Such a field of research has been explored by Kimball (1994), for instance.

In this way, we consider an overlapping generations model with perfect foresight. The production of a unique final good takes place in two sectors, namely, the primary sector and the secondary sector.5

Contrary to a lot of papers [Benhabib and Nishimura (1985, 1998), Boldrin (1989), Galor (1992), Benhabib and Farmer (1996), Harrison and Weder (2002)], we do not consider a two-sector model with a consumption good and investment good because we essentially focus our attention on the role of labor market imperfections.

In the primary sector, firms use only one input, skilled labor, under a constant-returns-to-scale technology. The worker's effort being not perfectly observable, the employer sets an above-equilibrium efficiency wage in order to elicit a qualified worker from shirking, which is well known as the nonshirking condition. In the secondary sector, firms use two inputs—capital and unskilled labor—under a constant-returns-to-scale technology. Contrary to the primary sector, the worker's effort is perfectly observable, and so, employees earn a competitive wage.6

As argued by Agenor and Aizenman (1997), this kind of labor segmentation can be interpreted as the coexistence of a services sector assimilated to white collars and an industrial sector assimilated to blue collars.

The presence of an efficiency wage in the primary sector leads to a rationed labor supply. Moreover, labor mobility is assumed to be perfect. So, unemployment cannot emerge in this dual economy, since the secondary sector is competitive. Furthermore, a wage differential appears at the equilibrium, coming not only from skilled heterogeneity, but also from the presence of incentives based on efficiency considerations in the primary sector.

The dynamics of the model are entirely governed by a two-dimensional system, which directly depends on the wage structure. To analyze this system, we first show the existence and the uniqueness of the steady state. However, the main result concerns the emergence of endogenous fluctuations due to the existence of a wage inequality. Indeed, we show that endogenous fluctuations cannot occur under a weak wage differential. However, when the wage inequality becomes sufficiently high, cycles of period 2 can appear through the occurrence of a flip bifurcation and the steady state is locally indeterminate. Hence, we put in light that wage inequalities are a source of endogenous fluctuations. In other words, when efficiency considerations play an important role in the primary sector, that is, the level of skilled worker effort is relatively high, the nonshirking condition is a source of cycles. Moreover, contrary to a lot of contributions, our results depend neither on increasing returns to scale, nor on the degree of the capital–labor substitution [Reichlin (1986), Woodford (1986), Lloyd-Braga (1995), Cazzavillan et al. (1998), Grandmont et al. (1998), Cazzavillan (2001)]. More generally, this paper shows that labor market imperfections can explain fluctuations due to self-fulfilling expectations and endogenous cycles.

This article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present the model. In Section 3, we show the existence and uniqueness of the steady state. In Section 4, we analyze the emergence of endogenous fluctuations. Finally, we conclude in Section 5.

MODEL

In this paper, we consider an overlapping generations model with perfect foresight and discrete time,

. The population is constant and equal to

. Each generation lives two periods. In period t, young consumers born at t and old consumers born at t-1 live together. Households consume at the two periods of their life a unique final good, which is the numeraire. At the first period of his life, each young consumer chooses to supply or not to supply one unit of labor and rents capital to the firms at the real interest rate.

The final good is supplied on a perfectly competitive market. We assume that two types of technology can produce this good. Each type of technology is assimilated to a sector called, primary or secondary sector. Following the dual labor market literature [Doeringer and Piore (1971), Bulow and Summers (1986)], jobs of the primary sector are remunerated at a higher level than in the secondary sector. In this way, we can notably think of a segmented labor market characterized by the coexistence of skilled and unskilled workers who respectively belong to primary and secondary sectors. We can consider that the unskilled workers are more substitutable to the physical capital than skilled workers [Flug and Hercowitz (2000), Koebel et al. (2003)]. Moreover, the secondary sector where the unskilled workers are employed is the most capital intensive. That is why we consider the limit case where capital is only used in the secondary sector. Furthermore, the qualified workers are able to provide a higher level of effort than the unqualified workers.

More precisely, in the first sector, the technology is characterized by constant returns to scale and the firms use a unique input, labor. The firms cannot perfectly observe the skilled worker's effort. To deter the workers from shirking, an efficiency wage of the type in Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984) is set above the competitive one. Therefore, we observe an excess of labor supply in this sector. In the secondary sector, the final good is produced using capital and labor. The production takes place under constant returns to scale. Moreover, we assume that the worker's effort is perfectly observable, and so, the wage is perfectly competitive. Furthermore, each generation is composed of skilled workers (

) and unskilled workers (

), in fixed proportion. The unqualified employees can only work in the secondary sector, whereas the qualified employees who do not find a job in the primary sector can immediately enter the unqualified sector. This last remark is based on the fact that the technology in the primary sector requires a higher level of effort (or qualification) than in the secondary sector. Finally, assuming a perfect mobility of workers between the two sectors, unemployment cannot occur in this economy.

Firms and Labor Market

We first present the primary sector. We assume that the production function can be written as follows:

where

denotes the final good product in the primary sector,

the number of skilled workers hired in this sector, and e their level of effort. We suppose in the following that

.

We recall that, in this sector, firms cannot perfectly observe workers' effort. Hence, the employer has to set an efficiency wage so as to deter skilled workers from shirking and incite them to provide a strictly positive level of effort. Assuming that workers' preferences on consumption and effort are separable, the indirect utility function is given by

where

denotes the real wage and

the level of effort of the worker, which can be equal to 0 or e1 in the primary sector, and

in the secondary sector. Moreover,

represents the worker indirect utility of consumption per unit of wage; we define it more precisely in the next section. We further suppose that firms consider

as given at period t. The level of effort will be strictly positive (

) if the skilled worker is employed in the primary sector and does not shirk. It will be zero if this worker shirks in the qualified sector and

if he works in the secondary sector. We assume also that the control rate of each worker is constant and noted

. Following Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984), the employer determines the level of wage such that the expected utility of an employee, who produces the effort, is greater than the expected utility of an employee who shirks (nonshirking condition):

where

denotes the real wage in the primary sector and

the real wage in the secondary sector. The left-hand side in expression (3) measures the expected utility derived by a worker who is not shirking and provides a level of effort equal to e1, while the right-hand side measures the expected utility of a shirking worker as a weighted average of the consumer utility if it is caught shirking and fired (with probability c), and if it is not caught (with probability 1-c). In this last case, the level of effort is zero. We further notice that a shirking skilled worker who is caught immediately enters the secondary sector and provides the same effort as an unskilled worker, e2. At the equilibrium, the employer sets the wage such that the employee will be indifferent between shirking and not shirking.7

In this case, we consider that the employee decides to produce the positive effort e1.

Using equation (3), we obtain

We can note that the nonshirking condition (4) implies the existence of a wage differential, at the equilibrium. This wage inequality increases with respect to the qualification gap between skilled and unskilled workers. Indeed, a greater level of effort in the primary sector constrains the employer to give a higher remuneration in order to deter skilled workers from shirking. We also remark that an increase of the probability of getting caught, c, reduces the wage differential. In other words, employees provide a strictly positive effort for smaller wages in the primary sector, when the probability of detected shirking workers rises. Moreover, we notice that a higher

decreases wage inequality. Indeed, it raises indirect utility per unit of wage, which reduces the incentive for workers to shirk. Then, employers of the primary sector put the wage at a lower level with respect to the competitive wage. Finally, we clarify that, in contrast to Kimball (1994) who is interested in dynamics of the Shapiro and Stiglitz efficiency wage, our nonshirking condition is based on a static version of this last one.

The firms of the primary sector maximize their profits. The first-order condition can be written

In the secondary sector, a continuum of firms of unit mass uses two inputs, the labor

and the capital

in order to produce the final good. Assuming constant returns to scale, the production function can be written

where

is the capital labor ratio in the secondary sector, f the intensive production function and B>0 a scaling parameter. Moreover, we make Assumption 1.

Assumption 1. The intensive production function

is continuous for

for

and p sufficiently high, increasing [

] and strictly concave [

].

At each period, firms maximize their profits. So, we can deduce the usual first-order conditions:

where rt denotes the real interest rate and

the perfectly competitive wage. We represent the dual labor market in Figure 1.

Dual labor market

Before presenting the consumption sector, it is convenient to define the following relationships. First, we note the capital share in the secondary-sector income

. Moreover, we also note

the elasticity of capital–labor substitution. Using (7) and (8),

. Since,

, we can deduce that

The Consumers

We assume that preferences of a representative household born at

are additively separable between consumption and effort. We further suppose Cobb-Douglas preferences over consumption when young and old, that we, respectively, note

and

. When the individual is young, he supplies one unit of labor. The labor income is spent in final good or saved through the purchase of capital

. The capital fully depreciates after one period of production. When old, individuals rent to firms the capital good at the expected rate

. At the first period, a generation of old lives only one period and has the capital stock as unique endowment. Then, the problem solved by the representative consumer born at

is

where

is a scaling factor,

,

denotes the level of effort and

is the income of the representative consumer. We derive the following conditions:

and

Substituting (14) and (15) into (11), we obtain the indirect utility

with

. We can note that the relation (17) justifies the indirect utility used in the nonshirking condition (3). Indeed, the real interest rate

is considered as given by the firm at period t and so we identify

to

. Referring to the preceding section, it notably means that a higher

, which corresponds to a higher

, leads to a weaker wage inequality.

Intertemporal Equilibrium

To determine the intertemporal equilibrium, we begin by given the expression of the global labor income. Since workers' mobility is perfect (

), we have

At the equilibrium,

is predetermined by the savings of the previous young generation. Then, substituting (5), (7), (8), and (18) into (4) and (16), we obtain:

DEFINITION 1. An intertemporal equilibrium with perfect foresight is a sequence

, such that (19) and (20) are satisfied.

The two equations (19) and (20) govern the dynamics of the economy. Indeed, they determine a two-dimensional dynamic system with one predetermined variable, the capital. Moreover, we can remark that these two relations directly depend on the wage and employment structure. More precisely, savings [equation (19)] is defined by earnings of skilled and unskilled workers and and size of the two sectors. Equation (20) corresponds to the nonshirking condition, which shows the extent of the wage gap. We notice that this wage inequality does not only depend on skill heterogeneity, but also negatively on the future interest rate.

STEADY-STATE ANALYSIS

In this section, we study the existence and uniqueness of the stationary state of the dynamical system (19) and (20). Our analysis will closely follow Cazzavillan et al. (1998) and Aloi et al. (2000).

A steady state

is a solution satisfying

Existence is established by scaling the two parameters A and B in order to normalize the steady-state values of capital and capital labor ratio. In what follows, we ensure the existence of a steady-state, namely with

and

by choosing appropriate values of the scaling parameters

and

such that

Considering

and under Assumption 1, e1 has to be included in

to ensure that

and

are strictly positive, where

Furthermore, it is obvious to remark that the steady state is unique. Indeed, the left-hand side of (22) is decreasing with respect to k, while the right-hand side is increasing with respect to k. We deduce the uniqueness of K from (21).

PROPOSITION 1. Assuming

, let

where

and

are the solutions of (25) and (26). Under Assumption 1, if A and B are defined by the relations (23) and (24), then

is the unique stationary solution of the dynamic system (19) and (20).

We can remark that the condition

means that the efficiency wage in the primary sector is always greater than competitive wage of the secondary sector, that is,

. In other words, we ensure that the level of effort in the primary sector is such that the nonshirking condition is always relevant. Furthermore, the inequality

implies that the secondary-sector wage is strictly positive.

LOCAL DYNAMICS AND BIFURCATION ANALYSIS

In this section, we analyze the role of wage differential on the emergence of local endogenous fluctuations. In particular, we show that endogenous fluctuations can occur only if the wage differential is sufficiently strong. In this way, we study the local indeterminacy of the steady state and the occurrence of local bifurcations. So, we first differentiate the dynamic system (19) and (20) in the neighborhood of the steady state

. Indeed, from the Hartman–Grobman Theorem,8

This theorem can be applied if the Jacobian matrix evaluated at the steady state is invertible and if it has no eigenvalue of modulus 1.

the linearized dynamic system is qualitatively analogous to (19) and (20). Using (9) and (10), we obtain

where

and

.

At this stage, we can remark that the wage differential is an increasing function of the parameter e1 at the steady state. Indeed, we have

Moreover, when e1 tends to

,

tends to

, and the wage inequality becomes weak. On the contrary, when e1 tends to

,

tends to 0, and the wage inequality is the highest. Most of these remarks allow us to study the influence of the wage differential on the occurrence of endogenous fluctuations.

PROPOSITION 2. Let

Assuming

, when the wage inequality is small

, the steady state is a saddle. When the wage differential raises, a flip bifurcation occurs

and the steady state becomes a sink when the wage inequality is sufficiently high

.

Proof. From the relations (27) and (28), we can easily compute the two eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix:

Since

,

. We can notice that

. Furthermore,

is strictly increasing with respect to e1 and varies from

to 0 when e1 increases from

to

. So, there is a unique value

such that

, with

We can conclude that when

, the steady state is a saddle, a flip bifurcation occurs when

, and the steady state becomes a sink for

.

We can first note that a weak wage inequality (

tends to

) implies that the steady state is a saddle. Then, endogenous fluctuations cannot emerge in the model. However, when the wage differential increases, a cycle of period 2 appears through the occurrence of a flip bifurcation. Moreover, the steady-state equilibrium is locally indeterminate when the wage inequality is sufficiently high.9

We recall that the steady state is locally indeterminate if it is locally stable (sink) because the capital is predetermined.

Hence, endogenous stochastic fluctuations can emerge in the neighborhood of the steady state. Endogenous stochastic fluctuations can also appear in the neighborhood of the cycle if it is locally stable, that is, if the bifurcation is supercritical.10

For more details, see Guesnerie and Woodford (1992) and Grandmont et al. (1998).

These results mean that under constant returns to scale, endogenous stochastic and deterministic fluctuations can emerge if the wage inequality is strong enough.

Before explaining these economic features, we recall that the extent of the wage differential depends on the skill gap between qualified and unqualified workers and on the incentives to deter skilled workers from shirking. Furthermore, in our dynamic framework, this wage inequality is also negatively correlated to the level of future interest rate. Indeed, a higher level of the interest rate raises the indirect utility of a worker employed in the primary sector more than if it is hired in the secondary sector. So, it reduces the worker incentive to shirk. In other words, a higher interest rate increases the cost of being fired in the primary sector. Then, the skilled worker will not shirk for a weaker wage differential.

We can now give a more intuitive explanation of the emergence of endogenous fluctuations in this model. In what follows, we first present why a sufficiently high wage differential promotes the occurrence of indeterminacy and endogenous cycles. Then, we highlight the dynamics around the cycle.

To show what the main mechanism is that generates indeterminacy and endogenous cycles, we can rewrite the dynamic system (19) and (20) as

We can easily remark that capital accumulation is strongly correlated to the wage structure. More precisely, in the case of a small wage inequality, due for instance to a small skill gap, the second term in the brackets in equation (34) becomes arbitrarily small. So, capital accumulation mainly depends on a constant term

. On the contrary, when the wage differential is relatively high, it strongly affects the aggregate savings

. Since wage inequality is decreasing with respect to expected interest rate [equation (33)], a variation of this interest rate, yielding a modification of wage differential, implies a large variability of capital accumulation only when the wage inequality is strong enough.

Taking into account that wage inequality is sufficiently high to generate an endogenous cycle, we now give a more detailed explanation of the evolution of the variables around the cycle. To do that, consider that one deviates from the steady state following an increase of the future expected interest rate. Through the nonshirking condition (33), wage inequality is weaker. Since the efficiency wage is constant, it means that the competitive wage becomes higher and then labor in the secondary sector decreases. From equation (34), this leads to a greater level of capital. So, future interest rate increases, and expectations are self-fulfilling, only if the labor in the secondary sector rises in the next period (

). This more important size of the secondary sector reduces the competitive wage in this sector, and raises the wage inequality at the next period. These last effects negatively influence savings and then capital accumulation at the following period (

). These elements clearly explain what happens around a cycle.

It is important to notice that our results do not require increasing returns to scale and the existence of externalities as has often been shown by a large literature [Benhabib and Farmer (1994), Lloyd-Braga (1995), Cazzavillan et al. (1998), or Cazzavillan (2001)]. Furthermore, we can notice that the conditions for the emergence of endogenous fluctuations do not depend on the elasticity of capital–labor substitution. So, contrary to a lot of existing contributions [Reichlin (1986), Woodford (1986), Grandmont et al. (1998)], local indeterminacy and deterministic cycles can appear for all values of this elasticity. Finally, using equation (32), we can easily see that

is an increasing function of s. Hence, a smaller capital share in the secondary-sector income promotes the occurrence of local indeterminacy.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we consider a dual labor market, based on the Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984) efficiency wage, in an overlapping generations model. The introduction of such labor market imperfection leads to a wage differential at the equilibrium. In this framework, we show that a sufficiently strong wage inequality promotes the emergence of endogenous fluctuations. Moreover, our results depend neither on increasing returns to scale, nor on the degree of capital–labor substitution. So, this article shows more generally that the introduction of new labor market approaches plays an important role in the emergence of endogenous fluctuations. Future research has to take into account other labor market specifications (unions, matching, etc.) in order to study their influence on the occurrence of endogenous fluctuations.

We thank Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira, Teresa Lloyd-Braga, Alain Venditti, an associate editor, and two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions. We also benefited from the comments of participants to the 5th International Conference on Macroeconomic Analysis and International Finance in Crete, May 2001; Fourth International Summer School in Economics in Rome, June 2001; and Conference Theories and Methods in Macroeconomics in Evry, June 2002.

References

Abowd J., F. Kramarz and D. Margolis 1994 High Wage Workers and High Wage Firms. Working paper 4917, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Agenor P.-R. and J. Aizenman 1997 Technological change, relative wages, and employment. European Economic Review 41, 188205.Google Scholar
Akerlof G. and J. Yellen 1986 Efficiency Wage Models on the Labor Market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Albrecht J. and S. Vroman 1992 Dual labor markets, efficiency wages and search. Journal of Labor Economics 10, 438461.Google Scholar
Aloi M., H. Dixon and T. Lloyd-Braga 2000 Endogenous fluctuations in an open economy with increasing returns to scale. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24, 97125.Google Scholar
Benhabib J. and R. Farmer 1994 Indeterminacy and increasing returns. Journal of Economic Theory 63, 1941.Google Scholar
Benhabib J. and R. Farmer 1996 Indeterminacy and sector-specific externalities. Journal of Monetary Economics 37, 421443.Google Scholar
Benhabib J. and R. Farmer, 1999 Indeterminacy and sunspots in macroeconomics. In J. Taylor and M. Woodford (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 1, pp. 387448, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Benhabib J. and K. Nishimura 1985 Competitive equilibrium cycles. Journal of Economic Theory 35, 284306.Google Scholar
Benhabib J. and K. Nishimura 1998 Indeterminacy and sunspots with constant returns. Journal of Economic Theory 81, 5896.Google Scholar
Boldrin M. 1989 Paths of optimal accumulation in two-sector models. In W.A. Barnett, J. Geweke and K. Shell (eds.), Economic Complexity: Chaos, Sunspots, Bubbles and Nonlinearity, Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bulow J. and L. Summers 1986 A theory of dual labor market with applications to industrial policy, discrimination, and Keynesian unemployment. Journal of Labor Economics 4, 376425.Google Scholar
Cazzavillan G. 2001 Indeterminacy and endogenous fluctuations with arbitrarily small externalities. Journal of Economic Theory 101, 133157.Google Scholar
Cazzavillan G., T. Lloyd-Braga and P. Pintus 1998 Multiple steady states and endogenous fluctuations with increasing returns to scale in production. Journal of Economic Theory 80, 60107.Google Scholar
Coimbra R. 1999 Efficiency Wages, Increasing Returns and Endogenous Fluctuations. Discussion paper 99/06, University of York.Google Scholar
Coimbra R., T. Lloyd-Braga and L. Modesto 2005 Endogenous Fluctuations in Unionized Economics with Productive Externalitics. Economic Theory 26, 629649.Google Scholar
Dickens W.T. and L.F. Katz 1987 Industry wage differences and industry characteristics. In K. Lang and J.S. Leonard (eds.), Unemployment and the Structure of Labor Markets. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Doeringer P. and M. Piore 1971 International Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Flug K. and Z. Hercowitz 2000 Equipment investment and the relative demand for skilled labor: International evidence. Review of Economic Dynamics 3, 461485.Google Scholar
Galor O. 1992 A two-sector overlapping-generations model: a global characterization of the dynamical system. Econometrica 60, 13511386.Google Scholar
Gibbons R. and L.F. Katz 1992 Does unmesured ability explain inter-industry wages differentials? Review of Economic Studies 59, 515539.Google Scholar
Grandmont J. 1985 On endogenous competitive business cycles. Econometrica 53, 9951045.Google Scholar
Grandmont J., P. Pintus and R. de Vilder 1998 Capital-labor substitution and competitive nonlinear endogenous business cycles. Journal of Economic Theory 80, 1459.Google Scholar
Guesnerie R. and M. Woodford 1992 Endogenous fluctuations. In J.-J. Laffont (ed.), Advances in Economic Theory, vol. 2, pp. 289412, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harrison S. and M. Weder 2002 Tracing externalities as sources of indeterminacy. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 26, 851867.Google Scholar
Jacobsen H. 2000 Endogenous, imperfectly competitive business cycles. European Economic Review 44, 305336.Google Scholar
Jones S. 1987a Minimum wage legislation in a dual labor market. European Economic Review 31, 12291245.Google Scholar
Jones S. 1987b Screening unemployment in a dual labor market. Economic Letters 25, 191195.Google Scholar
Katz L. and L. Summers 1989 Industry rents: evidence and implications. In Martin N. Baily and Clifford Winston (eds.), Brookings Papers on Economic Activity; Microeconomics, pp. 209275. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kimball M. 1994 Labor market dynamics when unemployment is a worker discipline device. American Economic Review 84, 10451059.Google Scholar
Koebel B., M. Falk and F. Laisney 2003 Imposing and testing curvature conditions on Box-Cox cost function. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 21, 319335.Google Scholar
Krueger A.B. and L.H. Summers 1987 Reflections of inter-industry wages structure. In K. Lang and J.S. Leonard (eds.), Unemployment and the Structure of Labor Markets. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lloyd-Braga T. 1995 Increasing Returns to Scale and Endogenous Fluctuations. Working paper 65/95, Universidade Católica Portuguesa.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Braga T. and L. Modesto 2004 Indeterminacy in a Finance Constrained Unionized Economy. CEPR, DP 4679. (http://www.ocpr.org/puds/dps/DP7649.osp.
Rebitzer J. and L. Taylor 1991 A model of dual labor market when product demand is uncertain. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 13731383.Google Scholar
Reichlin P. 1986 Equilibrium cycles in an overlapping generations economy with production. Journal of Economic Theory 40, 89102.Google Scholar
Saint-Paul G. 1991 A model of the natural rate of unemployment. Economics Letters 36, 219222.Google Scholar
Saint-Paul G. 1996 Dual Labor Market: A Macroeconomic Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shapiro C. and J. Stiglitz 1984 Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. American Economic Review 73, 433445.Google Scholar
Teulings C. 1993 Experience in a Shirking Model with Heterogeneous Workers. Discussion paper, Tinbergen Institute.Google Scholar
Weiss A. 1991 Efficiency Wages Models of Unemployment, Layoffs, and Wage Dispersion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Woodford M. 1986 Stationary sunspot equilibria in a finance constrained economy. Journal of Economic Theory 40, 128137.Google Scholar
Yellen J.L. 1984 Efficiency wage models of unemployment. American Economic Review Proceedings 74, 200205.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Dual labor market