The Short-Term Employment Costs of Regulatory Reforms

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Dr. Andrea Bassanini of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Federico Cingano Bank of Italy.  They recently published an article in the ILR Review entitledBefore it Gets Better: The Short-Term Employment Costs of Regulatory Reforms,which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they reflect on the inspiration for conducting this research:]


Despite their being understood as powerful tools to promote and sustain economic growth, the pace of structural reforms slowed down during the recent recession and subsequent sluggish recovery (OECD 2016; IMF 2016a). These trends have partly been traced to increasing concerns that such reforms may entail costly transitory adjustments whose burden becomes especially worrying in periods of persistent economic and employment slack.
But are such concerns grounded? Surprisingly, not much is known as to their actual relevance or, perhaps more importantly, as to whether appropriately designed policies could help attenuating them (see Boeri et al, 2015; IMF 2016b).

In “Before it gets better: The Short-Term Employment Costs of Regulatory Reforms”, A. Bassanini (OECD) and F. Cingano (Bank of Italy) looked at the employment consequences of reforms removing barriers to entry in product markets (PMR reforms) and lowering the cost of dismissals (EPL reforms). Drawing on more than 30 years of cross-country industry and regulation data, they show that both reforms entail non-negligible – though transitory – employment losses on average. A reduction of barriers to entry in network industries, for example,  induces industry employment to fall below its pre reform level during the first three years. Similarly, one year after the “average” reform of dismissal legislation employment in dismissal intensive industries is around 0.5% below its pre-reform level (relative to other industries).

These negative short-term consequences can be contained, according to the analysis. For one thing, employment losses turn out to be smaller, if not negligible, for product and labour market reforms implemented during economic upswings. When aggregate output is growing above its potential, as usually occurs in the years following a recession period, hiring is scaled up while there are few inefficient jobs to be destroyed.
Moreover, the costs of easing dismissals legislation are negligible when product market regulation is light. Because the reverse does not hold (the costs of lowering entry barriers are found to be higher when employment legislation is light) the analysis suggests that a highly regulated country interested in reforming both domains could minimize the short-term costs of its policy package by deregulating product markets before the labor market.

Finally, the paper finds that employment losses from reforms of EPL for regular, open-ended contracts are less acute in countries with significant labour market dualism, where volatile positions are typically filled with temporary contracts. This result is remarkable because lowering dismissal regulation on permanent contracts is probably the single most effective way to tackle segmentation between protected permanent contracts and precarious temporary contracts (see OECD, 2014). In other words, EPL reforms are likely to come at no cost (on employment) in those countries where they will bring the greatest benefits (on duality).

These findings are obtained accounting for a number of confounding factors including country-industry trends (capturing specialization patterns, trends in regulation), country specific yearly shocks (capturing the business-cycle, “waves” of reforms, etc.) and industry specific shocks (as technology or demand shocks). They also proved robust to a large set of specification and sensitivity checks, to tests for reverse causality and to using in political variables as instrument for changes in regulation.


Stay up-to-date with the latest research from ILR Review and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

This entry was posted in Labor and tagged , , , by Cynthia Nalevanko, Senior Editor, SAGE Publishing. Bookmark the permalink.

About Cynthia Nalevanko, Senior Editor, SAGE Publishing

Founded in 1965, SAGE is the world’s leading independent academic and professional publisher. Known for our commitment to quality and innovation, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students across a broad range of subject areas. With over 1500 employees globally from principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, and Melburne, our publishing program includes more than 1000 journals and over 900 books, reference works and databases a year in business, humanities, social sciences, science, technology and medicine. Believing passionately that engaged scholarship lies at the heart of any healthy society and that education is intrinsically valuable, SAGE aims to be the world’s leading independent academic and professional publisher. This means playing a creative role in society by disseminating teaching and research on a global scale, the cornerstones of which are good, long-term relationships, a focus on our markets, and an ability to combine quality and innovation. Leading authors, editors and societies should feel that SAGE is their natural home: we believe in meeting the range of their needs, and in publishing the best of their work. We are a growing company, and our financial success comes from thinking creatively about our markets and actively responding to the needs of our customers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s