When jobs offered by different employers are not perfect substitutes, employers gain wage-setting power; the extent of this power can be captured by the elasticity of labor supply to the firm. The authors collect 1,320 estimates of this parameter from 53 studies. Findings show a prominent discrepancy between estimates of direct elasticity of labor supply to changes in wage (smaller) and the estimates converted from inverse elasticities (larger), suggesting that labor market institutions may rein in a substantial amount of firm wage-setting power. This gap remains after they control for 22 additional variables and use Bayesian Model Averaging and LASSO to address model uncertainty; however, it is less pronounced for studies employing an identification strategy. Furthermore, the authors find strong evidence that implies the literature on direct estimates is prone to selective reporting: Negative estimates of the elasticity of labor supply to the firm tend to be discarded, leading to upward bias in the mean reported estimate. Additionally, they point out several socioeconomic factors that seem to affect the degree of monopsony power.
AkeeRandallJonesMaggie R.PorterSonya R.2019. Race matters: Income shares, income inequality, and income mobility for all US races. Demography56(3): 999–1021.
2.
AndrewsIsaiahKasyMaximilian. 2019. Identification of and correction for publication bias. American Economic Review109(8): 2766–94.
3.
AshenfelterOrleyHarmonColmOosterbeekHessel. 1999. A review of estimates of the schooling/earnings relationship, with tests for publication bias. Labour Economics6(4): 453–70.
4.
AzarJoséMarinescuIoanaSteinbaumMarshall I.2017. Labor market concentration. Working Paper No. 24147. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Also, published online before print inJournal of Human Resources (May2020): 1218-9914R1. doi: 10.3368/jhr.monopsony.1218-9914R1.
5.
BalasubramanianNatarajanChangJin WooSakakibaraMarikoSivadasanJagadeeshStarrEvan. 2018. Locked in? The enforceability of covenants not to compete and the careers of high-tech workers. Working Paper No. CES-WP-17-09. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies. Also, published online before print inJournal of Human Resources (May2020): 1218-9931R1. doi:10.3368/jhr.monopsony.1218-9931R1.
6.
BenmelechEfraimBergmanNittaiKimHyunseob. 2018. Strong employers and weak employees: How does employer concentration affect wages? NBER Working Paper No. 24307. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
7.
BergerDavid W.HerkenhoffKyle F.MongeySimon. 2019. Labor market power. NBER Working Paper No. 25719. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8.
BerryStevenLevinsohnJamesPakesAriel. 1995. Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica63(4): 841–90.
9.
BlauFrancine D.KahnLawrence M.2017. The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature55(3): 789–865.
10.
BóErnesto DalFinanFredericoRossiMartín A.2013. Strengthening state capabilities: The role of financial incentives in the call to public service. Quarterly Journal of Economics128(3): 1169–218.
11.
BodahMatthewBurkettJohnLardaroLeonard. 2003. Serving the Medicaid and Medicare populations: Nursing labor market dynamics. In EatonAdrienne E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, Part 9, pp. 199–205. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.
BoothAlison L.KaticPamela. 2011. Estimating the wage elasticity of labour supply to a firm: What evidence is there for monopsony?Economic Record87(278): 359–69.
BurdettKennethMortensenDale T.1998. Wage differentials, employer size, and unemployment. International Economic Review39(2): 257–73.
16.
CameronA. ColinGelbachJonah B.MillerDouglas L.2008. Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. Review of Economics and Statistics90(3): 414–27.
17.
CardDavidKruegerAlan B.1995. Time-series minimum-wage studies: A meta-analysis. American Economic Review85(2): 238–43.
18.
CardDavidKruegerAlan B.2015. Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Twentieth-Anniversary edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
CardDavidCardosoAna RuteHeiningJoergKlinePatrick. 2018. Firms and labor market inequality: Evidence and some theory. Journal of Labor Economics36(S1): S13–S70.
20.
CardDavidKluveJochenWeberAndrea. 2018. What works? A meta analysis of recent active labor market program evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association16(3): 894–931. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx028.
21.
Council of Economic Advisors. 2016. Labor market monopsony: Trends, consequences, and policy responses. Issue Brief, October. Accessed at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov.
22.
DepewBriggSørensenTodd A.2013. The elasticity of labor supply to the firm over the business cycle. Labour Economics24: 196–204.
23.
DettlingLisa J.HsuJoanne W.JacobsLindsayMooreKevin B.ThompsonJeffrey. 2017. Recent trends in wealth-holding by race and ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Technical Report. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US).
24.
DobbelaereSabienMairesseJacques. 2013. Panel data estimates of the production function and product and labor market imperfections. Journal of Applied Econometrics28(1): 1–46.
25.
DoucouliagosHristosStanleyT. D.2009. Publication selection bias in minimum-wage research? A meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Industrial Relations47(2): 406–28.
26.
DubeArindrajitGiulianoLauraLeonardJonathan. 2019. Fairness and frictions: The impact of unequal raises on quit behavior. American Economic Review109(2): 620–63.
27.
DubeArindrajitJacobsJeffNaiduSureshSuriSiddharth. 2020. Monopsony in online labor markets. American Economic Review: Insights2(1): 33–46.
28.
DubeArindrajitManningAlanNaiduSuresh. 2018. Monopsony and employer mis-optimization explain why wages bunch at round numbers. NBER Working Paper No. 24991. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
29.
EfendicAdnanPughGeoffAdnettNick. 2011. Institutions and economic performance: A meta-regression analysis. European Journal of Political Economy27(3): 586–99.
30.
EggerMatthiasSmithGeorge DaveyScheiderMartinMinderChristopher. 1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal316: 629–34.
31.
EggerPeter H.LassmannAndrea. 2012. The language effect in international trade: A meta-analysis. Economics Letters116(2): 221–24.
32.
FakhfakhFathiFitzRoyFelix. 2006. Dynamic monopsony: Evidence from a French establishment panel. Economica73(291): 533–45.
33.
FalchTorberg. 2010. The elasticity of labor supply at the establishment level. Journal of Labor Economics28(2): 237–66.
34.
FalchTorberg. 2017. Wages and recruitment: Evidence from external wage changes. ILR Review70(2): 483–518.
35.
FleisherBelton M.WangXiaojun. 2004. Skill differentials, return to schooling, and market segmentation in a transition economy: The case of Mainland China. Journal of Development Economics73(1): 315–28.
36.
GerardFrançoisLagosLorenzoSeverniniEdsonCardDavid. 2018. Assortative matching or exclusionary hiring? The impact of firm policies on racial wage differences in Brazil. NBER Working Paper No. 25176. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
37.
GibbonsEric M.GreenmanAllieNorlanderPeterSørensenTodd. 2019. Monopsony power and guest worker programs. Antitrust Bulletin64(4): 540–65.
38.
GunbyPhilipJinYinghuaReedW. Robert. 2017. Did FDI really cause Chinese economic growth? A meta-analysis. World Development90: 242–55.
39.
HavranekTomas. 2010. Rose effect and the Euro: Is the magic gone?Review of World Economics146(2): 241–61.
40.
HavranekTomas. 2015. Measuring intertemporal substitution: The importance of method choices and selective reporting. Journal of the European Economic Association13(6): 1180–204.
41.
HavranekTomasIrsovaZuzana. 2017. Do borders really slash trade? A meta-analysis. IMF Economic Review65(2): 365–96.
42.
HavranekTomasSokolovaAnna. 2020. Do consumers really follow a rule of thumb? Three thousand estimates from 144 studies say “Probably Not.”Review of Economic Dynamics35: 97–122.
43.
HavranekTomasHorvathRomanZeynalovAyaz. 2016. Natural resources and economic growth: A meta-analysis. World Development88(C): 134–51.
44.
HavranekTomasRusnakMarekSokolovaAnna. 2017. Habit formation in consumption: A meta-analysis. European Economic Review95: 142–67.
45.
HirschBorisJahnElke J.SchnabelClaus. 2018. Do employers have more monopsony power in slack labor markets?ILR Review71(3): 676–704.
46.
HooverGary A.ComptonRyan A.GiedemanDaniel C.2015. The impact of economic freedom on the black/white income gap. American Economic Review105(5): 587–92.
47.
KoetseMark J.de GrootHenri L. F.FloraxRaymond J. G. M.2009. A meta-analysis of the investment-uncertainty relationship. Southern Economic Journal76(1): 283–306.
48.
KruegerAlan B.AshenfelterOrley. 2018. Theory and evidence on employer collusion in the franchise sector. NBER Working Paper No. 24831. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
49.
KruegerAlan B.PosnerEric A.2018a. A proposal for protecting low-income workers from monopsony and collusion. Policy Proposal 2018-05. The Hamilton Project. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. February.
50.
KruegerAlan B.PosnerEric A.2018b. Corporate America is suppressing wages for many workers. Op-Ed. New York Times, February28.
51.
KrugmanPaul. 1980. Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review70(5): 950–59.
52.
LewisJeffrey B.LinzerDrew A.2005. Estimating regression models in which the dependent variable is based on estimates. Political Analysis13(4): 345–64.
53.
ManningAlan. 2003. Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
ManningAlan. 2020. Monopsony in labor markets: A review. ILR Review OnlineFirst, June. (In this issue, 74(1): 3–27.)
55.
MatsudairaJordan D.2014. Monopsony in the low-wage labor market? Evidence from minimum nurse staffing regulations. Review of Economics and Statistics96(1): 92–102.
56.
MelitzMarc J.2003. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica71(6): 1695–725.
57.
NaiduSuresh. 2010. Recruitment restrictions and labor markets: Evidence from the postbellum US South. Journal of Labor Economics28(2): 413–45.
NaiduSureshYuchtmanNoam. 2013. Coercive contract enforcement: Law and the labor market in nineteenth century industrial Britain. American Economic Review103(1): 107–44.
60.
NaiduSureshNyarkoYawWangShing-Yi. 2016. Monopsony power in migrant labor markets: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Political Economy124(6): 1735–92.
61.
OgloblinConstantinBrockGregory. 2005. Wage determination in urban Russia: Underpayment and the gender differential. Economic Systems29(3): 325–43.
62.
RansomMichael R.OaxacaRonald L. 2010. New market power models and sex differences in pay. Journal of Labor Economics28(2): 267–89.
63.
RansomMichael R.SimsDavid P.2010. Estimating the firm’s labor supply curve in a “new monopsony” framework: Schoolteachers in Missouri. Journal of Labor Economics28(2): 331–55.
64.
RansomTyler. 2019. Labor market frictions and moving costs of the employed and unemployed. IZA Discussion Paper No. 12139. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
65.
RinzKevin. 2019. Labor market concentration, earnings inequality, and earnings mobility. Working Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau.
66.
RobinsonJoan. 1933. The Economics of Imperfect Competition. London and New York: Macmillan.
67.
RoodmanDavid. 2018. BOOTTEST: Stata module to provide fast execution of the wild bootstrap with null imposed. Statistical Software Components. Boston College, Department of Economics.
68.
RoseAndrew K.StanleyT. D.2005. A meta-analysis of the effect of common currencies on international trade. Journal of Economic Surveys19(3): 347–65.
69.
RusnakMarekHavranekTomasHorvathRoman. 2013. How to solve the price puzzle? A meta-analysis. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking45(1): 37–70.
70.
SolonGaryHaiderSteven J.WooldridgeJeffrey M.2015. What are we weighting for?Journal of Human Resources50(2): 301–16.
71.
StaigerDouglas O.SpetzJoannePhibbsCiaran S.2010. Is there monopsony in the labor market? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Labor Economics28(2): 211–36.
72.
StanleyT. D. 2001. Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives15(3): 131–50.
73.
StanleyT. D. 2005. Beyond publication bias. Journal of Economic Surveys19(3): 309–45.
74.
StanleyT. D. 2008. Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effects in the presence of publication selection. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics70(1): 103–27.
75.
StelznerMarkBahnKate. 2020. Discrimination and monopsony power. Working Paper No. 071320. Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
76.
SulisGiovanni. 2011. What can monopsony explain of the gender wage differential in Italy?International Journal of Manpower32(4): 446–70.
77.
TibshiraniRobert. 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)58(1): 267–88.
ValickovaPetraHavranekTomasHorvathRoman. 2015. Financial development and economic growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys29(3): 506–26.
80.
WarrenElizabethBookerCory A.2017. Open letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. November.
81.
WebberDouglas A.2015. Firm market power and the earnings distribution. Labour Economics35: 123–34.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
