Transaction Costs and the Employment Contract in the US Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to use transaction cost economics (as in Williamson, O.E., M.L. Wachter, and J.E. Harris. 1975. “Understanding the Employment Relation: The Analysis of Idiosyncratic Exchange,” 6(1) Bell Journal of Economics 250–78; Williamson, O.E. 1981. “The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach,” 87(3) American Journal of Sociology 548–77) to explore the relationship between job characteristics and observed employment contracts. Transaction cost considerations lead to jobs characterized by either normal or complex exchange. This in turn implies two contracting modes: contingent pay (fixed wage or piece-rate/commission contract) or noncontingent pay (salary with possibly a bonus). We show empirically that observed job characteristics, as measured by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, can explain the contract form observed in the Panel Study on Income Dynamics. Second, we discuss the implications of contract form for wages and mobility, and show that noncontingent pay jobs have more able workers in more durable relationships. (JEL J31, J33, J41, K31)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".