Self-enforcing Employment Contracts and Business Cycle Fluctuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often argued that risk-sharing employment relationships provide a better description of labour relations than the standard Walrasian framework. Such relationships have been introduced in macroeconomic models under an assumption of full commitment. In the absence of commitment, however, these relationships must be self-enforcing. This paper examines the impact of limited commitment on labour market fluctuations. It is shown that self-enforcing employment contracts can explain several stylized facts related to the comovements of real wages and hours worked. Moreover, implications for the estimation of intertemporal labour supply elasticities are highlighted. In particular, it is shown that empirical studies of labour supply that neglect the existence of self-enforcing contracts may severely underestimate workers' willingness to substitute leisure intertemporally. On dit souvent que des relations d'emploi impliquant un partage de risque donnent une meilleure description des relations de travail que le cadre Walrasien traditionnel. De telles relations ont été introduites dans des modèles macroéconomiques sous l'hypothèse de plein engagement. Toutefois, en l'absense d'engagement, ces relations doivent être auto-exécutoires. Ce papier étudie l'impact de l'engagement limité sur les fluctuations du marché de l'emploi. Il est montré que les contrats de travail auto-exécutoires peuvent expliquer plusieurs faits caractéristiques reliés aux comouvements du salaire réel et des heures travaillées. De plus, des implications pour l'estimation de l'élasticité intertemporelle de l'offre de travail sont mises en évidence. En particulier, il est montré que les études empiriques qui négligent l'existence de contrats auto-exécutoires peuvent sous-estimer sévèrement la volonté des travailleurs de substituter les loisirs entre les périodes.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".