Job quality and institutional investors: Evidence in 17 OECD countries, 1993-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the relationship between the share of assets held by different institutional investors as a proportion of GDP and a synthetic index of job quality in 17 OECD countries from 1993 to 2017. Our first contribution is to provide a new, multidimensional composite indicator of job quality based only on objective dimensions. According to this measure, a continuous decline in job quality is observed in many OECD countries. Second, the emergence of institutional investors as central financial actors since the 1980s has significantly affected labour relations. In this regard, we argue that the increasing influence of institutional investors through their effects on wages and jobs is associated with a lower level of job quality. Using fixed-effects OLS and IV regressions, we find little support that the share of asset holdings by institutional investors is correlated with a lower level of job quality, mainly due to the small magnitude of the coefficient estimates. Finally, we find that the job quality-reducing effect of the share of assets held by institutional investors is more pronounced in countries that have experienced a decline in union bargaining power, again with a small magnitude of our different estimates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".