Financialization and Neoliberalism and the Fall in the Labor Share: A Panel Data Econometric Analysis for the European Union Countries

Abstract

This paper conducts an empirical analysis of the relationship between financialization and neoliberalism and the labor share using panel data composed of twenty-seven European Union countries over nineteen years (from 1995 to 2013). Adopting a Kaleckian perspective, framed in the post-Keynesian literature, financialization and neoliberalism exert a negative influence on the labor share through three different channels: the change in the sectorial composition of economies (the increasing importance of financial activity and the decreasing importance of general government activity), the proliferation of shareholder value orientation, and the deterioration of general workers’ bargaining power. We estimate a labor share equation with the traditional variables (lagged labor share, technological progress, globalization, education, and output growth) and four further measures of financialization and neoliberalism (financial activity, general government activity, shareholder value orientation, and the trade union density rate). The findings show a disruptive relationship between financialization and neoliberalism and the labor share in European Union countries, mainly through the channels of general government activity and shareholder value orientation. It is also found that financialization and neoliberalism have contributed to a fall in the labor share in European Union countries. The technological progress was the main driver of the fall in the labor share in European Union countries, while the output growth was the main supporter. This suggests that the trend of decline in the labor share could intensify in the future taking into account the fears of potential secular stagnation in the current era of financialization and neoliberalism. JEL Classification: C23, D33, E25, E44

Does the financial system support economic growth in times of financialisation? Evidence for Portugal

“…This trend was also supported by the strong growth of credit demand by households, who incur debt in order to compensate for the decline of their wages in times of financialisation (Barradas and Lagoa, 2017a;Barradas, 2019). The fifth explanation relates to the risk-aversion behaviour practised by investors through excessive investments in tangible assets than can be used as collateral instead of investments in knowledge-based assets (that would be more growthenhancing) that is encouraged by banks in order to maximise the likelihood of receiving the granted credits (Ang, 2008).…”

Macroeconomic Determinants of Households' Indebtedness in Portugal: What Really Matters in the Era of Financialisation?

“…This has increased the vulnerability of unskilled labour and/or low-skilled labour and has given rise to asymmetries in income distribution, leading the poorest households to incur debt to copy the consumption standards of the richest households. This is the 'demonstration effect' or 'Duesenberry effect' (Duesenberry, 1949 The fourth macroeconomic determinant of households' indebtedness is the decline in households' labour income, which is essentially explained by technological progress, globalisation, neoliberalism and financialisation since the mid-1980s (Barradas and Lagoa, 2017;Tridico and Pariboni, 2018;Barradas, 2019). The fall in households' labour income led them to incur more debt in order to prevent a loss in their standard of living.…”

Acerca da Repartição Funcional do Rendimento na Economia Portuguesa

“…Mais tarde, Silva (1984: 271) procede a uma atualização deste debate tendo já em conta as dinâmicas de evolução do período revolucionário e dos anos que se lhe seguiram e assinalando desde logo a tendência para a redução gradual da parte dos salários no rendimento ao longo da década de 1970 e início da década de 1980. Depois disso, porém, os trabalhos sobre este tema parecem tornar -se escassos se não mesmo inexistentes durante largos anos, não voltando a registar -se um novo pico de interesse até muito mais recentemente, com o aparecimento de trabalhos como os de Oliveira 2013, Barradas e Lagoa (2015, 2017, Barradas (2019) e Lopes et al (2019).…”

“…Após algumas décadas de relativa secundarização desta problemática, tem -se assistido nos últimos anos a um período de renovado interesse a nível internacional, tanto no contexto da atenção acrescida às questões da desigualdade e distribuição de que o trabalho de Piketty e colegas constitui o principal expoente (Piketty, 2014) como em resultado dos trabalhos de um amplo conjunto de autores de orientação pós -keynesiana, que se têm debruçado sobre as causas e consequências da repartição funcional (Stockhammer et al, 2008;Hein, 2014;Onaran e Galanis, 2014;Blecker, 2016; Onaran e Guschanski, 2018) e que incluem também alguns representantes em Portugal (Oliveira, 2013; Barradas e Lagoa, 2017; Barradas, 2019).…”