BACK in April, I wrote about one of the most troubling mysteries in economics, the falling labour share. Less of the income the economy produces is going to people who work, and more is going to people who own things.

This trend is worrying because it contributes to increased inequality — poor people own much less of the land and capital in the economy than rich people do.

The devaluation of workers could also increase unemployment, social unrest and general malaise. No one would like to see capitalism transform into the kind of dystopia envisioned by Karl Marx. That’s why even though the decline in labour’s share has so far been relatively modest, economists are racing to diagnose the cause before the problem gets any worse.

Recently, a lot of attention has focused on the idea that monopoly power might be causing the shift. But the famous paper that draws this connection — by David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence Katz, Christina Patterson and John Van Reenen — also shows that it can account for perhaps only 20 percent of the change.

This means other possible explanations for labour’s decline, like increasing automation or globalisation, need to be re-examined.

Economists Mai Dao, Mitali Das, Zsoka Koczan and Weicheng Lian of the International Monetary Fund argue that the culprit is not automation or offshoring alone, but the interaction between the two. As evidence, they note that the labour share has been falling not just in rich nations, but in developing countries as well.

If globalisation were purely to blame, this wouldn’t be happening. Standard trade theories imply that because rich countries have a lot of capital and poor countries have a lot of labour, when these countries start to trade, labour’s share of income should go down in the countries where it used to be scarce — i.e., the rich world — but should rise in the poor countries where it was previously abundant. That’s not what’s happening.

Workers in rich countries where routine jobs were more common were hit harder by both free trade and the advent of cheap automation

Meanwhile, if automation is just now starting to make workers obsolete, developing countries shouldn’t be experiencing the fall in labour share at the same time, because in technological terms they’re decades behind the rich countries.

The authors confirm that investment goods — machines, vehicles, computers, etc. — haven’t really gotten much cheaper in poor countries, as they have in rich ones. So the puzzle really boils down to this: Why is the labour share falling in the developing world?

Dao and her co-authors offer a hypothesis. It has to do with the types of industries that exist in poor countries before and after trade gets opened up. When poor countries are isolated from the global economy, they tend to specialise in things that rely on a lot of cheap labour — farming, low-end services and simple labour-intensive manufacturing.

Local landlords and other capital owners do well, but don’t have a chance to get truly rich, because any investment in machinery or technology can be undercut by a flood of low-wage workers. So they don’t bother making the investments in the first place. This dearth of capital spending is exacerbated by rudimentary or dysfunctional financial systems.

But when trade opens up, the rich countries start offshoring manufacturing jobs to the poor countries. These jobs offer better opportunities for workers, but much better opportunities for capitalists. Even as capitalists in the US or Japan or France get rich cutting labour costs by shipping jobs to China, Chinese capitalists get rich because they’re finally able to amass huge business empires.

The IMF economists also predict that global financial integration should help alleviate the pressure on labour in poor countries.

If American, European, Japanese and Taiwanese companies are able to invest in a developing country like China, the inflow of foreign money will boost incomes for local workers and compete down the profits of local capital owners.

So what about rich countries? Here, the argument is that automation and globalisation are working together — companies in rich countries can ship labour-intensive manufacturing jobs in electronics assembly, toys and clothing to China and Bangladesh, while buying advanced machine tools and robots to do more high-end manufacturing of things like microprocessors and airplanes.

As a result, workers in rich countries where routine jobs were more common were hit harder by both free trade and the advent of cheap automation.

In other words, the two most conventional explanations for rising inequality and falling wages might both be correct. A perfect storm of robots and free trade — and some monopoly power to boot — could be shifting power from the proletariat to the capitalists.

With all these factors at work, maybe the real puzzle is why workers aren’t doing even worse than they are.

Bloomberg/The Washington Post Service

Published in Dawn, The Business and Finance Weekly, October 3rd, 2017

Opinion

For whom the clock ticks
Updated 22 Apr 2021

For whom the clock ticks

Tarin will have to succeed in order to cement his position within the cabinet.
Ending the ‘forever war’
Updated 21 Apr 2021

Ending the ‘forever war’

Regardless of who the adversary was at any point, two generations of Afghans have known only war.

Editorial

23 Apr 2021

Tehran visit

THE two key takeaways from Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s trip to Iran on Wednesday were the need for...
23 Apr 2021

Road to racial justice

THE death of George Floyd last May caused global shock and outrage, and led to mass protests in both the US and...
22 Apr 2021

Capping power debt

THE suggested revision in the Circular Debt Management Plan, which aims to cap the flow or addition of new debt to...
22 Apr 2021

Istanbul postponement

WHILE the postponement of the Istanbul peace talks on Afghanistan, which were scheduled to be held later this week,...
22 Apr 2021

No mining precautions

YET another accident caused by a methane gas explosion has been reported from the dangerous coal mines of...
More mishandling
Updated 21 Apr 2021

More mishandling

By its bad decision-making and weak management, the govt has allowed the TLP to garner more importance and heft than it deserves.