Influence of organizational factor on change productivity and work intensity (based on the example of US economy sectors)
https://doi.org/10.34020/2073-6495-2024-1-129-144
Abstract
Based on the results of existing research and the empirical data obtained by the author, a number of conclusions have been made about the nature and degree of influence of the labor organization factor (labor force, actually living labor) on productivity and labor intensity in industries/sectors of the US economy. This analysis covers the period from 2010 to 2022, when the American economy, subject to an extremely high degree of servization, entered the stage of “re-industrial turn”, formed on the basis of a new sixth technological structure, characterized, in addition to technological innovations, by a significant increase in the role of a person - a qualified worker with creative content of work. Based on the results of regression analysis, the grouping of industries/sectors of the US economy according to the elasticity of productivity and intensity depending on the indicators of labor organization in American companies, expressed through the corresponding regression coefficients, allowed us to draw conclusions about the ambiguity in the nature and significance of the influence of the sought factor on the explained variables. Currently, a number of American industries are forced to use extensive forms of labor organization, in particular to increase the actual hours worked, in order to maintain profitability and competitiveness, despite increasing social costs. The identification of four groups of sectors of the American economy according to this criterion indicates a change in the structural policy of the United States, characterized by a sectoral focus in the field of stabilization and increasing productivity growth rates due to the organizational factor.
About the Author
V. N. Minat
Ryazan State Agrotechnological University named after P.A. Kostychev
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Minat Valeriy N. – Candidate of Geographical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Economics and Management
Ryazan
References
1. Akaev A.A., Sadovnichij V.A. Chelovecheskij faktor kak opredeljajushhij proizvoditel’nost’ truda v jepohu cifrovoj jekonomiki [Human factor as a determinant of labor productivity in the era of the digital economy], Problemy prognozirovanija [Problems of forecasting], 2021, no. 1, pp. 45–58. DOI: 10.47711/0868-6351-184-45-58
2. Ansell R., Mallinz Dzh. COVID-19 i dvizhenie rabochih mest v SShA v 2020 g. [COVID-19 and the movement of jobs in the United States in 2020], Jekonomist [Economist], 2021, no. 7, pp. 44–79.
3. Atkinson R. Sektoral’naja politika dlja stimulirovanija rosta proizvoditel’nosti [Sectoral policy to stimulate productivity growth], Jekonomist [Economist], 2022, no. 10, pp. 76–87.
4. Genkin B.M. Metody povyshenija proizvoditel’nosti i oplaty truda: monografija [Methods for increasing productivity and remuneration: monograph]. Moscow, Norma, INFRA-M, 2019. 160 p.
5. Edinak E.A. Ocenka polnyh zatrat truda v rossijskoj jekonomike s uchetom kvalifikacionnogo urovnja rabotnikov [Estimation of total labor costs in the Russian economy taking into account the qualification level of workers], Problemy prognozirovanija [Problems of forecasting], 2020, no. 1, pp. 94–105. DOI: 10.47711/0868-6351-184-94-105
6. Zimnjakova T.S., Samusenko S.A. Mezhdunarodnyj opyt ocenki i analiza pokazatelej proizvoditel’nosti truda na nacional’nom i regional’nom urovnjah [International experience in assessing and analyzing labor productivity indicators at the national and regional levels], Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Jekonomika [Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Economy], 2020, no. 11, pp. 5–20. DOI: 10.17223/19988648/51/1
7. Zolotareva O.A., Darda E.S., Tihomirova A.V. Gumanitarno-tehnologicheskaja revoljucija: ocenka sostojanija gotovnosti perehoda v novyj tehnologicheskij uklad [Humanitarian-technological revolution: assessment of the state of readiness for the transition to a new technological structure], Vestnik NGUJeU [Vestnik NSUEM], 2021, no. 4, pp. 55–66. DOI: 10.34020/2073-6495-2021-4-055-066
8. Kendrik Dzh. Tendencii proizvoditel’nosti v SShA [Productivity trends in the USA], per. s angl. Moscow, Statistika, 1967. 314 p.
9. Klavdienko V. Raspredelenie pervichnyh dohodov mezhdu trudom i kapitalom: novye trendy v mirovoj jekonomike [Distribution of primary income between labor and capital: new trends in the global economy], Obshhestvo i jekonomika [Society and Economics], 2022, no. 5, pp. 47–58. DOI: 10.31857/S020736760020121-2
10. Kuchinskij Ju. Istorija uslovij truda v SShA s 1789 po 1947 g. [History of working conditions in the USA from 1789 to 1947], per. s nem. Moscow, Gos. izd. inostr. lit-ry, 1948. 396 p.
11. Mel’nikova L.V. Jeffektivnost’ bol’shih gorodov: teorija i jempirika [Efficiency of big cities: theory and empirics], Voprosy jekonomiki [Questions of Economics], 2023, no. 3, pp. 83–101. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2023-3-83-101
12. Minat V.N. Informacionno-cifrovaja transformacija vysokotehnologichnyh otraslej kak istochnik industrial’nogo rosta SShA [Information and digital transformation of high-tech industries as a source of industrial growth in the United States], Vestnik NGUJeU [Vestnik NSUEM], 2022, no. 3, pp. 212–227. DOI: 10.34020/2073-6495-2022-3-212-227
13. Minat V.N. Ocenka stoimostnogo vyrazhenija jeffekta truda v zdravoohranenii SShA i neravenstvo obespechennosti medicinskimi uslugami [Estimation of the value expression of the labor effect in US health care and inequality in the provision of medical services], Voprosy politicheskoj jekonomii [Issues of political economy], 2023, no. 1 (33), pp. 58–77. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7850858
14. Minat V.N. Paradoks proizvoditel’nosti truda v jekonomike SShA: rost intensivnosti, naprjazhennosti i «bessmyslennosti» [The paradox of labor productivity in the US economy: the growth of intensity, tension and “meaninglessness”], AlterEconomics [AlterEconomics], 2023, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 603–620. DOI: 10.31063/AlterEconomics/2023.20-3.6
15. Minat V.N. Rol’ strukturnogo faktora v izmenenii resursootdachi proizvodstvennogo sektora jekonomiki SShA [The role of the structural factor in changing the resource productivity of the manufacturing sector of the US economy], Nauka o cheloveke: gumanitarnye issledovanija [Human Science: Humanitarian Research], 2022, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 244–250. DOI: 10.17238/issn1998-5320.2022.16.1.27
16. Moshenskij M.G. Normirovanie truda i zarabotnaja plata pri kapitalizme [Labor rationing and wages under capitalism]. Moscow, Mysl’, 1971. 333 p.
17. Proizvoditel’nost’ truda «belyh vorotnichkov» [Labor productivity of “white collar workers”], per. s angl. Moscow, Progress, 1989. 248 p.
18. Rachek S.V., Shadrina A.V. Nauchnye problemy normirovanija truda v sovremennyh uslovijah: monografija [Scientific problems of labor regulation in modern conditions: monograph]. Ekaterinburg: UrGUPS, 2022. 167 p.
19. Sprjeg Sh. Zamedlenie rosta proizvoditel’nosti truda v SShA: analiz na urovne jekonomiki i otraslej [Slowdown in labor productivity growth in the USA: analysis at the level of the economy and industries], Jekonomist [Economist], 2021, no. 5, pp. 13–53.
20. Tuhtarova E.H., Vlasov M.V. Vlijanie chelovecheskogo kapitala na innovacionnoe razvitie [The influence of human capital on innovative development], Vestnik NGUJeU [Vestnik NSUEM], 2021, no. 1, pp. 89–111. DOI: 10.34020/2073-6495-2021-1-089-111
21. Utochnennyj metod ocenki otrabotannyh chasov dlja izmerenija proizvoditel’nosti [A refined method for estimating hours worked to measure productivity], L. Jeldridzh, S. Pabilonija, D. Palmer, D. Stjuart, D. Vargeze, Jekonomist [Economist], 2022, no. 11, pp. 31–60.
22. Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States. U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release?rid=353&soid=22 (accessed: 03.08.2023).
23. Burda M.C., Hamermesh D.S., Stewart J. Cyclical Variation in Labor Hours and Productivity Using the ATUS. American Economic Review, 2013, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 99–104. DOI: 10.1257/aer.103.3.99
24. Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers. U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release?rid=384&soid=22 (accessed: 11.08.2023).
25. Duranton G., Puga D. The economics of urban density. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2020, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 3–26. DOI: 10.1257/jep.34.3.3
26. Freeman R.B., Pecci L., Piga G. Why Do We Work More Than Keynes Expected? Revisiting Keynes: economic possibilities for our grandchildren. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. Pp. 135–142. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262162494.005.0010
27. Gerolimetto M., Magrini S. A spatial analysis of employment multipliers in the US. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 2016, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 277–285. DOI: 10.1007/s12076-015-0157-z
28. Guerriero M. The Labor Share of Income Around the World: Evidence from a Panel Dataset. Tokyo: Asian Developing Bank Institute. 2019. 38 p. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/484346/adbi-wp920.pdf (accessed: 19.08.2023).
29. Labor Force Participation by State. U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release?rid=446&soid=22 (accessed: 02.08.2023).
30. Labor Force Participation Rate. Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=446&eid=784070#snid=784132 (accessed: 05.08.2023).
31. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsa2020.pdf (accessed: 13.08.2023).
32. Leijonhufvud A., Pecci L., Piga G. Spreading the Bread Thin on the Butter. Revisiting Keynes: economic possibilities for our grandchildren. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. Pp. 117–124. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262162494.003.0008
33. Lombardi D.F., Folkard S., Joanna L., Willetts J.L., Smith G.S. Daily Sleep, Weekly Working Hours, and Risk of Work-Related Injury: US National Health Interview Survey (2004–2008). Chronobiology International, 2010, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1013–1030. DOI: 10.3109/07420528.2010.489466
34. Melo P.C., Graham D.J., Levinson D., Aarabi S. Agglomeration, accessibility and productivity: Evidence for large metropolitan areas in the US. Urban Studies, 2017, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 179–195. DOI: 10.1177/0042098015624850
35. Moss E., Nunn R., Shambaugh J. The Slowdown in Productivity Growth and Policies That Can Restore It // The Hamilton Project. Washington, Brookings Institution. 2020. 27 p. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Productivity_Framing_LO_6.16_FINAL.pdf (accessed: 17.08.2023).
36. Murray A. What explains the post-2004 U.S. productivity slowdown? International Productivity Monitor, 2018, no. 34, pp. 81–109. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/sls/ipmsls/v34y20185.html (accessed: 24.08.2023).
37. OECD. Metropolitan areas. OECD Regional Statistics (database). 2023. DOI: 10.1787/da
38. Snir R., Harpaz I. Beyond workaholism: Towards a general model of heavy work investment. Human Resource Management Review, 2012, no. 22, pp. 232–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.011
39. Social Security Administration. Social Insurance Programs. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/sspus/oasdi.pdf (accessed: 04.08.2023).
40. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Programs and services. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2022/index.html (accessed: 09.08.2023).
41. Unemployment in States and Local Areas (all other areas). U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release?rid=116&soid=22 (accessed: 06.08.2023).
Review
For citations:
Minat V.N. Influence of organizational factor on change productivity and work intensity (based on the example of US economy sectors). Vestnik NSUEM. 2024;(1):129-144. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34020/2073-6495-2024-1-129-144
Email this article 
