Industry-wide work rules and productivity: evidence from Argentine union contract data

IZA Journal of Labor & Development

Table 7 First-stage regression results of the effect of individual work rules on productivity

Endogenous	IV	Labor productivity specifications
working rule		Level		Growth
		Coefficient	Std error	Coefficient	Std error
Displacement	I	0.119 ^∗	0.012	0.119 ^∗	0.012
	II	0.041 ^∗	0.013	0.041 ^∗	0.012
	III	0.003	0.008	0.003	0.008
Displacement After	I	-0.001	0.011	-0.002	0.011
	II	0.168 ^∗	0.011	0.167 ^∗	0.011
	III	0.001	0.007	0.001	0.007
Categories	I	0.105 ^∗	0.010	0.106 ^∗	0.009
	II	0.026 ^‡	0.011	0.027 ^∗	0.010
	III	0.013 ^†	0.007	0.012 ^‡	0.006
Categories After	I	-0.012	0.009	-0.011	0.009
	II	0.157 ^∗	0.010	0.157 ^∗	0.009
	III	0.008	0.006	0.008	0.006
Technology	I	0.119 ^∗	0.011	0.120 ^∗	0.010
	II	0.042 ^∗	0.012	0.043 ^∗	0.011
	III	0.003	0.007	0.002	0.007
Technology After	I	-0.003	0.011	-0.002	0.010
	II	0.167 ^∗	0.012	0.167 ^∗	0.011
	III	0.002	0.007	0.002	0.007
Training	I	0.111 ^∗	0.018	0.112 ^∗	0.018
	II	0.032 ^†	0.019	0.033 ^†	0.019
	III	0.008	0.012	0.007	0.012
Training After	I	-0.012	0.018	-0.011	0.018
	II	0.156 ^∗	0.019	0.157 ^∗	0.019
	III	0.008	0.012	0.007	0.012
Controls		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
State effects		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Industry effects		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations		1030	1030	899	899

The endogenous variables are instrumented by average number of employees covered by union contracts in other industries and states (I), the average number of employees covered by union contracts in other industries and states in the period after the reforms were introduced (II), and average length of contracts in other industries and states (III). Controls include the variables in Table 3 and an indicator for the period after the reforms were introduced. The symbols †, ‡, ∗ denote statistically different from zero at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level of significance.