Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-mhzq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T17:11:42.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NOTE ON WAGE DETERMINATION UNDER MISMATCH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

William B. Hawkins
William B. Hawkins*
Affiliation:
Yeshiva University
*
Address correspondence to: William Hawkins, Department of Economics, Yeshiva University, 245 Lexington Avenue (LX711), New York, NY 10016, USA; e-mail: whawkins@yu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shimer (Mismatch, American Economic Review 97, 1074–1101 [2007]) introduced a model of mismatch in which limited mobility of vacant jobs and unemployed workers provides a microfoundation for their coexistence in equilibrium. He assumed that the short side of a local labor market receives all the gains from trade. In this note I show that modifying this assumption on wage-setting can deliver more reasonable predictions for wages at the level of the local market and in the aggregate.

Keywords

Mismatch UnemploymentWage DeterminationShapley Value

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 19 , Issue 8 , December 2015 , pp. 1866 - 1879
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Casajus, André (2009) Outside options, component efficiency, and stability. Games and Economic Behavior 65, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Robert A. (1996) Value, consistency, and random coalition formation. Games and Economic Behavior 12, 68–80.Google Scholar
Hagedorn, Marcus and Manovskii, Iourii (2008) The cyclical behavior of unemployment and vacancies revisited. American Economic Review 98, 1692–1706.Google Scholar
Hart, Oliver and Moore, John (1990) Property rights and the nature of the firm. Journal of Political Economy 98, 1119–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Sergiu and Mas-Colell, Andreu (1996) Bargaining and value. Econometrica 64, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, William B. (2011) Wage Determination and Labor Market Volatility under Mismatch. Mimeo, University of Rochester (available from the author upon request).Google Scholar
Kalai, Ehud and Samet, Dov (1985) Monotonic solutions to general cooperative games. Econometrica 53, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, Richard P. (2002) Values of non-transferable utility games. In Aumann, Robert J. and Hart, Sergiu (eds.), Handbook of Game Theory, vol. 3, chap. 55, pp. 2077–2120. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rogerson, Richard (1988) Indivisible labor, lotteries, and equilibrium. Journal of Monetary Economics 21, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Alvin E. (1977) The Shapley value as a von Neumann–Morgenstern utility. Econometrica 45, 657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd S. (1953a) Additive and Non-additive Set Functions. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd S. (1953b) A value for n-person games. In Kuhn, H. W. and Tucker, A. W. (eds.), Contributions to the Theory of Games II, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 28, pp. 307–317. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd S. and Shubik, Martin (1969) Pure competition, coalitional power, and fair division. International Economic Review 10, 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimer, Robert (2005) The cyclical behavior of equilibrium unemployment and vacancies. American Economic Review 95, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimer, Robert (2007) Mismatch. American Economic Review 97, 1074–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Harald (2007) Measuring the power of parties within government coalitions. International Game Theory Review 9, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Eyal (2002) The Shapley value. In Aumann, Robert J. and Hart, Sergiu (eds.), Handbook of Game Theory, vol. 3, chap. 53, pp. 2025–2054. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar