| Griffith and Harrison (2004) |
Fraser Institute |
- Regulation has a significant[21] positive effect on mark-ups.
- Mark-ups are negatively and significantly related to employment and investment.
- Mark-ups have a positive effect on R&D.
- Positive and significant effect of mark-ups on both the level and growth rate of productivity.
|
| Cincera and Galgau (2005) |
Fraser Institute |
- Deregulation tends to be significantly associated with more entry and exit.
- Entry is not a significant determinant of the growth in investment, but exit is associated with a significant decrease in the pace of capital accumulation.
- Negative effect of entry on R&D intensity.
- Entry and exit both have a positive effect on labour productivity growth.
|
| Scarpetta, Hemmings, Tressel and Woo (2002) |
OECD (time invariant) |
For firms that employ between 20 and 99 workers product market regulation has a negative and significant effect on entry, but for the 100 to 499 class the effect is positive and significant. |
| Brandt (2004) |
OECD (time invariant) |
Barriers to entry are not significant, but some evidence that its subcomponent representing regulatory and administrative opacity has some explanatory power for entry rates. |
| Loayza, Oviedo, and Serven (2005) |
Construct a summary measure of regulation based on information from the World Bank, the Heritage Foundation, and the Fraser Institute. |
- Product market regulation slows down the reallocation of resources following a shock.
- The portion of turnover explained by business regulation flexibility has a positive and significant effect on overall labour productivity growth.
|
| Alesina, Ardagna, Nicoletti, and Schiantarelli (2005) |
OECD (time varying) |
A reduction in regulation, particularly if it affects barriers to entry, has a significant and sizeable positive effect on investment. |
| Bassanini and Ernst (2002) |
OECD (time invariant) |
- Non-tariff barriers have a negative effect on R&D intensity.
- No effect of tariff barriers on R&D is detected.
- No evidence of a differential effect of domestic or administrative barriers comparing low tech to high tech firms
- Evidence of a positive differential effect for EPL in high tech industries relative to low tech in centralised systems of industrial relations.
|
| Koediik and Kremers (1996) |
?? |
Negative relationship between per capita GDP growth or TFP growth and product market regulation. |
| Card and Freeman (2004) |
Fraser Institute |
Fail to find a significant effect of regulation on the level of output per capita (or per worker) or on its growth rate. |
| Nicoletti and Scarpetta (2003) |
OECD (time invariant and time varying) |
- Positive effect of privatisation and entry liberalisation on TFP growth.
- Entry barriers in manufacturing may affect the pace of technology absorption.
|
| IMF study (2004) |
OECD (time varying) |
Both product market reform and trade reform have a positive and significant effect on growth, although it may take time for the full effects to be realised. |
| Loayza et al (2004) |
Time invariant indices constructed from the World Bank, the Heritage Foundation, and the Fraser Institute. |
- Negative and significant direct effect of product and labour market regulation on growth.
- Interaction between product market regulation and quality of governance positive and significant, suggesting that better governance reduces the negative effect of regulation.
|
| Nicoletti et al (2001) |
OECD (time invariant and time varying) |
- Anti-competitive product market regulations have a significant negative effect on non-agriculture employment rates
- The effects of EPL on innovation activity are negative and significant.
|
| OECD (2003) |
OECD (time invariant and time varying) |
- Negative direct effect of product market regulations on productivity, and this effect is larger the further a country is from the technological frontier, as strict product market regulation hinders the adoption of existing technologies.
- Also an indirect negative effect of strict product market regulations on productivity via their impact on innovation activity.
- Strict EPL tends to hinder productivity, unless these higher firing costs are offset by lower wages and/or more internal training.
- No evidence that strict EPL affects innovation activity.
|
| Gust and Marquez (2002) |
OECD (EPL) and WEF |
Burdensome regulatory environments and in particular regulations affecting labour market practices have impeded the adoption of information technologies and slowed productivity growth. |
| OECD Employment Outlook (1999) |
OECD (EPL) |
Stricter EPL strongly associated with higher rates of self-employment, and with lower turnover in the labour market, with both jobs and unemployment spells lasting longer. |
| |
OECD (time varying) |
- Reforms in both labour and product markets are needed to raise significantly long-run employment rates.
- Significant interactions between regulations in the product and labour markets: the estimated negative effects of strict product market regulations on employment are stronger when labour institutions push workers to seek a higher share of product market rents.
|
