nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

15.08.2020

Labor flows across firm size, age, and economic sector in Colombia vs. the United States

verfasst von: Luz A. Flórez, Leonardo Fabio Morales, Daniel Medina, José Lobo

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper compares labor market flows between a developing economy, Colombia, and a developed one, the United States (US). In a comparative framework, we explore measures of labor market flows across dimensions such as firm size, age, and economic sector. This comparison allows us testing, for both countries, a series of interesting hypothesis suggested in the literature, namely the negative systematic relationship between firm size/age and employment growth rate. We find that labor market fluidity in the US labor market is substantially higher than in Colombia and that the churning rate is twice as high for the US market as it is for the Colombian one. We argue that this fluidity gap between the two economies can be explained by, among other factors, the rigid nature of Colombian labour market institutions.

Vorheriger Artikel Formal and informal financing decisions of small businesses

Nächster Artikel The entrepreneurial gains from market integration in the new EU member states

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

See for instance, Bjelland et al. 2011; Davis et al. 2008; Davis and Haltiwanger 2014; Hyatt and Spletzer 2013; Lazear and McCue 2017; Molloy et al. 2016.

Nevertheless, literature has noted undesirable effects of increasing fluidity. For example, the job losses implicit in worker replacements can lead to lower job security and might increase the incidence of unemployment (Davis and Haltiwanger 2014). From the perspective of the firm, excess of worker turnover increases training costs, and therefore might be damaging to the employer (Burgess et al. 2000).

More recently, Neumark et al. (2011) and De Wit and De Kok (2014), among others, have found evidence in favor of Birch’s (1981) results in several countries, even after controlling for the classification issues mentioned above.

Nevertheless, in Colombia, newborn firms (less than 1 year old) are not the ones with the highest employment growth rate, as is the case in the US (Haltiwanger et al. 2013; Lawless 2014) and other developed economies (see Heyman et al. 2018, for Sweden).

PILA statistics are available starting in 2008; however, to avoid measurement errors we use information reported since 2009.

Unfortunately, with PILA we are not able to identify the number of plants or establishments that constitute a firm.

Given the information from PILA used in this paper, we are able to follow the change in the number of workers by firm. This measure includes full-time and part-time workers (i.e., workers who contribute to the pension or health system).

With this construction, using quarterly data, we lose some information compared to the monthly frequency. We find that the difference between quarterly and monthly formal employees is around 2 million, which in PILA represents around 21.5% of the total employment in 2017 (average total employment from January to September). Using the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), Davis et al. (2006) find that, for the US, the quarterly flow rates (and) are on average 2.6 times the monthly ones. In the case of Colombia, we find that this ratio is 1.7. Even though very short job spells are important for the Colombian case, the dynamics of the labor flows at monthly and quarterly measures are very similar.

The public sector represents, on average, 24.14% of the total employment reported in PILA during the whole period analyzed.

The QWI uses the physical location where production takes place as a unit of analysis. Retrieved from https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/qwi_national_beta.html#downloadable-data

Definitions and notation used in this section carefully follow Morales and Medina (2016).

By different categories, we mean different firm sizes, ages, and economic sectors.

Theoretically, these flows can be generated from traditional equilibrium unemployment models. These models, which were introduced by Mortensen and Pissarides (1994) and by Pissarides (2000), first reproduce the search processes that workers enact when they want to find a job or that firms initiate when they want to fill a vacancy. Then, they focus on how jobs are created and destroyed by the firms, and how workers move from being employed to unemployed. Together, these dynamics flows determine the equilibrium unemployment rate.

As reported in Morales and Medina (2019), the proportion of all fluidity explained by very small firms is tiny; they argue that firms with two to five employees represent only 1.09% of total worker flow, 3.57% of churning flow, and 5.87% of total job flow.

Morales et al. (2019) show that the formal market has considerably higher magnitudes of worker reallocation rates and churning rates than the informal share of the market.

All of these measures are expressed as a percentage of the total employment; therefore, during an average quarter, separations and hires represent 20% and 21% of total employment in US, respectively.

For the specific case of the North American economy, Autor et al. (2006) and Autor et al. (2007) present evidence of the adverse effects of labor protection laws on employment and total factor productivity (Morales and Medina 2019).

The average indicators of the OECD countries allow us to compared Colombia case with a benchmark for all developed economies.

Figure 4 presents a comparison of employment protection legislation in terms of OECD indicators; these are synthetic indexes that measure the costs associated with worker dismissal (including notice periods, severance payments, and difficulty of the process).

Blanchard and Portugal (2001) present a theoretical model that relates employment protection regulation and labor flows, according to the traditional models of Mortensen and Pissarides (1994), with endogenous job destruction. The authors show that high employment protection lowers layoffs (worker flows) because it increases the firm costs while strengthening the bargaining power of workers, but also produces longer unemployment duration. They find that high employment protection explains the lower labor flows in Portugal compared to the United States.

As explained in Koske et al. (2015), barriers to entrepreneurship are measured using licenses and permits, communication, and simplification of rules and procedures. Administrative burdens on startups are measured using administrative burdens of corporations and barriers in service sectors. Barriers to FDI are measured using information on approval mechanisms, restrictions on the employment of foreigners as key personnel, and operational restrictions.

The size distribution fallacy arises when firms migrate between size categories from one year to the next. Regression fallacy occurs when employers experience transitory fluctuations in size and when there is a strong relationship between the reclassification of the firm and transitory changes in employment. See Davis et al. (1996b), p. 305.

Dynamic classification attributes a firm’s job creation or loss to the size class to which the firm belongs at the moment job creation or loss actually occurs, not to a single size class as with other methods. See De Wit and De Kok (2014), p. 285.

In an extended version of this paper, we calculated the flows using the average plant size of the number of employees for the firm (quarterly) during the whole period. As we showed in that version, the results are very similar (Flórez et al. 2017).

In 2013, Colombia implemented a tax reform, which importantly reduces payroll taxes. This reform affected all firms with at least two employees; nevertheless, there is some evidence that the reform had the highest impact on the largest firms (Morales and Medina 2017). The reduction on churning in firms with 500 employees or more from 2015 on might be a delayed effect of the reform. As we discuss in Section 4 of this paper, the reform plausibly had a positive impact on WR and JR, but higher of the former than the later; in situations like these, churning reductions are expected, since churning is the difference between WR and JR.

To build these groups, we aggregated some sectors as follows: Agriculture and Mining includes agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining; Transportation and Trade includes transportation, warehousing, information, trade, hotels, and food; Private Services includes real state, rental, leasing, and finance. For Colombia, we referred to the Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme (Spanish acronym: CIIU), also known as the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC). For the US we referred to the QWI, which uses the industry categories defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Because QWI data does not give access to information at the establishment level, we were unable to perform a similar regression for the US case.

For firm size, we used the annual average measure, which presents variation across time.

We compute for each month MWC, this the extra-cost of the payroll due to increments in the minimum wage, keeping hours fixed; in the regressions, we average the MWC by year; nevertheless, results do not change if we use the monthly MWC, or the average of the last quarter of the year. In additional exercises, we use the ratio of the real minimum wage to median wage, instead of the MWC as a measure of rigidity; results are similar to the ones obtained with the MWC. These results will be provided by request.

We use the lag of the payroll because for some of our independent variables, as the employment growth rate, using payroll contemporaneously would cause a problem of reverse causality; this because the contemporaneous employment would show up in the dependent and independent variables.

In Colombia, the minimum wage is determined by a bargaining between economic guilds and unions, where the government is an intermediary. In the case that firms and workers cannot agree, the Government determines the policy.

The low within R squared suggests that the within transformation of the covariates explains little of the variation in labor market flows. As noted by Burgess et al. (2000), the idiosyncratic unobserved firm-specific fixed effect is very important in the explanation of labor flows. Those authors explain these results as a consequence of a particular recruiting policy that is persistent and sustainable across time; however, the interesting questions thus raised about optimal recruiting decisions are beyond the scope of this paper.

Abowd, J., Stephens, B., Vilhuber, L., Andersson, F., McKinney, K., Roemer, M., & Woodcock, S. (2009). The LEHD infrastructure files and the creation of the quarterly workforce indicators. In Producer Dynamics: New Evidence from Micro Data (pp. 149–230). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226172576.003.0006.

Anyadike, D. M., Bonner, K., & Hart, M. (2011). Job creation and destruction in the UK. Economics & Strategy Group, Aston University. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.392320.

Arango, L. E., & Flórez, L. A. (2017). Informalidad laboral y elementos para un salario mínimo diferencial por regiones en Colombia. Borradores de Economía, (1023). https://doi.org/10.32468/be.1023.

Arango, L. E., & Flórez, L. A. (2018). Determinants of structural unemployment in Colombia: a search approach. Empirical Economics, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1572-y.

Autor, D. H., Donohue III, J. J., & Schwab, S. J. (2006). The costs of wrongful-discharge laws. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.2.211.CrossRef

Autor, D. H., Kerr, W. R., & Kugler, A. D. (2007). Does employment protection reduce productivity? Evidence from US states. Economic Journal, 117(521). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02055.x.

Ayyagari, M., Demirguc-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2014). Who creates jobs in developing countries? Small Business Economics, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9549-5.

Baldwin, J., & Picot, G. (1995). Employment generation by small producers in the Canadian manufacturing sector. Small Business Economics, 7(4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108620.CrossRef

Barnes, M., & Haskel, J. (2002). Job creation, job destruction and the contribution of small businesses: Evidence for UK manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.317179.

Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J., & Scarpetta, S. (2009). Measuring and analyzing cross-country differences in firm dynamics. In Producer dynamics: New evidence from micro data (pp. 15–76). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226172576.003.0002.

Bassanini, A., & Garnero, A. (2013). Dismissal protection and worker flows in OECD countries: evidence from cross-country/cross-industry data. Labour Economics, 21, 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.12.003.CrossRef

Bernal, R., & Eslava, M. (2015). Taxing where you should: Formal employment and corporate income vs payroll taxes in the Colombian 2012 tax reform. Unpublished, Inter-American Development Bank, (47). Retrieved from shorturl.at/fhzU7.

Bernal, R., Eslava, M., Meléndez, M., & Pinzón, Á. (2017). Switching from payroll taxes to corporate income taxes: firms ’ employment and wages after the 2012 Colombian tax reform. Economía, 18(1), 41–74 Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/90017435.pdf.

Bertola, G., & Rogerson, R. (1997). Institutions and labor reallocation. European Economic Review, 41(6), 1147–1171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(96)00048-7.CrossRef

Birch, D. L. (1981). Who creates jobs? The Public Interest, (65), 3. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/who-creates-jobs.

Bjelland, M., Fallick, B., Haltiwanger, J., & McEntarfer, E. (2011). Employer-to-employer flows in the United States: Estimates using linked employer-employee data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29(4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jbes.2011.08053.CrossRef

Blanchard, O., & Portugal, P. (2001). What hides behind an unemployment rate: comparing Portuguese and US labor markets. American Economic Review, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.187.

Boeri, T., & Jimeno, J. F. (2005). The effects of employment protection: learning from variable enforcement. European Economic Review, 49(8), 2057–2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.09.013.CrossRef

Bottasso, A., Conti, M., & Sulis, G. (2017). Firm dynamics and employment protection: evidence from sectoral data. Labour Economics, 48, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2017.05.013.CrossRef

Broersma, L., & Gautier, P. (1997). Job creation and job destruction by small firms: an empirical investigation for the Dutch manufacturing sector. Small Business Economics, 9(3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017982719207.CrossRef

Burgess, S., Lane, J., & Stevens, D. (2000). Job flows, worker flows, and churning. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(3), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1086/209967.CrossRef

Burgess, S., Lane, J., & Stevens, D. (2001). Churning dynamics: an analysis of hires and separations at the employer level. Labour Economics, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(00)00027-0.CrossRef

Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84, 772–793. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4509.CrossRef

Davis, S. J., & Haltiwanger, J. (1992). Gross job creation, gross job destruction, and employment reallocation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 819–863. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118365.CrossRef

Davis, S. J., & Haltiwanger, J. (1999). Gross job flows. Handbook of Labor Economics, 3, 2711–2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4463(99)30027-4.CrossRef

Davis, S. J., & Haltiwanger, J. (2014). Labor market fluidity and economic performance. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20479.

Davis, S. J., Haltiwanger, J. C., & Schuh, S. (1996a). Job creation and destruction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ISBN: 9780262041522.

Davis, S. J., Haltiwanger, J., & Schuh, S. (1996b). Small business and job creation: dissecting the myth and reassessing the facts. Small Business Economics, 8(4), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00393278.CrossRef

Davis, S. J., Faberman, R. J., & Haltiwanger, J. (2006). The flow approach to labor markets: new data sources and micro-macro links. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(3), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.3.3.CrossRef

Davis, S., Faberman, R. J., Haltiwanger, J., & Rucker, I. (2008). Adjusted estimates of worker flows and job openings in JOLTS (NBER no 14137). Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14137.

De Wit, G., & De Kok, J. (2014). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for Europe. Small Business Economics, 42(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9480-1.CrossRef

Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R., & Miranda, J. (2014). The secular decline in business dynamism in the US. Unpublished draft, University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://econweb.umd.edu/~haltiwan/DHJM_6_2_2014.pdf.

Fernández, C., & Villar, L. (2017). The impact of lowering the payroll tax on informality in Colombia. Economía, 18(1), 125–155.

Flórez, L. A., Morales, L., Medina, D., & Lobo, J. (2017). Labour flows across firms size, economic sectors and wages: evidence from employer-employee linked panel. Borradores de Economía, (1013). https://doi.org/10.32468/be.1013.

Fuchs, M., & Weyh, A. (2010). The determinants of job creation and destruction: plant-level evidence for eastern and Western Germany. Empirica, 37(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-009-9121-8.CrossRef

Giuliano, L. (2013). Minimum wage effects on employment, substitution , and the teenage labor supply: evidence from personnel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(1), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1086/666921.CrossRef

Gómez-Salvador, R., Messina, J., & Vallanti, G. (2004). Gross job flows and institutions in Europe. Labour Economics, 11(4), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2004.02.006.CrossRef

Haltiwanger, J., & Vodopivec, M. (2002). Worker flows, job flows and firm wage policies: an analysis of Estonia. Labour Economics, 9, 601–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(02)00048-9.CrossRef

Haltiwanger, J., & Vodopivec, M. (2003). Worker flows, job flows and firm wage policies. The Economics of Transition, 11(2), 253–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0351.00147.CrossRef

Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00288.CrossRef

Haltiwanger, J., Hyatt, H. R., McEntarfer, E., Sousa, L., & Tibbets, S. (2014a). Firm age and size in the longitudinal employer-household dynamics data. Census Bureau Center for Rcnomic Studies, CES-WP_14-, 49. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2423452.

Haltiwanger, J., Scarpetta, S., & Schweiger, H. (2014b). Cross country differences in job reallocation: the role of industry, firm size and regulations. Labour Economics, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LABECO.2013.10.001.

Hamermesh, D., Hassink, W., & van Ours, J. (1996). Job turnover and labor turnover: a taxonomy of employment dynamics. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 42(41/42), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/20066462.CrossRef

Hermida, D., & Morales, L. (2019). Flujos del mercado laboral formal e informal en los sectores económicos colombianos. Unpublished Draft.

Heyman, F., Norbäck, P.-J., & Persson, L. (2018). Who creates jobs and who creates productivity? Small versus large versus young versus old. Economics Letters, 164, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.12.034.CrossRef

Hirsch, B., Kaufman, B., & Zelenska, T. (2015). Minimum wage channels of adjustment. Industrial Relations, 54(2), 199–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12091.CrossRef

Hopenhayn, H., & Rogerson, R. (1993). Job turnover and policy evaluation: a general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 101(5), 915–938. https://doi.org/10.1086/261909.CrossRef

Hyatt, H. R., & Spletzer, J. R. (2013). The recent decline in employment dynamics. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-8997-2-5.CrossRef

Koske, I., Wanner, I., Bitetti, R., & Barbiero, O. (2015). The 2013 update of the OECD’s database on product market regulation: policy insights for OECD and non-OECD countries (no. 1200). París. https://doi.org/10.1787/5js3f5d3n2vl-en.

Kugler, A., Kugler, M., & Herrera, L. (2017). Do payroll tax breaks stimulate formality? Evidence from Colombia’s Reform. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23308.

Laing, D. (2011). Labor economics : Introduction to classic and the new labor economics. W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN: 0393979520.

Lane, J., Stevens, D., & Burgess, S. (1996). Worker and job flows. Economics Letters, 51(1), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(95)00793-8.CrossRef

Lawless, M. (2014). Age or size? Contributions to job creation. Small Business Economics, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9513-9.

Lazear, E. P., & McCue, K. (2017). Hires and separations in equilibrium. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23059.

Melo, L. y Ballesteros, C. (2013). Creación, destrucción y reasignación del empleo en el sector manufacturero colombiano. Revista de Economía Institucional., 15(28), 281–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32468/be.699.

Messina, J., & Vallanti, G. (2007). Job flow dynamics and firing restrictions: evidence from Europe. Economic Journal, 117(521), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02057.x.CrossRef

Micco, A., & Pages, C. (2012). The economic effects of employment protection: evidence from international industry-level data. SSRN Electronic Journal, (December). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1820068.

Molloy, R., Trezzi, R., Smith, C. L., & Wozniak, A. (2016). Understanding declining fluidity in the US labor market. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2016(1), 183–259. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2016.0015.CrossRef

Morales, L. F., & Lobo, J. (2017). Estimating vacancies from firms’ hiring behavior: the case of a developing economy. Borradores de Economía, 1017, 43. https://doi.org/10.32468/be.1017.CrossRef

Morales, L., & Medina, D. (2016). Labor fluidity and performance of labor outcomes in Colombia: evidence from employer-employee linked panel. Borradores de Economía, (926). https://doi.org/10.32468/be.926.

Morales, L. F., & Medina, C. (2017). Assessing the effect of payroll taxes on formal employment: the case of the 2012 tax reform in Colombia. Economía, 18(1), 75–124. https://doi.org/10.32468/be.971.CrossRef

Morales, L., & Medina, D. (2019). Fluidez del mercado laboral y resultados en materia de empleo en Colombia: evidencia derivada de datos enlazados de empleadores y empleados. Revista CEPAL, (127). https://doi.org/10.18356/b6cf5907-es.

Morales, L. F., Hermida, D., & Dávalos, E. (2019). Interactions between formal and informal labor dynamics: revealing job flows from household surveys. Borradores de Economía, 1090, 34. https://doi.org/10.32468/be.1090.CrossRef

Mortensen, D. T., & Pissarides, C. A. (1994). Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment. The Review of Economic Studies, 61(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297896.CrossRef

Neumark, D., Wall, B., & Zhang, J. (2011). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00060.CrossRef

Pissarides, C. A. (2000). Equilibrium unemployment theory. MIT press ISBN 0-262-16187-7.

Rivas, G. (2004). Dinámica del empleo industrial en Colombia 1977-1999. Cuadernos PNUD-Ministerio de La Protección Social, 4, Bogotá.

Salvanes, K. G. (1997). Market rigidities and labour market flexibility: an international comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 99(2), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.00065.CrossRef

Shimer, R. (2001). The impact of young workers on the aggregate labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), 969–1007. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530152466287.CrossRef

Ter Wengel, J. (2006). Creación y Destrucción del Empleo en la Industria Colombiana. Revista de La Información Básica, 1(2), 1–18.

U.S. Census Boureau. (2017). Quarterly Workforce Indicators. Retrieved from https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/qwi_national_beta.html#downloadable-data

Van Stel, A., & Storey, D. (2004). The link between firm births and job creation: is there a Upas tree effect? Regional Studies, 38(8), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280929.CrossRef

Wagner, J. (1995). Firm size and job creation in Germany. Small Business Economics, 7(6), 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112467.CrossRef

World Bank. (2018). Doing Business 2018: reforming to create jobs (World Bank). Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1146-3.

Titel: Labor flows across firm size, age, and economic sector in Colombia vs. the United States
verfasst von: Luz A. Flórez
Leonardo Fabio Morales
Daniel Medina
José Lobo
Publikationsdatum: 15.08.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00362-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Entrepreneurial homeworkers

Where do we go? VC firm heterogeneity and the exit routes of newly listed high-tech firms

Debt aversion, education, and credit self-rationing in SMEs

Employment effects of payroll tax subsidies

Impact evaluation of business development grants on SME performance

Formal and informal financing decisions of small businesses