Changed Industrial Relationship by Offshoring Threat and Labor Share: An Empirical Game-Theoretic Analysis

Research indicates that the labor share of the aggregate income has decreased steadily since the mid-1970s, i.e. when the globalization process began. This paper discusses the ways in which qualitative changes in globalization, coupled with increased offshoring, have changed industrial relationships. In our analysis, we consider a simple Nash bargaining model between employers and employees. Our model proposes the hypotheses that employees gain the power to increase their wages when employers do not have the option of offshoring. However, employees typically lose this power when employers possess an offshoring threat, culminating in wage deduction. Leveraging a panel set of data obtained from 18 OECD countries during the period 1975–2017, we have empirically confirmed these hypotheses by comparing the first phase of globalization—not characterized by an offshoring threat—with the second phase, which entails an offshoring threat. Our findings reveal that workers’ bargaining power, positively affects labor share in the first phase; however, it loses its effect in the second phase when offshoring exerts its negative effects on labor share. We conclude that a qualitative change in globalization with increased offshoring radically changed industrial relationship through the threat effect.

A Game Theoretic Analysis of Competition Between Vaccine and Drug Companies during Disease Contraction and Recovery

Background Infectious diseases such as COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS are behaviorally challenging for persons, vaccine and drug companies, and donors. Methods In 3 linked games in which a disease may or may not be contracted, [Formula: see text] persons choose risky or safe behavior (game 1). Two vaccine companies (game 2) and 2 drug companies (game 3) choose whether to develop vaccines and drugs. Each person chooses whether to buy 1 vaccine (if no disease contraction) or 1 drug (if disease contraction). A donor subsidizes vaccine and drug developments and purchases. Nature probabilistically chooses disease contraction, recovery versus death with and without each drug, and whether vaccines and drugs are developed successfully. COVID-19 data are used for parameter estimation. Results Each person chooses risky behavior if its utility outweighs safe behavior, accounting for nature’s probability of disease contraction which depends on how many are vaccinated. Each person buys a vaccine or drug if the companies produce them and if their utilities (accounting for side effects and virus mutation) outweigh the costs, which may be subsidized by a sponsor. Discussion Drug purchases depend on nature’s recovery probability exceeding the probability in the absence of a drug. Each company develops and produces a vaccine or drug if nature’s probability of successful development is high, if sufficiently many persons buy the vaccine or drug at a sales price that sufficiently exceeds the production price, and if the donor sponsors. Conclusion Accounting for all players’ interlinked decisions allowing 14 outcomes, which is challenging without a game theoretic analysis, the donor maximizes all persons’ expected utilities at the societal level to adjust how persons’ purchases and the companies’ development and production are subsidized. Highlights A game theoretic approach can help explain the production decisions of vaccine and drug companies, and the decisions of persons and a donor, impacted by Nature. In 3 linked games, N persons choose risky behavior if its utility outweighs safe behavior. Vaccine and drug companies develop vaccines and drugs sponsored by a donor if profitable, allowing 14 outcomes.