Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:45:43.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Organizational Practices and Working Conditions: Evidence from France in the 1990’s*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Philippe Askenazy ,
Eve Caroli  and
Vincent Marcus
Philippe Askenazy
Affiliation:
CNRS and CEPREMAP
Eve Caroli
Affiliation:
INRA-LEA and CEPREMAP
Vincent Marcus
Affiliation:
Ecole Normale Supérieure
Get access

Summary

We investigate the impact of innovative work practices on working conditions. We use a unique French dataset providing information on individual workers for year 1998. New work practices which play a key role in the success of the new economy, include job rotation and the use of quality norms. Working conditions are captured by occupational injuries as well as indicators of mental strain. Using Rubin’s causal model, we show that, even after controlling for employee and job characteristics and correcting for sample selection bias, workers involved in the new work practices still face working conditions that are significantly worse than those of non innovative workers.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine l’impact des méthodes de travail innovantes sur les conditions de travail. Nous utilisons un échantillon unique de données française fournissant des informations sur les travailleurs individuels pour l’année 1998. Les nouvelles méthodes de travail qui jouent un rôle dans le succès de la nouvelle économie incluent la rotation des emplois et l’utilisation des normes de qualité. Les conditions de travail sont appréhendées par les accidents du travail ainsi que par des indicateurs de stress. En utilisant le modèle causal de Rubin, nous montrons que, même dans le cas où nous tenons compte des caractéristiques de l’employé et du poste de travail et où nous corrigeons le biais de sélection d’échantillonnage, les travailleurs pratiquent les nouvelles méthodes de travail subissent des conditions de travail significativement plus mauvaises que les autres.

Keywords

new work practicestechnologyoccupational injuriesworking conditionsJ28L23Nouvelles méthodes de travailTechnologieAccidents du travailConditions de travailJ28L23
Type
II. Labor Economics and Human Capital Investments
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 68 , Special Issue 1-2: The New Economy: Implications and Viability , 2002 , pp. 91 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2002 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This research has been funded by a grant from the French Ministry of Research. We are indebted to Bénédicte Reynaud and Muriel Roger for most valuable discussions. An anonymous referee, the editors, Thomas Coutrot, Sylvie Hamon-Cholet as well as participants to the French-German seminar on “Labour” in Berlin (January 2001), the REL conference in Metz on ‘The New Economy: Implications and Viability” (april 2001) and the seminar on “Labour Intensification” at Centre d’Etude de l’Emploi also provided useful remarks and suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.

**

CEPREMAP, 48 Bd Jourdan-75014 Paris-France. Tel: 33 1 43136251.

***

Email : [email protected] and [email protected]

References

Askenazy, P. (2000), “Innovations and employment: evidence from American manufacturing”, chap. 6 in Vivarelli, M. and Pianta, M. eds, The employment impact of innovation. Evidence and Policy, Routledge, London, pp. 96–120.Google Scholar
Askenazy, P., Caroli, E., with Marcus, V. (2001), “New organizational practices and working conditions: evidence from France in the 1990s”, Couverture Orange CEPREMAP, N°2001–06Google Scholar
Askenazy, P. and Gianella, C. (2000), «La paradoxe de productivité: les changements organisationnels facteur complémentaire à l’informatisation», Economic et Statistique, N°339–340, 9/10, pp 219–241.Google Scholar
Askenazy, P. (2001), “Innovative Workplace Practices and Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22 (4).Google Scholar
Berg, P., Appelbaum, E. Bailey, T. and Kalleberg, A. (1996), “The Performance Effects of Modular Production in the Apparel Industry”, Industrial Relations, 35(3), pp. 356–373.Google Scholar
Berman, E., Bound, J. and Griliches, Z. (1994), “Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor Within US Manufacturing Industries: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufactures”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109 (2), pp. 367–398.Google Scholar
Black, S. and Lynch, . (1997), “How to Compete: the Impact of Workplace Practices and Information Technology on Productivity”, NBER Working Paper 6120.Google Scholar
Black, S. and Lynch, L. (2000), “What’s Driving the New Economy: The Benefits of Workplace Innovation”, NBER Working Paper 7479.Google Scholar
Bresnahan, T., Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (2002), “Information Technology, Workplace Organization and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firmlevel Evidence”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming, (NBER Working Paper 7136).Google Scholar
Cappelli, P. and Neumark, D. (1999), “Do High Performance Work Practices Improve Establishment-Level Outcomes?”, NBER Working Paper 7374.Google Scholar
Caroli, E. (2001), “New Technologies, Organizational Change and the Skill Bias: What do we Know?”, in Pascal, Petit and Luc, Soete eds, Technoloy and the Future of European Employment, Edward Elgar, pp.259–292.Google Scholar
Caroli, E. and Van Reenen, J. (2001), “Skill biased organizational change? Evidence from a panel of British and French establishments”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (4), pp.1449–1492.Google Scholar
Coutrot, T. (2000a), «Innovations dans le travail: la pression de la concurrence internationale, l’atout des qualifications», Première Synthèse DARES, 2000.3-N° 09.2.Google Scholar
Coutrot, T. (2000b), «Innovations et gestion de l’emploi», Première Synthèse DARES, 2000.3 -N° 12.1.Google Scholar
Crépon, B. and Iung, N. (1999), «Innovation, emploi et performances», document de travail INSEE N° 9904.Google Scholar
Fairris, D. and Brenner, M., 2001, “Workplace Transformation and the Rise in Cumulative Trauma Disorder”, Journal of Labor Research, 22(1), pp. 15–28.Google Scholar
Fiole, M., Passeron, V. and Roger, M. (2000), «Premières Evaluations Quantitatives des Réductions Collectives du Temps de Travail», Working Paper, DARES-Ministry of Labor.Google Scholar
Gollac, M. and Volkoff, S. (2000), Les Conditions de Travail, Repères, Paris, La Découverte.Google Scholar
Greenan, N. (1996), «Progrès Technique et Changements Organisationnels: leur Impact sur l’Emploi et les Qualifications», Économie et Statistique, 298, pp. 35–44.Google Scholar
Heckman, J., Lalonde, R. and Smith, J. A. (1999), “The Economies and Econometrics of Active Labor Market Programs, in Handbook of Labor Economics, Orley, Ashenfelter et David, Card eds, NY, Elsevier, chap. 31, pp. 1865–2097.Google Scholar
Ichinowski, C. and Shaw, K. (1995), “Old Dogs and New Tricks: Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity-Enhancing Work Practices”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
Ichinowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997), “The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity: a study of steel finishing lines” American Economic Review, vo. 87, 3, 291–313.Google Scholar
ILO (1998), Psychosocial and Organizational Factors, Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, ILO, Geneva.Google Scholar
Merllié, D. and Paoli, P. (2001), Ten years of working conditions in the European Union, European Fondation for the improvement of living and working conditions, Dublin.Google Scholar
OECD (1999), “New Enterprise Work Practices and their Labour Market Implications”, in OCDE Employment Outlook, Chap. 4, pp. 195–241.Google Scholar
Osterman, P. (2000), “Work Reorganization in an Era of Restructuring: Trends in Diffusion and Effects on Employee Welfare”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(2), pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
Ramaciotti, D. and Perriard, J. (1999), “Certification qualité selon ISO 9000 et fréquence des accidents du travail dans un groupe d’entreprises suisses”, in Actes du XXXIv’ème Congrès de la SELF-CAEN, pp. 653–660.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. (1983), “The Central Role of the Propensy Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects”, Biometrika, 70 (1), pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. (1974), “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Non Randomized Studies”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, pp. 688–701.Google Scholar
Tolsma, D. (1998), “Total Quality Management”, in ILO, pp.24.1–34–77.Google Scholar