No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Wage Bargaining and the Efficiency Dividend in Public Enterprises
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2023
Abstract
An important aspect of the process of microeconomic reform is the improved operational efficiency of public trading enterprises. This paper argues the importance of appropriately distributing the efficiency dividend amongst the key players including the owners (ie., Governments which expect greater dividends), producers of the output (ie., workers and management who expect greater wages and salaries) and consumers (who expect better quality output at lower prices). The paper first evaluates the currently available measures of the efficiency dividend in public enterprises, including factor productivity and performance indicators. It then demonstrates that inappropriate use of these measures by management and/or workers during the wage bargaining process can lead to misunderstanding of the extent of the dividend and how it should be distributed. This in turn can undermine the reform process. Amongst the conclusions reached are that single factor productivity measures should not be used during the wage bargaining process.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 1996
Footnotes
*
The author is grateful to Satya Paul for helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.
References
Alford, J (1990), ‘Can Performance Control Promote Public Sector Efficiency, Effectiveness and Quality?’, Paper presented to the National Conference on Improving Public Sector Management, Griffith University, July.Google Scholar
BCA (1986), The Measurement and Distribution of Productivity, Business Council of Australia, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Considine, M (1988), ‘The Corporate Management Framework as Administrative Science: A Critique’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, pp. 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covick, O (1990), ‘Total Factor Productivity and Wages Policy’, Research School of Social Sciences Research Discussion Paper No. 234, Australian National University, June.Google Scholar
Englander, A.S., Mittelstadt, A. (1989), ‘Total Factor Productivity: Macroeconomic and Structural Aspects of the Slowdown’, OECD Economic Studies, No. 10, Paris.Google Scholar
EPAC (1989), ‘Productivity in Australia: Results of Recent Studies’, Economic Planning and Advisory Council Paper, No. 39, April.Google Scholar
Green, R (1990), ‘The Impact of Product and Labour Markets on Workplace Industrial Relations’, Seminar Series Paper No. 2, Federal Department of Industrial Relations, Canberra, September.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G (1972), Some Recent Controversies in the Theory of Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kearney, C (1991), ‘Performance Measurements in the Australian Public Service’, in Niland, Brown, Hughes, Breaking New Ground: Enterprise Bargaining and Agency Agreements for the Australian Public Service, Report prepared for the Minister for Industrial Relations, National Capital Printing, December, pp. 67–75.Google Scholar
Kendrick, J., Grossman, E. (1980), Productivity in the United States, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Niland, J., Brown, W., Hughes, B. (1991), Breaking New Ground: Enterprise Bargaining and Agency Agreements for the Australian Public Service, Report prepared for the Minister for Industrial Relations, National Capital Printing, December.Google Scholar
Painter, M (1988), ‘Public Management: Fad or Fallacy’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, pp. 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar