Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-gcfkn Total loading time: 0.246 Render date: 2021-09-21T21:46:41.382Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Are Agricultural Experiment Station Faculty Salaries Competitively or Monopsonistically Determined?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Christopher B. Barrett
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University
DeeVon Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Utah State University
Get access

Abstract

We examine the determinants of agricultural experiment station faculty salaries and find that productivity pays—as manifest by grantsmanship, publications, and the elicitation of competing offers—with no residual evidence of a negative seniority-salary relationship that could signal university monopsony power. This contrasts with findings in the previous literature on faculty salaries. Moreover, national market salary benchmarks, which may proxy for imperfectly observable productivity, correlate almost one-for-one with individual faculty salaries, with individual deviations from peers’ salaries proving essentially random. This evidence is much more consistent with the hypothesis that experiment station faculty salaries are determined in a competitive labor market than with the prevailing wisdom that they are set monopsonistically.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

References

Barbezat, Debra A. 1989. “The Effect of Collective Bargaining on Salaries in Higher Education.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 42(3): 4355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbezat, Debra A. and Donihue, Michael R. 1998. “Do Faculty Salaries Rise With Job Seniority?Economics Letters, 58(2): 239244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, Sudipto and Luis Guasch, J. 1988. “Heterogeneity, Tournaments, and Hierarchies,” Journal of Political Economy, 96(4): 867881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Dan A. and Loewenstein, Mark A. 1991. “Self-Enforcing Labor Contracts With Costly Mobility: The Subgame Perfect Solution to the Chairman's Problem,” Research in Labor Economics, 12: 6383.Google Scholar
Boal, William M. and Ransom, Michael R. 1997. “Monopsony in the Labor Market,” Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1): 86112.Google Scholar
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gordon, Nancy M., Morton, Thomas E., and Braden, Ina. 1974. “Faculty Salaries: Is There Discrimination by Sex, Race, and Discipline?American Economic Review, 64(3): 419427.Google Scholar
Hallock, Kevin F. 1995. “Seniority and Monopsony in the Academic Labor Market: Comment.American Economic Review, 85(3): 654–7.Google Scholar
Harris, Milton and Holmstrom, Bengt. 1982. “A Theory of Wage Dynamics.” Review of Economic Studies. 72: 716–24.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Masanori. 1981. “Firm-Specific Human Capital as a Shared Investment,” American Economic Review, 71(3): 475482.Google Scholar
Hausman, J.A. 1978. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica, 46: 12511271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Emily P. 1976. “Faculty Salaries: Is There Discrimination by Sex, Race, and Discipline? Additional Evidence.” American Economic Review. 66(1): 196–98.Google Scholar
Lazear, Edward P. and Rosen, Sherwin. 1981. “Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts,” Journal of Political Economy 89: 841864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, William J., Newman, Robert J. and Turnbull, Geoffrey K.Do Academic Salaries Decline with Seniority?Journal of Labor Economics, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions. 1997. Directory of Faculty Contracts and Bargaining Agents in Institutions of Higher Education. Volume 23. New York.Google Scholar
Oklahoma State University, Office of Planning, Budget and Institutional Research. 1996. 1995-96 Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline. Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
Ransom, Michael R. 1993. “Seniority and Monopsony in the Academic Labor Market.” American Economic Review, 83(1);221–33.Google Scholar
White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica, 48(4): 817–38.Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Are Agricultural Experiment Station Faculty Salaries Competitively or Monopsonistically Determined?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Are Agricultural Experiment Station Faculty Salaries Competitively or Monopsonistically Determined?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Are Agricultural Experiment Station Faculty Salaries Competitively or Monopsonistically Determined?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *