2
$\begingroup$

Brücker et al. (2014) write down a stylized model of wage-setting with a labour supply shock (migration), which I find hard to follow. Maybe somebody worked on it or is interested..

Labour force is given given by $ N_l = \overline{N}_l + \gamma_l M$ where $N_l$ is pre-migration labor force of each labor typ $l$, $M$ is total stock of migrants, $\gamma_l$ is share of workers of type in total immigrant flow. Production is given by $Y=F(L,K)$ with the usual assumptions. Wages are set based on unemployment $u_l=1-\frac{L_l}{N_l}$ and determined by $w_l=f_l(u_l)$. Firms demand labour by setting marginal product equal to wage $w_l=Y_L$. Using the wage and labour demand equation they write the condition $$ \Omega_l(L,M) = Y_L(L,K(B(M))) - f_l(u_l(L_l,N_l(M))))=0 $$

And now I am lost. They say that they differentiate this equation implicitly with respect to a marginal labor supply shock and yield the following equation $$ \frac{dL}{dM}= \left(\frac{\partial{Y_l}}{\partial{L}}-\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{u}} \frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{L}} \right)^{-1} \times \left(\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{u}} \frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{N}} \frac{dN}{dM}- \frac{\partial{Y_L}}{\partial{K}} \frac{\partial{K}}{\partial{N}} \frac{dN}{dM}\right) $$ And now I don't get how to get reproduce this. I don't understand why the derivative is taken from L in the denominator, then why the first partial derivative is inverse, and also how to get the second part (isn't this normally = 0 due envelope condition?). A lot of confusion..

Reference: Brücker, H., Hauptmann, A., Jahn, E. J., & Upward, R. (2014). Migration and imperfect labor markets: Theory and cross-country evidence from Denmark, Germany and the UK. European Economic Review, 66, 205-225.

$\endgroup$

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.