Thursday 14 August 2008

The Minimum Wage is not dead (yet)?


Yes, and I thought the whole idea of minimum wage is no longer in trend.
I was wrong.

Research on minimum wage has been numerous in the past few decades, so much that I led myself to believe that it was no more room for any young, energetic researchers to put his energy on this topic. Personally, one of the most fascinating papers on Minimum wage was the 1992 paper by Card& Krueger*. However, the eye-raising part of the paper is not the finding result; it is how they studied it. I say it because the result is either Minimum wage does have an effect on employment, or it does not. Graphical analysis with the application of the competitive model of labour market or its monopsony counterpart would reveal the finding. On the other hand, the way they set the investigation was something not so simple, and requires some imagination. The fun thing about their research is that they got to go around a couple of American cities to see how the sudden Minimum Wage law presented its impact on a few fast-food chains. Other succeeding papers followed their quasi-experiment methods and similar results were found. For me, this line of literature needed a revamp.

And then, thank to the fancy tool of Econometrics, the 2002 Di Nardo& Lee paper rescued the Minimum Wage literature once again. The aim of the paper remained the tradition one- find the impact of raising the wage on employment. However, the application of Regression Discontinuity came most handy at the time. Then again, labour economists came to struggle again on how to give a face-lift on Minimum Wage.

As I said, I realize I was wrong. Wrong on the basis that indeed the study of the impact of minimum wage is increasing needed in some economies. Thailand is one of those. How was I enlightened on this fact? With the team of young Thai economists, we got the opportunity to tour to all 4 main regions in the Land of smile to have a forum with practitioners from Ministry of Labour’s provincial offices. And when came the question time, all we got asked was the troubling uncertainty on the issue of Minimum Wage. The question was raised most serious was the explanation of the disparity of the Rate across provinces- theoretically & subjectively.

And the idea of Minimum Wage is, to me, no longer simple, at least in Thailand anyway. We used the idea of the Law of One Price as the centrality of our explanation. The ‘equitable’ differences of the Wage happened when there are barriers of factor movement- meaning house prices, family ties and so on. On the other hand, everyone knows that the setting of Minimum wage is in fact not fair! Economists offer the idea of the level of unemployment, the number of firms as proxies indicating what we call ‘the relative bargaining power’ between buyers and sellers of the labour power. In Thailand, the setting of minimum wage is done on a monthly basis, through what is called ‘the tripartite’ with officers from the Ministry of Labour acts as mediator.

At current time, the least of the Wage is 120 baht per day in Chai-yapoom province is roughly 100 baht lower than Bangkok’s. In purchasing power parity term, that could equal to 2 extra dinners for person. And having mentioned the PPP, I then recalled an additional question. Even practitioners in Thailand were not certain how substantial the existence of Minimum Wage as a useful policy. On principle, the Wage is supposedly an additional safety net for the poor. However, the way the level of the Wage is set up, no one had a clue. Basically, the initial baseline of the Wage came from a miracle blackbox and officers at the MoL merely know that this level will be adjusted according to the rate of provincial inflation.

This is a shocking finding, if nothing else about it is sufficiently sexy.

In England, before the National Minimum Wage was introduced, there was a series of serious studies. There were a number of debates, public hearings before when it finally came out. And unlike Thailand, the British government only differentiates the rate between London and the rest.

So how should the Wage ideally be set, for the case of Thailand? Simply, there are two alternative methods to go about. You can either set it based on the employer’s side- meaning that the level of the wage is aligned with the ability of pay of average local employers. By theory, wage should, at least, equal to the marginal productivity of labour. Following the concept, the Wage would be fair, or at least seem as if. Unfortunately, having set the wage this way would not guarantee the standard of living of average, low skilled workers. Thus, the alternative is the Living wage. Minimum wage should base on how much an average person has to spend to live a suitable life in a day.

As far as I know, the literature on minimum wage that seemed abundant previously is not entirely the case in Thailand. There is a serious lack of rigorous studies on the impact of the Wage, the appropriate method to set up, and most importantly the dynamic of the bargaining institution.

Yes, on my flight back from the South, I realise there are still plenty of fun works labour economists in Thailand must attack. Only things you would need are a bit of energy, and a little bit of wild imagination !!!

Wednesday 13 August 2008

Research Assessment Exercise: How Thailand's research in social science should be funded

Ever wonder why we lack a number of internationally renowned, highly-cited social scientists in Thailand? Why is it that we cannot compete with those working in the science sctor (especially those in the medical field) with regards to producing high quality, internationally publishable work? Here're some of my thoughts.

It's not that we don't have good quality people. Take Yunyong Thaicharoen of the Bank of Thailand, for example. At the moment, the young economist ranks number one amongst Thai researchers in terms of the number of papers cited (his paper, with Dan Acemoglu of MIT, was published in one of the best macroeconomic journals in the world, the Journal of Monetary Economics). His paper was cited an incredible 89 times in different papers around the world. But unfortunately he has published only two papers since 2003. Why isn't there more of his papers flying around?

In addition to this, in the Research Paper in Economics (RePec) website, where authors are registered in order to have their published papers being posted online, there are only a handful of Thai economists registered (N=17) compared to over 1742 economists registered in the UK (or 82 economists registered in Singapore).

I think it's all to do with the lack of incentives to publish and the kind of research projects that Thai researchers normally received. Whenever I go back to Thailand to deliver my talks at Chula, I usually get the feelings that, with some exceptions, the majority of Thai economists I met don't really care whether you've published your papers in top-tier economic journals like the Economic Journal or the Journal of Public Economics, whereas in the UK, publishing in these journals usually mean guaranteed promotions. And one of the main reasons why I think people don't really care (and subsequently not going to try and publish their research in these journals themselves) is because there are no rewards in doing so. According to a friend of mine at Chula, you get the same B10,000 for publishing your paper in a local journal or in the American Economic Review (arguably the best economics journal in the world).

As a result, most Thai academics have to take in research work from companies or the government themselves, most of which are ad hoc and will therefore not be publishable in the long-run. But we can't blame them though - we have to get our money from somewhere!

In the UK, the universities are required to submit their people's research outputs to a central governing body every 4 years in a process called Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). These research outputs will then be reviewed according to their merits and then each department will receive a mark (from 1 to 5*). The research money will then be distributed to these departments, with the highest amount of money going to the best research department. As a result, each department in a university would require their staffs to produce some kind of research outputs that are both high quality and publishable in peer-review journals. And because there are rewards in the form of money and promotion, the RAE inevitably generates a kind of healthy competition amongst the researchers to produce high quality papers.

If we want to take our social scientists forward then we really need to rethink the way we create incentives for them. RAE is one way, but probably not enough on its own. I think we need to change people's attitudes. Make them take pride in their ability to publish in these high quality journals rather than be indifferent to them. In other words, it is our social norm of it's-ok-not-to-publish that needs to be re-established...