The Effect of Gift Exchange Theory on Wage Determination

Öz

The disciplines of psychology and economics have interacted over time due to their human-oriented approach and have started forming the discipline of behavioral economics since the 1950s. Labor economics examines the decisions of workers and employers regarding repeated human interactions and has also been affected by the development of behavioral economics. This discipline was recently defined as behavioral labor economics and has increased its awareness in recent years as a field where more multidisciplinary, innovative, and experimental methods are preferred, unlike traditional labor economics with its neo-classical and conservative characteristics. Behavioral labor economics discusses labor market aspects such as labor supply, effort, wages, and other behavioral factors in the workplace. Gift exchange theory provides insight into the many variables related to behavioral labor economics. According to the theory, receiving a wage level higher than the equilibrium market wage indicates a gift for employees, with employees being expected to work harder in exchange for this gift. This experimental study has been prepared based on gift exchange practices in which employees receive a wage above the one they accepted in way where it is considered a gift. As a result of the experiment, the gift exchange determined to be effective in the experimental group, and this level of effectiveness continued to increase over time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Behavioral labor economics
• Behavioral economics
• Gift exchange theory

Ücretlerin Belirlenmesi Sürecinde Hediye Değişimi Teorisinin Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Psikoloji ve iktisat disiplinleri insanı odak alması nedeniyle zaman içerisinde ortak konularla ilgilenmiş ve 1950’li yıllardan itibaren davranışsal iktisat bilimimi doğmaya başlamıştır. Bu süreçte işçi ve işveren ilişkilerini iktisadi açıdan inceleyen çalışma ekonomisi disiplini de davranışsal iktisadın gelişmesinden payını almıştır. Günümüzde davranışsal çalışma ekonomisi olarak tanımlanan bu disiplin, neo-klasik ve muhafazakâr nitelikleri olan geleneksel çalışma ekonomisinin aksine daha multi-disipliner, yenilikçi ve deneysel yöntemlerin tercih edildiği bir alandır. Davranışsal çalışma ekonomisi özellikle işgücü piyasalarının temel değişkenleri olan; işgücü arzı, çaba, ücret ve işyerindeki davranışsal faktörleri konu edinmektedir. Hediye değişimi teorisi, bu bağlamda davranışsal çalışma ekonomisinin konu edindiği birçok değişken üzerinden bir bakış açısı ortaya koymaktadır. Teoriye göre piyasadaki denge ücret düzeyinden yüksek bir ücret seviyesi, çalışan için bir hediye anlamına gelmekte buna karşın çalışanların da bu hediyeyi takas etmek amacıyla daha yüksek bir çaba sergilemektedir. Bu makalede, çalışanların çalışmayı kabul ettikleri ücret düzeyinin üzerindeki bir ücretin hediye niteliği taşıyacak bir biçimde ödendiği hediye değişimi uygulamalarından yola çıkılarak hazırlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda deney ve kontrol grubu olarak ayrılan katılımcılar üzerinden ücret değişkeni kullanılarak test edilen hediye değişiminin, çalışan çabasına etkisinin ölçülmesi ve bu etkinin zamansal bağlamdaki durumunun tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Deney sonucunda hediye değişiminin deney grubu üzerinde etkin olduğu ve bu etkinliğin zaman içerisinde artarak sürdüğü tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Davranışsal çalışma ekonomisi
• davranışsal iktisat
• hediye değişimi teorisi
• Ücret

Kaynakça

1. Akerlof, G. A. (1980). A theory of social custom of which unemployment may be one consequence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(4), 749-775. google scholar
2. Akerlof, G. A., (1982). Labour contracts as partial gift exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543-569. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885099 google scholar
3. Akerlof, G. A. (1984). Gift exchange and efficiency-wage theory: four views. The American Economic Review, 74(2), 79-83. Erişim adresi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816334 google scholar
4. Akerlof, G. A., & Yellen, J. L. (1990). The fair wage effort hypothesis and unemployment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937787 google scholar
5. Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011). Personality psychology and economics. In Handbook of the Economics of Education, 4, 1-181. google scholar
6. Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Behavioral economics. Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of economic, 641-690. google scholar
7. Bejarano, H., Corgnet, B., & Gomez-Minambres, J. (2019). Labor contracts, gift-exchange and reference wages: your gift need not be mine!. ESI Working Paper, 19-26. Erişim adresi: https:// digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_papers/286 google scholar
8. Berg, N. (2006). Behavioral labor economics. In Altman, M., ed., Handbook of Contemporary Behavioral Economics, M.E. Sharpe, New York, 457-478. google scholar

9. Bilir, H. (2018). Alfred Marshall: ‘kanlı-canlı’ insan anlayışı. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(3) , 991-1006 . doi: 10.30798/makuiibf.426727 google scholar
10. Bradley, M. E. (2007). Efficiency wages and classical wage theory. Journal of The History of Economic, 29(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10427710701335901 google scholar
11. Breza, E., Kaur, S., & Shamdasani, Y. (2018). The morale effects of pay inequality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2), 611-663. google scholar
12. Brown, M., Falk, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). Relational contracts and the nature of market interactions. Econometrica, 72(3), 747-780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00511.x google scholar
13. Camerer, C., Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. (1997). Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: One day at a time. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 407-441. google scholar
14. Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at work: the effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2981-3003. https://doi.org/ 10.1257/aer.102.6.2981 google scholar
15. Cevahir, E. (2020). Spss ile nicel veri analizi rehberi. İstanbul: Kibele Yayınları. google scholar
16. Charness, G., & Haruvy, E. (2002). Altruism, equity, and reciprocity ın a gift exchange experiment: an encompassing approach. Games and Economic Behavior, 40(2), 203-231. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0899-8256(02)00006-4 google scholar
17. Charness, G. (2004). Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(3), 665-688. https://doi.org/10.1086/383111 google scholar
18. Çetin, A. ve Bakırtaş, İ. (2014). Oecd ülkelerinde reel ücretler ve emek verimliliği arasındaki ilişki: panel veri analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 39, 173-186. google scholar
19. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315-372. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.315 google scholar
20. Diamond, P.A., 2008. Behavioral Economics. MIT Dept. of Economics Working Paper 08-03. google scholar
21. Dohmen, T. (2014). Behavioural labour economics: advances and future directions. Labour Economics (IZA), 30, 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.06.008 google scholar
22. Eser, R. ve Toigonbaeva, D. (2011). Psikoloji ve iktisadın birleşimi olarak davranışsal iktisat. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 6(1), 287-321. google scholar
23. Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council Social And Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) (2016). Social And Behavioral Sciences Team Annual Report 2015. USA. google scholar
24. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G. & Riedl, A. (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2). 437-459. google scholar
25. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., & Riedl A. (1998). gift-exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets. European Economic Review, 42(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(96)00051-7 google scholar
26. Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.159 google scholar
27. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS,(Third Edition). London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd. google scholar
28. Gachter,S., & Falk,A. (2002). Reputation and reciprocity: consequences for the labour relation. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.00269 google scholar
29. Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2006). Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field Experiments. Econometrica, 74(5), 1365-1384. https://doi.org/10.3386/ w12063 google scholar
30. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data, (Seventh Edition). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson. google scholar
31. Grundmann, S., Giamattei, M., Graf Lambsdorff, J. (2020). On the downward rigidity of wages: evidence from an experimental labour market with monetary neutrality. Passauer Diskussionspapiere - Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe, 80 (20), Universität Passau, Passau. google scholar
32. Hannan, R. L., Kagel, J. H., & Moser, D. V. (2004). Partial gift exchange in an experimental labor market: impact of subject population differences, productivity differences, and effort requests on behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(4), 923-951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/342894 google scholar
33. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. Vol. 7, Special Issue: [Papers from the Conference on the New Science of Organization, January 1991], 24-52. google scholar
34. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59(4), 285-300. google scholar
35. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 google scholar
36. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683 google scholar
37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychological Association. 39(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341 google scholar
38. Kaufman, B. E. (1999). Expanding the behavioral foundations of labor economics. Industrial and labor relations Review, 52(3), 361-392. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525140 google scholar
39. Kaytancı, U. B. (2010). Etkin ücret teorisi ve Türkiye imalat sanayii üzerine uygulama. Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi, 21(76), 93-118. https://doi.org/10.5455/ey.20041 google scholar
40. Kube, S., Maréchal M. A., & Puppe C. (2012). The currency of reciprocity: gift exchange in the workplace. American Economic Review. 102(4), 1644-62. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1644 google scholar
41. Laughlin, J. L. (1887). Marshall’s Theory of Value and Distribution. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1(2), 227-232. doi:10.2307/1880772 google scholar
42. Mullainathan., S, & Thaler, R. (2001). Behavioral Economics. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 1094-1100. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02247-6 google scholar
43. Pallant, J. (2017). SPSS kullanma kılavuzu (S. Balcı, Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. google scholar
44. Rovai, A. P., Baker, J. D., & Ponton, M. K. (2014). Social sci. research design and statistics: A practitioner’s guide to research methods and IBM SPSS analysis. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press LLC. google scholar
45. Rubin, J., & Sheremeta, R. (2015). Principal agent settings with random shocks. Management Science, 62(4), 985-999. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2177 google scholar
46. Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852 google scholar
47. Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments, Oxford: Clarendon Press, (İlk baskı 1759). google scholar
48. Süß, K., Becker, J., & Hopp, D. (2020). How altruistic is indirect reciprocity?-Evidence from giftexchange games in the lab, CESifo Working Paper No. 8423. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3653947 google scholar
49. T.C. Ekonomi Bakanlığı Davranışsal Kamu Politikaları ve Yeni Nesil Teknolojiler Daire Başkanlığı, (2018). Senin kararın! Mı? Kamu politikası tasarımında davranışsal yaklaşım. Ankara. google scholar
50. Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: interindustry wage differentials. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), 181-193. google scholar
51. Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of political Economy, 112(S1), 164-187. https://doi.org/10.1086/380085 google scholar
52. Wakabayashi, D. (2017, October 8). At Google, employee-led effort finds men are paid more than women. The New York Times, 8. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/ technology/google-salaries-gender-disparity.html google scholar
53. Winter-Ebmer, R. (2014). What is (not) behavioural in labour economics?. Labour Econ. (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.labeco.2014.07.014 google scholar