Available online at www.globalilluminators.org
FULL PAPER PROCEEDING
GlobalIlluminators
Multidisciplinary Studies
Full Paper Proceeding TMBER-2014, Vol. 1,107-119
ISBN: 978-969-9948-36-7
TMBER-14
Trade Unions, Economic Freedom And Economic Growth In
Pakistan
Afaq Mehmood*
Comsats Institute of Information Technology Attock
Abstract
In this study, trade unions, economic freedom and its impacts on economic growth in Pakistan is examined by using unit root test with
structural break, co integration and causality tests. Empirical findings demonstrate that there is an equilibrium relationship between growth,
unionization and economic freedom. Unionization affects economic growth and economic freedom in long run positively and significantly
for the case of Pakistan. Causality test results illustrate that there is unidirectional causality among trade unions and industrial output.
Economics of freedom cause or affect output (GDP) but in return GDP does not lead to an increase in Economic freedom so this cause does
not means that if output is increasing then this will lead to an increase in economics freedom rather we can say that economic freedom lead to
an increase in output. Furthermore this economic freedom leads to an increase in investment which finally results in increase in output.
© 2014The Authors. Published by Global Illuminators. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific & Review committee of TMBER 2014.
Keywords― Trade Unions, Economics of Freedom, Economic Growth, Unemployment, Cointegration, Causality
Introduction
An economically free or a capitalistic society is known in which establishments are portrayed by individual
choice, deliberate exchange, liberty to fight, and security of individuals and assets. It dictates public policies that
endorse open markets, partial government, steady monetary growth, and liberated trade.
Aim of a trade union or labor union that banded the workers of an organization in order to attain their mutual
goal that deeply highlights such as higher wages and better working conditions. Most of the studies in literature
exposed the relation between unions and economic performance and this was the main theme of many researches in the
past. (Danthine; Hunt, 1994). Interesting issue that is found in many literatures is focused on the relationship between
unionization and economic growth, either that is positive or negative? Different studies reached to different
conclusions.
Objectives
Paper tries to find out the impact of Trade Unions in the case of Pakistan. As there is very very few literature
found in the case of Trade unions in Pakistan and this side is neglected, so this study will also contribute in the
literature. No study still found, that dynamically examine the relationships in the case of Pakistan. We have developed
a channel that shows how these Trade Unions with the presence of Economic Freedom leads to the economic Growth.
We want to check weather this freedom lead to an increase in trade unions or not or to what extent Democracy enables
Trade unions to work and also weather Democracy in the country supports Economic freedom. If so then that will
results in settlements of Disputes. As we know that investment needs both the above two components to function well.
So the decrease in disputes will increase investments which finally give a positive signal to Economic Growth.
Productivity is related with the Growth i.e. positive Growth shows productivity and via-viz.
First section of the paper briefly explain introduction of the paper, second section describe the conceptual
frame work of the paper, third section deals with methodology and data analysis and finally concluding remarks.
Conceptual Frame Work
The primary motive in identifying labor laws enforced on workers is the basis of valuing freedom. With
reference to economic freedom, it creates prosperity, hence a decrease in economic freedom resulted by the labor laws
*All correspondence related to this article should be directed to Afaq Mehmood, Comsats Institute of Information Technology Attock
Email: afaqmehmood@ciitvehari.edu.pk
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Global Illuminators. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific & Review committee of TMBER-2014.
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
will have a negative impact on the country’s standard of living. The proof of relationship between prosperity and
economic freedom is presumptive and generous. There have been extraordinary past explanations by Mokyr (1990)
and Landes (1998) reflecting that since the start of industrial revolution, countries have taken institutions of
economic freedom on board have thrived and grown, in the meantime those who have not participated in this activity
have suffered in severe losses resulting in poverty. The idea behind the association of prosperity and free markets has a
wide record.
Diagram illustrate that Trade Unions confirm an increasing trend but during the period of 1971-78 it shows
tremendous boost which cover the phase of populist and pro-union leader, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-77), while
Economics of freedom shows lofty fluctuations. From the figure it is very apparent that freedom is very high during the
periods of Military regimes in Pakistan, while democratic regimes show very low trend.
Doh-khul Kim (2005) empirically examines the Economics of Freedom and explain that it is normally viewed
that unions have a negative effect on employment and economic growth. In this study, both the Johansen co integration
procedure and the vector error correction model (VECM) that are commonly employed methodologies in recent time
series analyses are adopted for identification of the long- and short-run relationships of the variables. This paper uses
labor market data from the Republic of Korea (Korea hereafter) for the study, thus, it can be concluded that
unionization unidirectional and significantly Granger-causes unemployment and economic growth (or GDP) in Korea.
Therefore, this study can claim unionization does not induce as high productivity as the proponents of efficiency wage
theory predict, as it generally has an unfavorable effect on the Korean economy.
Theoretical Frame Work And Data
In order to model the affect of Economics of Freedom on Growth vis-à-vis unionized labor, we will start from
Cobb-Douglas specification as follows:
Y  f (K, L)
Where K = Capital
L = Labor (Aggregate Labor)
Now, the Cobb-Douglas Specification is given as:
 1
Y  AK
L
(1)
(2)
Where  (0,1) is capital share and
(1 ) is Labor share. Now, it is assumed
decomposed into two types:
a)
Labor not- associated with Unions
b)
Labor associated with Unions, subject to the constraint that
L  L  cL
n u
Where “L” is the linear combination L
L , L  (1)L
of
and ie.
n
u
n
u
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
108
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
or 1-λ
let λ = c
=1
Hence we get,
Lu  cLn
Intensive form of the equation (2) is
as:

y  Ak
tha

Note t
> 0,
f(k)  Ak 1
'

f
(k) A(1)k

2 0 , Limit
k 
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
109
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
We will here viewing narrowly by only estimating the effects of union workers and union contract on
economic growth and prosperity. So, the above model specification shows that economics of freedom rises then
aggregate productivity also goes up and hence it has positive effect on growth rate of output per capita. The empirical
evidences however conclude mix results regarding the effect of Economics of Freedom on productivity of unionized
labor. Here it is our objective to check the efficiency of economics of freedom on unionized labor in the case of
Pakistan and this will be evaluate in our empirical section.
This section briefly outlines the empirical setup by illustrating data, and econometric estimation approaches
used in this paper.
Data
To estimate the model parameters, data over the annul frequencies from 1950 to 2010 is used. The variables
are: Output Growth (Y) which is per capita real GDP, Economics of Freedom (EF); Democracy (Dmry); No. of
registered Trade Unions (TU); Investment (I) and Industrial Output (IO). The detailed description of these variables
with data sources is available in the following table 1.
Table 1: Description of Variables
S. No
Variable
Description / Source
1.
Y
For growth rate real GDP data is used. Data is taken from Pakistan Economic
2.
EF
survey various issues.
Index for Economics of Freedom is taken from Heritage Foundation
3.
DMY
4.
TU
5.
I
6.
IO
International. Web link: www.heritage.org
Data on Democracy is taken from Polity IV Project. Web link:
www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
The data on trade unions is taken from Pakistan Labor Gazette: A Journal of
Labor Affairs (Various Issues) and latest year data on this variable is taken
from Labor and Human Resource Statistics (various issues), Ministry of
Labor and Man Power, Government of Pakistan.
Data on investment is proxies by gross fixed Capital formation and Data is
Taken from Pakistan Economic survey various issues.
For industrial output Data on Industrial production index is taken from
Pakistan Economic Survey various issues.
Econometric Setup
The basic equation or underline hypothesis of the section is as under:
Y 1TU 2 EOF 3 INV 4 DMY 5 IO U
According to underline hypothesis we need to check that presence of Economics of freedom, Investment, Industrial
GDP.how these Trade Unions with the output and Democracy affect the
The Unit Root Tests
The empirical section initially examines the stationary properties of the data using the Augmented DickeyFuller (1979) test and the Phillips–Perron (1988) tests. Numerous authors have indicated that standard ADF test is not
suitable for variables that may have undergone to structural changes. Perron (1990) formulate a system to test
hypothesis that a given series (Yt) has a unit root with an exogenous structural break which arise at time TB.
Nevertheless, Perron’s method faces several disapprovals because his breaking point is selected stands on pretest
assessment of the data which leads his method to amplify the likelihood of trend break substitute hypothesis.
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
110
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
Specification (I):
Y 
A
t
 A d
1
t 1

A
2
t 
A
3
k
DU    A
t
j Y
t 1
tj

t
Specification (II):
Yt  B 1 B dt 1 2 B t 3 B DTt   B j Yt  j t
Specification (III):
Yt  C 1C dt 1 2 C t 3 C DTt 4 C DTt   C j Yt  j t
In the literature, two tests are generally applied to find out the order of integration; they are: ADF (Dickey and Fuller,
1979) and P-P (Phillips and Perron, 1988). However, we have used three different tests for unit root tests i.e. ADF
(Dickey and Fuller, 1979), P-P (Phillips and Perron, 1988) and the third-generation unit root test DF-GLS by Elliot et
al.
Table (2): Variable Specific Unit Root Results
DF-GLS
Variables
ADF Test Result*
PP Test Result*
1st
Real GDP
Tabulated
Value*
Real
Investment
Tabulated
Value*
Economics
of freedom
Tabulated
Value*
Industrial
output
Tabulated
Value*
Test
Resut**
1st
Conclusion
1st
Level
Difference
Level
Difference
Level
Difference
4.680
-2.646
14.639
-5.100
-0.175
-5.121
-3.488
-3.494
-3.487
-3.488
-3.161
-3.161
-2.634
-6.444
-2.075
-6.139
-2.523
-5.890
-3.488
-3.494
-3.487
-3.488
-3.161
-3.161
-3.608
-6.742
-0.343
-3.183
-1.975
-7.117
-3.488
-3.494
-1.946
-1.946
-3.168
-3.168
-3.469
-3.473
-3.640
-3.473
-1.666
-3.293
-3.488
-3.494
-3.487
-3.488
-3.161
-3.161
-2.557
-7.663
-3.161
-3.161
-2.922
-3.891
-3.161
-3.161
Democracy
-2.979
-7.545
-2.979
-7.548
Tabulated
Value*
-3.488
-3.494
-3.487
-3.488
Trade
Unions
-2.819
-3.743
-1.548
-5.572
Tabulated
Value*
-3.488
-3.494
-3.487
-3.488
Note: a) * at 5% level of significance based on **MacKinnon (1996) and
I(1)
I(1)
I(1)
I(1)
I(1)
I(1)
***Elliott-Rothenberg-Stock.
b) Null hypothesis of all above unit root test is that series has a unit root.
c) SBC and AIC criterias are used for Optimal lag
Selection
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
111
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
Vector Autoregressive Model Specifications
We will use VAR, impulse response function, the Granger causality test, and variance decomposition to analyze the
effect of Trade unions on growth and investment variables. To this end would like to ensure the stationarity of the
series under consideration. There are three different model Specifications for Vector auto regression (VAR):
Growth, Economic Freedom and Trade Unions
Let EOFt represents index of economics of freedom, Yt is natural logarithms of GDP, DMYt is democracy, IOt is
industrial output, INVt is investment and TUt is the Labor Unions. The system of equations of a bench mark tri-variate
structural (VAR) model is given as:
Paper includes a VAR model with two lag to estimate the associations among the variables. Table in
appendix presents the main results of the model. In case of VAR, the interpretation of individual coefficients is not
desirable because there are too many parameters to be interpreted and Parameters are highly unreliable due to multi-co
linearity. We can also check the robustness of the model by simply rearranging the order of the variables in the VAR
model specification. Now we look at the impulse response functions of the system.
Impulse Response Function:
Impulse Response Functions is performed in order to demonstrate how a shock in one variable would persist
in future periods. The forecast is designed considering a ten-month period. Appendix reflects an absolute set of impulse
response function graphs for every combination of variables.
If we give one standard deviation positive shock to Economics of freedom then we see that investment
initially tends to increase. However, this will be also a temporary response after fifth period it shows high increase and
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
112
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
then die out towards its mean. This shows that shocks in economics of freedom result in rapid increase in investment or
broadly speaking more freedom increase the trend of investment.
Response of Investment to Economics of Freedom
Response of LINV to Nonfactorized
One S.D. EOF Innovation
Response of GDP to Economics of Freedom
Response of LGDP to Nonfactorized
One S.D. EOF Innovation
If we give one standard deviation shock to Economics of freedom then we notice that output at first tends to
increase at a decreasing rate, but after fourth period it demonstrate high boost till eighth period and then be inclined
towards a new steady state. This shows that shocks in economics of freedom result in increase in output or generally
speaking more freedom augment the trend of output. Freedom permits the Trade Unions to work and increase the
investment which result in increase in output for long run.
Variance decomposition of variables
Variance decomposition is a substitute technique to the impulse response function for finding the reaction of
dependent variables due to the effects of shocks by explanatory players. From the test (Appendix B), GDP explains
over 50% of its forecast error variances or clarifies through its own innovative shocks. Whereas investment explain
GDP 34.3%, industrial output 9.2%, Democracy 1%, economics of freedom 0.3% and Trade union 4.5%. In the tenth
period 10% error variances or explains through its own innovative shocks where as investment explain 35%, industrial
output 12%, Democracy 2.7%, economics of freedom 34% and Trade union 4.3%. So we can conclude here that in the
short run GDP is being affected by investment, industrial output and Trade unions while in the long run GDP is highly
explained by freedom and investment while democracy does not explain any significant role for the case of Pakistan.
In the case of Trade unions again Trade unions explains over 83% of its forecast error variances or explains
through its own innovative shocks. Whereas investment explains Trade Unions about 15%, economics of freedom
0.4%, democracy 0.9%, industrial output 0.3% and GDP 0.02%. In the tenth period 70.8% error variances or explains
through its own innovative shocks where as industrial output explain 1.8%, investment 17%, economics of freedom
about 1.07%, democracy 1.3% and GDP 5.16%. So we can conclude here that democracy, freedom and GDP prove
insignificant affects while investment and industrial output confirms modest significance. This shows that GDP
predominately explains by its past values or innovative shocks and through investment.
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
113
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
While in the case of Economics of freedom, it explains over 89.2% of its forecast error variances or explains
through its own innovative shocks in the first period. Whereas investment explains freedom about 2.8%, Trade Unions
about 0.1%, democracy 0.2%, industrial output 0.2% and GDP 7.2%. In the tenth period 50% error variances or
explains through its own innovative shocks whereas industrial output explain 18%, investment 18.1%, democracy
3.08%, Trade unions explain 2.5% and GDP 7.5%. So we can conclude here that democracy, Trade unions and
democracy prove insignificant affects while GDP, investment and industrial output confirms modest significance.
Johansen Co integration Test Specifications
Table (3) reflects the results of the Johansen maximum likelihood method of testing for co-integration. The
results propose that there is two co integrating vector between variables. The constant enters the estimation process
without restriction to allow for possible non-zero drift in the series.
Table (3): Johansen and Juselius (1990) Maximum Likelihood Test for Cointegration
Trace
Statistic
Null
Critical
based
Hypotheses
Max.
Critical
Eigen
Values
Values
5%*
Values at prob.
on
5% *
prob.
at
Values**
Likelihood
Ratio
Values**
R=0
156.72
88.80
0.00
71.18
38.33
0.00
R≤1
85.53
63.88
0.00
46.19
32.12
0.00
R≤2
39.34
42.92
0.11
20.45
25.82
0.22
R≤3
18.90
25.87
0.29
11.81
19.39
0.43
7.08
12.52
0.34
R≤4
7.08
12.52
0.34
Note: a) Trace test indicates 1 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level
b) Max-eigenvalue test indicates 1 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection of
the hypothesis at the 0.05 level **MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999) p-values
If the values of trace statistics (based on Likelihood ratio) and values of Max. Eigen values are greater than their
critical values then we will reject Ho. Here R=0 shows there is no co integrating vector means there is no co integration
found at R= 0. Then we move towards R≤1 which also shows there is no co integrating vector means there is no co
integration found at R≤1.
Then we move towards move towards R≤2 here both the values are less than their critical values so we accept
Ho, this mean here we have found two co integrated vectors in this case this means co integration is found among the
variables i.e. all the variables (Real GDP, Real Investment, Economics of freedom, Industrial output, Democracy and
Trade Unions) are co integrated among each other.
Granger Causality: (The Inferential Process approach) results and discussion
Table (4) reports that in first observation Economics of freedom does not Granger Cause output. F-statistic
and probability value helps us weather to reject Ho or not, Rule of thumb for this is, if the probability value of
observation is less than 0.05 we will reject Ho and the rule of thumb for F-statistics for the required observations is 4
that means if the value of required observation is greater than 4 and probability value is less than 0.05, in this case we
will reject Ho.
Table (4): Granger Causality test Result
S.No.
Null Hypothesis
1.
2.
Obs
EOF doesn’t Granger cause DMY
60
DMY doesn’t Granger Cause EOF
LGDP01 doesn’t Granger cause DMY
60
DMY
doesn’t
Granger
Cause
LGDP01
F-Statistics
Probability
0.22727
2.3004
3.43306
9.30212
0.63538
0.13487
0.06908
0.00347
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
114
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
LTU01 doesn’t Granger cause DMY
DMY doesn’t Granger Cause LTU01
LIO01 doesn’t Granger cause DMY
DMY doesn’t Granger Cause LIO01
LINV doesn’t Granger cause DMY
DMY doesn’t Granger Cause LINV
LGDP01 doesn’t Granger cause EOF
EOF doesn’t Granger Cause LGDP01
LTU01doesn’t Granger cause EOF
EOF doesn’t Granger Cause LTU01
LIO01 doesn’t Granger cause EOF
EOF doesn’t Granger Cause LIU01
LINV doesn’t Granger cause EOF
EOF doesn’t Granger Cause LINV
LTU01
doesn’t
Granger
LGDP01
LGDP01
doesn’t
Granger
LTU01
LIO01
doesn’t
Granger
LGDCP01
LGDP01
doesn’t
Granger
LIO01
LINV doesn’t Granger cause LGDP01
LGDP01
doesn’t
Granger
LINV
LIO01 doesn’t Granger cause LTU01
LTU01doesn’t Granger Cause LIO01
LINV doesn’t Granger cause LTU01
LTU01 doesn’t Granger Cause LINV
LINV doesn’t Granger cause LIO01
LIO01 doesn’t Granger Cause LINV
59
3.70291
0.30635
3.20118
0.39954
2.57706
1.1385
3.10419
11.9427
3.50556
0.13266
4.58566
2.04557
4.81376
1.22455
3.26699
0.04154
0.0594
0.58213
0.0789
0.52986
0.11395
0.29047
0.08345
0.00104
0.06639
0.71706
0.03653
0.00104
0.03233
0.27312
0.07606
0.83924
15.6034
9.56307
0.00022
0.00307
60
12.9601
6.99437
0.00067
0.01055
59
0.0004
11.5895
0.42635
0.73028
0.00018
3.49285
0.98405
0.00123
0.51646
0.39643
0.9892
0.06678
60
60
60
59
60
60
cause 59
Cause
cause 60
Cause
Cause
59
60
Here F-statistics value is greater than 4 and probability value is less than 0.05 so we will reject Ho. This
shows that Economics of freedom cause or affect output (GDP) but in return GDP does not lead to an increase in
Economic freedom so this cause does not means that if output is increasing then this will lead to an increase in
Economics of freedom rather we can say economic freedom lead to an increase in output. Furthermore this economic
freedom leads to an increase in investment which finally results in increase in output.
In the third observation we see that Trade Unions does not Granger Cause GDP because value of probability
is greater than 0.05 and F-statistics is less than 4, so in this case we accept Ho that mean Trade unions does not affect
GDP and also GDP is not affecting Trade unions.
In the fourth observation we see that Investment does not Granger Cause GDP because value of probability is
nearly equal to 0.05 and F-statistics value is greater than 4 so will reject Ho. This means investment is affecting GDP
and in reverse GDP is also affecting investment. In econometric terms it is also known as bi directional causality.
Investment lead to an increase in economic freedom but this freedom is not affecting or causing investment.
Due to the lead in investment that lead to an increase in output due to increase in output that also increase economic
freedom to raise the investment and again that give positive signal to economic growth.
Trade unions do cause or affect industrial output but output does not cause or affect Trade unions. This means
due to the increase in trade unions that will lead to change in industrial output, which also support our hypothesis.
Industrial output does not Granger Cause Investment because the probability value of observation is less than
0.05 and F-statistics very nearly equal to 4 so we will reject Ho that means Industrial output weekly affect investment
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
115
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
this means industrial output affect investment but in reverse causality investment does not affect industrial output. This
is also known as unidirectional causality.
Industrial output does not Granger Cause GDP because the probability value of observation is less than 0.05
and F-statistics is greater than 4 so we will reject Ho this means Industrial output affect GDP similarly in reverse
causality GDP also affect industrial output. This is also known as bi directional causality.
Concluding Remarks
The main objective of this paper is to explore the effects unionization has on economy by concentrating on
economics of freedom, investment, democracy, industrial output and economic growth (GDP) in Pakistan. Labor law
plays a vital role, it restricts the economic freedom when the ability of employees and employers is reduced to
negotiate over the terms and conditions of the employment. Regardless of what the union status of an employee is
labor law compromises on the economic freedom By examining the right –to- work laws, the effects the union has on
productivity can be determined. These laws back-up economic freedom as they ensure that workers are not obliged to
join a union as an obligation prior to taking up a particular role or job. Workers are not allowed to negotiate on an
independent basis with the union of a firm that is covered by union contracts. However, while it may be that right-towork laws allow those who do not join to free-ride off the collective bargaining provided by the union. Right-to-work
law would make a good case study on economic freedom, unions and growths, as is clearly maintains economic
freedom by maintain and preserving employees’ right of contract, there has been research conducted over the years in
economics that demonstrates that the absence of right-to-work law restricts economic development. There exists
consistency between the economic freedom and collective bargaining concept, but due to the developments of 20th
century labor law, there have been compromises in economic freedom, and the powers that have been given to unions
have limited the rights of employers and workers. Up till now in order to determine whether there exists any long-run
equilibrium relationship among the variables of three different aspects, a multivariate co –integration analysis is
adopted. Two co-integrating vectors are found to be present. Therefore, economics of freedom, Democracy,
investment, industrial output, economic growth (or GDP) and unionization are correlated to each other in the long run
in Pakistan. Furthermore, this study shows Granger Causality results which illustrate that if output is increasing then
this will lead to an increase in economic freedom rather we can say economic freedom lead to an increase in output.
Furthermore investment lead to an increase in economic freedom but this freedom is not affecting or causing
investment. Hence we can say increase in investment raises the economic freedom in the country and that lead to an
increase in output and again due to increase in output that also increase economic freedom to raise the investment and
again that give positive signal to economic growth.
Trade unions do cause or affect industrial output but output does not cause or affect Trade unions. This means
due to the increase in trade unions that will lead to change in industrial output, which also support our hypothesis.
Democracy does not cause output and freedom significantly or via viz. with the presence of economics of
freedom, Trade unions does not affect GDP and also GDP is not affecting Trade unions so there are other macro
economic variables which affect significantly on economic growth rather trade unions. Trade unions do not affect
economics of freedom and also economics of freedom does not significantly affect trade unions in Pakistan. Impulse
Response Functions and variance decomposition were performed in order to show how a shock in one variable would
persist in future periods. The forecast was made considering a ten-month period. Positive shocks in Economics of
freedom direct to increase in investment and output.
Thus we can conclude that in the presence of economics of freedom it lead to an increase in output for the
case of Pakistan. Interestingly this freedom does not affecting trade unions in long run but in short run it do affect
positively and unionization with the presence of freedom lead to increase output. Moreover Positive shocks in
Economics of freedom direct to increase in investment and output in the country.
References
Addison, J. T. and Hirsch, B. T., (1989), “Union Effects on Productivity, Profits, and Growth: Has the Long Run
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
116
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
Arrived?”, Journal of Labor Economics, 7( 1), . 72-105.
Ahmad, I., (2009), “Labor and Employment Law: A Profile on Pakistan”, ILO Memo
Andreas. I and Berthold U. W, (2000), “Trade Union Objectives and Economic Growth”, Centre for Studies in
Economics and Finance, working paper No.34, pp. 1-26.
Berggren, N. (2003), “The Benefits of Economic Freedom: A Survey”, Independent Review, 8,( 2), pp. 193-211.
Busse, M. and Braun, S., (2002), “Trade and Investment Effects of Forced Labor: An Empirical Assessment”, HWWA
Discussion Paper No. 200, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
Cameron W.O and Julia. B., (1997), “Do unions reduce Investment? Evidence from Canada”,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, . 51,( 1), pp. 18-36.
Cetintasa, H. and Basel.H., (2008), “Unionization, unemployment & economic growth: A case of
Turkey”, Serbian Journal of Management 3, (2), pp. 157 – 170.
Charles. B, and Medoff , J., (1978), “Trade Unions in the Production Process”, The Journal of Political
Economy,86,(3), 355-378.
Doh-khul .k., (2005), “Unionization, Unemployment, and Growth in Korea: A Co integration Approach”, Atlantic
Economic Journal, 33, 225–233.
Eliezer, A. and Karras , G., (1998), “Components of Economic Freedom & Growth: An Empirical Study”, Journal of
Developing Areas, 32, (3), pp. 327-338.
Francisco L., (2002), “Democracy, Governance & Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence”,
Review of Development Economics, 6, ( 2), . 225-247.
Hirsch, B. T., (2004), “What Do Unions Do for Economic Performance” Journal of Labor Research, 25 (.3), 415 –455.
International Labor Organization (2008). “Profile of labor federations, history of trade union movement, industrial
relations and labor policies in Pakistan”, unpublished Memo, ILO
Islamabad.
International Labor Organization (2006). Trade unionism and social challenges in a globalizing world: A case study of
Pakistan. (New Delhi, ILO).
Irfan, M., (1982), “Wages, Employment and Trade Unions in Pakistan”, The Pakistan Development Review Vol. 21,
No. 1, pp.49–69.
Morgan O. Reynolds., (1986), “Trade Unions in the Production Process Reconsidered”, The Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 443-447.
Nasir, Zafar Mueen. (2007). Labor laws in Pakistan. (Islamabad, ILO Memo).
Odgers, C. W. and Betts, J. R., (1997), “Do Unions Reduce Investment? Evidence from Canada”, Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 18-36.
Randall G. and James D. G., (2010), “Unions, Economic Freedom, and Growth”, Cato Journal, 30,( 1), 5-27.
Rehman, S., (2003), “Collective Bargaining and Wage Determination in Pakistan”, Unpublished
PhD Dissertation, Department of Economics, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.
Reza G.H. and Erfani G.R., (2008) “Economics of Freedom: An Empirical Analysis”,
International Business & Economics Research Journal, 7( 5), 31-42.
Wessels, W. J., (1985), “The Effects of Unions on Employment and Productivity: An Unresolved Contradiction”,
Journal of Labor Economics, 3( 1), 101-108.
Appendix
Variance decomposition of variables:
Var.Dec.
LTU:
of
S.E. LTU
LINV
LGDP
EOF
DMY
LIO
2
0.124 100.0000
(0.00000)
0.173 82.51078
0.000000
(0.00000)
15.79691
0.000000
(0.00000)
0.024409
0.000000
(0.00000)
0.418395
0.000000
(0.00000)
0.943434
0.000000
(0.00000)
0.306070
3
(8.30062)
0.224 83.87330
(7.93441)
13.79610
(1.50401)
0.113326
(1.18932)
0.549800
(2.29237)
1.120012
(1.26469)
0.547457
4
(9.06588)
0.266 82.64206
(8.29333)
15.13726
(1.77138)
0.080905
(1.78579)
0.639743
(2.51062)
0.982523
(2.29390)
0.517509
5
(10.6867)
0.300 81.92671
(9.45671)
15.60807
(1.60293)
0.143060
(2.87130)
0.619797
(2.54831)
1.295998
(3.31820)
0.406369
1
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
117
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
(11.9204)
0.327 81.52084
(10.5249)
15.95466
(1.91889)
0.150361
(3.90060)
0.558029
(3.01342)
1.337809
(4.15533)
0.478308
7
(13.1430)
0.347 80.36621
(11.1796)
16.58207
(2.11301)
0.224439
(5.00272)
0.516255
(3.31817)
1.264570
(5.37276)
1.046460
8
(14.4975)
0.362 78.49103
(11.9924)
17.16473
(2.51968)
0.300050
(6.17746)
0.531086
(3.40800)
1.168459
(6.71292)
2.344650
9
(15.7312)
0.374 75.36814
(12.4398)
17.45800
(2.97353)
0.446113
(7.43914)
0.668084
(3.39235)
1.152273
(8.24910)
4.907382
10
(16.8568)
0.387 70.81829
(12.6831)
17.45041
(3.42320)
0.627652
(8.48050)
1.078399
(3.30474)
1.324614
(9.90643)
8.700644
(17.7308)
(12.7226)
(3.83140)
(9.23616)
(3.26756)
(11.5601)
S.E. LTU
LINV
LGDP
EOF
DMY
LIO
0.086 1.698794
(4.34925)
0.124 2.402583
98.30121
(4.34925)
90.08500
0.000000
(0.00000)
4.896977
0.000000
(0.00000)
0.011613
0.000000
(0.00000)
2.556303
0.000000
(0.00000)
0.047524
4
(6.52383)
0.139 2.170938
(7.76880)
0.142 2.383693
(7.80756)
88.14561
(9.24912)
87.51006
(3.99952)
4.807060
(4.55850)
4.795343
(0.51515)
0.054004
(1.44815)
0.301666
(2.13343)
4.506541
(4.01366)
4.372258
(1.36618)
0.315848
(2.53398)
0.636984
5
(7.70370)
0.144 2.312654
(10.3306)
84.95774
(4.23728)
4.708535
(2.87771)
0.814438
(3.75138)
5.720164
(4.89447)
1.486466
6
(7.86758)
0.148 2.189376
(11.4964)
80.01881
(4.09204)
4.523344
(4.34462)
1.824901
(4.07430)
7.245384
(6.53124)
4.198188
7
(7.82386)
0.154 2.073130
(12.5953)
74.54917
(3.94214)
4.499500
(6.10916)
2.820488
(4.94375)
8.034933
(8.02297)
8.022778
8
(7.93567)
0.157 2.155157
(13.5397)
71.55642
(3.63742)
4.652758
(7.70888)
3.313943
(5.33952)
8.182254
(9.37263)
10.13947
9
(8.18440)
0.159 2.240991
(14.3059)
70.73501
(3.63973)
4.581754
(8.80953)
3.438713
(5.44666)
8.152492
(10.4521)
10.85104
(8.49247)
0.160 2.215113
(8.74786)
(14.7413)
70.61451
(14.9797)
(3.69141)
4.548323
(3.67236)
(9.45644)
3.454180
(9.83940)
(5.51401)
8.075421
(5.50363)
(11.0684)
11.09245
(11.5171)
S.E. LTU
LINV
LGDP
EOF
DMY
LIO
2
0.019 2.264902
(4.50913)
0.025 4.560178
30.18723
(10.6484)
34.31182
67.54787
(10.5738)
50.48969
0.0000
(0.00)
0.367199
0.000
(0.00)
1.037836
0.000
(0.00)
9.233277
3
(6.34690)
0.029 4.906799
(11.0718)
34.47500
(11.0894)
40.99978
(1.04935)
1.311407
(2.26963)
1.925287
(5.98947)
16.38173
6
Var. Dec
LINV:
of
1
2
3
10
:
Var. Dec. of
LGDP
1
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
118
Afaq Mehmood/TMBER-2014/Full Paper Proceeding Vol No-1,107-119
4
(7.13972)
0.033 3.761837
(11.5438)
37.80460
(11.2587)
33.70380
(2.49180)
3.481440
(3.22150)
3.486321
(9.66266)
17.76200
5
(6.50293)
0.038 2.806627
(12.8653)
40.16245
(10.8780)
27.13763
(4.53292)
7.728862
(4.44458)
4.138929
(11.9454)
18.02551
6
(6.28057)
0.044 2.271721
(13.7158)
39.19327
(10.5238)
21.88632
(7.15447)
14.07506
(4.88855)
3.992729
(13.7709)
18.58090
7
(6.39317)
0.049 2.171390
(14.7161)
37.34034
(10.1584)
17.66877
(10.4380)
21.08111
(5.08006)
3.799426
(15.9313)
17.93898
8
(6.64042)
0.054 2.391441
(15.5775)
35.92148
(9.38114)
14.63510
(13.3022)
27.17957
(5.28857)
3.600534
(17.4811)
16.27188
9
(7.18715)
0.059 3.036155
(16.3273)
35.26835
(8.52545)
12.49269
(15.2063)
31.71376
(5.42380)
3.210924
(18.5951)
14.27812
10
(8.15673)
0.064 4.395166
(16.9778)
34.93280
(7.91410)
10.86464
(16.1284)
34.75040
(5.35653)
2.761576
(19.3257)
12.29541
(9.31206)
(17.5784)
(7.34981)
(16.3322)
(5.19612)
(19.7828)
S.E. LTU
LINV
LGDP
EOF
DMY
LIO
2
0.060 0.154823
(3.19443)
0.166 0.163801
2.451969
(4.87874)
2.882082
5.181380
(5.26902)
7.274183
92.21183
(7.71841)
89.20937
0.000
(0.00)
0.219390
0.000
(0.00)
0.251178
3
(3.44116)
0.291 0.122648
(5.63275)
2.576909
(5.87304)
8.339931
(8.89086)
87.85264
(0.43478)
0.274368
(0.64874)
0.833506
4
(3.92568)
0.400 0.074545
(6.39634)
1.633450
(6.70338)
9.409468
(10.3545)
87.50232
(0.94727)
0.284578
(1.88139)
1.095638
5
(4.88907)
0.470 0.318818
(6.66639)
1.490484
(7.63506)
9.840833
(11.5920)
87.14317
(1.55216)
0.239585
(3.35398)
0.967110
6
(6.71605)
0.507 1.001394
(6.63350)
4.261712
(8.21831)
9.299628
(12.5685)
84.27633
(2.15647)
0.236789
(4.92383)
0.924147
7
(9.01307)
0.537 1.619714
(10.7485)
(7.25825)
10.39860
(9.03447)
(8.15769)
8.292254
(7.46277)
(13.2925)
76.81997
(13.3298)
(2.51258)
0.564174
(2.70966)
(6.21144)
2.305288
(7.08870)
8
0.575 1.588320
16.32952
7.688260
66.86399
1.323013
6.206900
9
(11.2097)
0.619 1.464315
(10.7967)
18.82551
(6.63409)
7.653270
(12.9329)
57.77632
(3.18398)
2.257249
(8.18745)
12.02334
(10.8464)
0.662 2.544770
(10.5695)
(11.4803)
18.15627
(11.0884)
(6.00798)
7.523560
(5.67586)
(12.6823)
50.69550
(12.6089)
(3.84244)
3.085753
(4.34354)
(9.48795)
17.99415
(10.4312)
Var.
EOF:
1
10
Dec.of
International Conference on Trends in Multidisciplinary Business and Economics Research (TMBER- 2015)
119