首页> 外文期刊>Urban Studies >Unemployment and Urban Labour Markets
【24h】

Unemployment and Urban Labour Markets

机译:失业与城市劳动力市场

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Two quite distinct views on how metropolitan labour markets work have co-existed for over three decades. Both claim empirical support and, after a brief period of confrontation, they continue to co-exist today giving quite conflicting signals to policy-makers. According to the first model, the urban labour market consists of a number of spatially defined sub-markets so that local unemployment exists primarily because of deficiencies in highly localised demand for labour. By this argument, unemployment rates remain high in the absence of a renewed supply of appropriate jobs within short commuting distances of the jobless. The solution according to this model is to attract private- and public-sector production into such areas. In contrast, a second model views the city as a single market in which transactions between labour and capital take place regardless of the location of residence and employment sites. According to this perspective, the spatial incidence of unemployment simply reflects the residential clustering effects of a housing market reacting to an unequal income distribution. Demand for labour may still be deficient, but only at the aggregate, metropolitan-wide level. According to this model, creating jobs for labour in particular parts of the conurbation in order to reduce unemployment in certain neighbourhoods will only have a temporary, short-term effect at best. The apparent conflicts between the policy implications drawn from these segmented and seamless models of the urban labour market arise out of a failure to recognise explicitly the marked differences that exist in the ability of different levels of human capital to adjust. Both models have relevance, but to different categories of labour. As soon as the implicit assumption of homogeneous labour is relaxed, the simultaneous presence of spatially seamless and segmented markets becomes a source of insight rather than conflict and their role in policy discussion becomes more transparent. The research challenge lies in achieving a better understanding of the scope and practice of adjustment of individuals with different skills together with the way the urban markets as a whole adjust.
机译:在过去的三十多年中,关于都市劳动力市场如何运作的两种截然不同的观点并存。两者都要求经验支持,并且经过短暂的对抗之后,它们今天继续共存,向决策者发出了完全矛盾的信号。根据第一个模型,城市劳动力市场由许多在空间上定义的子市场组成,因此本地失业主要是由于高度本地化的劳动力需求不足所致。根据这一论点,在没有短距离通勤距离的情况下,在没有重新提供适当工作的情况下,失业率仍然很高。根据该模型的解决方案是将私营和公共部门的生产吸引到这些地区。相反,第二种模型将城市视为一个单一的市场,无论居住和就业地点在哪里,劳动力和资本之间的交易都会发生。根据这种观点,失业的空间发生率仅仅反映了住房市场对收入分配不均做出反应的住宅集群效应。对劳动力的需求可能仍然不足,但仅在整个大城市范围内。根据此模型,为在某些地区的劳动力中创造就业机会以减少某些社区的失业,充其量只是暂时的,短期的效果。从这些细分的和无缝的城市劳动力市场模型得出的政策含义之间的明显冲突是由于未能明确认识到不同人力资本水平的调整能力所存在的显着差异。两种模式都有相关性,但适用于不同类别的劳动力。一旦放松了对同质劳动力的隐含假设,空间无缝和细分市场的同时存在就成为洞察力的来源,而不是冲突的来源,并且它们在政策讨论中的作用也变得更加透明。研究的挑战在于更好地理解具有不同技能的个人进行调整的范围和实践,以及整个城市市场的调整方式。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Urban Studies》 |2005年第12期|p.2261-2288|共28页
  • 作者

    Philip S. Morrison;

  • 作者单位

    Institute of Geography, School of Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 区域规划、城乡规划;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:30:04

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号