%PDF-1.5 % 1 0 obj<> endobj 2 0 obj<> endobj 3 0 obj<> endobj 5 0 obj null endobj 6 0 obj<> endobj 7 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 3 9 0 R] endobj 8 0 obj 12 endobj 9 0 obj<>stream fff/$ endstream endobj 10 0 obj 281 endobj 11 0 obj<>stream H1 0$ϹK4?dsY v+*_*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T P+W@ _*|T x! endstream endobj 12 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/background.gif) endobj 13 0 obj(Ct\)XK\\) endobj 14 0 obj<> endobj 15 0 obj<> endobj 16 0 obj<> endobj 17 0 obj<> endobj 18 0 obj<> endobj 19 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 31 21 0 R] endobj 20 0 obj 96 endobj 21 0 obj<>stream aOPjYZwxrbcVFG)!">33֏1((<>stream Hĕ˒ E&/$jrnX5;XdDnmseVy*rSy%ػRRUVtlVkdaJ߇)bԔU>\&Ր#?4^FVcHy8&e^ w>0>/Ͳ)[<UkψmXNhNMMI 0+VH%Ď,ZG3AfCyS5% ak񼮞_&B1o()+{h xF]1.٬r܅,G=tn_^yT>!IA;o?Q:Sn_pя{V;Z ͫfYn&@䮔6з_(6 endstream endobj 24 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/search.gif) endobj 25 0 obj(6,\r) endobj 26 0 obj<> endobj 27 0 obj<> endobj 28 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 1 30 0 R] endobj 29 0 obj 6 endobj 30 0 obj<>stream endstream endobj 31 0 obj 14 endobj 32 0 obj<>stream Hbd ^ endstream endobj 33 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/blackspacer.gif) endobj 34 0 obj(S&N6EG) endobj 35 0 obj<> endobj 36 0 obj<> endobj 37 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 15 39 0 R] endobj 38 0 obj 48 endobj 39 0 obj<>stream t{kēڢepXӝKOB̙550YaNq~bbbb endstream endobj 40 0 obj 2179 endobj 41 0 obj<>stream HWz6  $tƥD]c*K8Ӝa8oᢽq^J\W⢽하hYƓ)D[EDOt"p2#h NtmfO; &ډɔ`M2L&ڦ[ H )oo|.cx 'a ۆ 0(mF$`$&X!={ xڛK(8IR2;I)l'S:Y@ڎpMIoQ$ R@BFѷdJG0 3IEb!$w# 9R^dJG0{~F" ( bH{$A5F2 ^vѦf=\ʒ1 m4)mFILfI@E(hPgm@D'Ĝd>#v38̴qAHF >7"Y⺍]36e6?[T*"⊽!y:ǎpvrwsٺ+C4 n~0hsv7ٲ{b :PG&\Ht,UZ/m71D=Zr_i{Bﱿz!Hz_t2:oȸ$/c"C`stI߾e{țOLC8Ob_ }@$` k,e O۬{a͠'5/k&30$LvK)LjZt "f< E{myx^I 0nJD]17R>wއ{|h]ۉĕ"8ɷ0.2BI𙡌5$۲0(ڰ:_gDJGi3YϬ,N[''vMiG};vzBY"Jo?ၿ_NDudfd")KaRW7CGG3yG?3h=mӭػLЄݶcQnK=bȯa|.M ƠJ ~,A*Z%I ɃP9*> endobj 45 0 obj<> endobj 46 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 31 48 0 R] endobj 47 0 obj 96 endobj 48 0 obj<>stream aOPxyrbcVFG)!">33kܰ1((<<üpq$ZIJzkkԫPABWGH endstream endobj 49 0 obj 398 endobj 50 0 obj<>stream Hĕr  BPsDIo;m&tZ?q%xo9+E^[BCVEV`*'ޚcu/Jc95˪SS;]k62`pU3&yW~?>=7׃2 c#X` 0 0b=@)Ԡ[aϘ6\['UޅoQly Տxjns.9^MWeҪʼBnGw%UE}09Z endstream endobj 51 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/toc.gif) endobj 52 0 obj(3 TRy) endobj 53 0 obj<> endobj 54 0 obj<> endobj 55 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 63 57 0 R] endobj 56 0 obj 192 endobj 57 0 obj<>stream Іxy~1((kZ[ZIJ$I<33aOP endstream endobj 58 0 obj 327 endobj 59 0 obj<>stream Hĕn0 F-;耀/8;?ˎD苣P| eij`{PN]N2x:OS6%EQPP6ohU="j *r 7s^TB[Pr;Qv>^ mV<<x7ny (,#kGUT ⭵nqi~bH[WplN묰ɫ#潳vʹY /ouy7JAxR^H3[ސ;NClL6נwtHʇ2er2u]?w endstream endobj 60 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/home.gif) endobj 61 0 obj(ZX̴_J) endobj 62 0 obj<> endobj 63 0 obj<> endobj 64 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 7 66 0 R] endobj 65 0 obj 24 endobj 66 0 obj<>stream ZZZ111 endstream endobj 67 0 obj 18357 endobj 68 0 obj<>stream HWb( Յ8ӴIיBl¿ $5PB6{3u1]ßRO[fKKS#&ؾvF Ew"DX6ٜ7ɠ|$"ԱQGAN'K,gu+hoW  ]X:l8T"R^1%|e%XBDҗ!,-_z&_B/zS$K/5C 1[\ڈIKŰ|0ZqY=j^di˰XӺ2u{ƃC[BY@^ek9DB쾤Z uM8H,o*Ɨ/䒴L(UN[ye@<jK̄$V$_l$dB XRRw4'K͎KOXZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX7 /KSξ>B a1!9H~@m$ijFX]l|ʁMm5u~I3-mBy\F_ЖO<N)քN?#I[`9?0'rgɍ'j{f>ٟx/<6nbvJP@?j7*L'O+v&ϖvOy-pq%R`]Xa;da ,C;5ّ5cM)IۡK/dh)vCe#t$7X3"ZI!,r4CaS۲56^xp% ʡtCD4S:Ke,/}Lɾ+Iz$F/|&gKWN) 5W55NDȳE"^Fe.R,M&1 O1 WuWg0~,P_kb[/iVLxvL.{d GH}C9,Ev-0LWCD"\2-;Go2Vd`Jݗ(| $</b 'Pi{̓JtJƶƼ7.E-;2ܰڴɱD)áe/-Ӳ9Uא°y/䰭<n(HQb1=i}F0tv ;?%=Ee^#޶R%y{qk1 ~GZa¹Ex. BTڛ8U?Q4U?&W< FW0\fU*o^ _E_ҞH0x`c_tQJ[=e!ƜXir8\@{; u'=~5. ˲F pStaaaaa7e m?JY|3}~(plج*y\z:4@dPO^ )3I'0ƈ7~waRO?9qMNpx}-ג 1AgI$׬8cv%e|ŗ/An%"#k Ws9Q^To>Hv2$>M~85,!,">55Z-ָZ\"| =빤[&d#4wc6_Oj4FV٭6VS9;W6ܩo+ ,y9vNF#Za Ql/i&n{=_eZ [HJԞVY4I?DqB?^SRfy3 Ixۨ{JmlϘ*mݿO oSq`#| mP./u veD{_(d )7fRmgsgn0q,ăӾaC̆UNuWGaXDKk=,Piԕ#Pڍ4^" ,i_xܿV-1ve N -k=~߲YFo;K7^@J_X,4VokX1T<*O}_ґRċ*e ֱK(8 .ڭ>vU*7(aP]Cv0Y-BH?3j]!RBCb~|6[efjO CO/dR1'U\ƥr !cq%Ъ?H c܂{_]^7|\u;X ֓>~dտ~5|k5ޟ0׭{~nO]oO?~` hfҍO)ϑW({@3^w<Ӹ{OC<$qEVhWB,MRږp=t)1Gc9meFD![]B-`XrD2f'9:j>HT:`̣>X+30fb8avctT=U]~6JY^nkq7^rՖ e5, ,/,Y\UdTj"Eln ]jt.zhv\Si>dJF/Az:-Ic0J Y`p4i)sQYR5r*Ktޏd5R\±.K}*KR\R6*'kR*['d~4Uiƛ;H)Nʬjԃ{}]I8]>~}5TXy҉l*2ܰ>mSIqruYFy=7nllllllllll$8\lZ@4|#~O8J57sB7&,jC[L ɱէSKZow{qa(Tg,/za$Xblph fўђv/"GQ$>ݺx;(ʲ.5@}$ڲ33<Nj978B50ƺ^LHNȇ%ПJc )(~ svʕ uТj!bYE":lJ8|-ĐL8H7nRf)cĜ,iŏcZ=`peԌ[f¿ A% -ɒ[t/0nHA~4lPK ǙKx)874(K)_N> J cbq<,5W5+9f⮀}I >I uo KT=bW3]s4P"mŸ]c㴽nŲ;i - Z%(p(Eǖ RQWN3iӁE \[WFǖJR ;J7X^p8+ר@rL<UU K70q%8HgY( )p0^{.%^fTG?-#Xoq.R_DpHUd %Xfa-YAtr.Y;7bXArԣPV^QiB=Q%n.Ws<,]zŪz͈7ͽd˥w0lV^zks dK&4ʒ[jcEwqQ{iAaJ\u v )bʜؔ 4UB,p%[)I$pW"I"U $J9F M!ޒFd9xYw?7aN}ݸ9teccccccccccc=A)#l%zS_LtfrK_~?ߚTUTا[3ςςIr8=[#<;G0MH]\ܵj8״|"GgGaH.} RtwGx><;ZR҄Q3'4*!|Jas𾩔;r>SB9 UUf<+dr_[/Gʜ5} IܐhJޭeO9 fkD'xw䠏taRtY33V+KoZ;w}F5ڬ;]8Ô^GZ({uJq:N^R_kݧ#9G!n}CKl+=jGtt $IsX ɏ2C=F >Zٔ73GnM8= p|[6Dݸ G'_n`H#P/3f`~z7nrG~Do0qSUQՠ~[(P6ɢqu>oJP" lJ' 6IGauaW1xAG)%5ȏzvP^Lq5 G0y%7D%0!MHe9=?֛֡vOb6Gdd-e)jReC"0fXIJ_i>*"9ɩs巚/3ʲK*I4فn<ɇTb;wE({'{ХA)*ݑc8qܓRn1y~-KeC 3T%(}JҪ*ULR<ތҗJU\5$YZ%rdȽʰ#+o"0PmJdѼݹT](rI7wKy*GzT==\UmbJ#:VHqJ3`;{8ɑ_? KyjV)ͥy1,c),6-jp^_ L#wO%A5"ىEaM9h ЦrO0!֟oݣOHqs@e)766666666f.ïgOj'13QY `5J?=IoZMc@\Ôo)حb2۹䱀1u -4b4t XD,& OC p;Uzȏ)KmfI2.R}r`b[\zƏ*9SU*5ߘMa.*`5z _v*u!MqGW7]%!Sz`*@wixq; AK\\޺Hܥ[!R)U%7C qžuU Uc]"ZCzwdZ2#y&IqUđـe^J%cC;|2!H:[uc7{Xb.gJyh (@/w&aGŕFAKşZ3VFUl*pOpNGa1@į#; 拉1Ьxp׋Ky"c^Ҧlllllllll__/0d SNrx&Wfk5_Plp`?|NCxDS Pȿwb1Pì[}S~++_DJK T3V⊼S.8yRCR`DY`wTk1TzM%̨TJDI<> 2%Ⱬ<!FNJ*E4WEx9G`JJhTO:w@9֥=C޺m-;z &(TBdEF|D Ն^TQEX}3R?\B%Hb8/a3r6? f;dI;|˿,: F*]LTdGz1l\np﷈7pc{0Na)rRN5KjJFB{>ݺعŸXmbɷ2s2M1,,ٓ,t=ܳ7鱷ϱtҦs摮)ܹ:<K%%nuYf#4]{t+Ɠѱ|.Fo@:R}FzE% g#8xK:(=m$HBVlCQS織ph t?G+9'KHcQ9ܼ`"x\fxEv8nllllllllll)c0lZp)ԔTtƣħؘ4l}{|~ K!yr3j =si8U;[&MnM8ѣ^k M8j+ r=k 9R, ?P =BϱT,R<Ƴ R\^d)6rkX2=4>zAM/%r-XcgÑ yWBo99UT= mWPTSm?` B 4WʈJ>${,ݕǥ]@3q;G*XTo8;qr+L\Iېv4^6=),>_)aRrd=9mz, ::.!8;h[%5:[ P~k8#C:K&r`PvhL$KvJRKC<^T2 ?$GR>3ZLW+OEh15ZਥLJ,e^KD}QKyl29ndY yAQJkJQ]P%M3,6j:x)3[':Z, &IQ*#Ĩ 6xri#`ɞT!Jd{ @}1[ZjV0dm5jH,uzptԘt)<?.KM^Wujc{YEKxA9z9L A wlT$<EaAܟj1dBM4'&+ǥA,4rleyobiǰx@vl}y6'q<=K̳^M bIV 4efi3r0nX N<"ܜb"dvdH|i b|7+EG&t8K̼-'OVo=g-E1 #U`-Ќ)l-E3eU|5k 1c,e yjкb$zq"K^z%/%WGIт4ZUdtd? FpXC, E*nX_QP5Z~׸B/K iG`N x!~59TlKGk{}Kx4qkb\ YS;D;a,!nocY=mw.2NWY!BJq+Mb͝#>"bYO "~74∌Xt:_8Opqe~766666666b}LvG@,'|Lx|'Ddܕ_gQO7#Ʌb4F@=P-8mԍ G< ax8{ ŧ?Dȯ*} T&,|qk!$-M,r$K &M(hp:'ԍz?RtWR-P/x}wb`'Upm .KxªsG-],E5s+ ]&jbn F<"]I,e-k -v<+qR$oUtoPFt)x&g%n 6ofguQ 4#ѥ6/I-K; ܼt38V&ۼst8ze c^_x.Ԥ<0ĻqnLW3R4;E\{sG2oKSE8~W8S3Ǖ"=Oϲ,vemllllllll7 sq8H&}}nI%ImJ8 rKM5EJmԠN`Ɵ#sdCb#oiK?7n5XL8q_jPF8OW@q47/R@z;Gq_6Uݶa!%uPf.{8mdZ9 *S*ţ8^0K9cjR ,ȃvl]^ft)%ۂ!X%,ݔE;G"@_M9 >p||ϩy6dyK+ 3(q,F9,nZ_6 aɱ{xX$oi-cP %q]mQ_V1`@!Rr,LC4+?=;"gy"+  Zz,%,W^dQ,塴zԯN?2ˡxa !,̒?޳  *xh >Kdv+ؓY)B*4I'% `)'5YC04۔HbOFB;].吟2L,!?=d$dnʋ-GXbn `Y{XzQηyRsUl]xf.i,ˡc{S#ϧȦ6>BEN@UUZ[@yS+Q"@RT?`cYH$.Lyܟͳˡz@?,.8̐;7eR]sxz@0Os(qMb1i5A+sDZpQ+|`Xb/I|+ r<2qJ3Tgt\Vfy%rM <=*PQ,:YҖ' 3K<t*HGt\,Tr,|~zaGmUlNJTX/.FXئh܏ŒS$.HҕT}`2%\Hj,(\GL|9 :9/ V ֗|O,rYwnOsQP\B lyS gnEknũ3 %KI,Rz^%c|gD [Z (%b&6þT& )&Rxw6@+NU( 秇Ҷ~Ym/:bU%8TiNGcč41Nr9Y'{jQv<6ޔ|vY(2D&_ZTTkQ?z xSZk6Ҹgt׀OD)[lΌ'-R'&MX˥^6B9W˳C2ۭ ɍ?AVQ8*m9kԕ;1dTk-&hB@p{2nMn/T~,Ǎ&d@}}(+@ ؘ)er$"`↰T?I8o2詯*%wX8 q4 託Aȷg1|Î\B#*yVc8( x c)Ő%Yj7KD<)Wo\"R䬍|ДH|'"3whrij47X<*3z;GFb g(jPrNw)?GX̠˲U&au%8l9h̑U-BM2@h>Ƥ&Lo`"#Pσb6.s|c?H41yσkc3! =`ɍKNv;W$\SO5$uv@ McSS[$V_^/f̜E8:hO9"s;-`(GeE r'%O.+!8ϛ T2Fy-IX$(c/,o]A,~ʩђXJv8N8p"KMEx&C,0T7YINn>%:{% ϪHbۣ8qk>ϱڌg>յ`v} .Fci> ծZzaN{,U*0[*Zb)%_]CcbIcIu`{[ȚH "bC.YyutBCSyw|xq;XVǖ/R9B:x2Autdl=#/w^,9xh>ߖݳؘܲğQӞ<r c >pH0nKҰr0TBP @5ML(R#3X2s\4AR|9(X(3XW<<ڰ/יQzK]y"XzB K|i Qy_-J8P/TǫP]e\!Rd*qnM!ϦyUmeJݴ.OT{J6 B*bBU c2j'_DnQy T }xtҀ-TnUz >bU$j14yuwCA۪8 X 1QUfyXIbS՗c;|&Һ$z_jפ FvUI\r]y"G(Q :>=vUkE#1DEl $3\#>Fh&x7pW7ࠢ j /?Ȏ~XJYUS-lRm&@1h{ȕF|UAFS$}2 ^"F*v;hoGUB‰}ȿdXMx5Hn*gPL[j>ܒT^tl 2Pߩ $¤MS)W%K׵~³ɨ*G++栦>y*%r}ؓ5MEU .jCWJ} {Bp6/*m{H'>>*L9Q%R.1=`Tv+J՝X\+B?^0,5T%|Fi+m:X^1+ 0sA;shWl>+wcK [i6`W|6_ opq4\ȍ7h g%{q$Tӟk\Chۃu?!-sѻh|qX_ d-(}iW-}*|/Daدejb }+oqF$\! T4dT\>[rvr&!rӿT0V;!wȑ•oɣFPUXJJTmAFmJ/q#b}5Cu'%D4>H{(J{k-yty-=@ Րjlt3{}-s`8sIbxkVO/931+&TG$1A.G p^&b4Hq>nYcz9; jߒs2bB(ĸAۥsZ]߽R} r8פD eA36;6 q<8888888888p6 {v>~=w*`ɝ[zXuE_gUHM7D6RӯGp2rY_׎U]r"wIU"Pj*5r7KS P5b+$8rǐ=ϲ*=ez5ͨ䮉I7U)pkXy*~\ǔrq R\#p )M,!S)[n䳢*5g36䂏ߖ";"EPb(%$)-:񱹁J]؇ȌgſFLT;yM#*9=grC8ȤuK6C?/Zc,3 ]J%C,r*GLJIc#ئ)L5 [gc"Lu-ȶ}w 񶗑-$?88888888}JƖ޼̬"i( LݷA*R4qĢE01B**4c'0I 5l(R#e^#l&Xr'`Zj {- Bg-PkhThx@c;# Ǫr^XTLk1RrPBvf2P;2L NFr[kdFwUq[1j~(@$?`9[̰\yJsNcL y湄[4,taT;ɟF1U,f%H.MҬ"؍X=<# +yi8ݨ )̔\nKKKv¨K_ #ԈsxwQidAvh`Y Ӊfux^hi9+ǥhWkĈ2^ ތ( w]zoqkE짒pSV0k%n92"QS3gSbp&9aepWι*Aꯦ)ZH?3d˂G}}¡Ba$fo{[RھXBpi>Y_':F燍'ܠWBGxg;P ѭ?P2ŬV׷1#h&eAS;UxjR-E%,ZL>0H<䌑RŸ+EbN\\Q_QK꣹,57ԍǕٲ+\}ɔr_4oeE!~Q..? _bTWX)|r9 pG` I%O sFUJ480N+UfeV5+ظ޳ r+F1Ir)!1֪)rǑZɟpxsD0["wt5&dm$bP n .n:%TѪ^39! rn}m EI9V(Q*{KKWޖ jKu(FG Gs D;z@}2j+*hɝspGIcī(SLT?&b5P ġ#?[` a_7Nbd]R”=r!A9Kj=scm:Q _V:9yf*{ *F:X'/7'Fd[/'zHGgDۇo8d[I6+99 h QxtQ83 4VJ$9a=쁍erxHqT_o&!^n[YK cW&nՍaXuffTRN>ς"aƌ^p5d$}NW9=p$9GFj1}_ρ/m.lmx%Pҥx?0mzccccccccc re't endstream endobj 69 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/blanchflower_fig01a.gif) endobj 70 0 obj("&w;d) endobj 71 0 obj<> endobj 72 0 obj<> endobj 73 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 7 75 0 R] endobj 74 0 obj 24 endobj 75 0 obj<>stream eee555ݡ endstream endobj 76 0 obj 10285 endobj 77 0 obj<>stream HW8 $pIvRz&uvӢ[@\^:M6mڴiӏ/53Rd2jq0m2yW4b O"ԛ,ח@D{F우/N~'@hanW0ZCU j]aҴ8HFal, H4"H(Nx_&H"IVE:"Mt ;=ݥ$Mn(N ČOEDewIsB7hrlz@jpn#| SR} j*!݉W_qI(BHhM˶u;շۖ ;5Iڎ2.5r,6c'q8ww4lG#Y*$'@Z7 \Ze #9$sx Hlg$Il-4->B;bɈH6mڴiӦM6mڴiӦM~ߪe$&׹Ig}UB?JF2dW4{)7zY3⠝/~)+{~ $tĂ÷ow9[, {'y#{wjo}*[V"Np9'~b4M]+a:Kw*<;QOf| Yg(|LgkwwI%:?)i|7Qч;3.5pb3ՅA+ aD{cfsD~iJ}} (#Dl~ըs\5VC˪~vSzd^8蛢 Qj4^5L 'DO,"fR`k#%N}Z.9,'r2Q H癚G.aBI%C2VuO|:mq3v%5:Lɽ6s Gf7Eaos9KrmjdaE%}3h7u4 Ze\gZ5c0mP[(Hw# #d*NNX=439w wlD?D-ę'H&* SW0$D$@8{]+DZ/. B6XEъE%֬3ı`S&;T`\hN5!aZAIX_Ä<vLKk-HhtzJ2[ٰGs'Zr;W?5W,fҰ^z [{;Tϓ.w`AL/?,x?X̳c6a 0!tyv'eI4 1H(2 ?Hr|ƪ ߀ eZރy2Դ@ =HnZ4 +1FmKpXtl6fC;B z{˿$HhH=u40th eyN"kcXǙ9vt8*sN,/*8ŏ 3a-HZ1i Y>-_zҝ 1uX 1@JU$2y  }C:) Nu/#U&H2~b戤94YHrjFY9JY,NՓڲ`gƕi򽐠]B:R&a!_]GOzHtጆSuwu$AJe!/Zo?=5ʝBP`oXŧnC)J6+XFPO1XQ܄qͼ=)xg5&r{~?nuX$yX;Qȟ8%8BV]+Ea%1ފהRoɫ+M9ӏ_E2uƴIfcN' Xq#rS@TMI2ތe^JwFFM+uy Ĩ`V+rYҩmڴiӦO#Wd,!~mF X6k/HK8w?68h~۵ޖ{a [՚־<9q$\,%b?y[lV7?8WOm\tLPB.6EoA~0ͨRrIݧk\oOO+NJw idp(:G01[bL*1z f~M%/԰̋dXܥhMYNENbT#U˄AH.B@1N,Z$%Wᝇ3kB} #zP)9ɱ/=TJl4eԏXd RvIw4kQ$ +c eB 8CoҠkd47FJ;Ve I-@0{O] .p.TǾy+ɺޭ0#aY7AXS"luE\d]GN1\W|;ewv+bKhcJY F%m-((h; )AqCO ) ňy .ȬJhM-$}hyZgh+Hcy$K94.ajjaRG:$D{zMɦgq[xۍ_bSLX^.. yЪ{ܓ^$1Xݼ],5 H_D4OB;LhRt 68f5H$Mbm"NW"&w>`D }|誰Jt&T i͡kļN0sH䃬e6˽;=h(( HßuI\u*&Z"}N/~  rx3 y`hCbC!ɴ"cȝa:XRD;n AHlǓyڗnHPu.f!jх#{aE3NlhRm5+5Y-l1MyFD: N/n\Gs4;7=[m5e8Z)6(NlhC.1H6?ʺF DGaąjQ.5Kv馕$\ tu3!}Edf;UI<՜VݲԳٰ»55,)?/󙹗Jp(6)Cى&6ɺ+d/$!ItwoFA/QLw2TΤI^?)3Nu׳J;g%e C0hZq3n>5\󰿑ȶ'H'b<*x %5w w1?KNF"hcccccccc?`'^5Qց eF(qdt#W']<yBT`Pt`0M4" oոߟ$+0m);|ǑlB=-w+J4wX0B8&?YIK ꄳbତ R5H~/ɼfr?D8O f~;.dmpģقwjD‡"4Ĩװ.p% qcӡKZ}I$s_.n "$S>:e7]B51d?ܲ5z;JmP%Ebd똘䠧f~~(\TR$ @t`-[b:{X>D"eFcVcaTFSk%EF%煠Rvrq]9AvA NxFCd?Y$?<2khuw>|P 0dr>pVrW)'y/((zP+Vg' _Ih84ii9ˮvW]%wܲ4 cm8 V2A~W\q=Eȏ7OO]#6|=S_5ÕؕՍ 0$A톿-'1 De}T C]z%RR ", ^~MhEXjin=r^'مj)R2O)RnHAOY*14Q۹=*֍IJ}}"  ` ý_2Oefw0Q_ſB74iBn8i*)Ći3;B¼U{2+6OKɮ ebL2J-%py,UT2\_9N߄ܚa֟?Cڡ] ΍zL%S``s0p4%FRH=2<-|Y35M6E!O>*ɇCU+j^hU*i4zʥ/t=ӘjX{Y$Vq"KL:rșw+[_S^WuࡘԐށʍ鎬t;.>y0A'M-r۩HGS[twaf/ɷ1P)FcQ,}l , hA|DKAs #y]aniiXH2kRzzـ5l Tos͠܄.Cݰzajd+D̀AoJh^"o ijcaxl"}{ Ͷ]6^:Fڕ* ]4j>1D2ƵFjtUsUZWl گ$/8~}JDai9"И ݪydI/ ػPWuzʻ>9J'BBϴjyּ'u%}q@n% 0P^ 5_xzâJl/<_@-A><<4M4M4ףڟ+?@useF`7 n2Je= o*en@! y( gBeBX/JyLx∷EJX&ZcRj.z+WDg5*)!|<hW^IH˨AIb>To\F5]OTX `Bz(5gs%ak*0l䓃n^lnB:\!=4|!R8fr2@*Cs6;M=^g+᰺VI-қD@1?HB8* KW-]Qd~VDN~VyЪ$6M4M4M4Msh́HjiiF`! endstream endobj 78 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/blanchflower_fig02a.gif) endobj 79 0 obj(+Ųnקҏf) endobj 80 0 obj<> endobj 81 0 obj<> endobj 82 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 31 84 0 R] endobj 83 0 obj 96 endobj 84 0 obj<>stream aOPxyrbcVFG)!">33ܰ1((<<pqü$ZIJzkkߜPABWGH endstream endobj 85 0 obj 440 endobj 86 0 obj<>stream Hĕ b-: -徑M.)q/b|oFUmRt;vPU!!Ue_8V9]νRj6TUp*eq5lBnmt¢[}e= _Z3m *\Z=Ė〇cOEm<5Zdb *bZ;ӌGF /H9+9{,ZgpEz p%qR߱3_'vԱYW\;--"E}1^_-K/OQ_y~g[> 2ҳ> endobj 90 0 obj<> endobj 91 0 obj[/Indexed/DeviceRGB 31 93 0 R] endobj 92 0 obj 96 endobj 93 0 obj<>stream aOPwxVFG)!">33r1((<>stream Hĕr EF!MYAtg: 9 lk3W0{o d-CeS6֎lS'4u4(VM9({. kމ5y6k$%H+9K^y/Hf~+ǽ5y{}!Õ ^o&u>BgڴǺ0¼[گN<眡,xγ̆pԫ;}]y%Ɲ\:ؖa ZЖKge~f>`[- + endstream endobj 96 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/images/next.gif) endobj 97 0 obj(pq{bhGK}) endobj 98 0 obj<> endobj 99 0 obj<> endobj 100 0 obj<>/Font<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 0>> endobj 101 0 obj<> endobj 102 0 obj<>>> endobj 103 0 obj<> endobj 104 0 obj<><><><><><><>]/C/SpdrArt/P 103 0 R/S/Article/Pg 100 0 R>> endobj 105 0 obj<> endobj 106 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 107 0 obj<>/Font<>>>/DA(/Helv 0 Tf 0 g )>> endobj 108 0 obj<> endobj 109 0 obj<> endobj 110 0 obj<> endobj 111 0 obj<>/TM(sp)>> endobj 112 0 obj[111 0 R 116 0 R 119 0 R 124 0 R 125 0 R 126 0 R] endobj 113 0 obj<> endobj 114 0 obj<> endobj 115 0 obj<> endobj 116 0 obj<>/FT/Tx/Subtype/Widget/P 100 0 R/T(f2)/AA<>/AP<>/DA(/Helv 9.1915 Tf 0 g)/MK<>/TM(search)>> endobj 117 0 obj<> endobj 118 0 obj<>/Subtype/Form/FormType 1/Matrix[1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0]>>stream 1 g 0 0 110 17 re f 0.501953 g 1 1 m 1 16 l 109 16 l 108 15 l 2 15 l 2 2 l f 0.75293 g 109 16 m 109 1 l 1 1 l 2 2 l 108 2 l 108 15 l f 0 G 0.5 0.5 109 16 re s endstream endobj 119 0 obj<>/Ff 65540/MK<>/TP 1>>/TM(searchButton)>> endobj 120 0 obj 41 endobj 121 0 obj<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/ImageC/ImageI]>>/Subtype/Form>>stream q 91.91489 0 0 17.61702 0 0 cm /Im0 Do Q endstream endobj 122 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF]>>/Subtype/Form/FormType 1/Matrix[1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0]>>stream q 1 1 94 20 re W n q 2 2 92 18 re W n 1 0 0 1 2.0426 2.1915 cm /FRM Do Q Q endstream endobj 123 0 obj<>/Flags 22/S/SubmitForm/Fields[(JNECNJKLEDINOPPELFHLLEPOKECNCBPF.form1.x)]>> endobj 124 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 125 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 126 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 127 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 1>> endobj 128 0 obj 31 endobj 129 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 57.063828]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 130 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 131 0 obj<> endobj 133 0 obj<>/Font<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 2>> endobj 134 0 obj 31 endobj 135 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 36.38298]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 136 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 137 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 138 0 obj[137 0 R] endobj 139 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 3>> endobj 140 0 obj 31 endobj 141 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 15.702133]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 142 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 143 0 obj<>/Font<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 4>> endobj 144 0 obj 31 endobj 145 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 54.765961]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 146 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 147 0 obj[143 0 R/XYZ 0 692.808533 null] endobj 148 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 149 0 obj[148 0 R] endobj 150 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 5>> endobj 151 0 obj 31 endobj 152 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 34.085114]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 153 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 154 0 obj<>/Font<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 6>> endobj 155 0 obj 31 endobj 156 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 13.404251]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 157 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 158 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 159 0 obj[158 0 R 160 0 R 161 0 R] endobj 160 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 161 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 162 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Pattern<>>>/StructParents 7>> endobj 163 0 obj 31 endobj 164 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 52.468079]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 165 0 obj[104 0 R] endobj 166 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 167 0 obj[166 0 R 168 0 R 169 0 R] endobj 168 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 169 0 obj<>/Subtype/Link/A<>>> endobj 170 0 obj 31 endobj 171 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/ImageI]>>/Matrix[0.765961 0.0 0.0 0.765961 0.0 31.787231]/PatternType 1/PaintType 1/TilingType 1/XStep 1200/YStep 78>>stream q 1200 0 0 78 0 0 cm /BGIm Do Q endstream endobj 172 0 obj<> endobj 173 0 obj[/Pattern/DeviceRGB] endobj 174 0 obj<> endobj 175 0 obj<> endobj 176 0 obj<> endobj 177 0 obj<> endobj 178 0 obj<> endobj 179 0 obj 4815 endobj 180 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg 7.65958 749.96767 596.68085 17.90468 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n q 0.76596 0 0 15.31915 303.89362 752.55319 cm /Im0 Do Q BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 304.65958 752.55319 Tm ( )Tj 0.32143 0 Td ( )Tj -16.82143 -2.31255 Td ( )Tj -0.89285 -3.35715 Td ( )Tj 0 0 0.62746 rg /TT0 1 Tf 14.84779 0 0 14.84779 260.25772 723.10986 Tm (The Industrial Relations Research Association )Tj 13.558 -1.2 Td (Proceedings 2004 )Tj 0 0 0 rg /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 163.14894 645.03149 Tm ( )Tj 3.10715 0 Td ( )Tj ET q 140.17021 0 0 209.10638 15.31915 411.89276 cm /Im1 Do Q q 91.91489 0 0 17.61702 39.44681 394.27574 cm /Im2 Do Q q 91.91489 0 0 17.61702 39.44681 354.44595 cm /Im3 Do Q BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 131.36171 354.44595 Tm ( )Tj -4.41072 -2.45714 Td ( )Tj -7.125 -2.55714 Td ( )Tj 17.35715 29.82681 Td ( )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf 18.97218 0 0 18.97218 196.46808 612.03499 Tm (XI. THE FUTURE OF UNIONS IN MODERN )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (BRITAIN)Tj ET 0.5 0.5 0.5 rg 196.46808 561.6787 m 196.46808 563.2106 l 604.34042 563.2106 l 603.57446 562.44464 l 197.23404 562.44464 l 197.23404 562.44466 l h f 0.875 0.875 0.875 rg 604.34042 563.2106 m 604.34042 561.6787 l 196.46808 561.6787 l 197.23404 562.44466 l 603.57446 562.44466 l 603.57446 562.44464 l h f 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_1 1 Tf 18.97218 0 0 18.97218 209.59158 525.14008 Tm (Union Relative Wage Effects in the United )Tj 2.64 -1.2 Td (States and the United Kingdom)Tj 14.84779 0 0 14.84779 321.60703 468.66751 Tm (David G. Blanchflower)Tj /T1_2 1 Tf -7.44501 -1.2 Td (Dartmouth College and National Bureau of Economic )Tj 10.50101 -1.2 Td (Research)Tj /T1_1 1 Tf -0.6665 -2.18016 Td (Alex Bryson)Tj /T1_2 1 Tf -4.13901 -1.2 Td (London School of Economics)Tj /T1_3 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 354.27405 Tm (Abstract)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 2.85715 -2.55714 Td ( This paper presents evidence of both countercyclical and secular de\ cline in )Tj T* (the union membership wage premium in the United States and the United )Tj T* (Kingdom over the last couple of decades. The premium has fallen for most\ )Tj T* (groups of workers, the main exception being public sector workers in the\ )Tj T* (United States. By the beginning of the 21st century, the premium remaine\ d )Tj T* (substantial in the United States, but there was no premium for many work\ ers in )Tj T* (the United Kingdom. Industry, state, and occupation-level analyses for t\ he )Tj T* (United States identify upward as well as downward movement in the premiu\ m )Tj T* (characterized by regression to the mean.)Tj -2.85715 -2.55714 Td ( Declining union density in the United States and the United Kingdom\ has prompted some )Tj T* (commentators to wonder whether unions matter anymore. In particular, the\ re has been )Tj T* (speculation that the intensification of competition since the 1980s, cou\ pled with a diminution )Tj T* (of union bargaining strength, has prevented unions from obtaining the so\ rt of wage premium )Tj T* (they have achieved in the past. It is evident that unions are not as cen\ tral to the economy as )Tj T* (they used to be, but union decline is not apparent everywhere: many empl\ oyers continue to )Tj T* (contend with strong unions, raising important questions about union effe\ cts in those sectors.)Tj T* ( In his definitive empirical work, H. Gregg Lewis \(1986\) found th\ at the overall impact of )Tj T* (unions in the U.S. economy was approximately 15 percent and showed relat\ ively little )Tj T* (variation across years--varying between 12 percent and 19 percent betwee\ n 1967 and 1979. )Tj T* (Subsequent work confirmed constancy of the differential until the 1990s.\ For example, Hirsch )Tj T* (and his co-authors have produced a series of papers estimating changes i\ n the differential over )Tj T* (time and concluded there has been some decline in the premium in recent \ years \(Hirsch and )Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(1 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 181 0 obj 4355 endobj 182 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 758.66212 Tm (Macpherson 2002\).)Tj 0 -1.2 TD ( Countercyclical movement in the union wage premium may occur when \ unions can )Tj T* (protect their members from the downward wage pressures when workers in g\ eneral face )Tj T* (unfavorable market conditions \(Freeman and Medoff 1984\). The length of\ union contracts )Tj T* (relative to nonunion ones might also mean union wages are less responsiv\ e to the cycle. )Tj T* (Empirical evidence suggests pro-cyclical movement in union wages in the \ 1970s \(Grant )Tj T* (2001\). Looking at a longer-time frame through 1999, Bratsberg and Ragan\ \(2002\) find clear )Tj T* (evidence of a countercyclical union wage premium. Cost-of-living-adjustm\ ent \(COLA\) )Tj T* (clauses in union contracts that increase union wages in response to incr\ eases in the consumer )Tj T* (price level should reduce countercyclical movement in the premium.)Tj T* ( In the United Kingdom there is a growing belief that the union wag\ e premium may be )Tj T* (falling. This fact would be consistent with evidence pointing to diminis\ hing union influence )Tj T* (over pay setting. Evidence indicates a narrowing in the scope of bargain\ ing \(Brown et al. )Tj T* (1998\); union pay settlements at the end of the 1990s were no greater th\ an nonunion )Tj T* (settlements \(Forth and Millward 2000\) and--even where managers say emp\ loyees have their )Tj T* (pay set through workplace-level or organization-level collective bargain\ ing--union )Tj T* (representatives and officials are either not involved or are only consul\ ted in a minority of )Tj T* (cases \(Millward et al. 2001\). And yet unions continue to narrow pay di\ fferentials across )Tj T* (gender, ethnicity, health, and occupation \(Metcalf et al. 2001\), perha\ ps suggesting that those )Tj T* (unions that have survived are the stronger and, as such, better able to \ command a wage )Tj T* (premium \(thus raising the "batting average" of unions\).)Tj T* ( The consensus in the earlier literature is that the mean union wag\ e gap was approximately )Tj T* (10 percent, the gap remaining roughly constant between 1970 and 1995 \(B\ lanchflower 1999\). )Tj T* (However, while the union effect was persisting, the premium declined for\ some workers )Tj T* (\(Blanchflower 1999\). The picture emerging from research through to 199\ 8 and 1999 is )Tj T* (suggestive of a more widespread decline in the premium. For instance, Ma\ chin \(2001\) finds a )Tj T* (wage gain for people moving into union jobs in the early 1990s, but this\ had disappeared by )Tj T* (the late 1990s. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD (Trends in the Union Wage Premium in the United States)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD ( Table 1 presents estimates of the wage gap using separate log hour\ ly earnings equations )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (for each of the years from 1973 to 1981 using the National Bureau of Eco\ nomic Research's )Tj T* (\(NBER\) May Earnings Supplements to the Current Population Survey \(CPS\ \) and for the years )Tj T* (since then using data from the NBER's Matched Outgoing Rotation Group \(\ MORG\) files of )Tj T* (the CPS.)Tj ET 0.5 0.5 0.5 rg 207.19148 283.63405 m 207.19148 285.16595 l 593.61702 285.16595 l 592.85106 284.39999 l 207.95744 284.39999 l 207.95744 284.40001 l h f 0.875 0.875 0.875 rg 593.61702 285.16595 m 593.61702 283.63405 l 207.19148 283.63405 l 207.95744 284.40001 l 592.85106 284.40001 l 592.85106 284.39999 l h f EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(2 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 183 0 obj 2289 endobj 184 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 207.19148 693.70894 Tm ( )Tj ET q 323.23404 0 0 580.59575 238.78723 187.2766 cm /Im0 Do Q 0 0.2 0.60001 RG 0.54047 w 10 M 0 j 0 J []0 d 562.02127 475.95309 m 564.70213 475.95309 l S 0 0.2 0.60001 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 562.02127 477.57446 Tm ( )Tj 0 0 0 rg 2.69643 9.94826 Td ( )Tj ET 0.5 0.5 0.5 rg 207.19148 152.80852 m 207.19148 154.34042 l 593.61702 154.34042 l 592.85106 153.57446 l 207.95744 153.57446 l 207.95744 153.57448 l h f 0.875 0.875 0.875 rg 593.61702 154.34042 m 593.61702 152.80852 l 207.19148 152.80852 l 207.95744 153.57448 l 592.85106 153.57448 l 592.85106 153.57446 l h f 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 116.78978 Tm ( The time series properties of the whole economy and private sector\ series are essentially )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (the same. The wage gap averages 17-18 percent over the period, and is si\ milar in size in the )Tj T* (private sector as it is in the economy as a whole. What is notable is th\ e high differential in the )Tj T* (early to mid-1980s and a slight decline thereafter, which gathers pace a\ fter 1995, with the )Tj T* (series picking up again as the economy started to turn down in 2000.)Tj T* ( Estimating union wage gaps for subgroups of private sector employe\ es since the mid-)Tj T* (1970s we find no group of workers in the private sector sample has exper\ ienced a substantial )Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(3 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 185 0 obj<> endobj 186 0 obj 5386 endobj 187 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 758.66212 Tm (increase in their union premium. Also, with the exception of the manual/\ nonmanual gap, )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (those with the highest premiums in the 1970s saw the biggest falls, so t\ here has been some )Tj T* (convergence in the wage gaps. Nevertheless, the wage premium is 10 perce\ nt or more for )Tj T* (most. The situation is different for public sector workers. Between the \ two periods 1983 to )Tj T* (1988 and 1996 to 2001, the public sector premium rose from 13.3 percent \ to 14.5 percent. )Tj T* (Over the same period the private sector premium fell from 21.5 percent t\ o 17 percent.)Tj /T1_1 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD (Industries)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD ( We used our data to estimate separate results for forty-four two-d\ igit industries for 1983 )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (to 1988 and 1996 to 2001. In contrast to the analysis by worker characte\ ristics, which reveal )Tj T* (near universal decline in the premium--at least in the private sector--w\ e found that the wage )Tj T* (gap rose in seventeen industries and declined in twenty-seven. The decli\ ne in the wage gap )Tj T* (for the whole economy is due to the fact that the industries experiencin\ g a decline in their )Tj T* (wage gap make up a higher percentage of all employees than those experie\ ncing a widening )Tj T* (gap.)Tj T* ( To explore these changes in the private-sector industry union-wage\ premium over time, )Tj T* (we ran panel fixed effects estimates \(Blanchflower and Bryson, forthcom\ ing\) estimating the )Tj T* (impact of the lagged premium, lagged unemployment, and a time trend on t\ he level of the )Tj T* (industry-level wage premium. In the unweighted analyses, the lagged prem\ ium is positively )Tj T* (and significantly associated with the level of the premium the following\ year indicating )Tj T* (regression to the mean. Unemployment and the time trend are not signific\ ant. However, once )Tj T* (the regression is weighted by the number of observations in the industry\ in the first-stage )Tj T* (regression lagged unemployment is positive and significant, indicating c\ ountercyclical )Tj T* (movement in the premium, and there is a negative time trend indicating s\ ecular decline in the )Tj T* (premium. More detailed analysis of industry-level influences on the prem\ ium confirm )Tj T* (Bratsberg and Ragan's \(2002\) earlier findings that the unemployment ra\ te, deregulation in )Tj T* (communications, and import penetration in both durables and nondurables \ have positive )Tj T* (impacts on the premium. However, in contrast to their findings, our pref\ erred model )Tj T* (specifications indicate no significant impact of COLAs, inflation, or ot\ her industry )Tj T* (deregulations. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD (States)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf T* ( A similar procedure was adopted to estimate state-level premia ove\ r time for the fifty )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (states plus Washington, D.C. Between the periods 1983 to 1988 and 1996 t\ o 2001, the mean )Tj T* (state union wage gap fell from 23.4 percent to 17.2 percent. The premium\ fell in all but five )Tj T* (states. Controlling for state fixed effects with fifty state dummies, we\ find that with an )Tj T* (unweighted regression the lagged premium is positive and significant, as\ it was at industry )Tj T* (level. Again, as in the case of industry-level analysis, the effect is a\ pparent when weighting )Tj T* (the regression. The positive, significant effect of lagged state-level u\ nemployment confirms )Tj T* (the countercyclical nature of the premium--the effect is apparent whethe\ r the regression is )Tj T* (weighted or not. There is also evidence of a secular decline in the stat\ e-level premium, but )Tj T* (only where the regression is unweighted. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD (Occupations)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD ( Similar analyses at occupation level show clear evidence of regres\ sion to the mean, with )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (the lagged premium positive and significant, as well as evidence of a se\ cular decline in the )Tj T* (premium. A significant countercyclical effect is evident when the regres\ sion is weighted, but )Tj T* (not in the unweighted regression. )Tj /T1_2 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD (Trends in the Union Wage Premium in the United Kingdom)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf T* ( Table 2 presents the union membership wage premium over the period\ 1985 to 2002. )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Column 1 estimates the premium for the United Kingdom since 1993 using t\ he Labour Force )Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(4 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 188 0 obj 3763 endobj 189 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 758.66212 Tm (Survey \(LFS\), while column 2 estimates the premium for Britain since 1\ 985 using the British )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Social Attitudes Surveys \(BSAS\). Both series are based on standard spe\ cifications for each )Tj T* (separate year. In identifying the union effect over time, we make what w\ e think is the )Tj T* (reasonable assumption that any bias in our estimates arising through uno\ bserved )Tj T* (heterogeneity is constant over time.)Tj ET 0.5 0.5 0.5 rg 207.57446 685.91489 m 207.57446 687.44681 l 593.23404 687.44681 l 592.46808 686.68085 l 208.34042 686.68085 l 208.34042 686.68085 l h f 0.875 0.875 0.875 rg 593.23404 687.44681 m 593.23404 685.91489 l 207.57446 685.91489 l 208.34042 686.68085 l 592.46808 686.68085 l 592.46808 686.68085 l h f 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 207.57446 472.88341 Tm ( )Tj ET q 322.46808 0 0 354.63829 239.17021 298.34042 cm /Im0 Do Q 0 0.2 0.60001 RG 0.54047 w 10 M 0 j 0 J []0 d 561.63829 474.03819 m 564.31915 474.03819 l S 0 0.2 0.60001 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 561.63829 475.65958 Tm ( )Tj 0 0 0 rg 2.69643 -0.2589 Td ( )Tj ET 0.5 0.5 0.5 rg 207.57446 263.87234 m 207.57446 265.40425 l 593.23404 265.40425 l 592.46808 264.63829 l 208.34042 264.63829 l 208.34042 264.63831 l h f 0.875 0.875 0.875 rg 593.23404 265.40425 m 593.23404 263.87234 l 207.57446 263.87234 l 208.34042 264.63831 l 592.46808 264.63831 l 592.46808 264.63829 l h f 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 227.85362 Tm ( The LFS estimates tend to be above the BSAS estimates, but in both\ series there has been )Tj T* (a decline in the log hourly union wage premium since 1994 \(with the BSA\ S estimate for 1997 )Tj T* (as an outlier\). Although the premium remains roughly 10 percent in the \ 2000 LFS, it falls to a )Tj T* (statistically insignificant 5 percent in BSAS 2000, and falls even furth\ er in 2001. However, it )Tj T* (recovers to a statistically significant 6.4 percent in 2002 as unemploym\ ent rises, further )Tj T* (evidence of countercyclical movement in the premium.)Tj T* ( When we run LFS analyses for different types of workers, we find t\ hat, in 1993, only one )Tj T* (group of employees \(the highly educated\) had a premium well below 10 p\ ercent. In 2000, all )Tj T* (but three out of the seventeen types of workers had a premium below 10 p\ ercent. Results are )Tj T* (similar when using BSAS data. In 1993 to 1995, only two types of workers\ \(non-manuals and )Tj T* (the highly qualified\) had a union premium of less than 10 percent. By 1\ 999 to 2001, eleven )Tj T* (types of workers had a premium of less than 10 percent. For five types o\ f workers \(men, )Tj T* (younger workers, those in the private sector, non-manuals, and the highl\ y educated\) the )Tj T* (membership premium was no longer statistically significant. )Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(5 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 190 0 obj 6147 endobj 191 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_1 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 196.46808 758.66212 Tm (Conclusions)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD ( The union membership wage premium has been higher in the United Sta\ tes than in the )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (United Kingdom in the last couple of decades. In both countries the prem\ ium was untrended )Tj T* (in the years up to the mid-1990s, but it has fallen since then. Much of \ this is due to )Tj T* (countercyclical movement and thus, as we might expect, the premium rose \ with )Tj T* (unemployment in both countries in 2001 and 2002 after a number of years \ of decline. )Tj T* (However, we also find clear evidence in the United States of a secular d\ ecline in the premium. )Tj T* (Even so, in 2002, the premium in the U.S. economy was 16.5 percent, just\ a little below the )Tj T* (17.1 percent average for the period 1973 to 2002. In the private sector,\ the 2002 premium was )Tj T* (1 percentage point above the average of 17.6 percent for the period. In \ the United Kingdom, )Tj T* (on the other hand, there are real questions as to whether there is a sig\ nificant union wage )Tj T* (premium for workers at the beginning of the 21st century.)Tj T* ( What are the implications for trade unions? The size of the premiu\ m in the United States )Tj T* (might suggest that the benefits of membership, net of dues and other cos\ ts, remain sizeable. )Tj T* (So why has density been declining in the private sector? One possibility\ is that the premium )Tj T* (comes at the cost of union jobs--evidence for the United States and the \ United Kingdom )Tj T* (shows unionized establishments grow at a slower rate than nonunionized e\ stablishments. )Tj T* (Unionized companies face greater competition from nonunion employers at \ a time when )Tj T* (increasing price competitiveness means employers are less able to pass t\ he costs of the )Tj T* (premium onto the consumer. Declining union density, by increasing employ\ ers' opportunities )Tj T* (to substitute nonunion products for union products, fueled this process.\ So too did rising )Tj T* (import penetration: if imports are nonunion goods, regardless of U.S. un\ ion density, they )Tj T* (increase the opportunity for nonunion competition. These pressures have \ increased the )Tj T* (employment price of any union wage premium. A second possibility--not in\ consistent with )Tj T* (the first--is that the costs of membership have risen, most notably thro\ ugh increasing )Tj T* (employer opposition to union organizing \(Kleiner 2002\). That oppositio\ n may even be )Tj T* (fuelled, in part, by the size of the wage premium if employers view it a\ s the price tag attached )Tj T* (to successful union organizing campaigns. Either way, it is clear that u\ nions' relative success )Tj T* (in the bargaining arena is not going to bring about a reversal in union \ fortunes. In the United )Tj T* (Kingdom, the problem is that unions are struggling to procure any premiu\ m for members. At )Tj T* (a time when the new cohort of employers has turned away from unions \(Br\ yson et al. 2004\), )Tj T* (raising the costs of employees joining unions, this dip in the premium m\ eans a further )Tj T* (reduction in the net benefits of membership, making it increasingly diff\ icult for unions to )Tj T* (recruit new members. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD (Acknowledgments)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 0 -2.55714 TD ( )Tj 9.89853 0 0 9.89853 212.55319 264.61957 Tm (We thank Bernt Bratsberg, Bernard Corry, Henry Farber, Richard Freeman, \ Barry Hirsch, )Tj -1.625 -1.22842 Td (Andrew Oswald, Jim Ragan, and participants at the NBER Labor Studies and\ at the 56th annual )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association in San Diego fo\ r their comments. We also )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (thank the Economic and Social Research Council for their financial assis\ tance \(grant R000223958\). )Tj T* (Some of the material is adapted from our chapter "Changes Over Time in U\ nion Relative Wage )Tj T* (Effects in the United Kingdom and the USA Revisited," in)Tj /T1_2 1 Tf (The International Handbook of Trade )Tj T* (Unions,)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( ed. John Addison and Claus Schnabel, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2003\ . We )Tj T* (acknowledge the Department of Trade and Industry, the Economic and Socia\ l Research Council, the )Tj T* (Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service, and the Policy Studies \ Institute as the originators of )Tj T* (the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey data, and the Data Archive \ at the University of )Tj T* (Essex as the distributor of the WERS data. None of these organizations o\ r individuals bears any )Tj 0 -1.26324 TD (responsibility for the authors')Tj /T1_1 1 Tf ( )Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (analysis and interpretations of the data.)Tj 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 469.87531 133.05165 Tm ( )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf -25.49631 -2.54945 Td (References)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 9.89853 0 0 9.89853 196.46808 79.00006 Tm (Blanchflower, D. G. 1999. "Changes Over Time in Union Relative Wage Effe\ cts in Great Britain and )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (the United States." In )Tj /T1_2 1 Tf (The History and Practice of Economics: Essays in Honor of Bernard Corry \ and )Tj T* (Maurice Peston,)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( ed. S. Daniel, P. Arestis, and J. Grahl. Vol. 2. Northampton, Mass.: Ed\ ward Elgar, )Tj T* (pp. 3-32.)Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(6 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 192 0 obj<> endobj 193 0 obj<> endobj 194 0 obj 5277 endobj 195 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 9.89853 0 0 9.89853 196.46808 749.47208 Tm (Blanchflower, D., and A. Bryson. Forthcoming. "What Effect Do Unions Hav\ e on Wages Now and )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Would `What Do Unions Do?' Be Surprised?" )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Journal of Labor Research)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Bratsberg, B., and J. F. Ragan 2002. "Changes in the Union Wage Premium \ by Industry--Data and )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Analysis." )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Industrial and Labor Relations Review,)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( Vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 65-83.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Brown, W., S. Deakin, M. Hudson, C. Pratten, and P. Ryan. 1998. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (The Individualization of )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Employment Contracts in Britain.)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( Vol. 4 of Employment Relations Research Series. London: United )Tj T* (Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Bryson, A., R. Gomez, and P. Willman. 2004. "The End of the Affair? The \ Decline in Employers' )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Propensity to Unionize." In )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Union Organization and Activity,)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( ed. J. Kelly and P. Willman. London: )Tj T* (Routledge, pp. 129-49.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Forth, J., and N. Millward. 2000. "Pay Settlements in Britain." NIESR Di\ scussion Paper No.173, )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (National Institute for Social and Economic Research, London.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Freeman, R. B., and J. Medoff. 1984. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (What Do Unions Do?)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( New York: Basic Books.)Tj T* (Grant, D. 2001. "A Comparison of the Cyclical Behavior of Union and Nonu\ nion Wages in the )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (United States." )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Journal of Human Resources)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (, Vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 31-57.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Hirsch, B. T., and D. A. Macpherson. 2002. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Union Membership and Earnings Data Book: )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Compilations from the Current Population Survey \(2002 Edition)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (\). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (National Affairs.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Kleiner, M. 2002. "Intensity of Management Resistance: Understanding the\ Decline of Unionization )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (in the Private Sector." In )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (The Future of Private Sector Unionism in the United States)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (, ed. James T. )Tj T* (Bennett and Bruce E. Kaufman. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 292-316.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Lewis, H. G. 1986. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Union Relative Wage Effects: A Survey.)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)Tj T* (Machin, S. 2001. "Does It Still Pay to Be In or to Join a Union?" Workin\ g paper, University College )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (London.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Metcalf, D., K. Hansen, and A. Charlwood. 2001. "Unions and the Sword of\ Justice: Unions and Pay )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (Systems, Pay Inequality, Pay Discrimination and Low Pay." )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (National Institute Economic Review)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (, )Tj T* (Vol. 176, pp. 61-75.)Tj 0 -2.2 TD (Millward, N., J. Forth, and A. Bryson. 2001. )Tj /T1_1 1 Tf (Who Calls the Tune at Work? The Impact of Unions on )Tj 0 -1.26324 TD (Jobs and Pay)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf (. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.)Tj 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 398.26935 297.47325 Tm ( )Tj ET 0.5 0.5 0.5 rg 196.46808 251.77022 407.87234 0.76596 re f 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 7.65958 237.1983 Tm ( )Tj 14.5 -2.55714 Td ( )Tj 3.10715 2.55714 Td ( )Tj 0 -2.55714 TD ( )Tj 0 -2.55714 TD ( )Tj -17.60715 -1.2 Td ( )Tj 14.5 -0.34198 Td ( )Tj ET q 91.91489 0 0 17.61702 196.46808 161.08086 cm /Im0 Do Q BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 288.38298 161.08086 Tm ( )Tj ET q 91.91489 0 0 17.61702 354.44681 161.08086 cm /Im1 Do Q BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 446.36171 161.08086 Tm ( )Tj ET q 91.91489 0 0 17.61702 512.42554 161.08086 cm /Im2 Do Q BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 604.34042 161.08086 Tm ( )Tj -41.14285 -1.21429 Td ( )Tj 3.10715 0 Td ( )Tj 12.67857 0 Td ( )Tj 12.67857 0 Td ( )Tj -42.96429 -1.31429 Td ( )Tj 14.5 -1.61539 Td ( )Tj /TT0 1 Tf 9.89853 0 0 9.89853 196.46808 134.70479 Tm (The content of this electronic work is intended for personal, noncommerc\ ial use only. You )Tj 0 -1.2 TD (may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the tra\ nsfer or sale of, modify, )Tj T* (create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit this electr\ onic work in whole or in )Tj T* (part without the written permission of the Industrial Relations Research\ Association.)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 163.14894 85.22749 Tm ( )Tj 3.10715 0 Td ( )Tj 12.67857 0 Td ( )Tj 12.67857 0 Td ( )Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(7 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 196 0 obj 1810 endobj 197 0 obj<>stream /Artifact <>BDC 0 0 0 rg 0 i BT /T1_0 1 Tf 0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 781.76851 Tm (IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relat\ ive Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kin)Tj (gdom)Tj ET EMC /WebCaptureBG BMC /WebCaptureFN <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n /Artifact <>BDC Q /CS0 cs /P0 scn 0 18 612 756 re f EMC EMC EMC /Article <>BDC q 0 18 612 756 re W* n 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 7.65958 758.66212 Tm ( )Tj 14.5 -3.18394 Td ( )Tj ET 0 0.2 0.60001 RG 0.51472 w 10 M 0 j 0 J []0 d 331.65115 757.11795 m 360.25047 757.11795 l S 0 0.2 0.60001 rg BT /TT0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 331.65115 758.66212 Tm (Home)Tj 0 0 0 rg ( || )Tj ET 371.78885 757.11795 m 399.80911 757.11795 l S 0 0.2 0.60001 rg BT /TT0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 371.78885 758.66212 Tm (ҪԹ)Tj 0 0 0 rg ( || )Tj ET 411.34749 757.11795 m 469.15736 757.11795 l S 0 0.2 0.60001 rg BT /TT0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 411.34749 758.66212 Tm (Publications)Tj 0 0 0 rg /T1_0 1 Tf ( )Tj /TT0 1 Tf 8.24878 0 0 8.24878 304.29781 729.92352 Tm (\251 2005 by Industrial Relations Research Association)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 496.5107 729.92352 Tm ( )Tj /TT0 1 Tf 8.24878 0 0 8.24878 367.40091 717.55035 Tm (All rights reserved)Tj /T1_0 1 Tf 10.7234 0 0 10.7234 433.40759 717.55035 Tm ( )Tj -22.09555 -2.53407 Td ( )Tj ET EMC /Artifact <>BDC Q 0 0 0 rg BT /T1_0 1 Tf 6.89362 0 0 6.89362 18 8.76851 Tm (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflo\ wer.html \(8 of 8\)3/21/2005 6:59:04 AM)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 198 0 obj(IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relative Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kingdom) endobj 199 0 obj<> endobj 200 0 obj<> endobj 201 0 obj<> endobj 202 0 obj<> endobj 203 0 obj[200 0 R] endobj 204 0 obj(http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/irra/proceedings2004/11blanchflower.html) endobj 205 0 obj(B٫C{-!) endobj 206 0 obj<> endobj 207 0 obj<> endobj 208 0 obj(5aʕWt==) endobj 209 0 obj 1 endobj 211 0 obj 1 endobj 212 0 obj 1 endobj 213 0 obj 1 endobj 214 0 obj 1 endobj 215 0 obj 2 endobj 216 0 obj 1 endobj 217 0 obj 1 endobj 218 0 obj<> endobj 219 0 obj<> endobj 220 0 obj<>stream IRRA Proceedings 2004/The Future of Unions in Modern Britain/Union Relative Wage Effects in the United States and the United Kingdom endstream endobj xref 0 221 0000000004 65535 f 0000000016 00000 n 0000000164 00000 n 0000000272 00000 n 0000000132 00001 f 0000000530 00000 n 0000000550 00000 n 0000000618 00000 n 0000000661 00000 n 0000000679 00000 n 0000000742 00000 n 0000000762 00000 n 0000001209 00000 n 0000001309 00000 n 0000001345 00000 n 0000001427 00000 n 0000001478 00000 n 0000001535 00000 n 0000001718 00000 n 0000001901 00000 n 0000001947 00000 n 0000001966 00000 n 0000002115 00000 n 0000002135 00000 n 0000002695 00000 n 0000002791 00000 n 0000002826 00000 n 0000002908 00000 n 0000002959 00000 n 0000003004 00000 n 0000003022 00000 n 0000003081 00000 n 0000003100 00000 n 0000003277 00000 n 0000003378 00000 n 0000003412 00000 n 0000003500 00000 n 0000003551 00000 n 0000003597 00000 n 0000003616 00000 n 0000003717 00000 n 0000003738 00000 n 0000006096 00000 n 0000006191 00000 n 0000006225 00000 n 0000006313 00000 n 0000006364 00000 n 0000006410 00000 n 0000006429 00000 n 0000006578 00000 n 0000006598 00000 n 0000007162 00000 n 0000007255 00000 n 0000007289 00000 n 0000007377 00000 n 0000007428 00000 n 0000007474 00000 n 0000007494 00000 n 0000007739 00000 n 0000007759 00000 n 0000008252 00000 n 0000008346 00000 n 0000008380 00000 n 0000008468 00000 n 0000008519 00000 n 0000008564 00000 n 0000008583 00000 n 0000008660 00000 n 0000008682 00000 n 0000027216 00000 n 0000027325 00000 n 0000027359 00000 n 0000027447 00000 n 0000027498 00000 n 0000027543 00000 n 0000027562 00000 n 0000027639 00000 n 0000027661 00000 n 0000038123 00000 n 0000038232 00000 n 0000038266 00000 n 0000038354 00000 n 0000038405 00000 n 0000038451 00000 n 0000038470 00000 n 0000038619 00000 n 0000038639 00000 n 0000039245 00000 n 0000039339 00000 n 0000039374 00000 n 0000039462 00000 n 0000039513 00000 n 0000039559 00000 n 0000039578 00000 n 0000039727 00000 n 0000039747 00000 n 0000040206 00000 n 0000040300 00000 n 0000040334 00000 n 0000040422 00000 n 0000040473 00000 n 0000040888 00000 n 0000040995 00000 n 0000041041 00000 n 0000041093 00000 n 0000041377 00000 n 0000041484 00000 n 0000041510 00000 n 0000041645 00000 n 0000041722 00000 n 0000041813 00000 n 0000043005 00000 n 0000043140 00000 n 0000043206 00000 n 0000043277 00000 n 0000043344 00000 n 0000043407 00000 n 0000043643 00000 n 0000043851 00000 n 0000044183 00000 n 0000044388 00000 n 0000044408 00000 n 0000044641 00000 n 0000044911 00000 n 0000045076 00000 n 0000045289 00000 n 0000045501 00000 n 0000045694 00000 n 0000045942 00000 n 0000045962 00000 n 0000046241 00000 n 0000046267 00000 n 0000000210 00001 f 0000046324 00000 n 0000046622 00000 n 0000046642 00000 n 0000046920 00000 n 0000046946 00000 n 0000047179 00000 n 0000047205 00000 n 0000047466 00000 n 0000047486 00000 n 0000047765 00000 n 0000047791 00000 n 0000048089 00000 n 0000048109 00000 n 0000048388 00000 n 0000048414 00000 n 0000048462 00000 n 0000048695 00000 n 0000048721 00000 n 0000048982 00000 n 0000049002 00000 n 0000049281 00000 n 0000049307 00000 n 0000049674 00000 n 0000049694 00000 n 0000049973 00000 n 0000049999 00000 n 0000050219 00000 n 0000050261 00000 n 0000050475 00000 n 0000050692 00000 n 0000050954 00000 n 0000050974 00000 n 0000051253 00000 n 0000051279 00000 n 0000051446 00000 n 0000051488 00000 n 0000051671 00000 n 0000051853 00000 n 0000051873 00000 n 0000052152 00000 n 0000052243 00000 n 0000052280 00000 n 0000053459 00000 n 0000053634 00000 n 0000053728 00000 n 0000053829 00000 n 0000053919 00000 n 0000053941 00000 n 0000058811 00000 n 0000058833 00000 n 0000063243 00000 n 0000063265 00000 n 0000065609 00000 n 0000065701 00000 n 0000065723 00000 n 0000071164 00000 n 0000071186 00000 n 0000075004 00000 n 0000075026 00000 n 0000081228 00000 n 0000082403 00000 n 0000082572 00000 n 0000082594 00000 n 0000087926 00000 n 0000087948 00000 n 0000089813 00000 n 0000089964 00000 n 0000090002 00000 n 0000090119 00000 n 0000090150 00000 n 0000090260 00000 n 0000090286 00000 n 0000090385 00000 n 0000090420 00000 n 0000090593 00000 n 0000090646 00000 n 0000090681 00000 n 0000000000 00001 f 0000090700 00000 n 0000090719 00000 n 0000090738 00000 n 0000090757 00000 n 0000090776 00000 n 0000090795 00000 n 0000090814 00000 n 0000090833 00000 n 0000090923 00000 n 0000091139 00000 n trailer <]>> startxref 94571 %%EOF