ABSTRACT Nominal wage stickiness is a popular explanation for the greatness of the Great Depression. According to the sticky-wage explanation, the slow adjustment of nominal wages raised real wages above the market-clearing level, causing a reduction of output and labour, thus increasing unemployment. Explanations for nominal wage stickiness are usually sought within the labour-market institutions and their changes after the First World War. This paper examines the role of labour-market institutions by comparing manufacturing labour markets in Finland and Sweden. These two countries had quite similar economic structures, trade patterns, and exchange rate policies, but different systems of industrial relations. Results indicate that stronger trade unions and collective bargaining made nominal wages stickier in Sweden, while in Finland, where collective agreements did not exist, unions were weaker, and wage adjustment was more flexible. As a result, real product wages rose in Sweden but fell in Finland. This created in Sweden stronger pressure for reducing labour input than in Finland. Our results show on one hand that labour market institutions clearly influenced the course of the Great Depression, but on the other hand that they alone do not explain the different economic outcomes during the depression and the recovery.

中文翻译：

---

粘性瑞典人和灵活的芬兰人：大萧条期间芬兰和瑞典的制造业劳动力市场

摘要名义工资粘性是对大萧条的巨大影响的通俗解释。根据粘性工资的解释，名义工资的缓慢调整将实际工资提高到了市场清理水平之上，导致产出和劳动力减少，从而增加了失业率。第一次世界大战后，通常在劳动力市场机构及其变动中寻求关于名义工资粘性的解释。本文通过比较芬兰和瑞典的制造业劳动力市场来考察劳动力市场制度的作用。这两个国家的经济结构，贸易方式和汇率政策非常相似，但劳资关系制度却不同。结果表明，强大的工会和集体谈判使瑞典的名义工资更具粘性，而在芬兰，在没有集体协议的地方，工会较弱，工资调整更灵活。结果，瑞典的实际产品工资上升了，而芬兰下降了。与芬兰相比，瑞典在减少劳动力投入方面施加了更大的压力。我们的结果表明，一方面，劳动力市场制度明显地影响了大萧条的进程，另一方面，它们本身并不能解释大萧条和复苏期间的不同经济结果。