‘STRUCTURALISM’ AND ‘STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT’
| Author | Nick Bosanquet |
| Published date | 01 November 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1979.tb00956.x |
| Date | 01 November 1979 |
‘STRUCTURALISM’ AND ‘STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT’
NICK
BOSANQUET*
THE words ‘structural unemployment’ still figure in the conventional fourfold classifica-
tion
of
types
of
unemployment. They also tend to recur in the wider public debate
whenever unemployment rises. The concept still has fascination both in academic
writing and more widely.
The
purpose
of
this paper
is
first
to
clear up certain problems
of
definition. In spite
of
their familiar use, the words ‘structural unemployment’ often seem vague and unsatis-
factory. It will be argued that the words have been used in three senses which though
related
are
substantially different. The first definition was that
of
Beveridge and it ran in
terms
of
the unemployment caused by large-scale changes in industrial structure. The
second definition is that one conventionally used in text books in terms
of
unem-
ployment arising from the inability
of
the unemployed
to
fill available vacancies. Thirdly
the words have been used
in
yet another sense which we will call ‘structuralism’.
The definitions in terms
of
‘structural unemployment’ and
of
‘structuralism’ are then
tested against the experience
of
Great Britain from
1966
to
1973.
It will
be
argued that it
is extremely difficult to make statements about change in the ‘structure’
of
unem-
ployment
on
the basis of the last five years of recession and that developments in the
earlier period may well provide a better guide to the underlying changes. Finally some
implications for policy are drawn out.
The confused history
of
structural unemployment really begins with Beveridge in his
later work,
Full
Employment
in
a
Free
Society.’
Here he defines frictional unem-
ployment as ‘unemployment caused by the individuals who make up the labour supply
not being completely interchangeable and mobile units,
so
that although there is an
unsatisfied demand for labour the unemployed workers are not
of
the right sort or in the
right place to meet that demand’. This is what we would normally mean today by
structural unemployment. In Beveridge’s sense however structural unemployment
means ‘the unemployment arising in particular industries
or
localities through a change
in demand
so
great that it may
be
regarded
as
affecting the main economic structure
of
the country’. The decline
of
British export industries after
1918
with all its
effects
in
higher unemployment in
the
‘regions’ is given as one example
of
structural change. Thus
structural unemployment for Beveridge was a particular type
of
demand deficiency
unemployment distinguished by its uneven effects.
Beveridge’s definition has found few followers since. In the last two decades the
words have been most commonly used about relationships between unemployment and
vacancies at
a
much more disaggregated level. For example Perlman in his book on
labour theory writes that a worker
is
‘structurally unemployed if he is unemployed and
a
job
opening (vacancy) exists that he is not qualified to fill’? This implies that excess
demand exists in some occupations.
A
similar definition to Perlman’s is used by
Cheshire about the
U.K.
‘Structural unemployment consistsof those for whom there are
no
vacancies in their own categories in
the
region, but for whom there would
be
vacancies if they could change their categ~ry’.~ Such definitions lead to an interest in the
balance between unemployment and vacancies within and between occupations at a
fairly detailed level.
*
Lecturer in Economics, The City University.
I
am
most grateful
to
Mr Jeremy Peet of the
M.S.C.,
to
Mr Barry Harper and Mr
R.
Layard for comments and advice, and also
to
members of
the S.S.R.C.’s Workshop on Unemployment.
I
would
also
like
to
thank Helen Gallagher for
research assistance.
299
To continue reading
Request your trial