This paper studies the long-term consequences of a zero-growth regime on the evolution of employment and unemployment, depending on the assumptions we can make concerning the evolution of the working population, labor productivity and working hours. These consequences are examined through three scenarios, corresponding to three different types of institutionalized compromises concerning income distribution and employment management in a world without growth. These institutionalized compromises govern the evolution of distribution and, consequently, determine the level of economic activity, against a backdrop of no capital accumulation. The most worrying question is how a shrinking demand for labor (if productivity gains remain) can guarantee a place for the entire working population in production… especially if the working population continues to grow. The answer is quite obviously to be found in reducing individual working hours (Stagl, 2014 ; Lange, 2014 ; Fontana and Sawyer, 2023). We follow this line of questioning, seeking to grasp more precisely how the elements of this dramaturgy would jeopardize the viability, in terms of employment and unemployment, of a zero-growth regime, by placing under tension the various distributional compromises that could a priori regulate such a regime. This leads us to conclude that the goal of full employment would be put under greater strain by demographic growth (if this were to persist), than by productivity gains (if these were to persist). Admittedly, a sufficiently rapid individual reduction in working hours can counter the negative effects on employment of these two trends combined. But productivity gains are the only way to keep per-capita wages constant.
Keywords: zero-growth, institutionalized compromises, income distribution, employment,
unemployment, productivity gains, reducing working hours, per capita wage.
