Science Policy Research Report: Employee Non-compete Agreements

离职后契约（又称“非竞争协议”（non-competition agreements）已经使用了600多年，但在过去的四分之一个世纪里引起了美国决策者的极大关注。 包括佛罗里达、爱达荷州、格鲁吉亚、犹他州、夏威夷、纽约、俄勒冈州、新罕布什尔州和伊利诺伊州在内的美国各州都通过了有关竞业禁止的新立法。德克萨斯州、路易斯安那州、威斯康星州、伊利诺伊州、蒙大拿州、科罗拉多和南卡罗来纳州的最高法院裁决对竞业禁止协议的可执行性产生了重大影响。此外，马萨诸塞州和其他地方也在进行改革。在国家一级，已经考虑了旨在限制对低工资工人使用竞业禁止的立法。然而，竞业禁止协议的最佳政策处方并不简单，各国采取的反对改革就证明了这一点，一些国家收紧了竞业禁止的可撤销性，而另一些国家则放松了可撤销性。存在这种模糊性的部分原因是，有多个利益相关者（工人、公司和地区），对他们来说，竞业禁止的理论影响并不明显;此外，这些各方的利益可能会相互对立。鉴于这一政策问题的重要性及其理论上的模糊性，经验证据对于帮助指导立法举措至关重要。该项目侧重于在美国范围内发表的有关竞业禁止协议的经验性文章。分析的层次包括对工人、公司和地区的影响。在个人层面上，分析的结果包括国家内部和国家间的流动性，工资，培训，动机和专业化。在公司层面，分析的结果包括财务业绩，创新，员工保留和并购活动。在区域和国家层面，分析的成果包括生产力、创业精神、创造就业机会和知识传播。通过审查产生结果的识别策略以及用于执行这些策略的数据集，对这些结果在各个层面上的因果证据进行了批判。这些识别策略包括评估国家一级的非竞争性的变化，比较公司或工人更多与不太可能受到非竞争，使用工具变量，占endoeconomic的行动，可能会受到不同的非竞争政策的影响，跨时间和国家，随机对照实验。除了因果关系的证据，程式化的事实有关的调查和其他实地工作的非竞争性的使用进行评估。

Post-employment covenants (a.k.a. "non-compete agreements") have been used for more than 600 years but have attracted considerable attention from U.S. policymakers in the past quarter-century. U.S. states including Florida, Idaho, Georgia, Utah, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, New Hampshire, and Illinois have adopted new legislation regarding non-competes. Supreme Court rulings in Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Montana, Colorado, and South Carolina have materially affected the enforceability of non-competes. Moreover, reform efforts are underway in Massachusetts and elsewhere. At the national level, legislation aimed at curbing the use of non-competes for low-wage workers has been considered. The optimal policy prescription for non-compete agreements is hardly straightforward, however, as evidenced by the opposing reforms adopted by various states, some tightening non-compete enforceability whereas others have loosed enforceability. This ambiguity exists in part given that there are multiple stakeholders (workers, firms, and regions) for whom the theoretical impact of non-competes is non-obvious; moreover, the interests of these parties may be opposed. Given both the importance of the policy issue and its theoretical ambiguity, empirical evidence is essential to help guide legislative initiatives.The project focuses on published empirical articles regarding non-compete agreements in the context of the United States. Levels of analysis include implications for workers, firms, and regions. At the individual level, outcomes analyzed include intra- and inter-state mobility, wages, training, motivation, and specialization. At the firm level, outcomes analyzed include financial performance, innovation, employee retention, and merger & acquisition activity. At the regional and national level, outcomes analyzed include productivity, entrepreneurship, job creation, and knowledge diffusion. Causal evidence across these outcomes at various levels is critiqued by reviewing the identification strategies to produce the findings as well as the datasets used to execute those strategies. These identification strategies include assessing the changes in state-level non-compete enforceability, comparing firms or workers more vs. less likely to be affected by non-competes, using instrumental variables that account for the endogeneity of actions that might be influenced by differential non-compete policies across time and states, and randomized controlled experiments. In addition to causal evidence, stylized facts regarding the use of non-competes from surveys and other fieldwork are assessed.