The Skill Premium, Technological Change and Appropriability

Journal of Economic Growth - Tập 7 - Trang 137-156 - 2002
Richard Nahuis1, Sjak Smulders*2
1CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis and Nijmegen University, The Hague, The Netherlands
2Department of Economics and CentER, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

This paper demonstrates that an increase in the relative supply of educated workers generates a structural change in the production structure towards a knowledge-intensive production process. This structural shift may ultimately lead to an increase in the return to educated labor despite the increase in their supply. The paper argues that the steady increase in the supply of educated workers that most Western economies have experienced in recent decades may be viewed as the driving force behind the observed pattern of wage inequality. In particular, the paper demonstrates that if firms can appropriate a sufficient share of the intertemporal return from knowledge generating activities of their labor force, a gradual increase in the supply of skilled workers would generate only a temporary reduction in the skill premium followed by a permanent increase in the return to skill.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Acemoglu, D. (1998). “Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 113, 1055–1089.

Acemoglu, D. (1999). “Changes in Unemployment and Wage Inequality: An Alternative Theory and Some Evidence,” American Economic Review 89, 1259–1278.

Acemoglu, D. (2000). “Technical Change, Inequality, and the Labor Market,” NBER Working Paper 7800.

Adams, J. D. (1999). “The Structure of Firm R&D, the Factor Intensity of Production, and Skill Bias,” Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 499–510.

Aghion, P., and P. Howitt. (1998). Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bartel, A. P., and F. R. Lichtenberg. (1987). “The Comparative Advantage of Educated Workers in Implementing New Technology,” Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 1–11.

Berman, E., J. Bound, and Z. Griliches. (1994). “Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor within U.S. Manufacturing: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufactures,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 109, 367–397.

Caselli, F. (1999). “Technological Revolutions,” American Economic Review 89, 78–102.

Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh. (2000). “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not),” NBER Working Paper 7552.

Dixit, A. K., and J. E. Stiglitz. (1977). “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity,” American Economic Review 67, 297–308.

Dosi, G. (1988). “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation,” Journal of Economic Literature 26, 1120–1171.

Galor, O., and D. Tsiddon. (1997). “Technological Progress, Mobility, and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review 87, 363–382.

Galor, O., and O. Moav. (2000). “Ability Biased Technological Transition, Wage Inequality and Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, 469–497.

Gould E. D., O. Moav, and B. A. Weinberg. (2001). “Precautionary Demand for Education, Inequality, and Technological Progress,” Journal of Economic Growth 6, 285–316.

Greenwood, J., and M. Yorukoglu. (1997). “1974,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 46, 49–95.

Grossman, G. M., and E. Helpman. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson. (1993). “Geographic Localisation of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced in Patent Citations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 103, 577–598.

Jaffe, A. B., (1999). “The U.S. Patent System in Transition: Policy Innovation and the Innovation Process,” NBER Working Paper 7280.

Jones, C. I. (1995). “R&D-based Models of Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy 103, 759–784.

Jovanovic, B. (1997). “Learning and Growth,” in D. Kreps and K. Wallis (eds) Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, seventh world congress. Vol. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keely, L. C., and D. Quah. (1998). “Technology in Growth,” CEPR Discussion Paper 1901.

Kiley, M. T. (1999). “The Supply of Skilled Labor and Skill-Biased Technological Progress,” Economic Journal 109, 708–724.

Kortum, S. (1993). “Equilibrium R&D and the Patent-R&D Ratio: U.S. Evidence,” American Economic Review 83, 450–457.

Kortum, S., and J. Lerner. (1998). “Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What Is behind the Recent Surge in Patenting?” Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 48, 247–304.

Lloyd-Ellis, H. (1999). “Endogenous Technological Change and Wage Inequality,” American Economic Review 89, 47–77.

Machin, S., and J. van Reenen. (1998). “Technology and Changes in Skill Structure: Evidence from Seven OECD Countries,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 113, 1215–1244.

OECD (1993). Employment Outlook 1993. Paris.

Peretto, P. (1998). “Technological Change and Population Growth,” Journal of Economic Growth 3, 283–311.

Peretto, P. (1999). “Cost Reduction, Entry, and the Interdependence of Market Structure and Economic Growth,” Journal of Monetary Economics 43, 173–195.

Romer, P. M. (1990). “Endogenous Technological Change,” Journal of Political Economy 98, s71–s102.

Smulders, S., and Th. van de Klundert. (1995). “Imperfect Competition, Concentration and Growth with Firm-specific R&D,” European Economic Review 39, 139–160.

Thompson, P., and D. Waldo. (1994). “Growth and Trustified Capitalism,” Journal of Monetary Economics 34, 445–462.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Economic Growth

Tập 7

137-156

Thông tin tác giả