Technical Change and the Demand for Skills by U.S. Industries
David Howell () and
Edward Wolff ()
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1992, vol. 16, issue 2, 127-46
Previous studies have explained the demand for skills, usually measured by schooling attainment, by either factor price substitution, capital-skill complementarity, or technology-skill complementarity. The authors explore this demand with direct job-based measures of cognitive (CS), interactive (IS), and motor (MS) skills in a single model that includes all three sets of possible determinants. The results raise doubts about the adequacy of schooling as a measure of skill and TFP growth as an index of technical change. The authors find little support for capital-skill complementarity; capital-intensity and its growth are significantly inversely related to CS and MS levels and growth. Technical change is unambiguously linked to increasing CS, rising professional/technical shares, and declining operative/laborer shares. The effects on MS and IS are mixed, but young capital increases craft shares, and computer-intensity decreases supervisory and clerical/service shares. Copyright 1992 by Oxford University Press.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (17) Track citations by RSS feed
There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.
Working Paper: TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE DEMAND FOR SKILLS BY U.S. INDUSTRIES (1990)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:cambje:v:16:y:1992:i:2:p:127-46
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue
More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().