就业和技术进步之间关系的测试隐藏了什么

IF 0.7 Q3 ECONOMICS
J. Felipe, Donna Faye Bajaro, Gemma Estrada, J. Mccombie
{"title":"就业和技术进步之间关系的测试隐藏了什么","authors":"J. Felipe, Donna Faye Bajaro, Gemma Estrada, J. Mccombie","doi":"10.13133/2037-3643_73.295_5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"R The debate about whether technical progress causes technological unemployment, as the Luddites argued in the early 19 th century, has recently resurfaced in the context of new technologies and automation and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. We review the main issues and then consider in detail the studies of Autor and Salomons (2017, 2018). They find that after both direct and indirect effects are accounted for, technical change is, on the aggregate, employment-augmenting. They find no evidence that technical change (proxied by the growth of productivity) reduces employment growth. We demonstrate that the regressions they estimate are problematic because they approximate an accounting identity. One or two variables in the identity (output growth or both output growth and capital growth) are omitted, which implies that the coefficient of productivity growth suffers from omitted-variable bias. As the omitted variable is known, we can have a good idea of what the statistical results must be. We conclude that, unfortunately, their work does not shed light on the question they address. JEL codes : E24, O30, O47","PeriodicalId":44488,"journal":{"name":"PSL Quarterly Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What do tests of the relationship between employment and technical progress hide\",\"authors\":\"J. Felipe, Donna Faye Bajaro, Gemma Estrada, J. Mccombie\",\"doi\":\"10.13133/2037-3643_73.295_5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"R The debate about whether technical progress causes technological unemployment, as the Luddites argued in the early 19 th century, has recently resurfaced in the context of new technologies and automation and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. We review the main issues and then consider in detail the studies of Autor and Salomons (2017, 2018). They find that after both direct and indirect effects are accounted for, technical change is, on the aggregate, employment-augmenting. They find no evidence that technical change (proxied by the growth of productivity) reduces employment growth. We demonstrate that the regressions they estimate are problematic because they approximate an accounting identity. One or two variables in the identity (output growth or both output growth and capital growth) are omitted, which implies that the coefficient of productivity growth suffers from omitted-variable bias. As the omitted variable is known, we can have a good idea of what the statistical results must be. We conclude that, unfortunately, their work does not shed light on the question they address. JEL codes : E24, O30, O47\",\"PeriodicalId\":44488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSL Quarterly Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSL Quarterly Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643_73.295_5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSL Quarterly Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643_73.295_5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在新技术、自动化和所谓的第四次工业革命的背景下,关于技术进步是否会导致技术性失业的争论(正如卢德分子在19世纪初所争论的那样)最近重新浮出了台面。我们回顾了主要问题,然后详细考虑了Autor和Salomons的研究(2017,2018)。他们发现,在考虑了直接和间接影响之后,技术变革总体上是增加就业的。他们没有发现任何证据表明技术变革(以生产率的增长为代表)会降低就业增长。我们证明,他们估计的回归是有问题的,因为他们近似会计身份。恒等式中的一个或两个变量(产出增长或产出增长和资本增长)被忽略,这意味着生产率增长系数存在被忽略变量偏差。由于省略的变量是已知的,我们可以很好地了解统计结果。我们的结论是,不幸的是,他们的工作并没有阐明他们所处理的问题。JEL代码:E24, O30, O47
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What do tests of the relationship between employment and technical progress hide
R The debate about whether technical progress causes technological unemployment, as the Luddites argued in the early 19 th century, has recently resurfaced in the context of new technologies and automation and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. We review the main issues and then consider in detail the studies of Autor and Salomons (2017, 2018). They find that after both direct and indirect effects are accounted for, technical change is, on the aggregate, employment-augmenting. They find no evidence that technical change (proxied by the growth of productivity) reduces employment growth. We demonstrate that the regressions they estimate are problematic because they approximate an accounting identity. One or two variables in the identity (output growth or both output growth and capital growth) are omitted, which implies that the coefficient of productivity growth suffers from omitted-variable bias. As the omitted variable is known, we can have a good idea of what the statistical results must be. We conclude that, unfortunately, their work does not shed light on the question they address. JEL codes : E24, O30, O47
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信