Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:49:12.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Impact of R&D on Skill-specific Employment Rates in the UK and France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2020

Amin Sokhanvar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Cyprus. Email: [email protected]
Serhan Çiftçioğlu
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Cyprus. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

We apply nonlinear Autoregressive-Distributed Lag (ARDL)-based methodologies to examine the nature of the effects of changes in R&D (intensity) on the employment rates of ‘high-skill’, ‘medium-skill’ and ‘low-skill’ labour and also whether or not these effects are symmetric. The empirical results based on the annual data for the period of 1991–2017 have suggested that while increased R&D has favourable effects on the employment rate of ‘high-skill’ labour in France, it has a negative impact on this type of labour in the UK. On the other hand, while the given increase in R&D has been found to be negatively affecting the employment rates of both ‘low-skill’ and ‘medium-skill’ labour in France, it has no impact on the employment rates of these two types of labour in the UK. These results may suggest that the dominant form of technological change in France is possibly a combination of ‘low-skill automation’ and ‘task-based’ whereby new technologies are simultaneously leading to replacement of ‘low-skill’ and ‘medium-skill’ labour by machines and the creation of new tasks (jobs) in which ‘high-skill’ labour has a comparative advantage. In the UK, the dominant form of new technologies resulting from additional R&D efforts seems to be in the form of ‘high-skill automation’ whereby ‘Robotics and Artificial Intelligence’ kind of new technologies might be causing replacement of ‘high-skill’ labour with machines. These results suggest that new technologies might be exerting adverse effects on income distribution in different ways in the UK and France.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2020 Academia Europaea

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, D and Restrepo, P (2016) The Race between Machine and Man: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares and Employment (No. w22252). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, D and Restrepo, P (2017) Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets (No. w23285). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, D and Restrepo, P (2018a) Low-skill and high-skill automation. Journal of Human Capital 12(2), 204232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, D and Restrepo, P (2018b) Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work (No. w24196). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelino, M, Ma, S and Robinson, D (2017) Firm age, investment opportunities, and job creation. The Journal of Finance 72(3), 9991038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A, Piketty, T and Saez, E (2011) Top incomes in the long run of history. Journal of Economic Literature 49(1), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, DH, Levy, F and Murnane, RJ (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4), 12791333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassanini, A and Duval, R (2009) Unemployment, institutions, and reform complementarities: re-assessing the aggregate evidence for OECD countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 25(1), 4059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brynjolfsson, E and McAfee, A (2012) Winning the race with ever-smarter machines. MIT Sloan Management Review 53(2), 53.Google Scholar
Blanchard, O (2009) Macroeconomics. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ford, M (2015) The Rise of the Robots. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Frey, CB and Osborne, MA (2017) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114, 254280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, EL, Kerr, SP and Kerr, WR (2015) Entrepreneurship and urban growth: an empirical assessment with historical mines. Review of Economics and Statistics 97(2), 498520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, RJ (2009) Misperceptions about the Magnitude and Timing of Changes in American Income Inequality (No. w15351). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goos, M and Manning, A (2007) Lousy and lovely jobs: the rising polarization of work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics 89(1), 118133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, CW and Yoon, G (2002) Hidden cointegration. University of California, Economics Working Paper (2002-02).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, G, Natraj, A and Van Reenen, J (2014) Has ICT polarized skill demand? Evidence from eleven countries over twenty-five years. Review of Economics and Statistics 96(1), 6077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mincer, J and Danninger, S (2000) Technology, Unemployment, and Inflation (No. w7817). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesaran, MH, Shin, Y and Smith, RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics 16(3), 289326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, JD and Kotlikoff, LJ (2012) Smart Machines and Long-term Misery (No. w18629). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiller, RJ (1993) Macro Markets: Creating Institutions for Managing Society’s Largest Economic Risks. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shiller, RJ (2005) Irrational Exuberance, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shin, Y, Yu, B and Greenwood-Nimmo, M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt. New York: Springer, pp. 281314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar