Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:57:05.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Brain over brawn: Job polarisation, structural change, and skill prices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2024

Sasiwimon Warunsiri Paweenawat*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand
Lusi Liao
Affiliation:
Institute of Strategy Research for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, China
*
Corresponding author: Sasiwimon Warunsiri Paweenawat; Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between occupational skills and wages in Thailand using the Labour Force Survey from 1985 to 2020. We quantify the contribution of changes in the skill requirement and highlight the increase in the return on the ‘brain’ and the decrease in the penalty on ‘brawn’, which helps explain the wage distribution changes across periods. We further explore the polarisation in the labour market and analyse the changes in the wage distribution by applying the decomposition method proposed by Firpo et al (2009). Our results suggest that wage dispersion increases in the top end over the first two time periods but decreases in the third time period, while it continues to decrease in the lower end of the distribution.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The University of New South Wales

Introduction

A large body of research has examined the increase in wage inequality in developed and developing countries in recent decades. Traditionally, most studies on wage inequality have focused on explanations that relate to changes in returns on education and experience (e.g., Juhn et al Reference Juhn, Murphy and Pierce1993; Katz and Murphy Reference Katz and Murphy1999). Recently, the role of occupations in wage inequality changes has begun to draw a great deal of attention in developed countries. For example, Autor et al (Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2006, Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2008) document the trend of wage polarisation in the US caused by a decline in the demand for middle-skill workers and provide an explanation based on skill-biased technological change (SBTC). This phenomenon has also been found in Germany (Spitz-Oener Reference Spitz-Oener2006), Britain (Goos and Manning Reference Goos and Manning2007), Japan (Ikenaga and Kambayashi Reference Ikenaga and Kambayashi2016), and 16 Western European countries (Goos et al Reference Goos, Manning and Salomons2014).

Offshoring has also contributed to changes in occupational wage structures in developed countries by replacing domestic workers with low-cost labour in developing countries (Blinder Reference Blinder2009; Firpo et al Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011; Jensen and Kletzer Reference Jensen, Kletzer, Abraham, Harper and Spletzer2010). Automation has increased the demand for skilled and low-skill non-routine jobs (Autor et al Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003; Goos and Manning Reference Goos and Manning2007). Buera et al (Reference Buera, Kaboski, Rogerson and Vizcaino2018) use skill-biased structural change to explain the redistribution of industry value-added shares to high-skill-intensive industries associated with the growth in high-skilled labour demand, contributing to the increased skill premium in advanced countries.

Given their different occupational structures and the impact of offshoring, recent technological progress, which has been driving labour market polarisation in developed countries, should result in different dynamics in developing countries. However, unlike in developed countries, polarisation in developing countries has not attracted much attention. Reijinder and Vries (Reference Reijinders and de Vries2017) find that job polarisation is not a phenomenon that occurs only in developed countries; it happens in most major emerging countries, including China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico.

Thailand provides an interesting developing country case study investigating the return on skills and polarisation. Thailand's economic growth has elevated it from a low-income status to that of a high-middle-income country, which has helped many people escape poverty. The real income of Thai citizens increased at an average rate of 4% per year from 1950 to 2014 (Penn World Table database 2017). One of the main factors that explain the increased income is Thailand’s transition from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing and service-oriented economy (Vanitcharearnthum Reference Vanitcharearnthum2019).

This study first explores the relationship between occupational skills (specifically brain and brawn skills) and wages in Thailand. In addition to measuring the return on skill using the relative wage increase for those who are more highly educated, we consider structural transformation over time using brain and brawn job requirements via occupation-industry pairs. Following Autor et al (Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003) and Rendall (Reference Rendall2013), we use the ordinal ranking of intellectual and physical job requirements by occupation-industry pairs. This enables us to match, using US job requirements, to control for Thailand’s unknown requirements and provide insight into the return on skills over time.

Next, using the decomposition method proposed by Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009, Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011), we further investigate the polarisation in the labour market and analyse the contribution of skill requirements to the wage distribution changes in Thailand. This decomposition method combines the ideas of the DiNardo, Fortin, and Lemieux (DFL) decomposition method (DiNardo et al Reference DiNardo, Fortin and Lemieux1996) with the classic Oaxaca-Blinder (OB) decomposition method (Oaxaca Reference Oaxaca1973; Blinder Reference Blinder1973) and employs a recentred influence function (RIF) regression to provide the decomposition of any distributional parameter, such as quantiles or Gini coefficients.

We provide new evidence regarding wage polarisation in developing countries, finding that wage inequality increases in the top end of the distribution but decreases in the lower end, similar to developed countries (e.g., Autor et al Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2006; Firpo et al Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011). However, this does not persist, only appearing from 1985 to 1995. Furthermore, it is not accompanied by the employment polarisation seen in developed countries, as the major difference in Thailand is its occupational structure. We also highlight changes in return on brain and brawn skills over time; the structural transformation helps explain the faster wage increase for high-skill workers compared to middle-skill workers and the decrease in the gap between lower- and middle-skill workers.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 discusses the related literature, and Section 3 provides the study background. Section 4 describes the data, while Section 5 explains the methodology. Section 6 analyses the results, and Section 7 concludes.

Literature review

An increase in wage inequality has been observed in many developed countries (e.g., Atkinson et al Reference Atkinson, Piketty and Saez2011; Autor et al Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2008; Lemieux Reference Lemieux2006 for the US; Card et al Reference Card, Heining and Kline2013; Dustmann et al Reference Dustmann, Ludsteck and Schonberg2009; for Germany; Machin Reference Machin2003 for the UK; Koeniger et al Reference Koeniger, Leonardi and Nunziata2007 for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries; Lise et al Reference Lise, Sudo, Suzuki, Yamada and Yamada2014 for Japan). The main hypothesis the literature proposes to explain the increase in wage inequality is SBTC (e.g., Acemoglu and Autor Reference Acemoglu and Autor2011; Autor et al Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2008; Katz and Autor Reference Katz, Autor, Ashenfelter and Card1999; Maarek and Moiteaux Reference Maarek and Moiteaux2021), which explains the expansion of wage dispersion both between and within education groups (Goldin and Katz Reference Goldin and Katz2009; Katz and Murphy Reference Katz and Murphy1999). Other factors, like the role of skilled workers, changes in institutions, the increase in international trade, and workplace heterogeneity, have been considered as reasons for the increase in wage inequality (Antonczyk et al Reference Antonczyk, DeLeire and Fitzenberger2018; Bienwen et al Reference Biewen, Fitzenberger and Lazzer2017; Card et al Reference Card, Heining and Kline2013; DiNardo et al Reference DiNardo, Fortin and Lemieux1996; Lemieux Reference Lemieux2006).

More recently, as studies have suggested that a general increase in wage inequality is not sufficient to describe the recent labour market trends, Autor et al (Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003) have introduced the task approach and proposed a nuanced version of SBTC, in which technology can substitute human workforce in routine tasks but not in non-routine tasks, causing the polarisation in the labour market. Goos and Manning (Reference Goos and Manning2007) also show evidence of polarising employment in the UK, which supports Autor et al’s (Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003) hypothesis. Many later studies have shown the pervasiveness of job polarisation in other developed countries (Dustmann et al Reference Dustmann, Ludsteck and Schonberg2009; Goos et al Reference Goos, Manning and Salomons2009; Katz and Margo Reference Katz and Margo2013; Park et al Reference Park, Shim, Yang and Yoo2023).

Job polarisation in the US has been accompanied by wage polarisation, where wages at the bottom and top of the distribution increase faster than those in the middle (Autor et al Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2006, Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2008). However, although job polarisation and wage inequality occur concurrently, the link between the two is still unknown. Studies have suggested that wage polarisation is the result of the employment decline in middle-skill jobs due to technological progress (Acemoglu and Autor Reference Acemoglu and Autor2011; Autor and Dorn Reference Autor and Dorn2013; Cavaglia and Etheridge Reference Cavaglia and Etheridge2020), indicating occupation is the key empirical channel for the recent changes in wage inequality. Some relevant strands of the literature suggested job polarisation caused by a structural change from manufacturing to services, inducing employment in high- and low-skill occupations and change in relative wages (Autor and Dorn Reference Autor and Dorn2013; Báráni and Siegel Reference Bárány and Siegel2018; Fierro et al Reference Fierro, Caiani and Russo2022). In addition, several models have been developed to explain the phenomenon of job and wage polarisation in advanced economies, such as the agent-based model with heterogeneous workers, heterogenous firms, various labour market institutions, and policies (Bordot and Lorentz Reference Bordot and Lorentz2021; Dawid and Neugart Reference Dawid and Neugart2021; Fierro et al Reference Fierro, Caiani and Russo2022; Mellacher and Scheuer Reference Mellacher and Scheuer2020).

Another aspect of the change in the wage structure through occupations in developed countries lies in the expansion of offshoring opportunities, allowing foreign labour to substitute for domestic workers in some tasks (Blinder Reference Blinder2009; Blinder and Krueger Reference Blinder and Krueger2013; Jensen and Kletzer Reference Jensen, Kletzer, Abraham, Harper and Spletzer2010). Acemoglu and Autor (Reference Acemoglu and Autor2011) suggest that offshorability plays a minor or insignificant role, while Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009) find that offshorability is significant in explaining wage polarisation. Autor (Reference Autor2015) suggest that China’s rapid rise in manufacturing has a far-reaching impact on US workers by reducing employment and depressing labour demand. However, for developing countries, including Hungary, Malaysia, the Philippines, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, Hanson and Robertson (Reference Hanson and Robertson2008) suggest that China’s impact has been relatively small.

While polarisation has become one of the most discussed topics in labour economics in developed countries, it is rarely considered in developing countries, given the difference in occupational distributions, the impact of offshored jobs from developed countries, and the impact of technological progress. There is no evidence of polarisation in developing countries on average, but a few countries, like Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil, show some evidence of incipient polarisation (Maloney and Molina Reference Maloney and Molina2016). Cornfeld and Danieli (Reference Cornfeld and Danieli2015) finds evidence of wage polarisation in Israel, and Helmy (Reference Helmy2015) shows that job polarisation is growing with the expansion of wage disparity in Egypt.

In developing countries, a large share of the labour force is employed in agriculture, while middle-skilled workers occupy only a small proportion. Therefore, as Maloney and Molina (Reference Maloney and Molina2016) indicate, the potential polarisation dynamics lie in different initial occupational structures and demographics. In addition, the decrease in middle-skill jobs caused by offshorability in developed countries provides more employment opportunities in developing countries, which may result in ‘de-polarisation’ for countries like China. Reijinder and Vries (Reference Reijinders and de Vries2017) suggest that while offshoring has contributed to polarisation in developed countries, ‘anti-polarisation’ (or the opposite effect), is seen in primary offshore destinations like China and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, under globalisation, as the levels of skilled jobs are classified differently in developed and developing countries when jobs are relocated, low-skill jobs in developed countries can be performed by middle-skill workers in developing countries (Goldberg and Pavcnik Reference Goldberg and Pavcnik2007).

Education is a conventional measure of skill (e.g., Autor et al Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003; Card Reference Card2001; Juhn et al Reference Juhn, Murphy and Pierce1993). As Ingram and Neumann (Reference Ingram and Neumann2006) suggested, education is a coarse measure of skill that should evolve with economic development and technological change. In developing countries, a structural shift during the period has accompanied the change in job requirements from manual skills (brawn) to intellectual skills (brain) due to technological changes and economic development, playing a significant role in the evolution of wage inequality.

Previous studies of inequality in Thailand have mainly focused on how economic growth, government policies, and education have affected income distribution (e.g., Israngkura Reference Israngkura2003; Kilenthong Reference Kilenthong2016; Krongkaew Reference Krongkaew1985; Kurita and Kurosaki Reference Kurita and Kurosaki2011; Meesook Reference Meesook1979; Motonishi Reference Motonishi2006; Paweenawat and McNown Reference Paweenawat and McNown2014; Warr and Isra Sarntisart Reference Warr, Sarntisart and John2005). As an exception, Lathapipat (Reference Lathapipat2009) suggests that wage polarisation is plausible in Thailand between 1987 and 2006, using education attainment as a proxy for skills. Leckcivilize (Reference Leckcivilize2015) provides evidence that the minimum wage has a minimal impact on reducing wage inequality in Thailand. Te Velde and Morrissey (Reference Te Velde and Morrissey2004) and Tomohara and Yokota (Reference Tomohara and Yokota2011) suggest that foreign direct investment increases wage inequality in Thailand, as it has a larger impact on skilled workers than on low-skill workers. Paweenawat (Reference Paweenawat2022) confirmed higher wages and higher skill premiums of workers in the global value chain (GVC)-oriented industries due to the higher demand for skilled workers. Pootrakul (Reference Pootrakul2013) and Vanitcharearnthum (Reference Vanitcharoentham2017) find that although Thailand has had impressive economic growth over the last three decades, income inequality has not improved during that time.

Study background

In this section, we provide an overview of the changes in occupational composition, wage structure, and education in Thailand’s labour market between 1985 and 2020 and explore the changes in the employment structure that are relevant to the job polarisation found in developed countries. We draw attention to the development of wage inequality and provide information on how the Thai labour market has changed the value of different levels of occupational skills over the last three decades.

Between 1985 and 2020, the country’s industrial structure changed dramatically. Agriculture dropped significantly by around 31%, while the manufacturing, construction, commercial, and service industries have risen accordingly (Figure A1 in the Appendix). In occupational composition, instead of the steep decline in middle-skill employment seen in developed countries, we find a sharp drop in low-skill employment, consistent with the decrease in agriculture, similar to the changes in industrial employment (Figure A2 in Appendix). Middle-skill employment has increased, but high-skill employment has shown relatively little change over time.

Next, we use the categorisation of occupations to define the skills by following Autor (Reference Autor2019). We assign occupations to three skill levels: managers, legislators, professionals, and technicians as ‘High-skill’, clerks, service workers, and plant and machine workers as ‘Middle-skill’, and craft workers, agricultural workers, and unskilled workers as ‘Low-skill’.Footnote 1 Figure 1 illustrates the pattern of changes in three broad skill clusters over time, indicating a decline in low-skill employment (10%), an increase in middle-skill employment (9%), and a relatively stable pattern for high-skill employment (1%). Therefore, we do not observe job polarisation in Thailand since agriculture has accounted for a large share of the labour force from the beginning, with a low share of middle-skill employment. Instead of job polarisation, the transition in the past three decades has mainly been from agricultural employment to middle-skill employment.

Figure 1. Shares of employment by occupational skills (1985–2020).

Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (LFS) (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office. By following Autor et al (2019), the authors assigned occupations to three skill levels: managers, legislators, professionals, and technicians as ‘High-skill’; clerks, service workers, and plant and machine workers as ‘Middle-skill’; and craft workers, agricultural workers, and unskilled workers as ‘Low-skill’, and then computed the shares of employment by occupational skills over time.

The expansion of education in Thailand has been documented and discussed in previous studies related to income inequality (e.g. Hawley Reference Hawley2004; Knodel Reference Knodel1997; Motonishi Reference Motonishi2006; Paweenawat and McNown Reference Paweenawat and McNown2014). Less widely recognised is the change in inequality between different educational and occupational skill groups. In the US, wage polarisation shows that the education premium has strongly increased, with larger wage growth at both ends of the occupational skill distribution (Autor and Dorn Reference Autor and Dorn2013). Here, we focus on the progression of wage inequality across educational and skill groups.

Figure 2 shows the growth in the median log of the real hourly wage for the three skill groups. High-skill and low-skill occupations have shown a much faster increase in wages over time than middle-skill occupations. Real wage growth for high-skill and low-skill occupations continued to increase, while real wage growth for middle-skill occupations stagnated until 2011.

Figure 2. Real log hourly wage by occupational skills (1985–2020).

Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office. By following **Autor et al (Reference Autor2019), the authors assigned occupations to three skill levels: managers, legislators, professionals, and technicians as ‘High-skill’; clerks, service workers, and plant and machine workers as ‘Middle-skill’; and craft workers, agricultural workers, and unskilled workers as ‘Low-skill’; and then computed the hourly wage by occupational skills over time.

Generally, labour employment has transferred from agriculture to manufacturing and service industries, resulting in fewer low-skilled workers and more middle-skilled workers. Unlike the US, with its U-shaped employment shares and wage growth by percentile (Acemoglu and Autor Reference Acemoglu and Autor2011), in Thailand, low-skilled workers experienced the highest wage growth and the largest drop in employment during the last three decades. Thailand has transformed from an agricultural-oriented economy to a manufacturing and service-oriented economy, changing the workforce composition and the wage structure of the Thai labour market. The need for low-skilled workers in the agriculture sector has been replaced by the demand for high-skilled workers in the manufacturing sector. This is especially so in the GVCs-oriented industries, where the strong demand for high-skill workers generates a high wage premium for this group of workers (Paweenawat Reference Paweenawat2022). Even though high-skilled workers earn higher wages than middle-skilled workers, and those with middle-skills earn higher wages than low-skilled workers (Wasi et al Reference Wasi, Paweenawat, Devahastin Na Ayudhya, Treeratpituk and Nittayo2019), Figure 2 reveals that the wage gap between high-skilled and middle-skilled workers has expanded while the gap between middle-skilled and low-skilled workers has contracted.

A possible explanation is that the increase in education has not provided an adequate number of high-skilled workers, indicating a quality mismatch in the Thai labour market (Satimanon Reference Satimanon2017), while improvement in technology has increased the demand for more high-skilled workers (Tinbergin Reference Tinbergen1974, Reference Tinbergen1975; Acemoglu and Autor Reference Acemoglu and Autor2011) causing the change in between-group wage inequality. Lathapipat and Chucherd (Reference Lathapipat and Chucherd2013) suggest that despite the increase in a more highly educated workforce in Thailand in the past two decades, the quality of education is low. Paweenawat and Vechbanyongratana (Reference Paweenawat and Vechbanyongratana2015) found that an overeducation incidence in the group of Thai university graduates leads to wage penalties, especially for young workers.

Rendall (Reference Rendall2013) presents a breakdown of workers in Thailand, the US, Brazil, Mexico, and India in 1990 and 2005 using three levels of broad brain and brawn job categories. Thailand has added the most in the medium-brain levels of the occupation-industry pairs but was relatively stagnant in the addition of more high-brain occupations, consistent with our findings. Moreover, the magnitude is the largest among the five countries, suggesting that Thailand has experienced a large drop in brawn demand and an increase in brain demand.

Non-routine tasks performed by high-skilled workers, such as more analytical work, and by low-skilled workers, like non-routine manual work, cannot be supplemented by machines, increasing their demand (Acemoglu and Autor, Reference Acemoglu and Autor2011). However, for low-skilled workers, the situation in Thailand is quite different. Unlike developed countries, low-skill employment has historically dominated the labour market, as agriculture accounts for the largest share of employment. The economic development during the last three decades has moved labourers from agriculture to other industries. Up to one million people per year transferred from agriculture to urban occupations, and real per capita income doubled (Phongpaichit and Baker Reference Phongpaichit and Baker2008). Thailand has changed from a low-income to an upper-income country (World Bank 2023). Wages at the low end of the wage distribution have increased substantially over time due to labour migration from rural to urban areas (Lathapipat Reference Lathapipat2009). In addition, the wage growth of low-skilled workers may be associated with a rise in minimum wage in the country over time. Thailand has started to enact a minimum wage policy in the labour market since 1973, and this policy may promote an increase in the wage of workers with primary education (Samart Reference Samart2020).

Note that as we do not observe much change in the share of high-workers, and the share of low-skilled workers is relatively stable after 1995 (Figure 1), job polarisation does not occur in Thailand. Meanwhile, low-skill and high-skill wages have increased over time, accompanied by relatively stable wages for middle-skilled workers (Figure 2), indicating wage polarisation. This study, therefore, provides empirical evidence only regarding wage polarisation.

Ideally, our goal is to estimate wage distribution changes using a dataset containing detailed task content of occupations and skill requirements for jobs with large sample sizes. However, it is difficult in developing countries to find job task requirements like those available from the Dictionaries of Occupational Titles (DOT) or O*NET from the US Department of Labour. Considering the remarkable transformation in Thailand, returns on different skills (brain and brawn) are significant in explaining wage growth over time. Brawn is important in the early stage. However, along with development, the focus has gradually shifted to the brain. These trends are seen in skill prices over time.

Therefore, we use decomposition analysis to investigate the changes in wage inequality over time, quantifying the contribution of brawn and brain by matching the job requirements from the DOT. By including the skill requirements of both occupations and industries in the estimation, we provide insight into the transformation of the labour market over time.

Data

The data utilised in this study are from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (LFS) from 1985 to 2020, conducted by the National Statistical Office (NSO). We employ the third quarter of the year to avoid the seasonal migration problem of Thai agricultural workers (Sussangkarn and Chalamwong Reference Sussangkarn, Chalamwong, O’Connor and Farsakh1996; Warunsiri and McNown Reference Warunsiri and McNown2010). The data were divided into three periods for the analysis based on the country’s economic situation. The first period was from 1985 to 1995 when the country experienced a fast growth period preceding the financial crisis. During that time, Thailand’s economy was among the fastest-expanding economies globally. The second period, from 1996 to 2006, includes the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the deep economic recession of 1998, and the gradual recovery in the 2000s. There was stagnant wage growth during this period, especially for the high end of the wage distribution. The final period is 2007 to 2020, covering several economic events, including the global financial crisis in 2008, the Thailand floods in 2011, the Eurozone crisis in 2012, and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which show a comparatively lesser impact on wage growth when compared to the Asian financial crisis in 1997. This final period shows fast growth for the low end and a declining trend, moving to the higher end of the distribution.

The data includes individual worker information regarding wages, weekly working hours, occupation, industry, age, gender, and education. The wage measure used in this study is the log of the hourly wage.Footnote 2 As the LFS does not directly provide hourly wages, they are calculated by dividing weekly wages by workers’ working hours. The sample is restricted to workers between the ages of 15 and 60.Footnote 3 Individuals are assigned to three educational groups. The primary level includes those with no, some, or completed primary level education; the secondary level includes those with some or completed secondary level education; the university level includes those with some or completed university level education or higher. The years of schooling range from 0 (with no education) to 23 (with a PhD degree). The key set of covariates includes years of schooling, age, age squared, occupational dummies, marital status, number of children, and five regional dummies. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics (the means and standard deviations of the listed variables) in three periods, where we obtained 194,267, 433,196, and 675,676 observations, respectively. While the share of women in the sample is around 44–46%, that of men is about 54–56%. Wages and education have increased while the number of children in employment has decreased over time.

Table 1. Summary statistics for Labour Force Survey from 1985 to 2020

Source: Authors’ calculations.

In the empirical analysis, brain and brawn skills are constructed as a more efficient indicator of skills for estimation. Following Rendall (Reference Rendall2013), we use the job requirements from the DOT 1991 to map to the Thai data. This method requires the strong assumption that occupations and industries in Thailand require the same skills as those in the US. To solve this problem, Autor et al (Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003) normalise the skills to percentiles for other countries, assuming that skill requirement ranks for occupations and industries in the US match the requirement ranks in other countries on an ordinal scale.Footnote 4 For example, technicians require more brain work than agricultural workers in all countries.

By controlling the skill levels for both occupations and industries, we provide additional insights into the structural changes in the labour market. For example, clerks in the construction and service industries may have similar skills, but the average skill requirements for the two industries are different. The skill requirements for each industry and occupation are provided on a scale of 0 to 1 for the 1991 DOT, which supports the consistency of ordinal ranks over time.

According to Rendall (Reference Rendall2017), the brain is computed using the average standardised general educational development and specific vocational training, and the brawn is computed using the average between physical strength requirements and environmental conditions.Footnote 5 The element composition for the brain includes reasoning and mathematical skills, language proficiency, targeted vocational training, overall intelligence, verbal capabilities, clerical aptitude, and auditory skills. Brawn includes climbing and balancing, stooping/kneeling/crouching/crawling, strength demands for indoor and outdoor tasks, and exposure to the environment.

Figures A3 and A4 show the combinations of skill intensity related to brawn and brain, respectively, by occupation and industry. In Figure A3, the requirements for brawn skills are different for the same occupation in each industry. For example, elementary occupations in the finance and business service industries require less brawn than elementary occupations in the agriculture and hunting industries. While Figure A3 shows a clear pattern for brawn skills, we could not see such a clear pattern for brain skills in Figure A4, which, for a given occupation, is relatively constant across industries. Note that for each industry, there is also wide dispersion among occupations for brawn and brain. For example, elementary and agricultural occupations have a higher need for brawn than other occupations, while professionals, technicians, and managers have a higher need for brains.

Methodology

We first estimate the return on brain and brawn skills using the Mincer wage regression:

(1) $$ln{w_i} = {X_i}\delta + {S_i}\beta + {\varepsilon _i}{\rm{\;\;\;\;\;}}$$

Where $\boldsymbol{\mathit{w_i}}$ is the hourly wage of individual 1, $\boldsymbol{\mathit{X_i}}$ represents the individual’s characteristics, including age, age square, years of schooling, number of children, marital status, time effects, and five regional dummies. $\boldsymbol{\mathit{S_i}}$ indicates the skill requirements, two distinct (brawn and brain), continuous variables measuring the brain and brawn skill content of jobs. $\boldsymbol{\mathit\beta} $ represents the relationship between occupational skills and wages.

Next, we apply the Firpo, Fortin, and Lemieux (FFL) decomposition approach introduced by Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009) to analyse the wage rate changes. As noted by Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2018), the standard OB decomposition is limited to the sensitivity of the choice of the base group (Oaxaca and Ransom 1999) and the linearity assumption of the conditional expectations (Barsky et al 2002).

The FFL method was based on the standard OB decomposition method (Blinder Reference Blinder1973; Oaxaca Reference Oaxaca1973) and the DFL decomposition method (DiNardo et al Reference DiNardo, Fortin and Lemieux1996), using the RIF of Y as the dependent variable. We focus on the differences in wage distributions between two groups using propensity scores. As Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009, Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011) suggested, the main advantage of RIF regression is that it enables us to perform a linear approximation of a highly non-linear function, including wage quantiles, the variance in log wage, and the Gini coefficient.

The decomposition process consists of two steps (Firpo et al Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011, Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2018): first, like DiNardo et al (Reference DiNardo, Fortin and Lemieux1996), the distributional statistic of interest is decomposed into wage structure and composition components utilising a reweighting method. Second, like the standard OB decomposition, we divide the wage structure and composition component into each covariate’s contribution using RIF.

The FFL decomposition separates the total change ( $\Delta _O^\nu $ ) into a composition effect ( $\Delta _X^\nu $ ) and a wage structure effect ( $\Delta _S^\nu $ ):

(2) $$\Delta _O^\nu = \nu \left( {{F_{{Y_1}|T = 1}}} \right) - \nu \left( {{F_{{Y_0}|T = 1}}} \right) + \nu \left( {{F_{{Y_0}|T = 1}}} \right) - \nu \left( {{F_{{Y_0}|T = 0}}} \right)$$
(3) $$\;\;\;\Delta _O^\nu = {\rm{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}}\Delta _S^\nu {\rm{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}} + {\rm{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}}\Delta _X^\nu $$

where ${\bf{\nu }}\left( {{{\bf{F}}_{{{\bf{Y}}_1}|{\bf{T}} = 1}}} \right)$ is the distributional statistic that employers observe in period T = 1 paid under the wage structure Y of period 1.

By replacing Y with the RIF (y; $\boldsymbol{\mathit\nu }$ ), we can compute the influence function for other distributional statistics (Firpo et al Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009); our interest is in the wage quantiles. For the $\boldsymbol{\mathit\tau }$ th quantile, the influence function is:

(4) $$IF\left( {y;{q_\tau }} \right) = \left\{ \tau \right. - 1(y \le {q_\tau }\left. ) \right\}/{f_Y}\left( {{q_\tau }} \right)$$

where $\boldsymbol{\mathit{q_\tau }}$ is the $\boldsymbol{\mathit\tau }$ th quantile of the F distribution, equal to inf $\left\{ \boldsymbol{\mathit{y|F\left( y \right)} \ge \left. \tau \right\}} \right.$ .

The RIF of the $\boldsymbol{\mathit\tau }$ th quantile:

(5) $$RIF\left( {y;{q_\tau }} \right) = {q_\tau } + IF\left( {y;{q_\tau }} \right)$$

Applying the law of iterated expectations to the distributional statistics, we can determine the conditional expectations of the RIF regressions, capturing the between and within effects of the explanatory variables (Firpo et al Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009, Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011).

Results

Return on skills (Brain vs Brawn)

We first estimate the relative job requirements using occupation-industry pairs by intellectual (brain) and physical (brawn) skills, considering the function of structural labour demand, which has a significant effect on wage distribution.

Table 2 shows the results for skills based on equation (1) for three time periods. The return on the brain is positive, indicating that higher brain requirements lead to higher wages, while the coefficients for brawn are negative, indicating that higher brawn requirements lead to lower wages. The return on the brain increased over the three time periods, and the penalty for brawn decreased over time. In addition, the magnitude of the positive impact of years of schooling declined over time.Footnote 6 Figure 3 further provides the coefficients of the wage regression for brain and brawn by year.Footnote 7 While both the coefficients present an upward trend, the brain shows a steeper pattern, indicating a faster increase in return on intellectual skills.

Table 2. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 3. The return on brawn and brain (coefficients) (1985–2020).

Note. All coefficients are significant at 1%, except 2011 is significant at 10%.

Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office. Following Autor et al (Reference Autor, Levy and Murnane2003) and Rendall (Reference Rendall2013), the authors use the ordinal ranking of intellectual and physical job requirements by occupation-industry pairs and provide insight into the return on brain and brawn skills over time. The figure presents the coefficients obtained from Mincer wage regression in estimating returns to skills.

In addition, in Table 3, we show the estimates of the wage regression by gender.Footnote 8 The return on the brain for females is larger than that for males, while the penalty for brawn for females is smaller than that for males, indicating that the structural shift changes from brawn skills to brain skills benefit women more in terms of occupational matching and returns.Footnote 9 Table 4 presents the results by residence area.Footnote 10 The return on the brain in urban areas is higher than that in rural areas, indicating a higher demand for skilled labour in urban areas, which correlates with the labour migration from urban to rural and the decrease in the lower-end gap throughout the periods mentioned earlier.

Table 3. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain by gender

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 4. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain by residence area

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Next, to check the return on skills at different wage quantiles, the RIF regression coefficients for the 90th, 50th, and 10th quantiles in 1985 to 1995, 1996 to 2006, and 2007 to 2020 are presented in Table 5. The effect of brawn and brain changes at different quantiles of the wage distribution. For example, brawn tends to affect the 10th quantile more than the higher wage quantiles, while the brain has a larger impact on the 90th quantile than on the lower wage quantiles. Education has a larger positive impact on the 90th and 50th quantiles than on the 10th quantile. Over time, education’s impact becomes smaller for the 50th quantile. Consistent with our expectations, brawn skill has a larger effect on the 10th quantile than on others, while the brain has a larger effect on the 90th quantile. The direction of the effect also changes in different quantiles.

Table 5. RIF regression estimates on wage

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Decomposition results

Table 6 shows the overall change from 1985 to 2020. The inequality at the top end of the distribution (the 90–50 gap) increased in the first two time periods and decreased in the third period. By contrast, the 50–10 gap declined in all time periods. A similar pattern was found by Autor et al (Reference Autor, Katz and Kearney2006), where the wage dispersion increases in the top end but decreases in the lower end of the distribution for the US. Distinctively, we observe a decline in the 90–50 gap from 2007 to 2020.

Table 6. The decomposition results

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

The results of return on skills support the decomposition results that wage dispersion increases in the top end, as the return to the brain increased in the first two time periods, considering the top end related to higher brain skill. In contrast, it decreases at the lower end of the distribution, which relates to higher brawn skill, as the penalty for brawn has declined.

While composition effects account for a small portion of the changes in inequality, the wage structure effect captures the major part of the wage distribution changes (also shown in Figure 4). It is clear that the wage structure effects reduce inequality for the low end (50–10) and increase inequality for the high end (90–50) from 1985 to 1995, while it reduces wage inequality for both the low and high ends during 2007 to 2020. Consistent with Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2011), the contribution of the wage structure effect explains the wage polarisation.

Figure 4. The decomposition of total change into composition and wage structure effect.

Source: Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), National Statistical Office.

The contribution of the covariates suggests that both brawn and brain make a large contribution to the changes in the 90–50 gap and 50–10 gap. Figures 5 and 6 report the detailed decomposition of the composition and wage structure effects for education, brawn, and brain. The wage structure effects linked to each factor play a significant role in the overall change in wage distribution.

Figure 5. Detailed decomposition for composition effect.

Source: Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), National Statistical Office.

Figure 6. Detailed decomposition for wage structure effect.

Source: Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), National Statistical Office.

A U-shaped change in the wage distribution is found in the first period, indicating that the lower and higher quantiles increase faster than the middle ones, polarising wages. Ikemoto and Uehara (Reference Ikemoto and Uehara2000) suggest that during the latter part of the 1980s and the early 1990s, as the predominant industry was transformed from export-focused labour-intensive manufacturing to the financial sector, the wages of high-skill workers increased rapidly because supply lagged far behind demand. However, the wages of plant workers could not rise to the same extent as those of skilled workers due to the surplus in the labour supply. In the early 1990s, the wages of agricultural labour started to rise as urban industries absorbed the labour.

The changes in the second period are positive for the lower end and negative for the higher end, with a slower pace compared to the first period. From 1996 to 2006, the magnitude of the total change dropped significantly compared with the first period, corresponding to the impact of the financial crisis, which stagnated wage growth, especially for the higher quantiles.

The results for the first two time periods are consistent with those of Lathapipat (Reference Lathapipat2009). Using the decomposition approach proposed by Lemieux (Reference Lemieux2006), Lathapipat (Reference Lathapipat2009) found wage polarisation in Thailand from 1987 to 2006, suggesting the SBTC hypothesis is plausible for Thailand. In addition, the large-scale labour migration from rural areas to urban areas by workers attracted by higher wages also explains the decline in the 50–10 gap over time.

In the third time period, the total change shows a declining pattern across quantiles, indicating a decrease in wage inequality. Despite the political coup, floods, and global financial crisis, Thailand’s economy has gradually recovered. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) (2019), due to successful policies that facilitated the expansion of financial services to the lower end of the income distribution with enhanced geographic coverage (IMF 2016), financial deepening, measured as the banking and stock market sector’s relative share in the economy, helped moderate inequality in several Asian countries, including Thailand.

While government educational policies, for example, compulsory education reform in 1978 and 1999, have successfully helped lower wage inequality, overall results indicated that governments need to give more attention to the quality of education. The increase in education level has yet to provide the labour market with an adequate number of high-skill workers. Therefore, strengthening workers’ skills and promoting innovation has been one of the most critical parts of a country’s development strategy, especially fostering better conditions for high-quality education. In the high brain demand era, quality education can help enhance and develop workers’ comparative advantages in the labour market (Pitt et al 2010; Rendall Reference Rendall2013). Vocational Education and Training that provides workers with skills and technical knowledge leading to higher payments and better career development is also recommended.

Disaggregation results

While the basic results reflect the changes in general behaviour, the findings may be affected by changes in the composition of the labour market that are not adequately controlled. Therefore, we disaggregate the estimates by subgroups to capture the differences in gender, residence area, birth cohorts, and age groups.

Table 7 shows the decomposition results for the disaggregated data. The groups of men and women show the same pattern of changes for the 90–50 and 50–10 gap, as seen in the overall results. The magnitude of change for the top end (90–50) of the distribution is higher for men than women in the first period, while it is lower for men than women for the lower end (50–10) across all time periods. The gender wage gap has diminished in recent decades due to advancements in women’s education (Nakavachara Reference Nakavachara2010; Paweenawat and Liao Reference Paweenawat and Liao2022). In addition, the structural transformation changes benefit women more through occupational matching and returns. Governments should further attract firms that provide a better environment regarding equal opportunities for both men and women.

Table 7. Disaggregation results

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

The results of the separate decomposition for urban and rural residents show that for the urban area, the pattern of changes for the 90–50 gap and 50–10 gap is the same as that for the overall sample, where the 90–50 gap increases in the first two periods and the 50–10 gap decreases for all periods. However, for rural areas, the results for the second period (1996 to 2006) are the opposite for urban areas, as the 90–50 gap decreases and the 50–10 gap increases. During the financial crisis, rural areas were hit indirectly by reduced government spending and the lost opportunity of working in urban areas. After the crisis, the rural sector absorbed those who lost jobs in urban areas (Ikemoto and Uehara Reference Ikemoto and Uehara2000).

The decomposition results disaggregated by birth cohorts show that for the older cohort, the 90–50 gap increases for all time periods, while it begins to decrease for the younger cohort in the most recent decade. For the 50–10 gap, both cohorts show a decline from 1996 to 2020, with a larger magnitude for the older cohort.

The decomposition results for different age groups show that for ages 15 to 29, both the 90–50 and 50–10 gaps decrease for all time periods. For ages 30 to 44, the 90–50 gap starts to decrease in the last time period, while the 50–10 gap displays a decreasing trend over all time periods. The oldest group shows a decline in the 50–10 gap for the last two periods and an increase in the 90–50 gap from 1996 to 2006. Generally, the younger age group experiences a monotonic reduction in the wage gap, while it is mixed for older groups.

Conclusion

The structural change in Thai labour employment has resulted in fewer low-skill workers and more mid-skill workers. Meanwhile, wage inequality has risen for high-skill and middle-skill workers and fallen for middle-skill and low-skill workers, indicating a different driving force compared to that in developed countries. This study explores the return on job requirements by brain and brawn and wage polarisation by examining the changes in wage distribution in Thailand in the past thirty years. We followed Rendall (Reference Rendall2013) and assigned occupation-industry skill pairs by ordinal ranks of brain and brawn requirements using the DOT. We quantify the contribution of changes in the occupational and industrial skill requirements over time and highlight the increase in the return on the brain and the decrease in the penalty on brawn, which helps explain the wage distribution changes across periods. Using the FFL decomposition approach introduced by Firpo et al (Reference Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux2009), we estimate the changes in the wage distribution based on three time periods. The findings suggest that wage dispersion increases in the top end over the first two time periods but decreases in the third time period, while it continues to decrease in the lower end of the distribution.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the NSO of Thailand.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research (PIER) for funding this research project and the NSO of Thailand, the Research Institute for Policy Evaluation and Design, and the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Thailand, for access to the data used in this paper. We also thank Piti Disyatat for inspiring us to work on this topic. An earlier version of this paper was circulated as the PIER discussion paper under the title ‘Brain over Brawn: Job Polarization, Structural Change, and Skill Prices’ which has not been peer-reviewed or been subject to any review that accompanies official publications.

Funding statement

Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research (PIER).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Appendix A

Figure 1A. Share of employment in each industry (1985–2020).

Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office.

Figure 2A. Share of employment in each industry in each occupation (1985–2020).

Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office.

Figure 3A. Skill intensity for brawn by occupation and industry.

Note. For x-axis, 1 = Finance and business services; 2 = Retail, hotels; 3 = Communal services; 4 = Manufacturing; 5 = Transport and telecommunications; 6 = Public services; 7 = Mining; 8 = Construction; 9 = Agriculture, hunting, etc.

Source: Following Rendall (Reference Rendall2013), skill intensity for brawn by occupation and industry was calculated by authors from Labour Force Survey.

Figure 4A. Skill intensity for the brain by occupation and industry.

Note. For x-axis, 1 = Finance and business services; 2 = Retail, hotels; 3 = Communal services; 4 = Manufacturing; 5 = Transport and telecommunications; 6 = Public services; 7 = Mining; 8 = Construction; 9 = Agriculture, hunting, etc.

Source: Following Rendall (Reference Rendall2013), skill intensity for brain by occupation and industry was calculated by authors from Labour Force Survey.

Table A1. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain with interaction terms (Gender dummy: female = 1, male = 0)

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table A2. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain with interaction terms (Urban dummy: urban = 1, rural = 0)

Robust standard errors in parentheses

***p < .01,

**p < .05,

*p < .1.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Sasiwimon Warunsiri Paweenawat is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University, Thailand. Her research interests include labor economics, gender economics, and development economics. Recently, she has focused on gender equality, female labor supply, human capital, and the Thai labor market. Her research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as World Development, Review of Economics of the Household, and Applied Economics. She worked as a consultant on gender equality and human capital development for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). Sasiwimon received a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA.

Lusi Liao is a researcher at the Institute of Strategy Research for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, China. She graduated with a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Thailand, and a Master of Science in Finance from Clark University, USA. Lusi’s research interests include female labor supply, education, household structure, and gender inequality. Her research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Review of Economics of the Household, Journal of Asian Economics, and Journal of Demographic Economics.

Footnotes

1 The occupational groups are harmonised based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (ISCO-08).

2 The wage is deflated by the Thailand Consumer Price Index, obtained from the Bureau of Trade and Economic Indices, Ministry of Commerce, Thailand.

3 In 2001, National Statistical Office defined the labour force population as any individual aged 15 or older.

4 The industry ordinal sorting from low to high for brain (brawn) requirements is as follows: 1. Agriculture (finance and business service), 2. Transport and telecommunications (retail and hotels), 3. Manufacturing (communal services), 4. Mining (manufacturing), 5. Retail and hotels (transport and telecommunications), 6. Construction (public service), 7. Public services (mining), 8. Communal services (construction), and 9. Finance and business service (agriculture). The occupation ordinal sorting from low to high for brain (brawn) requirements is as follows: 1. Elementary occupations (clerks), 2. Plant and machine operators (legislators, officials and managers), 3. Service workers and sales (professionals), 4. Craft workers (technicians), 5. Skilled agricultural workers (service workers and sales), 6. Clerks (plant and machine operators), 7. Technicians (craft workers), 8. Legislators, officials and managers (elementary occupations), and 9. Professionals (skilled agricultural workers). The detailed factor compositions and definitions for brain and brawn are illustrated in Rendall (Reference Rendall2013).

5 The factor composition for the job characteristics and factor scoring coefficients for brawn and brain using DOT are presented in Table 4 in Rendall (Reference Rendall2013).

6 Note that from Table 2 (Column (3)), 2007–2020, the coefficient on age square is positive, which contradicts what we expected from typical Mincerian wage regression. This result implied that for workers who continuously stayed in the labor market, their earnings increased at an increasing rate. The post-school investment could help us to explain this result. The Thai Government has heavily and continuously promoted skill development in the workplace. Government, private sector organisations, and the community have offered formal and informal training, increasing workers’ earnings. For example, the Skill Development Promotion Act B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) has been issued to encourage business units to upgrade workforce skills.

7 As brain/brawn skills are computed using the average standardised factor composition, and it is hard to divide by different levels and cannot address the issue by providing an average wage based on the index, we, therefore, calculated the return on brain/brawn skills and graphed the trend instead (Figure 3).

8 We have also performed a single regression with a gender dummy interacting with brawn and brain variables and obtained findings similar to our original regression in Table 3. We have presented the results in Table A1 in the appendix.

9 The wage penalty for the number of children in 1985–1995 was roughly double for men relative to women, implying that the higher the number of children, the higher the fatherhood penalty. During that period, men were head of household and family breadwinners and more attached to the formal labor market than women. Women were mainly in the informal labor market; they could accommodate childcare and working part time, resulting in fewer wage penalties than men. However, the effect of the parenthood penalty has intensified less from 1996–2006 as the fertility rate in Thailand was very low (around 1.5). The adverse effects of the number of children on men’s and women’s wages become less compared to other periods.

10 We have also performed a single regression with an urban dummy interacting with brawn and brain variables and obtained findings similar to our original regression in Table 4. We have presented the results in Table A2 in the appendix.

References

Acemoglu, D and Autor, D (2011) Skills, tasks and technologies: implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of Labor Economics 4, 10431171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonczyk, D, DeLeire, T and Fitzenberger, B (2018) Polarisation and rising wage inequality: comparing the U.S. and Germany. Econometrics 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.1017.10.3390/econometrics6020020.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, H and Dorn, D (2013) The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. American Economic Review 103(5), 15531597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, DH (2015) Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3), 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, DH (2019) Work of the past, work of the future. American Economic Association: Papers and Proceeding 109(5), 132.Google Scholar
Autor, DH, Katz, LF and Kearney, MS (2006) The polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 96(2), 189194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, DH, Katz, LF and Kearney, MS (2008) Trends in U.S. wage inequality: revising the revisionists. Review of Economics and Statistics 90(2), 300323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autor, DH, Levy, F and Murnane, RJ (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4), 12791333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, ZL and Siegel, C (2018) Job polarization and structural change. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 10(1), 5789.Google Scholar
Biewen, M, Fitzenberger, B and Lazzer, J (2017) Rising wage inequality in Germany: increasing heterogeneity and changing selection into full-time work. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 11072, IZA, Bonn, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinder, AS (1973) Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. The Journal of Human Resources 8(4), 436455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinder, AS (2009) How many U.S. jobs might be offshorable? World Economics 10(2), 4178.Google Scholar
Blinder, AS and Krueger, AB (2013) Alternative measures of offshorability: a survey approach. Journal of Labor Economics 31(2), 97128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordot, F and Lorentz, A (2021) Automation and labor market polarization in an evolutionary model with heterogeneous workers. Working Paper. LEM Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Buera, F, Kaboski, J, Rogerson, R and Vizcaino, J (2018) Skill-biased structural change. Working Papers 21165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Card, D (2001) Estimating the return to schooling: progress on some persistent econometric problems. Econometric Society 69(5), 11271160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, D, Heining, J and Kline, P (2013) Workplace heterogeneity and the rise of West German wage inequality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(3), 9671015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavaglia, C and Etheridge, B (2020) Job polarization and the declining quality of knowledge workers: evidence from the UK and Germany. Labour Economics 66, 101884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornfeld, O and Danieli, O (2015) The Origins of Income Inequality in Israel. Israel Economic Review 12(2), 5195. Google Scholar
Dawid, H and Neugart, M (2021) Effects of technological change and automation on industry structure and (wage-) inequality: insights from a dynamic task-based model. Working Paper. Bielefeld Working Papers in Economics and Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiNardo, J, Fortin, NM and Lemieux, T (1996) Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973–1992: a semiparametric approach. Econometrica 64(5), 10011044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustmann, C, Ludsteck, J and Schonberg, U (2009) Revisiting the German wage structure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(2), 843881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fierro, LE, Caiani, A and Russo, A (2022) Automation, job polarisation, and structural change. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 200, 499535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firpo, S, Fortin, NM and Lemieux, T (2009) Unconditional quantile regressions. Econometrica 77(3), 953973.Google Scholar
Firpo, S, Fortin, NM and Lemieux, T (2011) Occupational tasks and changes in the wage structure. IZA Discussion paper No.5542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firpo, S, Fortin, NM and Lemieux, T (2018) Decomposing wage distributions using recentered influence function regressions. Econometrics 6, 28. https://doi.org/10.1017.10.3390/econometrics6020028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, PK and Pavcnik, N (2007) Distributional effects of globalization in developing countries. Journal of Economic Literature 45(1), 3982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin, CD and Katz, LF (2009) The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goos, M and Manning, A (2007) Lousy and lovely jobs: the rising polarization of work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics 89(1), 118133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goos, M, Manning, A and Salomons, A (2009) The polarization of the European labor market. American Economic Review 99(2), 5863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goos, M, Manning, A and Salomons, A (2014) Explaining job polarization: routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review 104(8), 25092526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, GH and Robertson, R (2008) China and the manufacturing exports of other developing countries. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, JD (2004) Changing returns to education in times of prosperity and crisis, Thailand 1985–1998. Economics of Education Review 23, 273286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmy, O (2015) Skill demand polarization in Egypt. Middle East Development Journal 7(1), 2648. https://doi.org/10.1017.10.1080/17938120.2015.1019291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikemoto, Y and Uehara, M (2000) Income inequality and Kuznets’ hypothesis in Thailand. Asian Economic Journal 14(4), 421443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenaga, T and Kambayashi, R (2016) Task polarization in the Japanese labor market: evidence of a long-term trend. Industrial Relations 55(2), 267293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, BF and Neumann, GR (2006) The returns to skill. Labour Economics 13(1), 3559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israngkura, A (2003) Income inequality and university financing in Thailand. Discussion paper of NIDA, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA).Google Scholar
Jensen, JB and Kletzer, LG (2010) Measuring the task content of offshorable services jobs, tradable services and job loss. In Abraham, K, Harper, M and Spletzer, J (eds), Labor in the New Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 309335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhn, C, Murphy, K and Pierce, B (1993) Wage inequality and the rise in returns to skill. The Journal of Political Economy 101, 410442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, LF and Autor, DH (1999) Changes in the wage structure and earnings inequality. In Ashenfelter, O and Card, D (eds), Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland and Elsevier, 14631555.Google Scholar
Katz, L and Margo, R (2013) US Technical change and the relative demand for skilled labor: the Uited States in historical perspective. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18752 Google Scholar
Katz, LF and Murphy, KM (1999) Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: supply and demand factors. Quarterly Journal of Economics CVII(1992), 3578.Google Scholar
Kilenthong, W (2016) Finance and inequality in Thailand. Thailand and The World Economy 34(3), 5078.Google Scholar
Knodel, J (1997) The closing of the gender gap in schooling: the case of Thailand. Comparative Education 33(1), 6186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeniger, W, Leonardi, M and Nunziata, L (2007) Labor market institutions and wage inequality. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 6(3), 340356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krongkaew, M (1985) Agricultural development, rural poverty, and income distribution in Thailand. Developing Economics 23, 325346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurita, K and Kurosaki, T (2011) Dynamics of growth, poverty and inequality: a panel analysis of regional data from Thailand and the Philippines. Asian Economic Journal 25, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lathapipat, D (2009) Changes in the Thai wage structure before and after the 1997 economic crisis. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1017.10.2139/ssrn.1483584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lathapipat, D and Chucherd, T (2013) Labor market functioning and Thailand’s competitiveness, Bank of Thailand. Discussion Paper 03/2013, Bank of Thailand.Google Scholar
Leckcivilize, A (2015) Does the minimum wage reduce wage inequality? Evidence from Thailand. IZA Journal of Labor & Development 4(21), 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemieux, T (2006) Post-secondary education and increasing wage inequality. American Economic Review 96(2), 195199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lise, J, Sudo, N, Suzuki, M, Yamada, K and Yamada, T (2014) Wage, income and consumption inequality in Japan, 1981–2008: from boom to lost decades. Review of Economic Dynamics 17, 582612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maarek, P and Moiteaux, E (2021) Polarization, employment and the minimum wage: evidence from European local labor markets. Labour Economics 73, 102076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machin, S (2003) Wage Inequality Since 1975. In Dickens R, Gregg P and Wadsworth J (eds), The Labour Market Under New Labour . London: Palgrave Macmillan, 191200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney, WF and Molina, C (2016) Are automation and trade polarizing developing country labor markets, too? World Bank Group Policy Research Working Paper 7922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meesook, O (1979) Income, consumption and poverty in Thailand: 1962/63 to 1975/76. World Bank staff working paper no. 364, The World Bank.Google Scholar
Mellacher, P and Scheuer, T (2020) Wage inequality, labor market polarization and skill-biased technological change: an evolutionary (agent-based) approach. Computational Economics, 146. https://doi.org/10.1017.10.1007/s10614-020-10026-0.Google Scholar
Motonishi, T (2006) Why Has Income inequality in Thailand Increased?: an analysis using surveys from 1975 to 1998. Japan and the World Economy 18(4), 464487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakavachara, V (2010) Superior female education: explaining the gender earnings gap trend in Thailand. Journal of Asian Economics 21, 198218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaxaca, RL (1973) Male-female wage differentials in Urban labor markets. International Economic Review 14(3), 693709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, YJ, Shim, M, Yang, H and Yoo, SY (2023) Is job polarization path-dependent? Evidence from Korea. Applied Economics Letters 30(18), 24952499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paweenawat, SW (2022) The impact of global value chain integration on wages evidence from matched worker-industry data in Thailand. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 27(4), 757780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paweenawat, SW and Liao, L (2022) Parenthood penalty and gender wage gap: recent evidence from Thailand. Journal of Asian Economics 78, 101435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paweenawat, SW and McNown, R (2014) The determinants of income inequality in Thailand: a synthetic cohort analysis. Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31, 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paweenawat, SW and Vechbanyongratana, J (2015) Wage consequences of rapid tertiary education expansion in a developing economy: the case of Thailand. The Developing Economies 53(3), 218231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phongpaichit, P and Baker, C (2008) Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Pootrakul, K (2013) Quality of economic growth from a dimension of income distribution. In Proceedings in the bank of Thailand annual symposium 2013. [in Thai]Google Scholar
Reijinders, LSM and de Vries, GJ (2017) Job polarization in advanced and emerging countries. The Role of Task Relocation and Technological Change within Global Supply Chains. GGDC Research memoranda; No. 167.Google Scholar
Rendall, M (2013) Structural change in developing countries: has it decreased gender inequality? World Development 45, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendall, M (2017) Brain versus brawn: the realization of women’s comparative advantage. Available at SSRN 1635251.Google Scholar
Samart, W (2020) Essays on minimum wages and labor income distribution in Thai labor market. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
Satimanon, T (2017) Thailand’s labor mismatch: contemporary situations and solutions. NIDA Case Research Journal 9(1), 138.Google Scholar
Spitz-Oener, A (2006) Technical change, job tasks, and rising educational demands: looking outside the wage structure. Journal of Labor Economics 24(2), 235270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sussangkarn, C and Chalamwong, Y (1996) Thailand development strategies and their impacts on labour markets and migration. In O’Connor, D and Farsakh, L (eds), Development Strategy, Employment, and Migration. Paris: OECD, 91126.Google Scholar
Te Velde, D and Morrissey, O (2004) Foreign direct investment, skills and wage inequality in East Asia. Journal of Asia Pacific Economy 9(3), 348369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, J (1974) Substitution of graduate by other labor. Kyklos 27, 217226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, J (1975) Income Distribution: Analysis and Policies. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tomohara, A and Yokota, K (2011) Foreign direct investment and wage inequality: Is skill upgrading the culprit? Applied Economic Letters 18(8), 773781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanitcharoentham, V (2017) Top income shares and inequality: evidences from Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 40(1), 4046. ISSN 2452-3151.Google Scholar
Vanitcharearnthum, V (2019) Reducing inequalities: recent experiences from Thailand. Getting Even: Public Policies to Tackle Inequality in Asia. By Mustafa Talpur.Google Scholar
Warr, P and Sarntisart, I (2005) Poverty targeting in Thailand. In John, W (ed), Poverty Targeting in Asia. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 186218.Google Scholar
Warunsiri, S and McNown, R (2010) The returns to education in Thailand: a pseudo panel approach. World Development 38(11), 16161625. https://doi.org/10.1017.10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasi, N, Paweenawat, SW, Devahastin Na Ayudhya, C, Treeratpituk, P and Nittayo, C (2019) Labor income inequality in Thailand: the roles of education, occupation and employment history. PIER Discussion Papers 117, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Shares of employment by occupational skills (1985–2020).Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (LFS) (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office. By following Autor et al (2019), the authors assigned occupations to three skill levels: managers, legislators, professionals, and technicians as ‘High-skill’; clerks, service workers, and plant and machine workers as ‘Middle-skill’; and craft workers, agricultural workers, and unskilled workers as ‘Low-skill’, and then computed the shares of employment by occupational skills over time.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Real log hourly wage by occupational skills (1985–2020).Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office. By following **Autor et al (2019), the authors assigned occupations to three skill levels: managers, legislators, professionals, and technicians as ‘High-skill’; clerks, service workers, and plant and machine workers as ‘Middle-skill’; and craft workers, agricultural workers, and unskilled workers as ‘Low-skill’; and then computed the hourly wage by occupational skills over time.

Figure 2

Table 1. Summary statistics for Labour Force Survey from 1985 to 2020

Figure 3

Table 2. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain

Figure 4

Figure 3. The return on brawn and brain (coefficients) (1985–2020).Note. All coefficients are significant at 1%, except 2011 is significant at 10%.Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office. Following Autor et al (2003) and Rendall (2013), the authors use the ordinal ranking of intellectual and physical job requirements by occupation-industry pairs and provide insight into the return on brain and brawn skills over time. The figure presents the coefficients obtained from Mincer wage regression in estimating returns to skills.

Figure 5

Table 3. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain by gender

Figure 6

Table 4. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain by residence area

Figure 7

Table 5. RIF regression estimates on wage

Figure 8

Table 6. The decomposition results

Figure 9

Figure 4. The decomposition of total change into composition and wage structure effect.Source: Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), National Statistical Office.

Figure 10

Figure 5. Detailed decomposition for composition effect.Source: Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), National Statistical Office.

Figure 11

Figure 6. Detailed decomposition for wage structure effect.Source: Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), National Statistical Office.

Figure 12

Table 7. Disaggregation results

Figure 13

Figure 1A. Share of employment in each industry (1985–2020).Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office.

Figure 14

Figure 2A. Share of employment in each industry in each occupation (1985–2020).Source: Authors’ calculations from Thailand’s Labour Force Survey (1985–2020), conducted by the National Statistical Office.

Figure 15

Figure 3A. Skill intensity for brawn by occupation and industry.Note. For x-axis, 1 = Finance and business services; 2 = Retail, hotels; 3 = Communal services; 4 = Manufacturing; 5 = Transport and telecommunications; 6 = Public services; 7 = Mining; 8 = Construction; 9 = Agriculture, hunting, etc.Source: Following Rendall (2013), skill intensity for brawn by occupation and industry was calculated by authors from Labour Force Survey.

Figure 16

Figure 4A. Skill intensity for the brain by occupation and industry.Note. For x-axis, 1 = Finance and business services; 2 = Retail, hotels; 3 = Communal services; 4 = Manufacturing; 5 = Transport and telecommunications; 6 = Public services; 7 = Mining; 8 = Construction; 9 = Agriculture, hunting, etc.Source: Following Rendall (2013), skill intensity for brain by occupation and industry was calculated by authors from Labour Force Survey.

Figure 17

Table A1. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain with interaction terms (Gender dummy: female = 1, male = 0)

Figure 18

Table A2. The results of wage regression on brawn and brain with interaction terms (Urban dummy: urban = 1, rural = 0)