CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 238Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityEconomic Growth and ProductivityGlobal trade and economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Skill-Biased Technical Change

Violante, Giovanni L.·2008·The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics
DOI 10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2388-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Skill-biased technical change is a shift in the production technology that favours skilled over unskilled labour by increasing its relative productivity and, therefore, its relative demand. Traditionally, technical change is viewed as factor-neutral. However, recent technological change has been skill-biased. Theories and data suggest that new information technologies are complementary with skilled labour, at least in their adoption phase. Whether new capital complements skilled or unskilled labour may be determined endogenously by innovators’ economic incentives shaped by relative prices, the size of the market, and institutions. The ‘factor bias’ attribute puts technological change at the center of the income-distribution debate.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2388-1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Acemoglu, D. 1998. Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 1055–1090. · DOI
  2. Aghion, P. 2002. Schumpeterian growth theory and the dynamics of income inequality. Econometrica 70: 855–882. · DOI
  3. Autor, D., L. Katz, and A. Krueger. 1998. Computing inequality: Have computers changed the labor market? Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 1169–1213. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bartel, A., and F. Lichtenberg. 1987. The comparative advantage of educated workers in implementing new technology. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69: 1–11. · DOI
  5. Caselli, F. 1999. Technological revolutions. American Economic Review 89: 78–102. · DOI
  6. Galor, O., and O. Moav. 2000. Ability biased technological transition, wage inequality within and across groups, and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 469–497. · DOI
  7. Garicano, L., and E. Rossi-Hansberg. 2004. Inequality and the organization of knowledge. American Economic Review 94: 197–202. · DOI
  8. Goldin, C., and L. Katz. 1998. The origins of technology–skill complementarity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 693–732. · DOI
  9. Gordon, R. 1990. The measurement of durable goods prices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Greenwood, J., Z. Hercowitz, and P. Krusell. 1997. Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. American Economic Review 87: 342–362.
  11. Greenwood, J., and M. Yorukoglu. 1997. 1974. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 46: 49–96. · DOI
  12. Griliches, Z. 1969. Capital–skill complementarity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 5: 465–468. · DOI
  13. Hornstein, A., and P. Krusell. 1996. Can technology improvements cause productivity slowdowns? In NBER macroeconomics annual, ed. J. Rotemberg and B. Bernanke, Vol. 11. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Hornstein, A., P. Krusell, and G. Violante. 2005. The effects of technical change on labor market inequalities. In Handbook of economic growth, ed. P. Aghion and S. Durlauf, Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  15. Katz, L., and K. Murphy. 1992. Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: Supply and demand factors. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 35–78. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Krusell, P., L. Ohanian, J. Ríos-Rull, and G. Violante. 2000. Capital skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68: 1029–1054. · DOI
  17. Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1990. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review 80: 511–528.
  18. Nelson, R., and E. Phelps. 1966. Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. American Economic Review 56: 69–75.
  19. Solow, R. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics 39: 312–320. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 238

Metadata

Authors
Violante, G. L.
Corresponding author
Violante, Giovanni L.
Venue
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics
Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan UK
Published
2008
Pages
1-6
DOI
10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2388-1
OpenAlex
W2798355260
Cited by
238
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
Keywords
skill-biased technological change, information technology, skilled workers, unskilled labor, labor productivity, income distribution, innovation incentives

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review