Skill-Biased Innovation, Growth, and Inequality

  • Yasuyuki OsumiEmail author


Parallel to the widespread inequality phenomena in the advanced countries, there has been a growing literature about skill-biased technology and inequality. Among them, having analyzed the dynamics of technical unemployment in the framework of the induced factor bias of innovation, Stiglitz (2014) argued that the formulation of induced skill-biased innovation is one of the promising researches for analyzing the various inequalities prevailing in the OECD countries. One of the implications of the induced innovation framework in line with Kennedy (1964) and Samuelson (1966) is that relatively increasing of the factor share can induce firms to introduce its own factor-augmenting technical progress in the maximization of the instantaneous cost reduction rate of change on the concavity of the innovation frontier.



The author is grateful to Hideyuki Adachi, Professor Emeritus of Kobe University. He is also grateful to Tamotsu Nakamura, Takeshi Nakatani, Atsushi Miyake, and Hideaki Uchida for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Acemoglu, D. 2002. Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature 40: 7–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D. 2010. When does labor scarcity encourage innovation? Journal of Political Economy 118: 1037–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoglu, D. 2015. Localised and biased technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s new view innovation, and directed technological change. Economic Journal 125: 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acemoglu, D., and P. Restrepo. 2017a. The Race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares and employment. American Economic Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Acemoglu, D., and P. Restrepo. 2017b. Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. NBER Working Papers, 23285.Google Scholar
  6. Acemoglu, D., and P. Restrepo. 2018. Modeling automation. American Economic Review, Paper and Proceedings.Google Scholar
  7. Adachi, H., T. Nakamura, K. Inagaki, and Y. Osumi. 2019. Technological progress, income distribution, and unemployment -Theory and empirics-, Springer Briefs in Economics.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, A., E. Buffie, and F. Zanna. 2018. Should we fear the robot revolution? (The correct answer is yes), IMF Working Paper, 18/116.Google Scholar
  9. Caselli, F., and W.J. Coleman II. 2006. The world technology frontier. American Economic Review 96: 499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciccone, A., and G. Peri. 2005. Long-run substitutability between more and less educated workers: Evidence from a panel of countries. Review of Economics and Statistics 87: 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drandakis, E.M., and E.S. Phelps. 1966. A model of induced invention, growth, and distribution. Economic Journal 76: 823–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duffy, J., C. Papageorgiou, and F. Perez-Sebastian. 2004. Capital-skill complementarity? Evidence from a panel of countries. Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graetz, G., and G. Michaels. 2015. Robots at work. CEPR Discussion Paper 1335.Google Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z. 1969. Capital-skill complementarity. Review of Economics and Statistics 51: 465–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hornstein, A., P. Krusell, and G. L. Violante. 2005. The effects of technical change on labor market inequalities. In Handbook of economic growth, vol. 1B, eds. Aghion, P. and S.N. Durlauf, 1275-1370, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy, C. 1964. Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution. Economic Journal 74: 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotlikoff, L., and J.D. Sachs. 2012. Smart machines and long-term misery. NBER Working Paper, 18629.Google Scholar
  18. Korinek, A., and Stiglitz, J.E. 2017. Artificial intelligence and implications for income distribution and unemployment. NBER Working Paper 24174.Google Scholar
  19. Krusell, P., L.E. Ohanian, J.-V. Rios-Rull, and G.L. Violante. 2000. Capital-skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68: 1029–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nordhaus, W.D. 1973. Some skeptical thoughts on the theory of induced innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87: 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samuelson, P. 1966. A theory of induced innovation along Kennedy-Weizacker lines. Review of Economics and Statistics 33: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sato, K. 1967. A two-level constant-elasticity-of-substitution production function. Review of Economic Studies 34: 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solow, R.M. 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 43: 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stiglitz, J.E. 2014. Unemployment and innovation. NBER Working Paper 20670.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HyogoKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations