Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Technological change and labor market in the trade and services sector in Mexico

Abstract

This paper studies the hypothesis of biased technological change (HCTS) in the trade and services sector in Mexico, 2005-2019. The HCTS suggests that new technologies are currently biased towards more educated workers compared to those with less skills. The objective is to analyze the relationship between qualified labor supply and abstract tasks with information from the National Survey of Occupation and Employment. An optimal control model is developed, where the trajectory of technological change is analyzed to determine the demand for employment assigned in analytical tasks, and then a panel data model is used to confirm this relationship. The results in general show for the industry in Mexico, that work experience is decisive to explain the labor assignment in abstract tasks. At the regional level, it is shown that the North region confirms the HCTS, while in the South, the work experience determines the abstract tasks.

Keywords

Endogenous technological change, skilled labor, abstract tasks, service sector, theory of optimal control

PDF (Spanish)

References

  1. Acemoglu, D. (1998). Why do new technologies complements skills? Directed technical changes and wages inequality. The Quarterly Journal Economics. 113(4), 1055-1089.
  2. ___ (2002). Directed technical change. Review if Economic Studies. 69(4), 781-809.
  3. ___ (2009). Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton University Press.
  4. Acemoglu, D. y D. Autor (2010). Skill, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings.
  5. ___ (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of Labor Economics. 4b, 1044-1116. DOI 10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5.
  6. ___ (2012). What does human capital do? A review of Goldin and Katz’s the race between education and technology. Journal of Economic Literature. 50(2), 426-463. Recuperado de: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.50.2.426.
  7. Acemoglu, D. y P. Restrepo (2018). The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review. 108(6), 1488-1542. Recuperado de: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20160696.
  8. Aghion, P. y P. Howitt (2009). The economics of growth. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 169-188.
  9. Aghion, P.; P. Howitt y G. Violante (2002). Jornal of Economic Growth. (7), 315-345.
  10. Alarcón, M. y A. Ruiz (2020). Cambio tecnológico en corporaciones multinacionales del noroeste de México (2005-2014). Nova Scientia. 12(24), 1-34. doi.org/10.21640/ns.v12i24.2045.
  11. Arellano y Bover (1990). La econometría de datos de panel. Investigaciones Económicas. 14(1), 3-45.
  12. Autor, D. (2011). La polarización de las oportunidades de trabajo en el Mercado laboral de EU. Implicaciones para el desempleo y los salarios. Centro de Iniciativas Culturales. 67(1), 29-38.
  13. Autor, D.; A. Krueger y L. Katz (1998). Computing inequality: Have computers changed the labor market? The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1169-1213.
  14. Autor, D.; F. Levy y R. Murnane (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1279-1333.
  15. Banxico (2021). Reporte Sobre las Economías Regionales: abril-junio 2021. 1-79.
  16. Becker, G. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. The Journal of Political Economy. 70(5), 9-49.
  17. Calderon, C.; G. Ochoa y L. Huesca (2017). Mercado laboral y cambio tecnológico en el sector manufacturero mexicano (2005-2014). Economia, Sociedad y Territorio. 17(54), 523-260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22136/est002017958.
  18. Dussel E. (2004). Pequeña y mediana empresa en México: Condiciones, relevancia en la economía y retos de política. Economía UNAM. 1(002), 64-84.
  19. Gelfand, I. y S. Fomin (1963). Calculus of variations. Prentice Hall.
  20. Greenwood, J.; Z. Hercowitz y P. Krusell (1997). Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. The American Economic Association. 87(3), 342-362.
  21. Hernández, L. (2004). Panorama del mercado laboral de profesionistas en México. Economía UNAM 1(2), 98-109.
  22. Hicks, J. R. (1963). The theory of wages (2da ed.). Palgrave MacMillan.
  23. Huesca, L; D. Castro y M. Camberos (2014). Cambio tecnológico y empleo en el sector manufacturero de las regiones mexicanas. En D. Castro Lugo & R. E. Rodríguez Pérez (Eds.). El mercado laboral frente a las transformaciones económicas en México, pp. 235-286. Plaza y Valdés Editores.
  24. INEGI (2020). Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE). Estructura de la base de datos, pp. 1-92.
  25. ___ (2021). Clasificación Mexicana de Ocupaciones (CMO) histórica, 1, 1-207.
  26. Johnston, J. y J. Dinardo (1997). Econometric methods, 4 ed., McGraw Hill.
  27. Krusell, P.; L. Ohanian; J. Ríos-Rull & G. Violante (2000). Capital-skill complementary and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica, 68(5), pp. 1029-1053.
  28. Lustig, N.; F. López, y E. Ortiz (2014). Los determinantes de la disminución de la desigualdad en América Latina. Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina. 265-281.
  29. Nicholson, W. (1997). Teoría Microeconómica. Principios básicos y aplicaciones. (6 ed.). McGraw Hill.
  30. Ricardo, D. (1959). Principios de economía política y tributación. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  31. Robinson, J. (1976). La acumulación de capital. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  32. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. The University of Chicago Press. The Journal of Political Economy. 98(5), 71-102.
  33. Ros, J. (2013). Rethinking economic development, growth & institutions. Oxford University Press.
  34. Samuelson, P. y W. Nordhaus (1999). Economía. (16 ed). McGraw Hill.
  35. Smith A. (2009). Una investigación sobre la naturaleza y causas de la riqueza de las naciones, México: Editorial Tecnos.
  36. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1). 65-94.

Most read articles by the same author(s)