Intangible Capital and Wages: A Comparison of the Czech Republic, Finland and Norway Rita Asplund (ETLA) Sami Napari (ETLA) INNODRIVE Final Conference Brussels, February 22 – 23, 2011 1 2/22/2011 ETLA
Country differences in intangible capital, 2006 Czech Republic Finland Norway Intangibles' share of GDP 1 8.0 7.3 4.5 IC workers' share of white-collar manufacturing workers 2 41.8 68.6 17.7 Female share of IC white-collar workers in manufacturing 2 24.7 32.2 12.9 1: INNODRIVE database, 2005 2: About the datasets, see Asplund & Napari (2011) 2 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: full-time white-collar manufacturing workers (age 18-64) 3 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: white-collar manufacturing workers Two distinct occupational categories: IC group : R&D, ICT, management and marketing personnel non-IC group : all other white-collar manufacturing workers 4 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: white-collar manufacturing workers Two distinct occupational categories: IC group: R&D, ICT, management and marketing personnel non-IC group: all other white-collar manufacturing workers Variable of interest: total hourly wage 5 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: white-collar manufacturing workers Two distinct occupational categories: IC group: R&D, ICT, management and marketing personnel non-IC group: all other white-collar manufacturing workers Variable of interest: total hourly wage Control variables: Gender 6 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: white-collar manufacturing workers Two distinct occupational categories: IC group: R&D, ICT, management and marketing personnel non-IC group: all other white-collar manufacturing workers Variable of interest: total hourly wage Control variables: Gender Years of formal education 7 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: white-collar manufacturing workers Two distinct occupational categories: IC group: R&D, ICT, management and marketing personnel non-IC group: all other white-collar manufacturing workers Variable of interest: total hourly wage Control variables: Gender Years of formal education Years of potential work experience 8 ETLA 2/22/2011
Overall framework Year investigated: 2006 Worker group analyzed: white-collar manufacturing workers Two distinct occupational categories: IC group: R&D, ICT, management and marketing personnel non-IC group: all other white-collar manufacturing workers Variable of interest: total hourly wage Control variables: Gender Years of formal education Years of potential work experience Years of seniority (except for the Czech Republic) 9 ETLA 2/22/2011
Wage gaps between IC group and non-IC group 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Czech Republic 10 ETLA 2/22/2011
Wage gaps between IC group and non-IC group 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Czech Republic Finland 11 ETLA 2/22/2011
Wage gaps between IC group and non-IC group 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Czech Republic Finland Norway 12 ETLA 2/22/2011
Wage gaps between IC group and non-IC group: Decomposition results Czech Republic Finland Norway 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 Log wage differential Log wage differential 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Wage distribution Wage distribution Wage distribution Total differential Effects of differences in characteristics 13 ETLA 2/22/2011
Wage gaps between IC group and non-IC group: Decomposition results Czech Republic Finland Norway 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 Log wage differential Log wage differential 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Wage distribution Wage distribution Wage distribution Total differential Effects of differences in characteristics 14 ETLA 2/22/2011
Wage gaps between IC group and non-IC group: Decomposition results Czech Republic Finland Norway 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 Log wage differential Log wage differential 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Wage distribution Wage distribution Wage distribution Total differential Effects of differences in characteristics 15 ETLA 2/22/2011
Summary of main findings: General comparison across occupation groups In all three countries, innovation workers have higher average wages than non-innovation workers This average wage gap, however, hides a lot of variation across the wage distribution Countries differ both in terms of occupation wage-gap profiles and major factors contributing to the wage gap Difficult, although interesting, question is what drives country differences in results 16 ETLA 2/22/2011
Gender wage gaps in IC group and non-IC group Innovation workers Other workers 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 Log wage differential -0.10 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 -0.35 -0.35 -0.40 -0.40 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Czech Republic 17 ETLA 2/22/2011
Gender wage gaps in IC group and non-IC group Innovation workers Other workers 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 Log wage differential -0.10 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 -0.35 -0.35 -0.40 -0.40 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Czech Republic Finland 18 ETLA 2/22/2011
Gender wage gaps in IC group and non-IC group Innovation workers Other workers 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 Log wage differential -0.10 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.25 -0.30 -0.30 -0.35 -0.35 -0.40 -0.40 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Lower half of wage distribution Upper half of wage distribution Czech Republic Finland Norway 19 ETLA 2/22/2011
Gender wage gaps in IC group: Decomposition results Czech Republic Finland Norway 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.10 Log wage differential -0.10 Log wage differential -0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30 -0.40 -0.40 -0.40 -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Wage distribution Wage distribution Wage distribution Total differential Effects of differences in characteristics 20 ETLA 2/22/2011
Gender wage gaps in IC group: Decomposition results Czech Republic Finland Norway 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.10 Log wage differential -0.10 Log wage differential -0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30 -0.40 -0.40 -0.40 -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Wage distribution Wage distribution Wage distribution Total differential Effects of differences in characteristics 21 ETLA 2/22/2011
Gender wage gaps in IC group: Decomposition results Czech Republic Finland Norway 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.10 Log wage differential -0.10 Log wage differential -0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30 -0.40 -0.40 -0.40 -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Wage distribution Wage distribution Wage distribution Total differential Effects of differences in characteristics 22 ETLA 2/22/2011
Recommend
More recommend
