ArticleHeliyon2024
Quantifying biased technical progress in China: Heterogeneous human capital and labor force dynamics.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main objectives of this study are to estimate the biased technical progress in China considering heterogeneity in human capital and labor force, examine how this heterogeneity quantitatively impacts the elasticity of substitution and biased technical progress compared to homogeneous labor assumptions, and compare the growth rates of human capital-augmenting and labor-augmenting technical progress. The estimation procedure involves a constrained Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) using provincial-level panel data from 1985 to 2021. By comparing results with and without accounting for labor force heterogeneity and human capital, the analysis quantifies their impact on the estimated elasticity of substitution between factors and the magnitude and direction of technical bias. Results found that the elasticity of capital-labor (human capital) substitution is between 0.7 and 0.8, and the elements are generally complementary. Although it does not affect the overall trend of elasticity of substitution and biased technical progress, the heterogeneity of human capital and labor force has a quantitative impact on them. It means that the elasticity of substitution increased, and the biased technological progress decreased. Moreover, the growth rate of human capital-augmenting technical progress was significantly lower than that of labor-augmenting technological progress. This study estimates the biased technical progress in China, where the human capital and labor force are heterogeneous. The findings suggest that policymakers should prioritize human capital investments and technological upgrades in industries to rebalance China's technical progress and boost productivity growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.