IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wii/wpaper/225.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing Digital Leadership: Is the EU Losing out to the US?

Author

Listed:
  • Dario Guarascio
  • Roman Stöllinger

    (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)

Abstract

Since Leontief’s (1953) seminal work on the factor content of trade, the validity of the Heckscher-Ohlin-model has been judged not only on the basis of formal tests of the theory but also tested against prior expectation. In this vein, this paper uses the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek (HOV) approach to investigate whether supposed US leadership in the digital domain can be traced back to digital task endowments embodied in labour services. In a comparison between EU member states and the US, we find that the latter is more intensive in digital tasks than the EU and that this difference is explained by both an intensity-effect (US occupations being more digital-task intensive) and a structural component (relatively more digital-task intensive occupations). Viewed through the lens of the HOV theorem we find that the US is abundant in digital tasks relative to non-digital tasks, while the opposite is true for the EU. The standard tests for the predictive power of the HOV theorem are high and in line with the results for labour in previous literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Dario Guarascio & Roman Stöllinger, 2023. "Assessing Digital Leadership: Is the EU Losing out to the US?," wiiw Working Papers 225, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    • Handle: RePEc:wii:wpaper:225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wiiw.ac.at/assessing-digital-leadership-is-the-eu-losing-out-to-the-us-dlp-6486.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 803-815.
    2. ., 2022. "Social security: a view from beyond the beltway," Chapters, in: Reforming Capitalism for the Common Good, chapter 7, pages 93-97, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    4. Trefler, Daniel & Zhu, Susan Chun, 2010. "The structure of factor content predictions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 195-207, November.
    5. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "International Factor Price Differences: Leontief Was Right!," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 961-987, December.
    6. Praz, 2022. "Data Security," Springer Books, in: Link Technology to Your Long-Term Business Goals, chapter 0, pages 153-161, Springer.
    7. ., 2022. "Security, privacy and compliance," Chapters, in: The Rise of Blockchains, chapter 5, pages 98-124, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Li, Qi, 2022. "Security design without verifiable retention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Cecilia Rikap & Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2021. "The Digital Innovation Race," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-89443-6, September.
    10. Matteo Sostero & Santo Milasi & John Hurley & Enrique Fernandez-Macias & Martina Bisello, 2020. "Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide?," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2020-05, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Artal-Tur, Andrés & Castillo-Giménez, Juana & Llano-Verduras, Carlos & Requena-Silvente, Francisco, 2011. "The factor content of regional bilateral trade: The role of technology and demand," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 157-172, April.
    2. Assaf Zimring, 2019. "Testing the Heckscher–Ohlin–Vanek theory with a natural experiment," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 58-92, February.
    3. Coveri, Andrea & Cozza, Claudio & Guarascio, Dario, 2023. "Blurring boundaries: an analysis of the digital platforms-military nexus," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1364, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. Francisco Requena & Andrés Artal & Juana Castillo, 2008. "Testing Heckscher— Ohlin—Vanek Model Using Spanish Regional Data," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 31(2), pages 159-184, April.
    5. Reimer, Jeffrey J., 2011. "The domestic content of imports and the foreign content of exports," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 173-184, April.
    6. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 2001. "Do Factor Endowments Matter for North-North Trade?," NBER Working Papers 8516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Trefler, Daniel & Zhu, Susan Chun, 2010. "The structure of factor content predictions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 195-207, November.
    8. Morrow, Peter M. & Trefler, Daniel, 2022. "How do endowments determine trade? quantifying the output mix, factor price, and skill-biased technology channels," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    9. Satoshi Honma & Yushi Yoshida, 2019. "Convergence in pollution terms of trade," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 603-627, July.
    10. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 2001. "An Account of Global Factor Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1423-1453, December.
    11. Robert Stehrer, 2014. "Does the Home Bias Explain Missing Trade in Factors?," wiiw Working Papers 110, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    12. Nishioka, Shuichiro, 2013. "R&D, trade in intermediate inputs, and the comparative advantage of advanced countries," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 96-110.
    13. Simensen, Erlend Osland & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Sectoral patterns of collaborative tie formation: Investigating geographic, cognitive, and technological dimensions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(5), pages 1223-1258.
    14. Timon Bohn & Steven Brakman & Erik Dietzenbacher, 2019. "Who's afraid of Virginia WU? The labor composition and labor gains of trade," CESifo Working Paper Series 7527, CESifo.
    15. Hugo Pinto & Jorge André Guerreiro & Manuel Fernández-Esquinas, 2023. "Sources of knowledge in the firm: a review on influential, internal and contextual factors in innovation dynamics," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1-32, February.
    16. Dumont, Michel, 2022. "Public support to business research and development in Belgium: fourth evaluation," MPRA Paper 115418, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Harald Fadinger, 2006. "Development Accounting in a Heckscher-Ohlin World," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_017, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    18. Baldwin, Richard & Robert-Nicoud, Frédéric, 2014. "Trade-in-goods and trade-in-tasks: An integrating framework," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 51-62.
    19. Jäkel, Ina C. & Smolka, Marcel, 2017. "Trade policy preferences and factor abundance," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-19.
    20. Marshall, Kathryn G., 2012. "International productivity and factor price comparisons," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 386-390.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Comparative advantages; digitalisation; Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek theorem; digital tasks;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • D57 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Input-Output Tables and Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wii:wpaper:225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Customer service (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wiiwwat.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.