IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v15y2025i10p381-d1760125.html

Import Competition, Labor Market Flexibility, and Skill Premium-Evidence from China Based on the Dynamic Threshold Model

Author

Listed:
  • Mingrong Wang

    (School of Economics, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Longnan Ma

    (School of Economics, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of import competition on skill premium and the moderating effect of labor market flexibility on it, using panel data from 30 provinces in China from 2010 to 2019. A dynamic panel threshold model with instrumental variables is employed to address the endogeneity problem and to identify the nonlinear moderating effect of labor market flexibility. The results show the following: (1) Import competition has a promoting effect on skill premium, and this effect declines from eastern to western regions in China. (2) The import competition increases the skill premium through the channels of enhancing regional innovation capacity and promoting industrial upgrading and rationalization. (3) There exists a significant threshold effect in the moderating effect of labor market flexibility. When labor market flexibility surpasses the threshold value of 1.330, the enhancing effect of import competition on the skill premium is alleviated, facilitating labor reallocation and wage adjustment. The integration of labor market flexibility into the globalization–inequality debate extends the existing literature for providing a new understanding of the mechanisms behind the skill premium. The policy implications are that targeted labor market reforms are essential for mitigating wage differentials between skilled and unskilled workers arising from intensified import competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingrong Wang & Longnan Ma, 2025. "Import Competition, Labor Market Flexibility, and Skill Premium-Evidence from China Based on the Dynamic Threshold Model," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-30, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:10:p:381-:d:1760125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/10/381/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/10/381/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chakraborty, Pavel & Raveh, Ohad, 2018. "Input-trade liberalization and the demand for managers: Evidence from India," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 159-176.
    2. Robert C. Feenstra & Gordon H. Hanson, 1999. "The Impact of Outsourcing and High-Technology Capital on Wages: Estimates For the United States, 1979–1990," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 907-940.
    3. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2003. "Institutions, trade, and growth : revisiting the evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3004, The World Bank.
    4. Kasahara, Hiroyuki & Liang, Yawen & Rodrigue, Joel, 2016. "Does importing intermediates increase the demand for skilled workers? Plant-level evidence from Indonesia," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 242-261.
    5. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2003. "Institutions, trade, and growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 133-162, January.
    6. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    7. Raveh, Ohad & Reshef, Ariell, 2016. "Capital imports composition, complementarities, and the skill premium in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 183-206.
    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. Hussien, Abdurohman & Ahmed, Shakeel & Yousaf, Muhammed, 2012. "Does Trade Policy Explain Total Factor Productivity Differences Across Countries?," MPRA Paper 86594, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dollar, David & Hallward-Driemeier, Mary & Mengistae, Taye, 2006. "Investment climate and international integration," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1498-1516, September.
    3. Sarra Ben Yahmed & Sean Dougherty, 2012. "Import Competition, Domestic Regulation and Firm-Level Productivity Growth in the OECD," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 980, OECD Publishing.
    4. Luljeta Hajderllari & Kostas Karantininis & Lartey G. Lawson, 2012. "FDI as an Export-Platform: A Gravity Model for the Danish Agri-Food Industry," IFRO Working Paper 2012/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Daniel Sakyi & Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, 2019. "The Effects of Trade Facilitation on Trade Performance in Africa," Journal of African Trade, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. World Bank, 2008. "Republic of Namibia - Addressing Binding Constraints to Stimulate Broad Based Growth : A Country Economic Report," World Bank Publications - Reports 12601, The World Bank Group.
    7. Hoch, Felix & Rudsinske, Jonas, 2021. "Building bridges: Bilateral manager connections and international trade," CIW Discussion Papers 4/2021, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    8. Miklós Koren & Márton Csillag, 2017. "Machines and Machinists: Importing Skill-Biased Technology," CEU Working Papers 2017_1, Department of Economics, Central European University.
    9. Thomas Gries & Rainer Grundmann, 2020. "Modern sector development: The role of exports and institutions in developing countries," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 644-667, May.
    10. Matteo Cervellati & Alireza Naghavi & Farid Toubal, 2018. "Trade liberalization, democratization, and technology adoption," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 145-173, June.
    11. Wang, Wenxiao & Thangavelu, Shandre & Lin, Faqin, 2021. "Global value chains, firms, and wage inequality: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Gislain Stéphane Gandjon Fankem & Cédric Feyom, 2024. "Is trade openness a barrier to industrialization? Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 160(2), pages 713-759, May.
    13. Mingzhi Xu, 2020. "Globalization, the skill premium, and income distribution: the role of selection into entrepreneurship," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(3), pages 633-668, August.
    14. Freund, Caroline & Bolaky, Bineswaree, 2008. "Trade, regulations, and income," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 309-321, October.
    15. Tarlok Singh, 2010. "Does International Trade Cause Economic Growth? A Survey," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1517-1564, November.
    16. Sarra Ben Yahmed & Sean Dougherty, 2017. "Domestic regulation, import penetration and firm-level productivity growth," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 385-409, May.
    17. Finicelli, Andrea & Pagano, Patrizio & Sbracia, Massimo, 2013. "Ricardian selection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 96-109.
    18. Ion MUȘCHEI, 2019. "The relationship between institutions and trade, empirical analysis from the Republic of Moldova case," Eastern European Journal for Regional Studies (EEJRS), Center for Studies in European Integration (CSEI), Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova (ASEM), vol. 5(2), pages 4-23, December.
    19. Hartwell, Christopher A., 2014. "The impact of institutional volatility on financial volatility in transition economies : a GARCH family approach," BOFIT Discussion Papers 6/2014, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    20. Alvar Kangur, 2016. "What Rules in the ‘Deep’ Determinants of Comparative Development?," Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, vol. 8(1).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:10:p:381-:d:1760125. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.