IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/openec/v36y2025i2d10.1007_s11079-024-09772-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Stöllinger

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • Dario Guarascio

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

Abstract

Since Leontief’s (Leontief 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

  • Roman Stöllinger & Dario Guarascio, 2025. "Assessing Digital Leadership: Is the EU Losing Out to the US?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 329-371, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:openec:v:36:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11079-024-09772-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11079-024-09772-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11079-024-09772-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11079-024-09772-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Stehrer, 2014. "Does the Home Bias Explain Missing Trade in Factors?," wiiw Working Papers 110, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    2. 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.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2022. "Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 1973-2016, September.
    4. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The Geography of Trade and Technology Shocks in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 220-225, May.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2019. "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    6. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Nov.
    7. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    8. Leamer, Edward E, 1980. "The Leontief Paradox, Reconsidered," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(3), pages 495-503, June.
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/170cd4sul89ddpnfuomvfm0jc0 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Philippe Aghion & Céline Antonin & Simon Bunel & Xavier Jaravel, 2020. "What Are the Labor and Product Market Effects of Automation? New Evidence from France," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03403062, HAL.
    11. Piotr Lewandowski & Albert Park & Wojciech Hardy & Yang Du & Saier Wu, 2022. "Erratum to: Technology, Skills, and Globalization: Explaining International Differences in Routine and Nonroutine Work Using Survey Data," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(3), pages 801-801.
    12. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    13. Lucrezia Fanti & Dario Guarascio & Massimo Moggi, 2022. "From Heron of Alexandria to Amazon’s Alexa: a stylized history of AI and its impact on business models, organization and work," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(3), pages 409-440, September.
    14. Lorenz Gschwent & Dario Guarascio & Stefan Jestl & Alireza Sabouniha & Roman Stöllinger, 2023. "Digital Tasks and ICT Capital: Methodologies and Data," wiiw Statistical Reports 11, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    15. Trefler, Daniel & Zhu, Susan Chun, 2010. "The structure of factor content predictions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 195-207, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    18. Cirillo, Valeria & Evangelista, Rinaldo & Guarascio, Dario & Sostero, Matteo, 2021. "Digitalization, routineness and employment: An exploration on Italian task-based data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    19. David Autor & Caroline Chin & Anna Salomons & Bryan Seegmiller, 2024. "New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(3), pages 1399-1465.
    20. Piotr Lewandowski & Albert Park & Wojciech Hardy & Yang Du & Saier Wu, 2022. "Technology, Skills, and Globalization: Explaining International Differences in Routine and Nonroutine Work Using Survey Data," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(3), pages 687-708.
    21. Sara Flisi & Giulia Santangelo, 2022. "Occupations in the European Labour Market During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 57(2), pages 120-126, March.
    22. Arntz, Melanie & Gregory, Terry & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2017. "Revisiting the risk of automation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-160.
    23. Trefler, Daniel, 1995. "The Case of the Missing Trade and Other Mysteries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1029-1046, December.
    24. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2018. "The Race between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1488-1542, June.
    25. Serenella Caravella & Francesco Crespi & Dario Guarascio & Matteo Tubiana, 2021. "Heterogeneity in the demand-growth relationship at the firm level: the role of demand sources and innovation/knowledge characteristics," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 516-535, July.
    26. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Maria Enrica Virgillito, 2021. "Hierarchies, Knowledge, and Power Inside Organizations," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 371-384, December.
    27. Robert E. Baldwin, 2008. "The Development and Testing of Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Models: A Review," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262026562, December.
    28. John Maynard Keynes, 2010. "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Essays in Persuasion, chapter 2, pages 321-332, Palgrave Macmillan.
    29. Dominique Foray, 2013. "The economic fundamentals of smart specialisation," EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco / Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, vol. 83(02), pages 55-82.
    30. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3n1gbsj6rs80ipqv9d42nfd0ge is not listed on IDEAS
    31. Bowen, Harry P & Leamer, Edward E & Sveikauskas, Leo, 1987. "Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 791-809, December.
    32. Edler, Jakob & Blind, Knut & Kroll, Henning & Schubert, Torben, 2023. "Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    33. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/170cd4sul89ddpnfuomvfm0jc0 is not listed on IDEAS
    34. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/3n1gbsj6rs80ipqv9d42nfd0ge is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jasmine Mondolo, 2022. "The composite link between technological change and employment: A survey of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1027-1068, September.
    2. Tyna Eloundou & Sam Manning & Pamela Mishkin & Daniel Rock, 2023. "GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models," Papers 2303.10130, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    3. Stöllinger, Roman & Guarascio, Dario, 2023. "Comparative advantages in the digital era–A Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek approach," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 63-89.
    4. Kozo Kiyota, 2021. "The Leontief Paradox Redux," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 296-313, May.
    5. Caselli, Mauro & Fracasso, Andrea & Scicchitano, Sergio & Traverso, Silvio & Tundis, Enrico, 2025. "What workers and robots do: An activity-based analysis of the impact of robotization on changes in local employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    6. 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.
    7. Fernández-Macías, Enrique & Klenert, David & Antón, José-Ignacio, 2021. "Not so disruptive yet? Characteristics, distribution and determinants of robots in Europe," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 76-89.
    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. 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.
    10. David Autor & Caroline Chin & Anna Salomons & Bryan Seegmiller, 2024. "New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(3), pages 1399-1465.
    11. Cheng, Can & Luo, Jiayu & Zhu, Chun & Zhang, Shangfeng, 2024. "Artificial intelligence and the skill premium: A numerical analysis of theoretical models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    12. Deng, Yue & Feng, Aiya & Hu, Dezhuang, 2025. "Gender earnings gap in Chinese firms: Can it be narrowed by industrial robots?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Jäkel, Ina C. & Smolka, Marcel, 2017. "Trade policy preferences and factor abundance," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-19.
    14. Parteka, Aleksandra & Wolszczak-Derlacz, Joanna & Nikulin, Dagmara, 2024. "How digital technology affects working conditions in globally fragmented production chains: Evidence from Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Hausmann, Ricardo & Stock, Daniel P. & Yıldırım, Muhammed A., 2022. "Implied comparative advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    16. Nishioka, Shuichiro, 2012. "International differences in production techniques: Implications for the factor content of trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 98-104.
    17. Andrés Artal & Juana Castillo & Francisco Requena, 2006. "Contrastación empírica del modelo de dotaciones factoriales para el comercio interregional de España," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 30(3), pages 539-576, September.
    18. repec:hal:journl:hal-04837769 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Ciaian, Pavel & Kancs, d'Artis & Pokrivcak, Jan, 2011. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content in Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE - Vantaggi comparati, costi di transazione e contenuto dei fattori nel commercio agr," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 64(1), pages 67-101.
    21. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2022. "Modelling artificial intelligence in economics," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 56, pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Comparative advantages; Digital technologies; Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek theorem; Europe; US;
    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

    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:kap:openec:v:36:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11079-024-09772-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.