IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Are Britain's Workplace Skills Becoming More Unequal?

  • Felstead, Alan
  • Ashton, David
  • Green, Francis

It has been argued that workplace skills are becoming more polarised in Britain. This tendency is sometimes considered to be a factor contributing to the process of social exclusion and growing wage inequality. Skill polarisation has therefore been the focus of renewed academic and--since the election of the Labour government--political interest. In some respects, previous survey evidence for the 1980s can be used to support the skill polarisation thesis. This paper investigates whether the process has continued into the 1990s among those in work. Our main finding is that there has been no overriding process of skill polarisation between 1992 and 1997. However, the picture is complex, with losers as well as winners. Among the winners are full-timers, employees and those employed by "modern" organisations. The losers, on the other hand, include those in part-time work, the self-employed and those employed in organisations with less progressive management practices. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Cambridge Journal of Economics.

Volume (Year): 24 (2000)
Issue (Month): 6 (November)
Pages: 709-27

in new window

Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:6:p:709-27
Contact details of provider: Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:6:p:709-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.