IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v24y2000i6p709-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Britain's Workplace Skills Becoming More Unequal?

Author

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

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Felstead, Alan & Ashton, David & Green, Francis, 2000. "Are Britain's Workplace Skills Becoming More Unequal?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(6), pages 709-727, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:6:p:709-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Feenberg, 2010. "Marxism and the critique of social rationality: from surplus value to the politics of technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 37-49, January.
    2. Jochen Runde & Matthew Jones & Kamal Munir & Lynne Nikolychuk, 2009. "On technological objects and the adoption of technological product innovations: rules, routines and the transition from analogue photography to digital imaging," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Peter Kroes, 2010. "Engineering and the dual nature of technical artefacts," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 51-62, January.
    4. J. Stan Metcalfe, 2010. "Technology and economic theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 153-171, January.
    5. Tony Smith, 2010. "Technological change in Capitalism: some Marxian themes," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 203-212, January.
    6. Trevor Pinch, 2010. "On making infrastructure visible: putting the non-humans to rights," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 77-89, January.
    7. Anne Mayhew, 2010. "Clarence Ayres, technology, pragmatism and progress," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 213-222, January.
    8. Tim Ingold, 2010. "The textility of making," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 91-102, January.
    9. Kurt Dopfer & John Foster & Jason Potts, 2004. "Micro-meso-macro," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 263-279, July.
    10. Judy Wajcman, 2010. "Feminist theories of technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 143-152, January.
    11. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2010. "On the nature of technologies: knowledge, procedures, artifacts and production inputs," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 173-184, January.
    12. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2010. "The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 125-141, January.
    13. Clive Lawson, 2009. "Ayres, Technology and Technical Objects," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 641-660.
    14. Robert Aunger, 2010. "What's special about human technology?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 115-123, January.
    15. Wiebe E. Bijker, 2010. "How is technology made?--That is the question!," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, January.
    16. G. Harman, 2010. "Technology, objects and things in Heidegger," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 17-25, January.
    17. Christopher Freeman, 1991. "Innovation, Changes of Techno-Economic Paradigm and Biological Analogies in Economics," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 42(2), pages 211-232.
    18. Albert Borgmann, 2010. "Reality and technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 27-35, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Garnero & Stephan Kampelmann & François Rycx, 2013. "Part-time Work, Wages and Productivity:Evidence from Belgian Matched Panel Data," DULBEA Working Papers 13-08, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Borghans L. & Weel B. ter, 2000. "How computerizaton changes the UK Labour Market: The Facts viewed from a new Perspective," ROA Working Paper 010, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).

    More about this item

    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: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). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.