IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/151292.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Wage Premium and Market Structure: The Case of South Korea and Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Yen, Meng-Feng

Abstract

We seek to understand why the difference between wages earned by skilled and unskilled labor, the so-called “wage premium”, varies across developing countries, using South Korea and Taiwan as empirical case studies. South Korea and Taiwan are both small developing countries with export-led economies that enjoy relatively high incomes compared to their Asian counterparts (excluding Japan). Between 1990 and 2000, Taiwan experienced a decrease in the wage premium, while South Korea remained the same wage premium. In particular, during that period, the wage premium fell from 67% to 25% in Taiwan, but remains around 44% in South Korea (Helms et al, 1999; Choi and Jeong, 2005); the trend continued through 2012 according statistics published by South Korean and Taiwanese Ministries of Labor. The existing academic literature offers several theories of how wage premia are determined. One strand of the literature attributes cross-country variation in the wage premium to differences in relative human capital factor endowments; another strand attributes it to differences in rates of skilled biased technical change; and a third strand attributes it to differences in the degrees of competition at the sectoral level (Leamer 1996; Feenstra and Hanson, 1997; and Krugman, 2001). However, none of these theories adequately explain differences in the wage premium observed between South Korea and Taiwan. Both countries have comparable relative human capital endowments (Guo, 2005), have traded heavily with the U.S. (U.S. census data), and have experienced substantial skill-based technical change over the past decade (Chan, 2005; Choi and Jeong 2005). The puzzling question is then: why is the wage premium in South Korea much higher than in Taiwan? In an effort to resolve the puzzle, we theorize that cross-country variation in the wage premium arises from differences in the degree of competition in markets for differentiated goods. Taiwanese firms are small and operate in a monopolistic competitive environment, whereas South Korean firms are larger and enjoy more government support (Feenstra and Hanson, 1993; Rodrik, 1994). In our paper, we explore whether these differences in market structure can account for the observed differences in the wage premium between the two countries. To understand the impact of competition on the wage premium, we build and analyze a general equilibrium model of two trading partners, one a small developing country with a relatively low skilled labor endowment and the other a large developed country with a relatively high skilled labor requirement. The trading partners produce and trade two types of goods, a homogenous good and a differentiated good, both of which are produced using two types of labor, skilled and unskilled. We analyze the model under different assumptions regarding the competitiveness of the differentiated good market and find that the wage premium in the developing country will be higher if the market for the differentiated good is characterized by oligopolistic competition rather than monopolistic competition. We then test the predictions of our theoretical model empirically. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that that wage premium is positively related to concentration measure. Due to the limitation of two different forms of data available to us — individual- and industry-level data — we employ the two stage regression method developed by Goldberg and Pavcnik (2003). In the first stage, we regress the wage premium on individual characteristics, industry dummies, an education variable and an interaction variable of education level and industry dummies; in the second stage, we regress the parameter estimated in the first stage against a measure of product market competition (i.e., the concentration ratio) and other control variables. To our knowledge, a cross-country level comparison on the influence of product market structure on the wage premium has not been undertaken for developing countries. We employ data from several sources. We use a panel of individual-level and industry-level observations over three distinct years drawn from several sources: the Taiwan Manpower Utilization Survey (TMUS), Academia Sinica (Taiwan), the Korean Labor & Income Panel Study (KLIPS), the OECD Structural Analysis database (STAN), and the U.S. Economic Census. Import and export data are taken from United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database and the International Economic Data Bank (IDEB). Data obtained from TMUS and KLPS are at the individual level and the data obtained from sources are at the industry level. We restrict our attention to trade between the Taiwan and the U.S. and between South Korea and the U.S. because for both countries, the U.S. is each country’s most important trade partner. Our analysis departs from the well-established factor endowment and skilled-based technical change literatures, providing a novel explanation that wage premium differences across developing countries differ due to market structure and market power under trade. Our study should provide ample fuel for thought for development economists and policy makers in developing countries who are interested in the impact of trade on economic growth and on the distribution of income among those living in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Yen, Meng-Feng, 2013. "The Wage Premium and Market Structure: The Case of South Korea and Taiwan," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151292, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:151292
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.151292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/151292/files/AgEcon%20search_Meng-Fen%20Yen_AAEA%20paper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.151292?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Head, Keith & Ries, John, 2002. "Offshore production and skill upgrading by Japanese manufacturing firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 81-105, October.
    2. Dani Rodrik, 1994. "Industrial Organization and Product Quality: Evidence from South Korean and Taiwanese Exports," NBER Chapters, in: Empirical Studies of Strategic Trade Policy, pages 195-210, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Galiani, Sebastian & Sanguinetti, Pablo, 2003. "The impact of trade liberalization on wage inequality: evidence from Argentina," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 497-513, December.
    4. Nickell, S & Vainiomaki, J & Wadhwani, S, 1994. "Wages and Product Market Power," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(244), pages 457-473, November.
    5. Eli Berman & John Bound & Zvi Griliches, 1994. "Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor within U. S. Manufacturing: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufactures," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(2), pages 367-397.
    6. Al-Muharrami, Saeed & Matthews, Kent & Khabari, Yusuf, 2006. "Market structure and competitive conditions in the Arab GCC banking system," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(12), pages 3487-3501, December.
    7. Kang-Shik Choi & Jinook Jeong, 2005. "Technological change and wage premium in a small open economy: the case of Korea," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 119-131.
    8. Wood Júnior, Thomaz, 1995. "Workers," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 35(2), March.
    9. Koujianou Goldberg, Pinelopi & Pavcnik, Nina, 2003. "The response of the informal sector to trade liberalization," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 463-496, December.
    10. Adrian Wood, 1997. "How Trade Hurt Unskilled Workers," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Jitendralal Borkakoti & Chris Milner (ed.), International Trade and Labour Markets, chapter 7, pages 140-168, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Edward E. Leamer, 1996. "In Search of Stolper-Samuelson Effects on U.S. Wages," NBER Working Papers 5427, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lawrence F. Katz & Lawrence H. Summers, 1989. "Can Interindustry Wage Differentials Justify Strategic Trade Policy?," NBER Chapters, in: Trade Policies for International Competitiveness, pages 85-124, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Nickell, Stephen, 1999. "Product markets and labour markets1," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Eli Berman & John Bound & Zvi Griliches, 1993. "Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor within U.S. Manufacturing Industries: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufacturing," NBER Working Papers 4255, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Andrea Conte & Marco Vivarelli, 2007. "Globalization and Employment: Imported Skill Biased Technological Change in Developing Countries," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-009, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    16. Feenstra, R.C. & Yang, T.H. & Hamilton, G.G., 1993. "Market Structure and International Trade: Business Groups in East Asia," Papers 93-23, California Davis - Institute of Governmental Affairs.
    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. Gallego, Francisco A., 2012. "Skill Premium in Chile: Studying Skill Upgrading in the South," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 594-609.
    2. Catherine L. Mann, 1997. "Globalization and Productivity in the United States and Germany," Working Paper Series Working Paper Special (1), Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    3. Lars Calmfors & Giancarlo Corsetti & Michael P. Devereux & Gilles Saint-Paul & Hans-Werner Sinn & Jan-Egbert Sturm & Xavier Vives, 2008. "Chapter 3: The effect of globalisation on Western European jobs: curse or blessing?," EEAG Report on the European Economy, CESifo, vol. 0, pages 71-104, February.
    4. Rosario Crinò, 2009. "Offshoring, Multinationals And Labour Market: A Review Of The Empirical Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 197-249, April.
    5. Rita A. Balaban & James Harrigan, 1999. "U.S. wages in general equilibrium: the effects of prices, technology and factor supplies, 1963-1991," Staff Reports 64, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    6. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Nina Pavcnik, 2007. "Distributional Effects of Globalization in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(1), pages 39-82, March.
    7. Sener, Fuat, 2001. "Schumpeterian unemployment, trade and wages," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 119-148, June.
    8. Jonathan E. Haskel, 2000. "Trade and Labor Approaches to Wage Inequality," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), pages 397-408, August.
    9. J.E. Haskel & M.J. Slaughter, 1998. "Does the Sector Bias of Skill-Biased Technical Change Explain Changing Wage Inequality?," Working Papers 386, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    10. Hoekman & Bernard & Winters, L. Alan, 2005. "Trade and employment : stylized facts and research findings," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3676, The World Bank.
    11. Piva, Mariacristina & Santarelli, Enrico & Vivarelli, Marco, 2005. "The skill bias effect of technological and organisational change: Evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 141-157, March.
    12. Haskel, Jonathan & Slaughter, Matthew J, 2001. "Trade, Technology and U.K. Wage Inequality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 163-187, January.
    13. Chang, Hsaio-chuan, 1999. "Wage Differential, Trade, Productivity Growth and Education," Departmental Working Papers 2000-01, The Australian National University, Arndt-Corden Department of Economics.
    14. Jeff Borland, 2000. "Economic Explanations of Earnings Distribution Trends in the International Literature and Application to New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 00/16, New Zealand Treasury.
    15. Pavcnik, Nina, 2003. "What explains skill upgrading in less developed countries?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 311-328, August.
    16. Jolanda Peeters & Albert de Vaal, 2003. "Explaining the Wage Gap: Intra-Industry Trade, Services Linkages and Falling Transportation Costs," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 1(3), pages 251-280, December.
    17. Lisandro Abrego & John Whalley, 1999. "The Choice of Structural Model in Trade-Wages Decompositions," NBER Working Papers 7312, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Sivadasan, Jagadeesh & Slemrod, Joel, 2008. "Tax law changes, income-shifting and measured wage inequality: Evidence from India," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(10-11), pages 2199-2224, October.
    19. Yong-Yil Choi, 1998. "Free Trade and Wage Inequality in an Advanced Economy," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 349-359, October.
    20. Jorge Friedman & Nanno Mulder & Sebastián Faúndez & Esteban Pérez Caldentey & Carlos Yévenes & Mario Velásquez & Fernando Baizán & Gerhard Reinecke, 2011. "Openness, Wage Gaps and Unions in Chile: A Micro Econometric Analysis," OECD Trade Policy Papers 134, OECD Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Labor and Human Capital;

    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:ags:aaea13:151292. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.