IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Merits of Ability in Developing and Developed Countries

Listed author(s):
  • Daniel Suryadarma

Different economic characteristics between developing and developed countries may require worker with different skills, resulting in different returns to the same ability. Moreover, it is also possible that different countries require different skills depending on their economic fundamentals. This paper provides evidence of the hypotheses above by comparing the labour market returns to numeracy and cognitive ability in Indonesia and the United States. In Indonesia, I find that numeracy has no significant effect on income, while general cognitive ability positively affects income. In the United States, meanwhile, I find that only mathematics ability is significant. Looking at the returns by sex, I find that the benefits of higher cognitive skills only pertain to males in Indonesia, while females have higher returns to numeracy than males in the United States. These results are robust to different specifications. Overall, these differences in returns to ability between Indonesia and the United States indicate that different economic structures indeed demand different sets of skills.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 645.

in new window

Date of creation: Oct 2010
Handle: RePEc:auu:dpaper:645
Contact details of provider: Postal:
+61 2 6125 3807

Phone: +61 2 6125 3807
Fax: +61 2 6125 0744
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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:auu:dpaper:645. 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: ()

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.