IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/11422.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Computer Adoption and Returns in Transition: Theory Appendix

Author

Listed:
  • Orazem, Peter
  • Singh, Rajesh
  • Kuku, Yemisi

Abstract

Across nine transition economies, it is the young, educated, English-speaking workers with the best access to local telecommunications infrastructures that work with computers. These workers earn about 25% more than do workers of comparable observable skills who do not use computers. Controlling for likely simultaneity between computer use at work and labor market earnings makes the apparent returns to computer use disappear. These results are corroborated using Russian longitudinal data on earnings and computer use on the job. High costs of computer use in transition economies suppress wages that firms can pay their workers who use computers.

Suggested Citation

  • Orazem, Peter & Singh, Rajesh & Kuku, Yemisi, 2006. "Computer Adoption and Returns in Transition: Theory Appendix," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11422, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:11422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/papers/p3830-2006-09-26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bulkley, George & Myles, Gareth D & Pearson, Bernard R, 2001. "On the Membership of Decision-Making Committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 106(1-2), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Tilman Borgers, 2004. "Costly Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 57-66.
    3. Murphy, Kevin M & Topel, Robert H, 2002. "Estimation and Inference in Two-Step Econometric Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 88-97, January.
    4. Johnson, Ronald N & Libecap, Gary D, 1982. "Contracting Problems and Regulation: The Case of the Fishery," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1005-1022.
    5. Tilman Borgers, 2004. "Costly Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 57-66.
    6. Abhijit Banerjee & Rohini Somanathan, 2001. "A Simple Model of Voice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(1), pages 189-227.
    7. Feddersen, Timothy J & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1996. "The Swing Voter's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 408-424.
    8. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 1990. "A Positive Theory of Fiscal Deficits and Government Debt," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(3), pages 403-414.
    9. Hao Li & Sherwin Rosen & Wing Suen, 2001. "Conflicts and Common Interests in Committees," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1478-1497.
    10. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 1999. "Waiting to Be Protected under the Endangered Species Act: The Political Economy of Regulatory Delay," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 29-60, April.
    11. Jeffrey S. Rosenthal & Martin J. Osborne & Matthew A. Turner, 2000. "Meetings with Costly Participation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 927-943.
    12. Colin M. Campbell, 1999. "Large Electorates and Decisive Minorities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(6), pages 1199-1217, December.
    13. Cropper, Maureen L. & William N. Evans & Stephen J. Berard & Maria M. Ducla-Soares & Paul R. Portney, 1992. "The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 175-197, February.
    14. Matsui Akihiko & Matsuyama Kiminori, 1995. "An Approach to Equilibrium Selection," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, pages 415-434.
    15. Bruno Biais & Enrico Perotti, 2002. "Machiavellian Privatization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 240-258.
    16. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sorting; computer adoption; Returns; earnings; technology; Eastern Europe; Central Asia;

    JEL classification:

    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General

    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:isu:genres:11422. 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: (Curtis Balmer). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    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.