IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/roi/wpaper/1101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Was Mechanization De-Skilling? The Origins of Task-Biased Technical Change

Author

Listed:
  • James Bessen

    (Research on Innovation, Boston University School of Law, Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard))

Abstract

Did nineteenth century technology reduce demand for skilled workers in contrast to modern technology? I obtain direct evidence on human capital investments and the returns to skill by using micro-data on individual weavers and an engineering production function. Weavers learned substantially on the job. While mechanization eliminated some tasks and the associated skills, it increased returns to skill on the remaining tasks. Technical change was task-biased, much as with computer technology. As more tasks were automated, weavers’ human capital increased substantially. Although technology increased the demand for skill like today, weavers’ wages eventually increased and inequality decreased, contrary to current trends.

Suggested Citation

  • James Bessen, 2011. "Was Mechanization De-Skilling? The Origins of Task-Biased Technical Change," Working Papers 1101, Research on Innovation.
    • Handle: RePEc:roi:wpaper:1101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1789688
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Autor, David H., 2013. "The "task approach" to labor markets : an overview," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 46(3), pages 185-199.
    2. Graetz, Georg & Feng, Andy, 2014. "Rise of the Machines: The Effects of Labor-Saving Innovations on Jobs and Wages," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100401, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. repec:grz:wpsses:2017-02 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. David Kunst, 2019. "Deskilling among Manufacturing Production Workers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-050/VI, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Dec 2020.
    5. Gunther Tichy, 2018. "Polarisierung der beruflichen Anforderungen durch die Digitalisierung?," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 91(3), pages 177-190, March.
    6. Feldman, Naomi E. & van der Beek, Karine, 2016. "Skill choice and skill complementarity in eighteenth century England," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 94-113.
    7. Benjamin Schneider & Hillary Vipond, 2023. "The Past and Future of Work: How History Can Inform the Age of Automation," CESifo Working Paper Series 10766, CESifo.
    8. Mehdi Senouci, 2014. "The Habakkuk hypothesis in a neoclassical framework," Working Papers hal-01206032, HAL.
    9. Schneider, Benjamin & Vipond, Hillary, 2023. "The past and future of work: how history can inform the age of automation," Economic History Working Papers 119282, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    skill-biased technical change; technology; mechanization; human capital; wage inequality; learning-by-doing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J31 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
    • N31 - Economic History - - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy - - - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:roi:wpaper:1101. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jim Bessen (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.researchoninnovation.org .

    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.