nach oben

Social Indicators Research

Erschienen in:

08.08.2020 | Original Research

The Evolution of the Occupational Structure in Italy, 2007–2017

verfasst von: Gaetano Basso

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Many advanced economies have experienced significant job polarization in the last decades, with an increase in the employment share and relative wage of both low-wage and high-wage workers at the expense of middle-wage workers. This polarization has probably been spurred by the substitution of routine-intensive labour with automation and information and communication technologies. This paper explores whether the Italian labour market has experienced similar patterns and, if so, whether they are the consequence of a pure technology-driven shock. The evidence is mixed. While the share of low-wage manual occupations has increased markedly, that of high-wage professional occupations has fallen slightly. The share of middle-wage jobs has declined significantly but, unlike the case of the US, the wages have not. Regression analyses based on occupational task characteristics (Goos et al. in Am Econ Rev 104(8): 2509–2526, 2014) do not fully align with the routine-biased technical change hypothesis either, consistently with the limited adoption of automation technology in Italy. Among the most likely factors, cross-sector reallocation, which favoured the low value added service sector, and the rise of low skilled migrant and college graduate labour supply explain most of the observed occupational changes.

Vorheriger Artikel Housing, Housing Stratification, and Chinese Urban Residents’ Social Satisfaction: Evidence from a National Household Survey

Nächster Artikel Work Incentives at the Extensive and Intensive Margin in Europe: The Role of Taxes, Benefits and Population Characteristics

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Three recent contributions (Basso et al. 2017; Cerina et al. 2017; Mandelman and Zlate 2014) analyze how labour supply interacts with labour demand shocks in shaping job polarization in the US context.

It is important to notice that the analysis is subject to the break in the classification of occupations in 2011 that cannot be fully accounted for. See Sect. 3.2 for a discussion of this issue.

Rosolia (2010) estimates milder growth rates at the tails of the wage distribution than those estimated by Olivieri (2012). The administrative data used by both works do not contain occupational codes: polarization is measured only examining wage percentiles growth and not occupational average wage growth.

Wages are reported in the LFS as gross monthly earnings from labour for employees only and are top-coded at 3000 euros per month. I perform two adjustments: first, I impute hourly earnings for self-employed workers using a simple linear prediction based on observable characteristics (age, foreign-born status, education level, region, part-time status as well as gender, marital status and number of children both separate and interacted). Second, I adjust top-coded earnings by a factor 1.25 following Autor et al. (2009). Results, available upon request, are robust if I do not impute wages to self-employed, if I do not adjust top-coded earnings or if I adjust them by a factor of 1.5.

This is a more coarse classification than that adopted in the US: the Census, American Community Survey, and Current Population Survey contain about 300 three-digit occupations based on the Standard Occupational Classification, or its adaptations.

Starting from the official many-to-many crosswalk between CP2001 and CP2011 occupational codes produced by Istat, the matching procedure uses as weights the 2011 employment of each CP2011 occupation divided by all potential employment if one were using CP2001 codes. Therefore, the solution I adopt to solve for the structural break smooths the series in 2011 around the levels observed between 2007 and 2010 (as I adapt the definition of occupations to the one prevailing before 2011). Although this solution is arbitrary, it creates smooth occupational shares series that are not dramatically affected by statistical artifacts. I am not aware of any other official crosswalk that allows to smooth the occupational series. The crosswalk between the two classifications is available upon request.

Moreover, I also exclude from all the subsequent analyses the flowing two-digit occupation groups: 23 “Teaching professionals”, 33 “Teaching associate professionals”, and 92 “Agricultural, fishery and related labourers”.

Similarly, Goos et al. (2014) rank occupations based on external wage data sources (i.e., panel household survey like the ECHP and the EU-Silc which contains two-digits occupation codes) since the EU LFS do not report wage information at all.

The DOT recorded objective and subjective dimensions of occupational requirements for each six-digit occupation and classified them in 44 variables. The RTI is constructed as the difference in the logarithms of routine cognitive and routine manual minus the logarithms of non-routine analytic, non-routine interactive and non-routine manual scores. Each of these indexes is based on the percentiles values corresponding to their rank in the task intensity distribution (Autor et al. 2003; Autor et al. 2009; Autor and Dorn 2013).

O*NET is the most recent equivalent to DOT. Peri and Sparber’s (2009) measures are interpretable as percentiles, i.e. each occupation is associated with more than one index that characterizes its content of manual and communication tasks relative the use in other occupations. Acemoglu and Autor (2011) also use O*NET to construct task intensity indexes, but their version has only an ordinal interpretation. Acemoglu and Autor (2011) and Autor and Dorn (2013) also use occupational groups rather than task indexes given the arbitrary judgment involved in classifying occupations by aggregating the numerous variables contained in O*NET and DOT..

The only exception is the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) that allows constructing task-based index of occupational content for each OECD country (see Arntz et al. 2017, for a recent application). However, PIAAC it has been released very recently and classifying occupations based on recent task specialization may cause endogeneity problems as the task content of occupations evolve exactly because of technological advancements.

The results are robust when measuring employment on hours worked rather than on person counts.

I defer to Sect. 5 a discussion of how recessions and changes in occupational structure could be related.

Brunetti et al. (2018) perform a complementary analysis at the provincial level using Autor and Dorn (2013) routine intensity measure. They document that employment declined more between 2004 and 2014 in provinces with a larger starting share of routine workers.

I need to aggregate industrial sectors into five broad categories. This is because of the changes in the industrial (ATECO) classifications in 2011, which affected mainly service subsectors. Although the service subsectors (professional services, personal services, transportation and communication) are not fully comparable over time, it is worth noting two facts. First, the largest change in the employment share was in the transportation, utilities and ICT (+2.6 between 2007 and 2017 versus +0.3 in professional services and +1.7 in the personal service sector). Second, personal services have among the highest incidence of low-pay occupation (around 60% in 2007), and professional services have the highest incidence in high-pay occupations (64% in 2007). Such large degree of heterogeneity within the service sector is hindered when looking at the aggregated figures.

Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labour economics (Vol. 4B, pp. 1043–1171). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Adamopoulou, E., Bobbio, E., De Philippis, M. et al. (2016). Wage rigidities and business cycle fluctuations: A linked employer-employee analysis. IZA Journal of Labour Policy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-016-0078-5.

Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2017). Revisiting the risk of automation. Economics Letters, 159, 157–160.

Autor, D. H., & Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labour market. American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553–1597.

Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the U.S. labour market. American Economic Review, 96(2), 189–194.

Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2008). Trends in U.S. wage inequality: Revising the revisionists. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(2), 300–323.

Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.

Autor, D., & Salomons, A. (2018). Is automation labour-displacing: Productivity growth, employment, and the labour share. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (forthcoming).

Ballatore, R., Colonna, F., & Depalo e Santiago Pereda-Fernández, D. (2018). Educational mismatch in Italy: An appraisal. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper (forthcoming).

Bank of Italy. (2018). Annual Report on 2017. Rome, Italy

Bárány, Z. L., & Siegel, C. (2018). Job polarization and structural change. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 10(1), 57–89.

Basso, G., Peri, G., & Rahman, A. (2017). Computerization and immigration: Theory and evidence from the Unites States. NBER Working Paper No. 23935.

Brandolini, A., Gambacorta, R., & Rosolia, A. (2018). Inequality amid income stagnation: Italy over the last quarter of a century. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper No. 442.

Brunetti, I., Cirillo, V., & Ricci, A. (2018). Tecnologia e variazione dell’occupazione nei mercati locali del lavoro. INAPP Working Paper No. 13.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine. Lexington: Digital Frontier Press.

Bugamelli, M., & Lotti, F. (eds.) (2018). La crescita della produttività in Italia: La storia di un cambiamento al rallentatore. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper No. 422.

Cerina, F., Moro, A., & Rendall, M. P. (2017). The role of gender in employment polarization. CMF Discussion Papers 2017-04. University of Zurich, Department of Economics, Working Paper No. 250.

Cirillo, V. (2016). Employment polarisation in European industries. International Labour Review, 157(1), 39–63.

Comin, D., Lashkari, D., & Mestieri, M. (2018). Structural change with long-run income and price effects. NBER Working Paper no. 21595.

D’Amuri, F., & Peri, G. (2014). Immigration, jobs, and employment protection: Evidence from Europe before and during the great recession. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(2), 432–464.

De Philippis, M. (2017). The dynamics of the Italian labour force participation rate: Determinants and implications for the employment and unemployment rate. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper no. 396.

Fernandez-Macias, E. (2012). Job polarisation in Europe? Changes in the employment structure and job quality, 1995-2007. Work and Occupations, 39(2), 157–182.

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.

Goos, M., & Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising polarization of work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 118–133.

Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2009). Job polarization in Europe. American Economic Review, 99(2), 58–63.

Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2509–2526.

Jaimovich, N., & Siu, H. E. (2020). Job polarization and jobless recoveries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(1), 129–147.

Mandelman, F., & Zlate, A. (2014). Offshoring, low-skilled immigration, and labour market polarization. Atlanta FED, Working Paper 2014-28.

OECD. (2017). OECD employment outlook 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2017-en.CrossRef

Olivieri, E. (2012). Il cambiamento delle opportunità lavorative. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper no. 117.

Olivieri, E., & Nellas, V. (2012). The change of job opportunities: The role of computerization and institutions. Working Paper DSE no. 804.

Peri, G., & Sparber, C. (2009). Task specialization, immigration, and wages. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 135–169.

Petrella, A., & Torrini, R. (eds.). (2019). Turismo in Italia: Numeri e potenziale di sviluppo. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper no. 503.

Rosolia, A. (2010). L’Evoluzione delle retribuzioni in Italia tra il 1986 e il 2004 secondo i dati dell’archivio WHIP. Politica Economica, 2.

Schivardi, F., & Schmitz, T. (2018). The IT revolution and Southern Europe’s two lost decades. Working paper.

Schivardi, F., & Schmitz, T. (2019). The IT revolution and Southern Europe’s two lost decades. Journal of the European Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvz048.CrossRef

US Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Titel: The Evolution of the Occupational Structure in Italy, 2007–2017
verfasst von: Gaetano Basso
Publikationsdatum: 08.08.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02460-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

A Comparison of Normalized and Non-Normalized Multiplicative Subjective Importance Weighting in Quality of Life Measurement

Good for the Common Good: Sociotropic Concern and Double Standards toward High- and Low-Skilled Immigrants in Six Wealthy Countries

Mental Well-being Among Workers: A Cross-national Analysis of Job Insecurity Impact on the Workforce

Does Subjective Social Status Predict Self-Rated Health in Chinese Adults and Why?

Work Incentives at the Extensive and Intensive Margin in Europe: The Role of Taxes, Benefits and Population Characteristics

The Dynamic Relationship Between Technology Innovation and Human Development in Technologically Advanced Countries: Fresh Insights from Quantiles-on-Quantile Approach

Premium Partner