1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Economics
  4. Volume 13, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Economics

Volume 13, 2021

Directed Technical Change in Labor and Environmental Economics

Abstract

It is increasingly evident that the direction of technological change responds to economic incentives. We review the literature on directed technical change in the context of environmental economics and labor economics, and we show that these fields have much in common both theoretically and empirically. We emphasize the importance of a balanced growth path and show that the lack of such a path is closely related to the slow development of green technologies in environmental economics and to growing inequality in labor economics. We discuss whether the direction of innovation is efficient.

Keyword(s): automation, climate change, directed technical change, endogenous growth, income inequality, JEL E25, JEL J24, JEL O31, JEL O33, JEL O41, JEL O44, JEL Q55
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-092120-044327
2021-08-05
2025-04-01
The full text of this item is not currently available.

Literature Cited

  1. Aaronson D, Phelan B. 2019.. Wage shocks and the technological substitution of low-wage jobs. . Econ. J. 129::1–34
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Acemoglu D. 1998.. Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality. . Q. J. Econ. 113::1055–89
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Acemoglu D. 2002.. Directed technical change. . Rev. Econ. Stud. 69::781–809
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Acemoglu D. 2003.. Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. . J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 1::1–37
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Acemoglu D. 2007.. Equilibrium bias of technology. . Econometrica 75::1371–409
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Acemoglu D. 2010.. When does labor scarcity encourage innovation?. J. Political Econ. 118::1037–78
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Barrage L, Hémous D. 2019.. Climate change, directed innovation, and energy transition: the long-run consequences of the shale gas revolution. Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge:
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hémous D. 2012a.. The environment and directed technical change. . Am. Econ. Rev. 102::131–66
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Hémous D. 2014.. The environment and directed technical change in a North–South model. . Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 30::513–30
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Hanley D, Kerr W. 2016.. The transition to clean technology. . J. Political Econ. 124::52–104
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Acemoglu D, Autor D. 2011.. Skills, tasks, and technologies: implications for employment and earnings. . In Handbook of Labor Economics, 4, ed. O Ashenfelter, D Card , pp. 1043–171. Amsterdam:: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Acemoglu D, Finkelstein A. 2008.. Input and technology choices in regulated industries: evidence from the health care sector. . J. Political Econ. 116::837–80
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Acemoglu D, Gancia G, Zilibotti F. 2012b.. Competing engines of growth: innovation and stardardization. . J. Econ. Theory 147::570–601.e3
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Acemoglu D, Rafey W. 2019.. Mirage on the horizon: geoengineering and carbon taxation without commitment. NBER Work. Pap. 24411
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2018.. The race between machine and man: implications of technology for growth, factor shares and employment. . Am. Econ. Rev. 108::1488–542
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2019a.. Artificial intelligence, automation, and work. . In The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, ed. A Agrawal, J Gans, A Goldfarb , pp. 197–236. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2019b.. Automation and new tasks: how technology displaces and reinstates labor. . J. Econ. Perspect. 33::3–30
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2019c.. Demographics and automation. Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge:
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2020a.. Robots and jobs: evidence from US labor markets. . J. Political Econ. 128::6. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2020b.. The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand. . Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 13::25–35
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P. 2020c.. Unpacking skill bias: automation and new tasks. . Am. Econ. Assoc. Pap. Proc. 110::356–61
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Acemoglu D, Zilibotti F. 2001.. Productivity differences. . Q. J. Econ. 116::563–606
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Aghion P, Bénabou R, Martin R, Roulet A. 2020.. Environmental preferences and technology choices: Is market competition clean or dirty NBER Work. Pap. 26921
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Aghion P, Dechezleprêtre A, Hémous D, Martin R, Van Reenen J. 2016.. Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. . J. Political Econ. 214::1. https://doi.org/10.1086/684581
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Aghion P, Hepburn C, Teytelboym A, Zenghelis D. 2019a.. Path dependence, innovation and the economics of climate change. . In Handbook on Green Growth, ed. R Fouquet , pp. 67–83. Cheltenham, UK:: Edward Elgar Publ
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Aghion P, Howitt P. 1992.. A model of growth through creative destruction. . Econometrica 60::323–51
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Aghion P, Howitt P. 1996.. Research and development in the growth process. . J. Econ. Growth 1::49–73
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Aghion P, Howitt P. 2009.. The Economics of Growth. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Aghion P, Jones BF, Jones CI. 2019b.. Artificial intelligence and economic growth. . In The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, ed. A Agrawal, J Gans, A Goldfarb , pp. 237–90. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Alesina A, Battisti M, Zeira J. 2018.. Technology and labor regulations: theory and evidence. . J. Econ. Growth 23::41–78
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Andersson D, Karadja M, Prawitz E. 2020.. Mass migration and technological change. . SocArXiv, March. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/74ub8
    [Crossref]
  32. André F, Smulders S. 2014.. Fueling growth when oil peaks: directed technological change and the limits to efficiency. . Eur. Econ. Rev. 69::18–39
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Autor D. 2014.. Polanyi's paradox and the shape of employment growth. . In Economic Policy Proceedings: Re-evaluating Labor Market Dynamics, pp. 129–77. Kansas City, MO:: Fed. Reserve Bank Kansas City
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Autor D, Levy F, Murnane R. 2003.. The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. . Q. J. Econ. 118::1279–333
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Barrett S. 2006.. Climate treaties and “breakthrough” technologies. . Am. Econ. Rev. 96::22–25
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Bena J, Simintzi E. 2019.. Machines could not compete with Chinese labor: evidence from U.S. firms' innovation. Work. Pap., Univ. B. C., Vancouver, Can:
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Bovenberg AL, Smulders S. 1995.. Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model. . J. Public Econ. 57::369–91
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Bovenberg AL, Smulders S. 1996.. Transitional impacts of environmental policy in an endogenous growth model. . Int. Econ. Rev. 37::861–93
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Brunnermeier S, Cohen M. 2003.. Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45::278–93
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Calel R. 2020.. Adopt or innovate: understanding technological responses to cap-and-trade. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 12::170–201
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Calel R, Dechezleprêtre A. 2016.. Environmental policy and directed technical change: evidence from the European carbon market. . Rev. Econ. Stat. 98::173–91
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Casey G. 2018.. Growth, unemployment, and labor-saving technical change. Unpublished manuscript, Williams Coll., Williamstown, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Casey G. 2019.. Energy efficiency and directed technical change: implications for climate change mitigation. Dep. Econ. Work. Pap. 2019-17 , Williams Coll., Williamstown, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Casey G, Horii R. 2019.. A multi-factor Uzawa growth theorem and endogenous capital-augmenting technological change. ISER Discuss. Pap. 1051 , Inst. Soc. Econ. Res., Osaka Univ., Osaka, Jpn:
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Clemens M, Lewis E, Postel H. 2018.. Immigration restrictions as active labor market policy: evidence from the Mexican bracero exclusion. . Am. Econ. Rev. 108::1468–87
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Coelli F, Moxnes A, Ulltveit-Moe KH. 2020.. Better, faster, stronger: global innovation and trade liberalization. . Rev. Econ. Stat. In press. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00951
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Danzer A, Feuerbaum C, Gaessler F. 2020.. Labor supply and automation innovation. IZA Discuss. Pap. 13429 , Inst. Labor Econ., Bonn, Ger:
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M. 2011.. Does foreign environmental policy influence domestic innovation? Evidence from the wind industry. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 58::391–413
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Dechezleprêtre A, Hémous D, Olsen M, Zanella C. 2019.. Automating labor: evidence from firm-level patent data. CEPR Discuss. Pap. 14249 , Cent. Econ. Policy Res., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Di Maria C, Smulders SA. 2005.. Trade pessimists versus technology optimists: induced technical change and pollution havens. . B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 3::1–27
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Di Maria C, Valente S. 2008.. Hicks meets Hotelling: the direction of technical change in capital-resource economies. . Environ. Dev. Econ. 13::691–717
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Dietz S, Lanz B. 2019.. Can a growing world be fed when the climate is changing? IRENE Work. Pap. 19-09 , IRENE Inst. Econ. Res., Cergy, Fr:
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Doran K, Yoon C. 2020.. Immigration and invention: evidence from the quota acts. Unpublished manuscript, Univ. Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN:
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Dugoua E. 2020.. Induced innovation and international environmental agreements: evidence from the ozone regime. Work. Pap., London Sch. Econ., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Fischer C, Heutel G. 2013.. Environmental macroeconomics: environmental policy, business cycles, and directed technical change. . Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 5::197–210
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Fried S. 2018.. Climate policy and innovation: a quantitative macroeconomic analysis. . Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 10::9–118
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Gans J. 2012.. Innovation and climate change policy. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 4::125–45
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Gars J, Olovsson C. 2019.. Fuel for economic growth?. J. Econ. Theory 184::104941
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Gerglagh R, Kverndokk S, Rosendahl KE. 2009.. Optimal timing of climate change policy: interaction between carbon taxes and innovation externalities. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 43::369–90
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Gerlagh R, Kverndokk S, Rosendahl KE. 2014.. The optimal time path of clean energy R&D policy when patents have finite lifetime. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67::2–19
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Gerlagh R, Lise W. 2005.. Carbon taxes: a drop in the ocean, or a drop that erodes the stone? The effect of carbon taxes on technological change. . Ecol. Econ. 54::241–60
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldin C, Katz L. 2008.. The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Goulder LH, Schneider SH. 1999.. Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. . Resour. Energy Econ. 21::211–53
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Greaker M, Heggedal TR, Rosendahl KE. 2018.. Environmental policy and the direction of technical change. . Scand. J. Econ. 120::1100–38
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Grimaud A, Rouge L. 2008.. Environment, directed technical change and economic policy. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 41::439–63
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Habakkuk J. 1962.. American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Harstad B, Lancia F, Russo A. 2019.. Compliance technology and self-enforcing agreements. . J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 17::1–29
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Hart R. 2004.. Growth, environment and innovation—a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 48::1078–98
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Hart R. 2008.. The timing of taxes on CO2 emissions when technological change is endogenous. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 55::194–212
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hart R. 2019.. To everything there is a season: carbon pricing, research subsidies, and the transition to fossil-free energy. . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 6::349–89
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Hassler J, Krusell P, Olovsson C. 2019.. Directed technical change as a response to natural-resource scarcity. Work. Pap. Ser. 375 , Cent. Bank Swed., Stockholm:
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hémous D. 2016.. The dynamic impact of unilateral environmental policies. . J. Int. Econ. 103::80–95
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Hémous D, Olsen M. 2021.. The rise of the machines: automation, horizontal innovation and income inequality. . Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Heutel G, Moreno-Cruz J, Shayegh S. 2018.. Solar geoengineering, uncertainty, and the price of carbon. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 87::24–41
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Hicks J. 1932.. The Theory of Wages. London:: Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Hornbeck R, Naidu S. 2014.. When the levee breaks: black migration and economic development in the American South. . Am. Econ. Rev. 104::963–90
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Howell S. 2017.. Financing innovation: evidence from R&D grants. . Am. Econ. Rev. 107::1136–64
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Irmen A. 2017.. Capital- and labor-saving technical change in an aging economy. . Int. Econ. Rev. 58::261–85
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Irmen A, Tabakovic A. 2017.. Endogenous capital-and labor-augmenting technical change in the neoclassical growth model. . J. Econ. Theory 170::346–84
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Jonstone N, Hascic I, Popp D. 2010.. Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 45::133–55
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Katz L, Murphy K. 1992.. Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: supply and demand factors. . Q. J. Econ. 107::35–78
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kennedy C. 1964.. Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution. . Econ. J. 74::541–47
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Knittel C. 2011.. Automobiles on steroids: product attribute trade-offs and technological progress in the automobile sector. . Am. Econ. Rev. 101::3368–99
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kruse-Andersen P. 2020.. Directed technical change, environmental sustainability, and population growth. Discuss. Pap. 19-12 , Univ. Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Den:
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Lazkano I, Nøstbakken L, Pelli M. 2017.. From fossil fuels to renewables: the role of electricity storage. . Eur. Econ. Rev. 99::113–29
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Lewis E. 2011.. Immigration, skill mix, and capital skill complementarity. . Q. J. Econ. 126::1029–69
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Loebbing J. 2021.. An elementary theory of directed technical change and wage inequality. . Rev. Econ. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab025
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Lööf H, Baum C, Perez L. 2018.. Directed technical change in clean energy: evidence from the solar industry. Work. Pap. Ser. Econ. Inst. Innov. 470 , R. Inst. Technol., CESIS, Stockholm, Swed:
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Lordan G, Neumark D. 2018.. People versus machines: the impact of minimum wages on automatable jobs. . Labour Econ. 52::40–53
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Martinez J. 2019.. Automation, growth and factor shares. Work. Pap., London Bus. Sch., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Massetti E, Carraro C, Nicita L. 2009.. How does climate policy affect technical change? An analysis of the direction and pace of technical progress in a climate-economy model. . Energy J. 30::7–38
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Nakamura H, Zeira J. 2018.. Automation and unemployment: Help is on the way. Work. Pap., Osaka City Univ., Osaka, Jpn:
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN. 1999.. The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. . Q. J. Econ. 114::941–75
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Noailly J, Smeets R. 2015.. Directing technical change from fossil-fuel to renewable energy innovation: an application using firm-level patent data. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 72::15–37
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Nordhaus WD. 2002.. Modeling induced innovation in climate-change policy. . In Technological Change and the Environment, ed. A Grübler, N Nakicenovic, WD Nordhaus , pp. 182–209. Washington, DC:: Resour. Future
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Papageorgiou C, Saam M, Schulte P. 2017.. Substitution between clean and dirty energy inputs: a macroeconomic perspective. . Rev. Econ. Stat. 99::281–90
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Peretto P, Seater J. 2013.. Factor-eliminating technical change. . J. Monet. Econ. 60::459–73
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Popp D. 2002.. Induced innovation and energy prices. . Am. Econ. Rev. 92::160–80
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Popp D. 2004.. ENTICE: endogenous technological change in the DICE model of global warming. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 24::742–68
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Popp D. 2006.. ENTICE-BR: the effects of backstop technology R&D on climate policy models. . Energy Econ. 28::188–222
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Popp D. 2019.. Environmental policy and innovation: a decade of research. . Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 13::265–337
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Popp D, Newell R, Jaffe A. 2010.. Energy, the environment and technological change. . In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, ed. B Hall, N Rosenberg , pp. 873–937. Amsterdam:: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Prettner K, Strulik P. 2020.. Innovation, automation and inequality: policy challenges in the race against the machine. . J. Monet. Econ. 116::249–65
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Ray D, Mookherjee D. 2020.. Growth, automation and the long run share of labor. NBER Work. Pap. 26658
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Ricci F. 2007.. Environmental policy and growth when inputs are differentiated in pollution intensity. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 38::285–310
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Romer P. 1990.. Endogenous technological change. . J. Political Econ. 98::S71–S102
     [Google Scholar]
  107. San S. 2019.. Labor supply and directed technical change: evidence from the abrogation of the Bracero Program in 1964. Work. Pap., New York Univ., New York:
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Shanker A, Stern D. 2018.. Energy intensity, growth and technical change. CAMA Work. Pap. 46/2018 , Aust. Natl. Univ., Canberra, Aust:
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Smulders S, de Nooij M. 2003.. The impact of energy conservation on technology and economic growth. . Resour. Energy Econ. 25::59–79
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Stern D, Pezzey J, Lu Y. 2020.. Directed technical change and the British Industrial Revolution. Dep. Work. Pap., Aust. Natl. Univ., Canberra, Aust:
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Sue Wing I. 2003.. Induced technical change and the cost of climate policy. Rep. 102 , MIT Jt. Progr. Sci. Policy Glob. Change, Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge:
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Uzawa H. 1961.. Neutral inventions and the stability of growth equilibrium. . Rev. Econ. Stud. 28::117–24
     [Google Scholar]
  113. van den Bijgaart I. 2017.. The unilateral implementation of a sustainable growth path with directed technical change. . Eur. Econ. Rev. 91::305–27
     [Google Scholar]
  114. van der Meijden G, Smulders S. 2017.. Carbon lock-in: the role of expectations. . Int. Econ. Rev. 58::1371–415
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Verdolini E, Galeotti M. 2011.. At home and abroad: an empirical analysis of innovation and diffusion in energy technologies. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61::119–34
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Witajewski-Baltvilks J, Fischer C. 2019.. Green innovation and economic growth in a North-South model. Work. Pap. 19-04 , Resour. Future, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Zeira J. 1998.. Workers, machines, and economic growth. . Q. J. Econ. 113::1091–117
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-092120-044327
Loading
Directed Technical Change in Labor and Environmental Economics
Annual Review of Economics 13, 571 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-092120-044327
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-092120-044327
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-092120-044327
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error