Ariell Reshef

 

Ph.D. Candidate


New York University, Department of Economics

 

 

Abstracts

 

 

 

Job Market Paper

 

“Is Technological Change Biased Towards the Unskilled in Services? An Empirical Investigation”

 

The leading explanation for the increase in the U.S. college premium over the last 40 years is aggregate skill biased technological change (SBTC). This explanation overlooks shifts in the economy's sectoral composition and excludes the possibility of different directions of technological biases in different sectors. I estimate a two-sector general equilibrium model which fits the U.S. aggregate and sectoral trends in relative wages, prices and employment during 1963-2005. Technological change is inferred by directly exploiting general equilibrium restrictions and optimality conditions. The estimates reveal that in the growing skill intensive services sector technological progress has been unskilled biased, i.e. average productivity of less skilled workers increased faster than it did for skilled workers. In the unskilled intensive goods sector in contrast, the opposite bias is estimated. Convolution of these two forces leads to inferring SBTC at the aggregate level, in spite of the diverging trends in goods and services. Faster productivity growth of unskilled versus skilled workers in services is consistent with a shift in the mix of occupations: unskilled workers in services have continuously re-allocated into more computer complementary occupations to a greater extent than skilled workers. In contrast, the occupational mix in the goods sector moderately shifted in the opposite direction, which is consistent with faster productivity growth for skilled workers. Taking explicitly into account the sectoral composition of the economy can change our view on the direction of technological change over the last 40 years.

 

 

“Skill Biased Financial Development: Education, Wages and Occupations in the U.S. Financial Sector”, with Thomas Philippon

 

Over the past 60 years, the U.S. financial sector has grown from 2.3% to 7.7% of GDP. While the growth in the share of value added has been fairly linear, it hides a dramatic change in the composition of skills and occupations. In the early 1980s, the financial sector started paying higher wages and hiring more skilled individuals than the rest of economy. These trends reflect a shift away from low-skill jobs and towards market-oriented activities within the sector. Our evidence suggests that technological and financial innovations both played a role in this transformation. We also document an increase in relative wages, controlling for education, which partly reflects an increase in unemployment risk: Finance jobs used to be safer than other jobs in the private sector, but this is not longer the case.

 

Paper.

 

 

“The Power of Exports”, with William Easterly and Julia Schwenkenberg

 

We document extremely high concentration of 6-digit export classifications across goods, destinations and world trade market shares. Export values tend to follow a power law, especially at the upper tail of the distribution. We characterize the distribution of exports along these dimensions with a mix of Pareto and log-normal distributions. The Pareto component accounts for most of the variation across exports for less-developed countries and captures differences in productivities. The log-normal component is more important for developed countries, and captures demand shocks.

 

Paper coming online soon!

 

 

“Trade and Harmonization: if your institutions are good, does it matter if they are different?”, with Roumeen Islam

 

Good institutional quality (function) and similar institutional design (form) can promote international trade by reducing transactions costs. We evaluate the relative importance of function versus form in a gravity model, using an indicator of different legal systems as a proxy for differences in form together with indicators of overall institutional quality. We find that good institutions promote trade much more than similar legal systems and have much more explanatory power. This effect is economically large – up to 10 times the effect of different legal systems. Moreover, better infrastructure matters as much as good institutions.

 

Paper.

 

 

“Heckscher-Ohlin and the Global Increase of Skill Premia: Factor Intensity Reversals to the Rescue”

 

This paper advances the claim that trade liberalization has been a strong force behind the global increase of skill premia, in particular in skill-scarce, developing countries. By introducing skill-intensity reversals, the Heckscher-Ohlin framework captures the stylized facts of the global increase in skill premia, both in developed and in less-developed

countries. I support the model by evidence on industrial structure and changes in relative prices. The calibrated model is also successful quantitatively: small changes in relative goods prices are consistent with much larger increases in skill premia that have been observed in the data. This suggests that tariff reductions might have been a strong driving force behind the increase in global inequality and weakens the conclusion that other forces have been dominant. The analysis also suggests an explanation for protection of skill-unintensive sectors both in developed- and less-developed countries.

 

Paper.

 

 

“Why Does Capital Flow to Rich States?”, with Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan, Bent Sorensen and Oved Yosha

 

We study the determinants of net capital income flows within the United States. We analyze a simple multi-state neoclassical model in which total factor productivity varies across states and over time and capital flows freely across state borders. The model predicts that capital will flow to states with relatively high output growth. Since relative growth patterns are persistent such states are also high output states, which implies that high output will be associated with inflows of capital and net outflows of capital income. Our empirical findings correspond well to the predictions of the model and indicate persistent net capital income flows and net cross-state investment positions between states which are an order of magnitude larger than observed capital income flows between countries. Thus, our results imply that frictions associated with national borders are likely to be the main explanation for “low" international capital flows.

 

Paper.

 

 

Home