Assessing Digital Leadership: Is the EU Losing Out to the US?

IF 1.5 4区经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Open Economies Review Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1007/s11079-024-09772-7

Roman Stöllinger, Dario Guarascio

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since Leontief’s (Leontief 1953) seminal work on the factor content of trade, the validity of the Heckscher-Ohlin-model has been judged not only on the basis of formal tests of the theory but also tested against prior expectation. In this vein, this paper uses the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek (HOV) approach to investigate whether supposed US leadership in the digital domain can be traced back to digital task endowments embodied in labour services. In a comparison between EU member states and the US, we find that the latter is more intensive in digital tasks than the EU and that this difference is explained by both an intensity-effect (US occupations being more digital-task intensive) and a structural component (relatively more digital-task intensive occupations). Viewed through the lens of the HOV theorem we find that the US is abundant in digital tasks relative to non-digital tasks, while the opposite is true for the EU. The standard tests for the predictive power of the HOV theorem are high and in line with the results for labour in previous literature.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

评估数字化领导力：欧盟是否输给了美国？

自从列昂惕夫（Leontief，1953 年）在贸易要素含量方面的开创性工作以来，人们不仅根据对理论的正式检验，还根据先前的预期来判断赫克歇尔-俄林模型的有效性。本着这一思路，本文使用赫克歇尔-俄林-瓦内克（HOV）方法来研究美国在数字领域的领先地位是否可以追溯到体现在劳动服务中的数字任务禀赋。在欧盟成员国与美国的比较中，我们发现后者的数字任务密集度高于欧盟，而这种差异既可以用密集度效应（美国的职业数字任务密集度更高）来解释，也可以用结构性因素（数字任务密集度相对较高的职业）来解释。从 HOV 理论的角度来看，我们发现美国的数字任务相对于非数字任务而言更为丰富，而欧盟的情况恰恰相反。对 HOV 理论预测能力的标准测试结果很高，与以往文献中有关劳动力的结果一致。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Open Economies Review ECONOMICS-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The topics covered in Open Economies Review include, but are not limited to, models and applications of (1) trade flows, (2) commercial policy, (3) adjustment mechanism to external imbalances, (4) exchange rate movements, (5) alternative monetary regimes, (6) real and financial integration, (7) monetary union, (8) economic development and (9) external debt. Open Economies Review welcomes original manuscripts, both theoretical and empirical, dealing with international economic issues or national economic issues that have transnational relevance. Furthermore, Open Economies Review solicits contributions bearing on specific events on important branches of the literature. Open Economies Review is open to any and all contributions, without preferences for any particular viewpoint or school of thought. Open Economies Review encourages interdisciplinary communication and interaction among researchers in the vast area of international and transnational economics. Authors will be expected to meet the scientific standards prevailing in their respective fields, and empirical findings must be reproducible. Regardless of degree of complexity and specificity, authors are expected to write an introduction, setting forth the nature of their research and the significance of their findings, in a manner accessible to researchers in other disciplines. Officially cited as: Open Econ Rev

期刊最新文献

EU Sanctions on Russia and Implications for a Small Open Economy: The Case of Cyprus Responses of Foreign Exchange Market to External Shocks: What Makes Differences? Testing for Consumer Risk-Pooling in the Open Economy – further Results Assessing Digital Leadership: Is the EU Losing Out to the US? Macroprudential Policies and Global Banking