Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper analyzes the impact of skill-biased technological change (SBTC) on intergenerational education mobility. I set up an SBTC model with an overlapping generations framework, where heterogeneously-skilled households invest in their children's education to make them skilled. Technology incentivizes these investments by creating both pecuniary (higher skill-premium) and non-pecuniary (improved life skills) benefits; it constrains investments among low-income households by increasing inequality. I show there is a critical technology range within which SBTC shocks can increase investments by both high-income and low-income households, improving absolute education mobility. Moreover, the relative increase in transfers can be larger for the low-income group who initially have lower investment levels, which can help their children catch-up. I test the predictions of the model using data from Chetty et al. (2014) which show how college attendance rates of children in U.S. commuting zones (CZs) are linked to the rank of their families in the national income distribution. A technology measure is constructed for each CZ using its share of STEM workers, which I instrument using a Bartik-type IV to deal with endogeneity concerns. From 2SLS estimations, I find that college attendance rates of children from households in the same income rank improve if households are located in higher technology CZs, with the improvement being larger among lower-ranked households. Thus, SBTC is found to improve both absolute and relative intergenerational education mobility. JEL Codes: J24, J31, J62, I24, O33
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".