Skill-Biased Technological Change and Gender Inequality across OECD Countries—A Simultaneous Approach

Abstract

Of the various approaches that, over the last few decades, have sought explanations for the constant increase in the wage gap between more and less skilled workers, the Skill-Biased Technological Change (SBTC) approach has been the most used and the one that has led to the most consistent results. The objective of this study is to assess whether the possible mobility between different types of workers, considering their experience and professional training, and this way, replacing more skilled workers in terms of education widens or reduces the wage gap between qualifications. For this purpose, we resorted to the modeling of simultaneous equations taking into account the OECD countries between 2007 and 2020, concluding that there is a strong influence of the wage gaps of the less qualified in the widening of the gaps of the more qualified and that this influence is more significant in the case of women. Education continues to promote the increase in wage differences in favor of the most qualified, as well as the SBTC approach. We also conclude that women’s wage gaps are approaching the average of most workers, thus reducing wage inequality between genders.

Full text

Citation: Nogueira, Manuel Carlos,
and Mara Madaleno. 2023.
Skill-Biased Technological Change
and Gender Inequality across OECD
Countries—A Simultaneous
Approach. Economies 11: 115.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
economies11040115
Academic Editor: Franklin G. Mixon
Received: 4 February 2023
Revised: 8 April 2023
Accepted: 10 April 2023
Published: 12 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
economies
Article
Skill-Biased Technological Change and Gender Inequality
across OECD Countries—A Simultaneous Approach
Manuel Carlos Nogueira 1, 2, * and Mara Madaleno 2
1ISPGAYA-Higher Polytechnic Institute of Gaya, Avenida dos Descobrimentos, 303, Santa Marinha,
4400-103 Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
2GOVCOPP–Research Unit in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy, Department of Economics,
Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
*Correspondence: mnogueira@ispgaya.pt or manuel.carlos.nogueira@ua.pt
Abstract:
Of the various approaches that, over the last few decades, have sought explanations
for the constant increase in the wage gap between more and less skilled workers, the Skill-Biased
Technological Change (SBTC) approach has been the most used and the one that has led to the most
consistent results. The objective of this study is to assess whether the possible mobility between
different types of workers, considering their experience and professional training, and this way,
replacing more skilled workers in terms of education widens or reduces the wage gap between
qualifications. For this purpose, we resorted to the modeling of simultaneous equations taking into
account the OECD countries between 2007 and 2020, concluding that there is a strong influence of
the wage gaps of the less qualified in the widening of the gaps of the more qualified and that this
influence is more significant in the case of women. Education continues to promote the increase in
wage differences in favor of the most qualified, as well as the SBTC approach. We also conclude that
women’s wage gaps are approaching the average of most workers, thus reducing wage inequality
between genders.
Keywords:
skill-biased technological change; gender wage inequality; education; simultaneous
equations
JEL Classification: C30; E24; J31; O33
1. Introduction
Mainly since the late 1960s, relative wages in labor markets have undergone major
changes, which have caused constant increases in wage gaps in favor of more skilled work-
ers, concerning less skilled workers, first in developed countries and then in developing
countries, and this gap is called the qualification premium (Pavcnik 2017).
This increase in wage inequality has provoked researchers’ interest in understanding
its causes and consequences. Since the 1990s, economists have sought explanations for the
fact that technological progress is no longer neutral in the distribution of earnings from
work. As a result, in addition to the explanations that arise from the traditional theories
of trade and the specialization of productive factors, the model by Acemoglu and Autor
(2011) emerged, which, in addition to relaunching the Skill-Biased Technological Change
(SBTC) approach, which in itself explains the increase in the relative demand for skilled
workers, adds the functioning of labor market institutions that will influence the relative
supply side of qualifications, through training policies, unions, and national or sectoral
minimum wages.
On technological change, Violante (2008) and Acemoglu and Autor (2011), among
others, state that the rise of technology in the workplace has increased productivity and
the demand for highly qualified workers to work with this technology. In this increase in
demand for highly qualified workers, there was an imbalance in the supply of qualifications,
Economies 2023,11, 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11040115 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies

Economies 2023,11, 115 2 of 18
which raised wages. Murphy and Topel (2016) state that the imbalance in the labor market
between the demand for qualified workers and the respective supply has persisted over the
last few decades. The SBTC is like an invisible hand in the market that regulates this wage
gap in favor of more qualified workers, and as technological knowledge increases, the gap
between the demand for increasingly qualified labor and less qualified and, consequently,
the salary gap (Acemoglu and Autor 2011). In addition, technological advancement induces
the demand for increasingly qualified workers, causing the so-called qualification premium
(Acemoglu and Autor 2011). According to Violante (2008), this qualification award places
technological change at the center of the debate on the distribution of income from the
labor factor.
Furthermore, according to Krueger (1993) and Jorgenson (2001), in empirical terms,
the technological knowledge approach (SBTC), unlike the international trade approach, is
difficult to prove, given that it is a non-quantifiable variable directly. In this case, the most
used proxy in the literature to measure this variable is the investments made in R&D. This
variable is also referenced in the literature to measure the level of development of a country,
industry, or company. Several empirical studies find positive and statistically significant
coefficients for this variable (Machin and Reenen 1998;Autor et al. 1998;Violante 2008;
Michaelsen 2011;Nogueira and Afonso 2018), thus proving the importance of R&D in
increasing the wage gap.
Moreover, the increase in the number of qualified workers makes the market more
competitive and, consequently, the companies that operate in it (Acemoglu 2002). Compa-
nies are therefore encouraged to increase their investments in technologies that use skilled
workers. There is, therefore, an appetite for companies to invest in R&D activities, taking
advantage of the most qualified workforce, and this investment causes an increase in their
productivity. Thus, in this way, a virtuous cycle is generated, which according to Moore
and Ranjan (2005), is intensified by the replacement of medium-skilled workers by more
qualified ones, leading the former to unemployment, thus originating, as Michaels et al.
(2014) refer, polarization in the labor market.
In the case of the US, the first authors to look into the origins of the wage gap between
more qualified and less qualified workers were Katz and Murphy (1992), also the first
authors to introduce the concept of SBTC, which means a bias in technological knowledge
that favors more qualified workers and widens wage inequalities in their favor.
According to Katz and Murphy (1992), the increase in wage inequality between more
qualified and less qualified workers seen in the US from 1963 was due to the sudden
demand for workers with a university degree, which, given the constant supply in the
short term, led to an imbalance in the labor market and a consequent increase in wages for
qualified workers, which the authors designated as a wage premium from college.
On the other hand, Wood (1998) and Acemoglu (2002) also found that between the
1970s and 1980s, the SBTC approach was the main explanation for the increase in the
gap in the US, but in other developed countries such as Japan, Korea, and France that
have access to the same technology as the US, the growth of the wage gap was not as
pronounced. Parnastuti et al. (2013) attribute this difference to the fact that the supply of
skilled labor in some countries has increased faster than in the US. On the other hand, the
SBTC approach failed to explain wage inequality in terms of race, gender, or age (Card
and Lemieux 2001). However, by incorporating other variables such as unionization rates,
the existence of minimum wages, or professional training, some responses emerge that
complement the increase in the wage gap through the SBTC approach (Card and Lemieux
2001;Autor et al. 2008).
More recently, following theoretical modeling, Pi and Zhang (2018) found that a
magnitude of technological change with a qualification bias will expand the wage gap
between qualified and unskilled workers if the distributive share of labor in the skilled
sector is large enough relative to the qualified sector. Even more recently, Buera et al. (2022)
consider that intensive investments in skills are associated with an increase in the demand
for highly qualified workers, being one of the main drivers that caused in the past, cause in

Economies 2023,11, 115 3 of 18
the present, and will cause in the future the increase of the labor premium qualifications,
exacerbating the ability bias in the face of upward pressures on this premium.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the formation of the wage gap
between more qualified and less qualified workers is addressed in the way we do in this
paper. Our study refers to OECD countries from 2007 to 2020 and incorporates a wide range
of control variables in addition to the SBTC proxy variable. We estimated four models, two
of them with the wage gap between university and high school graduates and the wage
gap between workers with high school graduates and below high school graduates for
most workers in OECD countries. The other two models are similar to the first, except that
they refer to wage gaps for female workers. Another novelty is that modeling through
simultaneous equations is used for the first time. We decided on this approach as we
suspect there may be simultaneous relationships between these wage gaps.
Some workers with average qualifications may occupy positions of workers with
higher qualifications through the accumulation of experience, training, or professional
education. In this way, as there can be mobility between classes of workers taking into
account their qualifications, the use of simultaneous equations incorporating wage rates as
independent variables and wage gaps as independent variables are justified.
In our opinion, the choice proved to be the right one since strong evidence of positive
influences of the wage gap of less qualified workers was found on the wage gap of more
qualified workers. Furthermore, the wage gap between medium-skilled and less qualified
workers promotes an increase in the wage gap concerning the most qualified, showing
that despite obtaining professional training, thus raising salary, the market rewards the
qualifications obtained in tertiary education.
In addition to these conclusions, other important evidence was found. Expenses
incurred with investments in education cause an increase in wage gaps in favor of more
qualified workers, and economic growth causes a reduction in this gap. We found that
unionization only has effects in reducing the wage gap of less qualified workers, that
globalization does not significantly impact the wage gap, and that environmental variables
either do not interfere with wage gaps or have a reduced impact.
Another invading factor in our study is that, as far as we know, this is the first time
that when workers are divided into three types of qualifications, it is done separately for
most workers and female workers. This allows us to verify which variables, as well as their
intensity, better justify the formation of the wage gap for most workers and female workers
since women in private companies generally enjoy lower wages than men, even with equal
qualifications.
Traditionally in the economic growth literature, technological progress is considered
a factor that favors all workers, increasing their productivity, and is seen as the main
long-term determinant of income levels. However, what has been seen is that technological
change tends to favor qualified workers via endogenous factors such as the demand for and
supply of qualifications, placing the distribution of workers’ general income at the center
of the debate (Violante 2008). Autor (2019) considers this reality a lasting paradox since,
for more than four decades in industrialized economies, the real wages of less qualified
workers have shown sustained declines, while workers with higher qualifications have
seen their real wages increase. According to Acemoglu and Restrepo (2021), the most
popular explanation for this reality is based on the Skill-Biased Technological Change
(SBTC) approach.
After these introductory remarks, the paper analyzes the literature (Section 2). Then,
Section 3presents data, variables, statistics, and correlations. Next, Section 4presents the
empirical analysis, Section 5presents the discussion of the results, and finally, Section 6
concludes the paper and presents some policy implications.
2. Literature Review
The formulation of wage inequality between more and less skilled workers has had a
vibrant debate in the economic literature. Not exclusively, but over the last few decades,

Economies 2023,11, 115 4 of 18
two main approaches have emerged that seek to justify the formation of these wage gaps.
The first approach arose through the liberalization of international trade and originated
in the insights of the Stolper–Samuelson Theorem (Borjas et al. 1997). However, more
recently and largely due to studies by Acemoglu (2002), there has been an increase in the
Skill-Biased Technological Change (SBTC) approach, which ended up overlapping the
international trade approach.
2.1. Skill-Biased Technological Change and the Wage Gap
According to Lemieux (2007) and Grossman and Helpman (2018), the increasing emer-
gence of new technologies enhances the relative demand for more qualified labor, which
induces a complementarity between highly productive capital goods, such as ICT, and
more skilled workers. The relative increase in demand for this type of worker exceeds their
relative supply, thus increasing the skills premium. Çaliskan (2015) states that the differ-
ences in economic growth between countries are explained based on the technologies each
uses. These play a key role in reducing costs and increasing productivity, reinforcing the
importance of studying the role of technological wage level. However, not always, and in
all geographies, as well as in all time spaces, there is an increase in wage inequality between
skilled and unskilled workers. For example, Messina and Silva (2019), for a large group
of 16 countries in Latin America, concluded that between 1995 and 2002, wage inequality
increased in most countries. However, from 2002 until 2015, on average, this inequality
was reduced by 26%, mainly due to wage reductions for higher education graduates (due
to a rapid expansion in educational attainment, which increased the supply of skilled
workers relative to demand needs); and that wage increases in the lower percentiles of
the distribution of each country’s wage rate (due to relative increases in minimum wages)
(Messina and Silva 2019).
In other geographies, the conclusions are different. For example, according to Hutter
and Weber (2022) and the case of Germany, which analyzed the effects of SBTC on the labor
market, for the period between 1975 and 2014, SBTC is a source of increased productivity
and wages, causing increases in wage inequalities in favor of more skilled workers. More-
over, for the same authors, the wage gap has increased mainly since the 1990s, still showing
the reduced hours worked by the most qualified due to their higher productivity.
These things considered, recent literature has added other factors and other justifica-
tions for the increase in the wage gap, which continues to be verified. For example, the level
of suppression or replacement of routine tasks that were performed manually by unskilled
workers and which are now performed using automation increases the wages of skilled
workers who perform cognitive tasks and reduces or extinguishes the jobs of unskilled
workers, further widening wage gaps (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2018,2021). In addition, ex-
planations from the side of entrepreneurship (Naudéand Nogler 2018) or offshoring tasks
in global value chains (Wang et al. 2021) allow for widening wage inequality. Tyrowicz and
Smyk (2019) found that between 1980 and 2010, wage inequality among workers was lower
in transition economies. Still, when they come to be considered developed economies, the
wage gap widens in favor of skilled workers.
Broecke et al. (2015) state that it is not only in the US that wage inequality is on the
rise but also in OECD countries. For these authors, workers in the 90th percentile earn,
on average, 3.4 times more than workers in the 10th percentile (considering all OECD
countries). Moreover, based on OECD countries, Nogueira and Afonso (2018) conclude that
for clusters composed of countries with the highest GDP per capita, the SBTC approach
promotes the widening of the wage gap between university graduates (skilled workers)
and high school graduates (unskilled workers). Still, on the proliferation of job polarization,
Broecke et al. (2015) state that permanent technological change causes an increase in
the demand for increasingly qualified workers. Supply cannot immediately keep up
with demand, and this causes the wage gap to widen. Furthermore, as routine tasks are
becoming increasingly automated, the demand for mid-level qualifications has declined,
causing a polarization of employment and exacerbating the trend of wage inequality. For

Economies 2023,11, 115 5 of 18
Broecke et al. (2015), the costs associated with this growing inequality relate to reduced
social mobility, community problems, reduced social cohesion, and increased crime.
2.2. Wage Inequality Driving Factors
Other authors, such as Western and Rosenfeld (2011), emphasize that institutional
factors drive inequality in addition to the SBTC approach. The decline in unionization, the
fall in the real value of the minimum wage, the spread of non-standard employment prac-
tices, the rise of financialization, the outsourcing of work, and the corresponding decline in
internal labor markets and globalization also contribute to the wage gap. A real fall in the
values of the lowest wages causes an increase in inequality, not by increasing the value of
the highest wages but by reducing the lowest wages in real terms. Thus, technological and
institutional factors are not mutually exclusive but complement each other.
There is a broad consensus that the decline of organized work on a union basis has
increased wage inequality. Autor et al. (2008) point out that institutions that set minimum
wages, the high existence of trade unions, and professional training for unskilled workers,
among other factors, protect unskilled workers by artificially sustaining the wages of these
workers. Moreover, Card et al. (2013) attributed a major contribution to the increase in
wage inequality to the decline in unionization. Still, they included other factors such as the
decrease in real values of minimum wages, the increase in heterogeneity in the workplace,
the rise of international trade, and the very changes in the institutions that regulate the
labor market. In addition, the SBTC approach also contributes to wage dispersion among
workers taking into account their education (Card et al. 2013). Still on the role played by
the large reduction in the number of unionized workers, Biewen and Seckler (2019), and
in the case of German companies between 1995 and 2010, attribute this decrease as the
main reason for the increase in wage inequality. Furthermore, the increase in schooling,
changing tasks, the internationalization of companies, and their heterogeneity contribute
to the increase in this gap.
Reinforcing the importance of the drop in union membership in exacerbating the
wage gap, Western and Rosenfeld (2011) state that for unionized workers, unions directly
reduce the wage gap by fighting for wage increases and indirectly increase the wages of
workers, non-union members, down to the union level to avoid unionization. In this way,
they set a pattern for wage increases across the industry and the emergence of legislation
favorable to low-income and less-skilled workers. These authors conclude that the decline
in unionization explains about a third of the increase in wage inequality in men and about
a fifth in the case of women. In addition, for the US, Kristal and Cohen (2017) argue that
the decline of unions and the fall in the real value of the minimum wage explain about half
of the increase in wage inequality, while the SBTC approach explains about a quarter of
this increase. These findings explain that a large part of the increase in inequality in the US
is driven by the low power of unskilled workers rather than by market forces.
Among economists, it is practically unanimous that technical and consequent techno-
logical progress determine economic growth via innovation, knowledge, and productivity
(Korres 2008). Previously, Gomulka (1990) considered that even considering the institu-
tional and cultural characteristics of different countries and in the light of other economic
theories, there is a positive relationship between technological progress and economic
growth in both the short and long term. Solow (1957), using an aggregate production
function, found that 87% of the variation in economic growth in the US would be due to
technological progress (a fact known as the Solow residual).
2.3. Other Factors Able to Explain Wage Inequality
The conciliation between economic growth and environmental preservation that
guarantees sustainability and the preservation of resources has not always been peaceful.
Moreover, it has even been considered an authentic trade-off, since economic growth,
by stimulating production and consumption activities, generates additional polluting
emissions that degrade the environment and consume more natural resources (Marsiglio

Economies 2023,11, 115 6 of 18
and Privileggi 2021). When humanity became aware that the planet’s resources are scarce
and that pollution causes climate change, it was necessary to start finding alternatives for
socioeconomic development with environmental protection. Some authors have defended
introducing high carbon taxes for the most polluting industries. Still, for the critics of this
literature that follows the neoclassical marginal analysis, the regulation of environmental
protection will encourage investment in production technologies that are less harmful to
the environment. Still, it will divert productive investment undermining economic growth
(Tang et al. 2019). In the same sense, authors such as Greenstone et al. (2012) empirically
verified that environmental regulation negatively affects the total factor productivity of
companies and, consequently, economic growth. Calculating on a large scale the first
estimates of the economic costs of environmental regulations, these authors believe that it
will generate unemployment and wage reductions. In addition, environmental regulations
can be considered “job killers” due to companies’ loss of competitiveness (Greenstone et al.
2012).
Faced with the growing debate about the harmful effects of environmental protec-
tion on the economy, Porter (1991) argues that environmental protection regulations will
increase productivity as companies rationalize their operations, triggering innovation.
Complementing the opinion of Porter (1991), authors such as Özokcu and Özdemir (2017)
and Bashir et al. (2021) argue that the environmental costs caused by economic growth
occur only in the short term (where there is a U-shaped relationship between degradation
and economic growth), and in the long term (after overcoming the transition phase) the
economic growth and technology itself solve environmental problems. Marsiglio and Privi-
leggi (2021) also argue that technological progress can allow sustained economic growth
in the long term, finding a balance between economics and environmental objectives. In
a recent and extensive empirical study of all European Union countries, Nogueira and
Madaleno (2021) found that it is possible to obtain economic growth without neglecting
sustainability and considering environmental concerns, contradicting the opinion that there
is a trade-off between these two realities.
Although very incipient, the first scientific studies are beginning to appear, seeking to
relate environmental concerns and sustainability with workers’ wages. One of these first
studies was elaborated by Krueger et al. (2021), which states that there is growing evidence
that workers are increasingly concerned with environmental sustainability and are willing
to accept lower wages (about 10% less) to work in companies that operate in sectors that
care about environmental sustainability, the environment, as well as in these sectors the
employee retention rate is higher than in others. These authors also conclude that the
more qualified the workers are, the greater their willingness to accept lower wages. These
authors called this difference the “Sustainability Wage Gap”. In this way, the decrease
in wage costs could be channelled into investments in less polluting technologies and
maintain profitability. In the same sense, Bunderson and Thakor (2020) and Schneider et al.
(2020) found that only the most qualified workers are willing to give up part of their wages
to work in more sustainable jobs and companies, with these companies being able to attract
and retain more talented and more qualified workers.
For the case of developing countries, Ee et al. (2018) consider that the launch of high
taxes on pollution may, in addition to reducing pollutant emissions, reduce the wage gap
between skilled and unskilled workers, especially in the long term. Still, in the short term,
wage inequality may be reduced and increased by using more qualified labor to implement
measures to combat pollution.
The Environment Performance Index (EPI) ranks through quantitative metrics the
performance of countries over the years on environmental issues that are considered in
two dimensions of high priority: protection of human health and protection of ecosystems.
The construction of the index is in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals to be achieved by 2030. According to Hsu (2016) and Wendling et al. (2018), there is
a positive and significant relationship between the value of the EPI index and economic
growth, with the financial resources of the countries with the best score being used to protect

Economies 2023,11, 115 7 of 18
human health and the environment. These authors also find that the first countries in the
EPI ranking are those with a higher GDP per capita. In addition, Nogueira and Madaleno
(2021) and the countries of the EU found strong empirical evidence of the link between
EPI value and economic growth in these countries. Thus, showing that environmental and
sustainability concerns do not conflict with economic growth, seeking not to deteriorate
the planet further and safeguarding future generations.
According to Constantini and Monni (2008), the first Human Development Reports
did not explicitly consider the role of the environment in people’s choices. Still, in editions
after 2000, concerns about the environment and sustainable development were introduced
in their calculation. Currently, environmental quality and sustainable development are
considered determinants of well-being. The United Nations Millennium Development
Goals also reinforce the full integration of human development and the environment as
mutually reinforcing goals.
Several empirical and theoretical studies consider this variable regarding the expected
impact of spending on education on wage inequality between different countries and
levels of qualifications. The vast majority of these studies find that increases in education
spending lead to increases in wage gaps (Benabou 2000;Muinelo-Gallo and Roca-Sagalés
2011). Antonczyk et al. (2018), using the case of the US and Germany, found evidence of
polarization in the labor market, with education being the main hypothesis to explain the
increase in wage inequality, which they call a premium for skills. Employment polarization
consists of job growth at the top and bottom of the income distribution, with a consequent
decrease at intermediate levels (Michaels et al. 2014). Workers who perform routine
tasks are replaced by robotics and automation, which have made strong advances due to
technological improvements and the fall in the price of computational capital (Acemoglu
and Restrepo 2021).
Moreover, for OECD countries, but in another time frame, Nogueira and Afonso (2018)
found that among the variables considered, spending on education is the variable that most
impacts the wage gap between skilled and unskilled workers, showing the particularity of
increasing the hiatus sharply. Furthermore, the more a country invests in education, the
higher the qualifications of the students, who will receive higher wages when they leave for
the job market than unskilled students, widening the wage gap between them (Nogueira
and Afonso (2018). Recently Jacobs and Thuemmel (2022), when verifying, among other
variables, the effects caused by state subsidies to education, found that these entail greater
distributional losses (which widens wage gaps), in addition to indirectly causing greater
investments in education, as the SBTC gains importance and develops.
By using some variables inherent to globalization processes such as immigration,
trade, and FDI, Jestl et al. (2022) conclude that for the EU, immigration contributes to the
increase in wage inequality in the center and at the top of the wage distribution. Regarding
trade and FDI, the increase in inequality occurs more intensely in the older EU countries
at the center and top of the wage distribution and in the new countries at the center and
bottom of the wage distribution. These conclusions seem to want to show that immigrants
are willing to accept lower wages than natives for all qualifications and that trade and FDI
in older EU countries increase wage inequality in more qualified ones and newer countries
in less qualified ones. Meschi et al. (2016) also believe that globalization increases the gap
between employment and the wage level between skilled and unskilled workers. Moore
and Ranjan (2005) found that, for OECD countries, globalization increased the relative
price of skills-intensive goods, with technological progress (SBTC) increasing the relative
marginal product of skilled workers in world production. These two combined effects
contribute to the wage inequality between skilled and unskilled workers, causing increased
demand for skilled workers and unemployment of unskilled workers.
O’Rourke (2001) mentioned that factors such as GDP per capita affect wage inequality
between countries. Kuznets (1955) previously suggested that increases in GDP per capita
should be associated with reductions in wage inequality, given that economic development
will lead people with greater purchasing power to seek to invest in education and acquire

Economies 2023,11, 115 8 of 18
more qualifications. This variable, seen in isolation, will increase the supply of qualified
workers, thus reducing their relative wages and wage inequality for unskilled workers.
In the same sense, Nogueira and Afonso (2018) and also for OECD countries empirically
verified that GDP per capita reduces wage inequality. The introduction of this variable in
our study is also related to the fact that the OECD countries present different economic
realities. More reliable and robust results will be obtained with the division of GDP by the
number of inhabitants.
Wage disparities between men and women have attracted the attention of numerous
studies. Although there is still a visible wage inequality between men and women, Shen
(2014) finds that in the US, this inequality has been reduced in recent decades by the fact
that women are acquiring a greater number of qualifications, competing with men for
higher wages. These things considered, as the SBTC multiplied the economic returns for
qualifications, the increasing participation of women in positions of greater responsibility,
with corresponding higher salaries, was one of the causes for the decrease in wage inequality.
However, this inequality has decreased for all qualifications (Shen 2014). Another factor
pointed out by the author is the increase in women’s economic independence, with their
wider access to the labor market. In the same sense, Moore (2018) states that as a sign of
progress toward gender equality, the world has witnessed a convergence between men’s
and women’s salaries, largely due to changes in women’s occupational careers, which
amount to better-paid positions because of the greater responsibility that is asked of them.
More recently, Kovalenko and Töpfer (2021) refer that demand and labor supply
shocks, in general terms, affect the wage gap only in the short and medium term, with
increases in female labor supply increasing the gap in the short term and increases in male
labor supply do not affect the wage gap. Still, for these authors, after the year 2000, the
wage gap between men and women was reduced as a response to a massive entry of women
into the labor market and due to the shocks of technological advances and computerization,
and information technology innovation, in addition to having promoted the increase in
GDP, reducing the wage gap. However, Kovalenko and Töpfer (2021) also state that the
most recent advances in artificial intelligence and robotization are not contributing to
wage approximation, a reality that they attribute to these technological advances being
concentrated in sectors and industries dominated by men.
3. Data, Variables, Statistics, and Correlations
The sample we use in the empirical analysis covers 34 OECD countries and the periods
from 2007 to 2020. However, countries like Iceland, Costa Rica, Lithuania, and Colombia
are excluded from this sample due to the lack of data on some variables considered in
the estimated models. In addition, statistical information is not uniformly given for some
countries. Considering these statistical limitations, the empirical analysis uses a data
estimation approach with 396 observations for all workers and 333 for women instead of
the 476 observations if there were no missing data.
Table 1explains the variables used in the empirical analysis, units of measurement,
and the data source. Table 2presents the main descriptive statistics and the correlations,
and Table 3presents the average variables for each OECD country.
To derive accurate results from the empirical analysis, we also considered the problem
of multicollinearity. When applied to our variables, Pearson’s correlation test (Table 2)
showed no multicollinearity between the variables considered. Therefore, according to
Masanipour and Thompson (2020), we used the value of 0.80 as a limit, as posited by some
renowned econometricians, although there is no absolute consensus on this value.

Economies 2023,11, 115 9 of 18
Table 1. Variable definition and data source.
Variable Definition Unit Source
WGHi,t/WGMi,t
Wage gap between university
graduates and high school graduates
in country i and year t, in real terms
Index
OECD Education at a
Glance—Kovalenko and Töpfer (2021);
Acemoglu and Restrepo (2018,2021)
WGMi,t/WGLi,t
Wage gap between high school
graduates and below high school
graduates in country i and year t, in
real terms.
Index
OECD Education at a
Glance—Kovalenko and Töpfer (2021);
Acemoglu and Restrepo (2018,2021)
WGWHi,t/WGWMi,t
Wage gap between women university
graduates and high school graduates
in country i and year t, in real terms,
as a percentage of men’s earnings.
Index
OECD Education at a
Glance—Kovalenko and Töpfer (2021);
Acemoglu and Restrepo (2018,2021)
WGWMi,t/WGWLi,t
Wage gap between women high
school graduates and below high
school in country i and year t, in real
terms, as a percentage of men’s
earnings.
Index
OECD Education at a
Glance—Kovalenko and Töpfer (2021);
Acemoglu and Restrepo (2018,2021)
SBTCi,t
Research and Development spending
as a percentage of GDP in country i
and year t
Percentage OECD—Acemoglu and Restrepo (2018,
2021); Kristal and Cohen (2017)
Unioni,t Share of unionized workers in
country i and year t Percentage OECD—Kristal and Cohen (2017)
EPIi,t
Environmental Performance Index, in
the country i and year t Index Environmental Law and Policy—Hsu
(2016); Wendling et al. (2018)
Educ.Expendi,t
Education expenditure as a
percentage of GDP in country i and
year t
Percentage OECD Education at a
Glance—Nogueira and Afonso (2018)
CO2
CO
2
emissions per capita in country i
and year t Tons World Bank—Nogueira and Madaleno
(2021)
KOFi,t Globalization Economic Index in
country i and year t Index KOF Swiss Economic Institute
GDP pci,t
Gross domestic product per capita in
country i and year t, US dollar
constant prices, 2015 PPPs
Value in dollars OECD World Bank—Nogueira and
Afonso (2018)
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table 2. Main descriptive statistics and correlations.
WGH WGM WGL WGWH WGWM WGWL SBTC Union EPI Educ.
Expend. CO2KOF GDPpc Average Standard
Deviation Max Min
WGH - 0.06 −0.48 −0.13 0.11 0.02 −0.36 −0.41 −0.24 −0.29 −0.23 −0.25 −0.40 154.63 23.361 260 115
WGM - −0.18 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.04 0.11 0.18 0.29 107.72 12.360 146 61
WGL - 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.37 0.23 0.12 0.11 0.33 0.15 78.221 8.1625 101 54
WGWH - 0.38 0.23 −0.03 0.23 0.16 −0.02 −0.06 0.07 0.14 75.525 7.1177 148 61
WGWM - 0.64 0.08 0.25 0.08 −0.21 −0.32 0.26 0.13 77.080 6.6743 98 54
WGWL - 0.13 0.44 0.19 −0.07 −0.15 0.40 0.38 76.154 6.6814 92 49
SBTC - 0.41 0.18 0.29 0.18 0.35 0.36 1.9327 1.0352 4.93 0.28
Union - 0.39 0.35 0.06 0.47 0.46 24.813 17.418 72.5 4.53
EPI - 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.41 79.770 8.3420 90.8 42.6
Educ.
Ex-
pend.
- 0.05 −0.13 0.07 5.4694 1.0424 8.42 3.25
CO2- 0.13 0.45 8.6885 4.0938 23.8 2.77
KOF - 0.54 82.021 5.8417 90.9 61.8
GDPpc - 38,045 23,153 116,597 8002
Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Economies 2023,11, 115 10 of 18
Table 3. Average of variables for each OECD country (2007–2020). Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Country WGH WGM WGL WGWH WGWM WGWL SBTC
(%)
Union
(%) EPI Educ.
Exp. CO2KOF GDPpc
Australia 132.85 97.35 83.5 77.72 75.81 80.01 2.01 16.26 83.78 5.67 17.42 80.54 55,856
Austrium 153.57 118.28 69.14 73.54 79.54 76.81 2.93 28.09 83.07 5.28 7.92 86.94 44,460
Belgium 133.71 99.35 88.78 81.36 82.63 80.82 2.54 52.46 77.80 6.11 9.31 89.51 40,622
Canada 140.42 113.71 81.71 72.63 70.54 66.81 1.75 26.76 81.22 6.21 16.08 82.87 42,771
Chile 246.51 - 67.25 66.25 72.00 78.00 0.36 14.68 72.12 6.28 4.41 76.33 12,826
Czech
Republic 175.92 - 72.57 71.63 79.83 79.91 1.67 13.92 79.53 4.32 10.37 83.09 17,674
Denmark 127.14 102.57 82.42 77.01 80.54 81.91 2.93 68.20 86.55 7.09 7.19 87.72 53,587
Estonia 132.63 89.66 89.91 70.27 61.54 61.18 1.53 6.12 81.01 5.21 12.92 80.93 17,320
Finland 143.85 119.14 95.35 77.54 78.18 79.72 3.17 67.22 87.25 5.91 9.43 86.58 44,329
France 149.50 89.66 83.42 74.45 80.18 74.63 2.19 10.78 85.27 5.70 5.42 86.50 36,620
Germany 164.28 112.01 82.78 73.90 82.27 76.63 2.88 17.93 81.68 4.65 9.67 87.37 40,276
Greece 146.91 102.09 75.27 74.72 78.54 68.82 0.88 21.72 79.85 3.71 7.85 80.32 19,654
Hungary 204.01 109.92 74.42 72.91 87.72 83.18 1.24 11.06 76.38 4.50 5.03 84.27 12,575
Ireland 167.42 96.92 85.71 75.36 77.15 80.45 1.37 27.97 84.13 4.94 8.61 85.46 56,989
Israel 154.02 111.87 76.28 69.90 75.27 72.72 4.39 26.03 75.98 6.51 8.25 76.82 35,040
Italy 147.85 - 78.14 72.90 76.72 77.45 1.30 34.05 80.62 4.35 6.49 81.51 34,981
Japan 150.27 - 78.72 - - - 3.21 17.82 78.85 4.58 9.46 75.07 40,898
Korea 143.21 - 70.85 67.36 65.18 66.72 3.78 10.29 69.02 6.66 12.17 75.82 27,218
Latvia 145.20 98.40 88.80 77.40 71.80 69.60 0.59 13.49 78.76 4.42 4.72 75.03 14,981
Luxembourg 153.28 125.12 71.71 79.45 79.45 81.72 1.35 34.39 84.66 3.73 19.44 85.48 110,257
Mexico 192.33 120.35 62.16 69.16 77.40 72.66 0.40 13.90 67.92 5.59 3.93 67.07 9618
Netherlands 152.57 114.35 83.35 77.36 81.27 81.09 1.97 18.29 79.25 5.55 9.73 89.07 51,446
New Zealand 127.71 110.07 83.64 77.45 77.27 79.27 1.24 19.42 84.02 6.64 8.59 76.71 38,626
Norway 126.38 114.85 79.07 75.36 77.37 80.82 1.82 50.03 84.42 6.87 9.75 84.81 85,543
Poland 167.50 104.57 83.28 76.81 77.45 71.72 0.87 15.53 68.29 5.18 8.51 78.77 12,205
Portugal 166.35 101.14 70.14 73.54 74.00 71.74 1.37 17.60 74.39 5.53 4.98 82.39 19,728
Slovak
Repubic 171.72 131.47 68.18 70.27 73.91 73.36 0.75 14.05 79.11 4.12 6.67 81.48 17,781
Slovenia 181.71 - 76.85 86.09 86.18 84.36 2.07 30.69 81.02 5.03 7.38 79.32 24,177
Spain 142.64 109.0 79.35 84.18 76.58 76.08 1.27 15.85 84.29 4.71 5.97 83.59 29,731
Sweden 123.78 114.85 83.28 81.18 81.81 85.03 3.28 67.40 86.32 6.02 4.57 88.78 54,692
Switzerland 153.50 109.12 76.35 78.66 83.83 78.83 3.11 16.36 85.64 5.19 4.98 89.34 82,481
Turkey 160.92 - 69.57 83.57 80.43 69.00 0.86 7.75 59.38 4.60 4.71 68.36 10,583
United
Kingdom 154.53 - 71.21 76.63 72.36 74.90 1.65 25.43 85.66 6.14 6.92 88.58 43,096
United States 174.46 108.5 67.64 69.90 71.00 70.72 2.82 10.84 79.62 6.72 17.22 81.13 54,888
Considering the weighted average salary of all workers with secondary education
with an index of 100, we see in Table 3that the average of all workers with higher education
presents an index of 154.63, while for women only, this value is 75.525. The weighted
average wage index for workers with high school graduates is 107.72, and for women,
it is 77.08. Finally, the average salary index for workers below high school graduates is
78.22, and for women, it is 76.154. Given these wage index values, we can see that the
wage disparity between all workers and women has a greater impact on higher education
workers. In the case of having few qualifications, the wage disparity is reduced, which is not
unrelated to the existence in many countries of minimum wages that do not discriminate
against men and women. We can also see in Table 3that the standard deviation is higher
for workers with a higher education course because the maximum index is 260 (Chile) and
the minimum is 115 (New Zealand).

Economies 2023,11, 115 11 of 18
On average, the country that invests the most in R&D as a percentage of GDP is
Israel, and the one that invests the least is Mexico. As regards the percentage of unionized
workers, the average is highest in Denmark and lowest in Estonia. On the other hand, the
Environmental Performance Index (EPI) reaches the highest average value in Finland and
the lowest in Mexico. The country that invests the most in average terms and as a percentage
of GDP in education is Norway, and the one that invests the least is Greece. Average per
capita CO
2
emissions are highest in Luxembourg and lowest in Sweden. The average of
the Globalization Index (KOF) is highest in Belgium, with Latvia being the country with
the lowest value. Finally, in Table 3, we see the large discrepancy between the maximum
and minimum GDPpc values, which occur in Luxembourg and Mexico, respectively.
4. Empirical Analysis, Model Specification, and Estimation Methods
As previously mentioned, we intend to verify the influence of seven variables in the
formulation of the wage gap between workers in OECD countries who have university
graduates and those who have only high school graduates and those who have high school
graduate qualifications and those who have qualifications at the level of below high school
graduates. In addition, we also intend to verify for women only (as a percentage of men’s
salary index) the same effects of these seven variables shown in Table 1.
As there is evidence of simultaneity relationships between university graduates and
high school graduates and between these and below high school graduates, the econometric
estimates were therefore carried out using a system of simultaneous equations, with the
structural form of the equations being as follows:
LnWGHi,t/LnWGMi,t =αi+β1LnWGMi,t/LnWGLi,t +β2LnSBTCi,t +β3LnUnioni,t +β4LnEPIi,t +β5LnEduc.expend.i,t+
β6LnCO2i,t +β7LnGDPpci,t +µi,t (1)
LnWGMi,t/LnWGLi,t =αi+σ1LnSBTCi,t +σ2LnUnioni,t +σ3LnEPIi,t +σ4LnEduc.Expend.i,t +σ5LnCO2i,t+
σ6LnKOFi,t +σ7LnGDPpci,t +µi,t (2)
LnWGWHi,t/LnWGWMi,t =αi+β1LnWGWMi,t/LnWGWLi,t +β2LnSBTCi,t +β3LnUnioni,t +β4LnEPIi,t+
β5LnEduc.Expend.i,t +β6LnCO2i,t + +β7LnGDPpci,t +µi,t (3)
LnWGWMi,t/LnWGWLi,t =αi+σ1LnSBTCi,t +σ2LnUnioni,t +σ3LnEPIi,t +σ4LnEduc.Espend.i,t +σ5LnCO2i,t+
σ6LnKOFi,t +σ7LnGDPpci,t +µi,t (4)
Equation (1) regresses the salary gap between university and high school graduates.
It includes, in addition to six of the seven independent variables identified in Table 1, the
salary gap between high school graduates and below-high-school graduates. Equation (2),
in turn, regresses the wage gap between high school graduates and below high school
graduates and also includes six of the seven independent variables in Table 1. Equations (3)
and (4), in turn, present the same variables as Equations (1) and (2) but refer only to female
workers as a percentage of male workers’ earnings.
The approach through simultaneous equations makes it possible to analyze the indi-
vidual behavior of each equation and the possible relationships between equations and
variables in a given period. In this way, it becomes possible to increase the accuracy of
the model’s estimates, using additional information provided by the interrelationships,
providing a more reliable measure.
To carry out the identification of the structural equations of the system of simultaneous
equations, the condition of order was considered since, according to Gujarati and Porter
(2008), in practical terms, this condition is generally adequate to guarantee the identifiability
in case the number of equations is only two.
As shown in Table 4, the four structural equations of the system can be considered
exactly identified. To estimate the structural parameters, we could use the two-stage least

Economies 2023,11, 115 12 of 18
squares method (2SLS), which solves the potential endogeneity problem (Gujarati and
Porter 2008).
Table 4. Identification by order of the simultaneous equations model.
Equation Number K −k m −1 K −k≥m−1 Identification
(1) 9 −8 1 1 ≥1 Exactly identified
(2) 9 −8 1 1 ≥1 Exactly identified
(3) 9 −8 1 1 ≥1 Exactly identified
(4) 9 −8 1 1 ≥1 Exactly identified
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
However, according to Henningsen and Hamann (2007), although the estimators
obtained by the 2SLS method are consistent, the estimation by the three-stage least squares
method (3SLS) presents estimators asymptotically more efficient, so we will use this method
to obtain the structural parameters. Furthermore, the best estimation efficiency by the 3SLS
method is obtained using the matrix of estimated moments of least squares of two stages of
the structural disturbances to estimate the coefficients of the entire system simultaneously
(Henningsen and Hamann 2007). Results are presented in Table 5and will be discussed in
the next section.
Table 5. Three-stage least squares regression.
Equation Obs Parms RMSE “R-sq” Chi p-Value
LnWGH/LnWGM 396 7 0.0252 0.9831 21.99 0.0012
LnWDM/LnWGL 396 7 0.0156 0.9747 91.8 0
LnWGWM/LnWGWL 333 7 0.0175 0.9712 37.96 0
LnWGWM/LnWGWL 333 7 0.0018 0.9618 89.35 0
LnWGH/LnWGM Coefficient LnWGWH/LnWGWM Coefficient
LnWGM/LnWGL 0.38328 *** LnWGWM/LnWGWL 0.46209 ***
LnSBTC 0.06698 ** LnSBTC 0.06931 ***
LnUnion −0.10328 LnUnion 0.00639
LnEPI −0.08973 LnEPI 0.00748
LnEduc.Expend. 0.12328 *** LnEduc.Expend. 0.13951 **
LnCO20.02257 ** LnCO20.02485 *
LnGDPpc −0.04477 ** LnGDPpc −0.05554 ***
Constant 1.22732 *** Constant 0.52147 ***
LnWGM/LnWGL LnWGWM/LnWGWL
LnSBTC 0.03711 *** LnSBTC 0.0277 ***
LnUnion −0.08281 * LnUnion −0.06781 *
LnEPI −0.01253 LnEPI 0.01643 *
LnEduc.Expend. 0.09327 *** LnEduc.Expend. 0.10947 ***
LnCO20.01725 ** LnCO20.01638
LnKOF 0.02145 LnKOF 0.43712
LnGDPpc −0.01998 ** LnGDPpc −0.02215 **
Constant 0.93281 *** Constant 1.64690 ***
Note: ***, **, and * denote statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of significance, respectively. Source:
Authors’ calculations.
5. Discussion of the Results
As we can see in Table 5, there is a positive and significant influence of the wage
difference between workers with complete secondary education concerning workers with
qualifications lower than secondary education on the wage difference between workers with
higher education and those with only moderate degrees. This explanation may be because
workers with medium qualifications, through professional experience or training, can
achieve higher wage rates due to the constant search by companies for higher qualifications,
but this does not replace the qualifications obtained through tertiary education. This

Economies 2023,11, 115 13 of 18
reality is true for most workers in OECD countries and female workers. For the majority of
workers, under the condition ceteris paribus, for every 1% increase in the wage gap between
the averagely qualified in relation to the least qualified, the wage gap between the most
qualified in relation to those qualified with secondary education increases by 0.38%, and in
the case of women 0.46%. These results show a wage approximation between genders.
In all models, the proxy variable for the SBTC has a positive sign. It is still considered
statistically significant, although its coefficients are not very high, as already found by
Kristal and Cohen (2017). Despite the reduced impact, it is greater for the wage gap for
more skilled workers than for the wage gap for less skilled workers. Regarding the impact
of the SBTC on the majority of male and female workers, the impact is similar, although
we can consider that the SBTC approach is bringing the wage gaps between the majority
of workers and women closer together. In the absence of studies that relate the wage
difference between the average of most workers and the average of women and many
fewer that relate this reality considering three types of academic qualifications and from
the point of view of the SBTC approach, we want to highlight the works of Rendall (2017)
and Cerina et al. (2021). Both address the wage gap between men and women based on
technological change and the SBTC approach. Rendall (2017) mentioned that the SBTC and
the increase in women’s education could explain the increase in women’s participation in
the labor market and explain more than half of the gender pay gap. On the other hand,
Cerina et al. (2021) state that although, on average, women still face a wage disadvantage
compared to men, technological changes and the increase in women’s education have made
it possible to reduce wage inequalities in terms of gender.
In the case of the wage gap between all more qualified workers and the wage gap of
the same type of workers, but for females, the union influence does not play any significant
role in setting wage rates. Regarding the wage gap of less qualified workers, there exists
significance with negative effects. This situation may suggest that unions, through their
demands, only influence the wage rates of less qualified workers, as verified by Western
and Rosenfeld (2011). Concerning the EPI variable, this is not significant in three of the four
estimated models, contributing only in a residual way to the increase in the salary gap in the
case of women who have medium-level qualifications. Although there is previous evidence
of a positive relationship between the EPI index and economic growth, this environmental
indicator does not practically influence the wage gaps under study.
The variable spending on education, as verified in several studies (Muinelo-Gallo
and Roca-Sagalés 2011;Antonczyk et al. 2018;Nogueira and Afonso 2018;Jacobs and
Thuemmel 2022), is of great importance, being considered the one that most contributed to
the increase in wage gaps in the four estimated models. In the case of all more qualified
workers, as well as for female workers, it is estimated that ceteris paribus, a 1% increase
in expenditure on education, the remuneration of skilled workers and those with higher
education in relation to qualified with secondary education, increase by around 0.12% and
almost 0.14%, respectively. Regarding the wage gap for all less skilled workers and women,
it is estimated under the same conditions that wage rates will rise by around 0.09% and
almost 0.11%, respectively. Despite being a slow movement, there is an approximation of
the average wage rates of women concerning all workers, and Moore (2018) also reached
these conclusions.
CO
2
emissions per capita have a positive impact, but only with a reduced coefficient
in the formation of wage gaps, in three of the four estimated models. Only in the model
that regresses the salary gap between women who have completed secondary education
with respect to those who do not have this level of education is it not statistically significant.
These results do not confirm what Krueger et al. (2021) advocated, who state that the
more qualified workers are, the more they are willing to give up part of their wages due to
environmental concerns.
Finally, in terms of GDP per capita, increases in average domestic income benefit
less qualified workers compared to more qualified workers, bringing their wage rates
closer together. Similar conclusions have already been reached by several authors, such

Economies 2023,11, 115 14 of 18
as Kuznets (1955), Clark et al. (2006), and Nogueira and Afonso (2018). In our case, this
evidence is more noticeable among workers with higher education than among those with
secondary education, than among the rest. In terms of female workers, the impact of this
variable is very similar.
The limitations of this study are related to the time-space available in terms of data.
Despite our sample covering 13 years, a possible higher existence of data could modify
the conclusions or the intensity of the coefficients. Furthermore, as we said earlier, we
can consider as another limitation that no previous literature relates the salary difference
between the average of most workers and the average of women, considering three types of
academic qualifications and from the point of view of the SBTC approach. A final limitation
may be that the OECD countries present differences, which will only be visible when
conducting individual analyses.
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Investments and increases in expenditure on R&D are generally accepted as driving
forces for innovation, bringing with them reinforcements in competitiveness, productivity,
economic growth, and wage increases. In this paper, we seek to address the formation of
gaps in wage rates for workers in OECD countries, considering the SBTC approach, which
is widely established in the economic literature related to the labor market.
This extensive empirical study spans 2007 to 2020 for OECD countries. It uses the wage
gap between university and high school graduates and between high school graduates
and below high school graduates. Similarly, we regress these same two wage rates for the
case of female workers as a percentage of men’s earnings. In addition to the variable that
normally serves as a proxy for the SBTC, we used a set of control variables in the four
regressions performed.
Since we suspect that there may be economic reasons for the existence of interdepen-
dence between the two wage gaps, we used simultaneous equation modeling, which choice
proved to be right. One important conclusion we can draw, which is only possible using this
estimation method, is that increases in the wage gap between high school graduates and
below high school graduates will cause an increase in the wage gap between high school
graduates and graduates of tertiary education. This fact is even more pronounced in female
workers, causing a salary approximation between genders. This evidence proves that in
terms of salary rates, tertiary education turns out to be more rewarding than experience
and professional training. We can call this fact the “contagion effect” in wage rates, to
the benefit of more qualified workers, serving as an incentive for workers to seek better
qualifications.
Regarding the effect caused by the SBTC in formulating wage inequalities, as al-
ready mentioned, the result aligns with previous conclusions (Nogueira and Afonso 2018;
Hutter and Weber 2022) and others. Increasingly qualified activities require workers
with additional skills, and, as a result, their wage rate increases compared to those with
lower qualifications. Therefore, acquiring additional skills continues to offset and widen
wage gaps.
The results of union influence produce more effects on wage rates for workers with
lower qualifications, reducing their wage gap with respect to those with high school
graduates. This reality occurs with similar magnitude both in the case of the generality
of workers and in the case of female workers. By opposition, with little influence in
exacerbating or shortening relative wage rates, is the Environmental Performance Index,
thus denoting its little importance of environmental issues for wage setting in the labor
market. Still, concerning environmental issues and contrary to expectations, per capita
CO
2
emissions contribute (albeit in a residual way) to the exacerbation of wage gaps. But
to comply with climate agreements, countries must reduce their CO emissions, and the
importance of this result becomes less and less impactful on the wage gap.
Once again, the expenditure made by countries on education proves to be the most
important variable in promoting the increase in wage inequalities among workers, taking

Economies 2023,11, 115 15 of 18
into account their level of qualifications. Investments in education continue to promote
wage improvements for more skilled workers. This leads to the conclusion that this type of
investment should be increased to improve the living conditions of workers seeking higher
qualifications. Additionally, it also turns out to be an invitation to students to continue and
complete their university-level studies.
An important fact that has already been verified in several previous studies, the GDP
per capita variable contributes to an approximation of wage rates among all workers.
Increases in average earnings allow access to higher qualifications and seen in isolation
via supply and demand mechanisms in the labor market, reduces wages as the supply of
qualified work increases.
Regarding wage inequalities of female workers in relation to the majority of workers,
the SBTC variable promotes, albeit in a small way, wage equality. More notably, expenditure
on education has a more substantial impact on the approximation of the average wage gap
for women in relation to the average for most workers. In the same sense, economic growth
promotes the reduction of wage inequalities between female workers and the majority
of workers.
Expenditure on education and economic growth promote two important facts: they
contribute to the increase in the wage gap among workers, given their level of qualifications,
inviting students to pursue their studies, and they also contribute in a significant way to
reducing gender pay inequalities. In this way, countries must continue to encourage their
students to acquire more and more skills, which in the first place, promotes increased
productivity and, consequently, wage levels, as already verified, for example, by Nogueira
and Afonso (2018). As spending on education contributes to reducing wage gaps between
the majority of workers and women, initiatives that promote increased schooling should be
reinforced within the scope of OECD countries, but more significantly in countries where
this wage gap is more evident. A country-level study would allow us to highlight these
differences and help delineate policy directions more specifically for each context. In the
future, this work could be extended to other realities to do a comparative analysis since
one of the constraints of the present work is to consider the OECD group solely. Different
realities in terms of development and educative realities would benefit in terms of learning
about wage gaps, especially considering inequalities among gender.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, M.C.N. and M.M.; investigation, M.C.N.; methodology,
M.C.N.; supervision, M.M.; writing—original draft, M.C.N.; writing—review and editing, M.M. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Acemoglu, Daron. 2002. Technical change, inequality and labour market. Journal of Economic Literature 10: 7–72. [CrossRef]
Acemoglu, Daron, and David Autor. 2011. Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of
Labour Economics 4: 1043–171. [CrossRef]
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2018. The race between man and machine: Implications of the technology for growth, factor
shares and employment. American Economic Review 108: 1488–542. [CrossRef]
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2021. Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in US Wage Inequality. Working Paper 28920. Cambridge,
MA: NBER—National Bureau Economic Research.
Antonczyk, Dirk, Thomas DeLeire, and Bernd Fitzenberger. 2018. Polarization and rising wage inequality: Comparing the US and
Germany. Econometrics 6: 20. [CrossRef]

Economies 2023,11, 115 16 of 18
Autor, David H. 2019. Work of the past, work of the future. AEA Papers and Proceedings 109: 1–32. [CrossRef]
Autor, David H., Lawrence F. Katz, and Alan B. Krueger. 1998. Computing inequality: Have computers changed the labor market? The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 1169–213. [CrossRef]
Autor, David H., Lawrence F. Katz, and Melissa S. Kearney. 2008. Trends in US wage inequality: Revising the revisionists. The Review of
Economics and Statistics 90: 300–23. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40043148 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
Bashir, Muhammad Farhan, Benjiang Ma, Muhammad Adnan Bashir, Bilal, and Luqman Shahzad. 2021. Scientific data-driven
evaluation of academic publications on environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 16982–99.
[CrossRef]
Benabou, Roland. 2000. Unequal societies: Income distribution and the social contract. American Economic Review 90: 96–129. [CrossRef]
Biewen, Martin, and Matthias Seckler. 2019. Unions, internationalization, tasks, firms, and worker characteristics: A detailed
decomposition analysis of rising wage inequality in Germany. The Journal of Economic Inequality 17: 461–98. [CrossRef]
Borjas, George J., Richard B. Freeman, and Lawrence F. Katz. 1997. How much do immigration and trade affect labor market outcomes?
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1997: 1–90. [CrossRef]
Broecke, Stijn, Glenda Quintini, and Marieke Vandeweyer. 2015. Why Is Wage Inequality so High in the United States? Pitching Cognitive
Skills against Institutions (Once Again). Discussion Paper Series DPS 15.18. Leuven: Ku Leuven Center for Economic Studies.
Buera, Francisco, Joseph Kaboski, Richard Rogerson, and Juan Vizcaino. 2022. Skill-biased structural change. The Review of Economic
Studies 89: 592–625. [CrossRef]
Bunderson, Stuart, and Anjan V. Thakor. 2020. Personal and organizational higher purpose, corporate governance and shareholder
value: Survey results. SSRN Electronic Journal. [CrossRef]
Çaliskan, Hulia Kesici. 2015. Technological change and economic growth. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 195: 649–54. [CrossRef]
Card, David, and Thomas Lemieux. 2001. Can falling supply explain the rising return to college for younger men? A cohort-based
analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 705–46. [CrossRef]
Card, David, Jorg Heining, and Patrick Kline. 2013. Workplace heterogeneity and the rise of west german wage inequality. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 128: 967–1015. [CrossRef]
Cerina, Fabio, Alessio Mora, and Michelle Rendall. 2021. The Role in Employment Polarization. International Economia Review 62:
1655–91. [CrossRef]
Clark, R.G. George, Lixin Colin Xu, and Heng-fu Zou. 2006. Finance and Income Inequality: What do the data tell us? Southern
Economic Journal 3: 578–96. [CrossRef]
Constantini, Valeria, and Salvatore Monni. 2008. Environmental, human development and economic growth. Ecological Economics 64:
867–80. [CrossRef]
Ee, Mong Shan, Chi-Chur Chao, and Xiangbo Liu. 2018. Environmental policy firm dynamics and wage inequality in developing
countries. International Review of Economics and Finance 57: 70–85. [CrossRef]
Gomulka, Stanislaw. 1990. The Theory of Technological Change and Economic Growth, 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Greenstone, Michael, John A. List, and Chad Syverson. 2012. The Effects of Environmental Regulation on the Competitiveness of U.S.
Manufacturing. Working Paper 18392. Cambridge, MA: NBER—National Bureau of Economic Research. [CrossRef]
Grossman, Gene M., and Elhanan Helpman. 2018. Growth, trade and inequality. Econometrica 86: 37–83. [CrossRef]
Gujarati, Damodar N., and Dawn C. Porter. 2008. Basic Econometrics, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hil Education.
Henningsen, Arne, and Jeff D. Hamann. 2007. Systemfit: A Package for Estimating Systems of Simultaneous Software. Journal of
Statistical Software 23: 1–40. [CrossRef]
Hsu, Angel. 2016. Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale University. [CrossRef]
Hutter, Christian, and Enzo Weber. 2022. Labour market effects of wage inequality and Skill-biased technical change. Applied Economics.
[CrossRef]
Jacobs, Bas, and Uwe Thuemmel. 2022. Optimal linear income taxes and education subsidies under skill-biased technical change.
International Tax and Public Finance. [CrossRef]
Jestl, Stefan, Sandra M. Leitner, and Sebatian Leitner. 2022. The relative impact of different forces of globalization on wage inequality:
A fresh look at the EU experience. Review of International Economics 30: 1003–37. [CrossRef]
Jorgenson, Dale W. 2001. Information, technology and the US economy. American Economic Review 91: 1–32. [CrossRef]
Katz, Lawrence F., and Kevin M. Murphy. 1992. Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: Supply and demand factors. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 107: 35–78. [CrossRef]
Korres, George M. 2008. Technical Change and Economic Growth. Inside the Knowledge Based Economy, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Kovalenko, Tim, and Marina Töpfer. 2021. Cyclical dynamics and the gender pay gap: A structural VAR approach. Economic Modelling
105488: 99. [CrossRef]
Kristal, Tali, and Yinan Cohen. 2017. The causes of rising wage inequality: The race between institutions and technology. Socio-Economic
Review 15: 187–212. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Alan B. 1993. How computers have changed the wage structure: Evidence from microdata 1984–1989. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 108: 33–60. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Philipp, Daniel Metzger, and Jiaxin Wu. 2021. The Sustainability Wage Gap. ECGI Working Papers Series in Finance. Working
Paper No. 718/2020. Geneve: ECGI.

Economies 2023,11, 115 17 of 18
Kuznets, Simon. 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review 45: 1–28.
Lemieux, Thomas. 2007. The Changing Nature of Wage Inequality. NBER Working Paper Series No. 13523. Cambridge, MA: NBER—
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Machin, Stephen, and John Van Reenen. 1998. Technology and changes in skill structure: Evidence from seven OECD countries. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 1215–44. [CrossRef]
Marsiglio, Simone, and Fabio Privileggi. 2021. On the economic growth and environmental trade-off: A multi-objective analysis.
Annals of Operations Research 296: 263–89. [CrossRef]
Masanipour, Ali, and Michael F. Thompson. 2020. Is globalization linked to low corruption in OECD countries. Crime, Law and Social
Change 73: 443–55. [CrossRef]
Meschi, Elena, Erol Taymaz, and Marco Vivarelli. 2016. Globalization, technological change and labor demand: A firm-level analysis
for Turkey. Review of World Economy 152: 655–80. [CrossRef]
Messina, Julian, and Joana Silva. 2019. Twenty Years of Wage Inequality in Latin America. The World Bank Economic Review 35: 117–47.
[CrossRef]
Michaels, Guy, Ashwini Natraj, and John Van Reenen. 2014. Has ICT polarized skill demand? Evidence from eleven countries over
25 years. Review of Economics and Statistics 96: 60–77. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43554913 (accessed on 20
January 2023). [CrossRef]
Michaelsen, Maren M. 2011. The Hidden-Increase in Wage Inequality: Skill-Biased and Ability-Biased Technological Change. Ruhr Economic
papers No. 262. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB).
Moore, Mark P., and Priya Ranjan. 2005. Globalisation vs skill-biased technological change: Implications for unemployment and wage
inequality. The Economic Journal 115: 391–422. [CrossRef]
Moore, Thomas S. 2018. Occupational career change and gender wage inequality. Work and Occupations 45: 82–121. [CrossRef]
Muinelo-Gallo, Leonel, and Oriol Roca-Sagalés. 2011. Economic growth and inequality: The role of fiscal policies. Australian Economic
Papers 50: 74–97. [CrossRef]
Murphy, Kevin M., and Robert H. Topel. 2016. Human capital investment, inequality, and economic growth. Journal of Labor Economics
34: S99–S127. [CrossRef]
Naudé, Win, and Paula Nogler. 2018. Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and ProdSuctivity in Germany, 1871–2015. SPRU-Working
Papers Series. SWPS 2018-02 (January). Sussex: Iniversity of Sussex. [CrossRef]
Nogueira, Manuel Carlos, and Mara Madaleno. 2021. Are international indices good predictors of economic growth? Panel data and
cluster analysis for European Union countries. Sustainability 13: 6003. [CrossRef]
Nogueira, Manuel Carlos, and Óscar Afonso. 2018. Intra-country wage inequality in the OECD countries. Panoeconomicus 65: 339–62.
[CrossRef]
O’Rourke, Kevin H. 2001. Globalization and Inequality: Historical Trends. Working Paper 8339. Cambridge, MA: NBER—National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Özokcu, Selin, and Ozlem Özdemir. 2017. Economic growth, energy and environmental Kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 72: 639–47. [CrossRef]
Parnastuti, Losina, Paul W. Miller, and Ruhul Salim. 2013. Declining rates of return to education: Evidence from Indonesia. Bulletin of
Indonesian Economic Studies 49: 213–36. [CrossRef]
Pavcnik, Nina. 2017. The Impact of Trade on Inequality in Developing Countries. Working Paper No. 23878. Cambridge, MA: NBER—
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Pi, Jiancai, and Pengqing Zhang. 2018. Skill-biased technological change and wage inequality in developing countries. International
Review of Economics and Finance 56: 347–62. [CrossRef]
Porter, Michael E. 1991. America’s green strategy. Scientific American 4: 168. [CrossRef]
Rendall, Michelle. 2017. Brain versus Brawn: The Realization of Women’s Comparative Advantage. Working paper 491. Zurich: University
of Zurich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. [CrossRef]
Schneider, Florian H., Fanny Brun, and Roberto A. Weber. 2020. Sorting and Wage Premiums in Immoral Work. Working Paper 353.
Zurich: University of Zurich, Department of Economics.
Shen, Jing. 2014. Recent trends in gender wage inequality in the United States. Journal of Sociological Research 5: 32–49. [CrossRef]
Solow, Robert M. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production. Review of Economics and Statistics 39: 312–20. [CrossRef]
Tang, Juan, Shihu Zhong, and Guocheng Xiang. 2019. Environmental regulation, directed technical change, and economic growth:
Theoretic model and evidence from China. International Regional Science Review 42: 519–49. [CrossRef]
Tyrowicz, Joanna, and Magsalena Smyk. 2019. Wage inequality and structural change. Social Indicators Research 141: 503–38. [CrossRef]
Violante, Giovanni L. 2008. Skill-biased technical change. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed. Edited by Steven N.
Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wang, Wenxiao, Christopher Findlay, and Shandre Thangavelu. 2021. Trade, technology, and the labour market: Impacts on wage
inequality within countries. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature 35: 19–35. [CrossRef]
Wendling, Z. A., J. W. Emerson, D. C. Esty, M. A. Levy, and A. de Sherbinin. 2018. Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

Economies 2023,11, 115 18 of 18
Western, Bruce, and Jake Rosenfeld. 2011. Unions, norms, and the rise in US wage inequality. American Sociological Review 76: 513–37.
[CrossRef]
Wood, Adrian. 1998. Globalization and the rise in labour market inequalities. The Economic Journal 108: 1463–82. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.