Capital–skill complementarity and inequality A sensitivity analysis.pdfVIP

Review of Economic Dynamics 11 (2008) 302–313 /locate/red Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A sensitivity analysis Linnea Polgreen a,1, Pedro Silos b,∗ a Department of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA b Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1000 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, USA Received 30 March 2006; revised 5 September 2007 Available online 15 September 2007 Abstract Krusell et al. in [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] analyzed the capital–skill complementarity hypothesis as an expla- nation for the behavior of the US skill premium. We refit Krusell et al.’s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] model with two alternative capital equipment price series: One proposed by Greenwood et al. [Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., Krusell, P., 1997. Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. Amer. Econ. Rev. 87 (3), 342–362] and the official, revised National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data. We find that capital–skill complementarity is preserved, but other results were sensitive to the data used. Specifically, the fit of the model was similar to Krusell et al.’s [Krusell, P., Ohanian, L., Ríos-Rull, J.V., Violante, G.L., 2000. Capital–skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68 (5), 1029–1053] using the