This paper takes issue with what I describe as a single focus on either innovation or market power as potential determinants of employment or labour share. Drawing on a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function and EU- KLEMS data on OECD industries, I demonstrate that the unifocal approach is not justified theoretically or empirically. I report that: (i) employment and labour share depends on both innovation and market power; (ii) market power's direct effects on both outcomes are always negative and large; (iii) innovation's direct effects are small and depend on the elasticity of substitution between capital and labour; and (iv) innovation and market power have substitute interactive effects that exacerbate the fall in employment or labour share. I conclude that the main driver of the decline in labour share and/or employment is not technological innovation as such but the level of rents that innovating firms are able to extract.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mehmet Uğur (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: