Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Explores job creation strategies in manufacturing, highlighting the role of skill supply and frictions.
There has been renewed interest in revitalizing manufacturing, yet policy often confronts a circular challenge: firms hesitate to expand because they cannot reliably find suitably skilled workers (e.g., STEM-trained), while workers are reluctant to acquire those skills when jobs remain limited. This raises a policy question: intervene at the firm margin or the worker margin, or both? We study this question by extending Acemoglu and Shimer (1999) to a two-sector open-economy. The key friction is capital holdup: firms invest upfront to create jobs, but sunk investment weakens their wage bargaining positions, discouraging investment ex-ante. Because manufacturing is more capital intensive, holdup is more severe, leaving manufacturing employment inefficiently low. In the calibrated model, this inefficiency-induced industrial employment shortfall is about 1 percent of total employment – roughly one-fifth of LAC-East Asia gap. When Hosios condition holds, the optimal policy can be solely on the firm side: an investment subsidy financed by an employment tax on firms. When Hosios condition fails, an additional wedge distorting workers’ sectoral choices emerges, and targeted training subsidies become welfare-improving.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adhikari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: