{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02696629213483146, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008988764044943821, 'mean_word_length': 5.410071942446043, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Capital-Skill Complementarity? Evidence from a Panel of Countries

Since Griliches (1969), researchers have been intrigued by the idea that physical capital and skilled labor are more complementary than physical capital and unskilled labor. In this paper we consider the cross-country evidence for capital-skill complementarity using a time-series cross-section panel of 73 developed and less developed countries over a 25-year period. We focus on three empirical issues. First, what is the best specification of the aggregate production technology to address the capital-skill complementarity hypothesis? Second, how should we measure skilled labor? Finally, is there any cross-country evidence in support of the capital-skill complementarity hypothesis? Our main finding is that there is some empirical support for the capital-skill complementarity hypothesis in our macro panel data set.