On the Theory of Wage Difference : Comparison between Adam Smith and J. S. Mill

Abstract

본 논문은 Adam Smith와 Jonh Stuart Mill의 임극격차이론을 비교분석한 것이다. Mill의 Smith의 이론에 대한 비판은 단기적인 측면에서 보면 타당한 것이나, 장기적인 측면에서 보면 시장의 균형화를 강조한다고 볼 수 있는 Smith의 이론은 여전히 정당성을 가진다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 Mill의 논의는 Smith의 이론을 대체한다고 보기 보다는 보완적인 성격을 가진다고 하겠다. 그리고 Mill의 이론은 임금격차의 원인으로 독점 혹은 이동서의 제약을 강조함으로써 최근에 많은 실증적인 연구가 진행되고 있는 산업간 임금격차를 설명하는데 유용한 분석의 틀을 제공하고 있다고 하겠다.

This paper analyzed the differences between wage differential theory of Adam Smith and that of J. S. Mill. Competition is the ruling force in Smith's theory whereas immobility or monopoly in Mill's. In the sense that immobility or monopoly can be removed as time goes by, Smith's wage theory is a kind of long run analysis. On the other hand, Mill pointed out a new source of wage differences, monopoly or immobility, as a short run factor. Accordingly, Mill's approach is not a substitute for Smith's but a complement.

In addition, we can find a modern implication and importance of Mill's theory from the recent empirical results showing that inter-industry wage differentials are quite significant and persistent.

This paper analyzed the differences between wage differential theory of Adam Smith and that of J. S. Mill. Competition is the ruling force in Smith's theory whereas immobility or monopoly in Mill's. In the sense that immobility or monopoly can be removed as time goes by, Smith's wage theory is a kind of long run analysis. On the other hand, Mill pointed out a new source of wage differences, monopoly or immobility, as a short run factor. Accordingly, Mill's approach is not a substitute for Smith's but a complement.

In addition, we can find a modern implication and importance of Mill's theory from the recent empirical results showing that inter-industry wage differentials are quite significant and persistent.