This article deals with a central paradox in the occupational polarisation literature: most scholars accept that technological change is biased against routine-intensive occupations, but in many countries, we do not see the pattern of occupational polarisation that the theory usually predicts. I argue and show empirically using a dataset of 10 OECD countries between 1995 and 2013 that technological change is both routine-biased and skill-biased, but that the result of routine-biased technological change may be occupational upgrading rather than polarisation. This is due to differences in occupational routine-wage hierarchies: only where routine occupations cluster around the middle of the wage distribution are we likely to see polarisation. Where routine occupations are concentrated near the bottom of the wage hierarchy, upgrading occupational change is the norm. Based on research on the US, the former has been widely assumed, but it does not hold true in all countries. Overall, this article shows that much previous work on routine-biased technological change and polarisation was built on premises that do not travel well. This underscores the importance of comparative research for building and testing robust general theories.

本文讨论了休闲两极分化文献中的一个核心悖论：大多数学者承认技术变革偏向于常规密集型职业，但在许多国家，我们没有看到该理论通常预测的休闲两极分化模式。我使用 1995 年至 2013 年间 10 个经合组织国家的数据集论证并实证表明，技术变革既有常规偏向性又有技能偏向性，但常规偏向性技术变化的结果可能是职业升级而不是两极分化。这是由于职业常规工资等级的差异：只有当常规职业集中在工资分布的中间时，我们才可能看到两极分化。如果日常职业集中在工资等级的底部附近，升级换职业是常态。根据对美国的研究，前者已被广泛假设，但并非在所有国家都适用。总的来说，这篇文章表明，以前关于常规偏向技术变革和两极分化的许多工作都是建立在不顺利的前提下的。这强调了比较研究对于建立和测试稳健的一般理论的重要性。