IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-00676-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robots, labor markets, and universal basic income

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Cabrales

    (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
    Unidad Mixta Interdisciplinar de Comportamiento y Complejidad Social (UMICCS), UC3M-UV-UZ)

  • Penélope Hernández

    (Unidad Mixta Interdisciplinar de Comportamiento y Complejidad Social (UMICCS), UC3M-UV-UZ
    Universitat de València)

  • Angel Sánchez

    (Unidad Mixta Interdisciplinar de Comportamiento y Complejidad Social (UMICCS), UC3M-UV-UZ
    Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
    Universidad de Zaragoza
    Universidad Carlos III de Madrid)

Abstract

Automation is a big concern in modern societies in view of its widespread impact on many socioeconomic issues including income, jobs, and productivity. While previous studies have concentrated on determining the effects on jobs and salaries, our aim is to understand how automation affects productivity, and how some policies, such as taxes on robots or universal basic income, moderate or aggravate those effects. To this end, we have designed an experiment where workers make productive effort decisions, and managers can choose between workers and robots to do these tasks. In our baseline treatment, we measure the effort made by workers who may be replaced by robots, and also elicit firm replacement decisions. Subsequently, we carry out treatments in which workers have a universal basic income of about a fifth of the workers’ median wages, or where there is a tax levy on firms who replace workers by robots. We complete the picture of the impact of automation by looking into the coexistence of workers and robots with part-time jobs. We find that the threat of a robot substitution does not affect the amount of effort exerted by workers. Also, neither universal basic income nor a tax on robots decrease workers’ effort. We observe that the robot substitution tax reduces the probability of worker substitution. Finally, workers that benefit from managerial decisions to not substitute them by more productive robots do not increase their effort level. Our conclusions shed light on the interplay of policy and workers behavior under pervasive automation.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Cabrales & Penélope Hernández & Angel Sánchez, 2020. "Robots, labor markets, and universal basic income," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00676-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00676-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00676-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-00676-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mahmud Yesuf & Randall A. Bluffstone, 2009. "Poverty, Risk Aversion, and Path Dependence in Low-Income Countries: Experimental Evidence from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1022-1037.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    3. Joao Guerreiro & Sergio Rebelo & Pedro Teles, 2022. "Should Robots Be Taxed? [Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(1), pages 279-311.
    4. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    5. World Bank, 2020. "World Development Report 2020," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 32437, December.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    8. Guy Michaels & Ashwini Natraj & John Van Reenen, 2010. "Has ICT Polarized Skill Demand? Evidence from Eleven Countries over 25 Years," CEP Discussion Papers dp0987, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2017. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series dp-297, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    10. Antonio Cabrales & Giovanni Ponti, 2015. "Social Preferences," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Pablo Branas-Garza & Antonio Cabrales (ed.), Experimental Economics, chapter 6, pages 87-104, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Noguera José A. & De Wispelaere Jurgen, 2006. "A Plea for the Use of Laboratory Experiments in Basic Income Research," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-8, December.
    12. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Sally E. Sadoff, 2011. "Checkmate: Exploring Backward Induction among Chess Players," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 975-990, April.
    13. Guy Michaels & Ashwini Natraj & John Van Reenen, 2014. "Has ICT Polarized Skill Demand? Evidence from Eleven Countries over Twenty-Five Years," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(1), pages 60-77, March.
    14. P. R. Blake & K. McAuliffe & J. Corbit & T. C. Callaghan & O. Barry & A. Bowie & L. Kleutsch & K. L. Kramer & E. Ross & H. Vongsachang & R. Wrangham & F. Warneken, 2015. "The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies," Nature, Nature, vol. 528(7581), pages 258-261, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. André Cieplinski & Simone D'Alessandro & Chandni Dwarkasing & Pietro Guarnieri, 2022. "Narrowing women’s time and income gaps: an assessment of the synergies between working time reduction and universal income schemes," Working Papers 250, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK, revised Apr 2022.
    2. Casas, Pablo & Torres, José L., 2022. "Government size and automation," MPRA Paper 115271, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Pengqing, 2019. "Automation, wage inequality and implications of a robot tax," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 500-509.
    2. Lorenz, Hanno & Stephany, Fabian, 2018. "Back to the future: Changing job profiles in the digital age," Working Papers 13, Agenda Austria.
    3. Georg Graetz & Guy Michaels, 2018. "Robots at Work," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(5), pages 753-768, December.
    4. Genz Sabrina & Janser Markus & Lehmer Florian, 2019. "The Impact of Investments in New Digital Technologies on Wages – Worker-Level Evidence from Germany," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(3), pages 483-521, June.
    5. Du, Longzheng & Lin, Weifen, 2022. "Does the application of industrial robots overcome the Solow paradox? Evidence from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Domini, Giacomo & Grazzi, Marco & Moschella, Daniele & Treibich, Tania, 2021. "Threats and opportunities in the digital era: Automation spikes and employment dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    7. Elisabetta Croci Angelini & Francesco Farina & Enzo Valentini, 2020. "Wage and employment by skill levels in technological evolution of South and East Europe," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1497-1514, November.
    8. Reijnders, Laurie S.M. & de Vries, Gaaitzen J., 2018. "Technology, offshoring and the rise of non-routine jobs," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 412-432.
    9. Chigusa Okamoto, 2019. "The effect of automation levels on US interstate migration," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 63(3), pages 519-539, December.
    10. Van Roy, Vincent & Vértesy, Dániel & Vivarelli, Marco, 2018. "Technology and employment: Mass unemployment or job creation? Empirical evidence from European patenting firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1762-1776.
    11. Mary O’Mahony & Michela Vecchi & Francesco Venturini, 2021. "Capital Heterogeneity and the Decline of the Labour Share," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 271-296, April.
    12. Cirillo, Valeria & Evangelista, Rinaldo & Guarascio, Dario & Sostero, Matteo, 2021. "Digitalization, routineness and employment: An exploration on Italian task-based data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    13. John ARIZA & Josep Lluís RAYMOND BARA, 2020. "Technological change and employment in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico: Which workers are most affected?," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 159(2), pages 137-159, June.
    14. Chen, Yang & Cheng, Liang & Lee, Chien-Chiang, 2022. "How does the use of industrial robots affect the ecological footprint? International evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Jelena Reljic & Rinaldo Evangelista & Mario Pianta, 2019. "Digital technologies, employment and skills," LEM Papers Series 2019/36, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Georg Graetz, 2019. "Labor Demand in the Past, Present, and Future," European Economy - Discussion Papers 114, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    17. Genz Sabrina & Janser Markus & Lehmer Florian, 2019. "The Impact of Investments in New Digital Technologies on Wages – Worker-Level Evidence from Germany," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(3), pages 483-521, June.
    18. Björn Döhring & Atanas Hristov & Christoph Maier & Werner Roeger & Anna Thum-Thysen, 2021. "COVID-19 acceleration in digitalisation, aggregate productivity growth and the functional income distribution," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 571-604, July.
    19. Camiña, Ester & Díaz-Chao, Ángel & Torrent-Sellens, Joan, 2020. "Automation technologies: Long-term effects for Spanish industrial firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2018. "Low-Skill and High-Skill Automation," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(2), pages 204-232.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00676-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.