IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/115271.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Government size and automation

Author

Listed:
  • Casas, Pablo
  • Torres, José L.

Abstract

This paper explores the consequences of automation for public finance. We find that as the automation rate increases, the government size, measured as the fiscal revenues to output ratio, declines due to the substitution of traditional inputs which bear the burden of taxes by the new automatic technology. These results are explained by the effects of automation on labor, where taxation of labor income (including social security contributions) represents the most important source of fiscal revenues in most advanced economies. The paper performs two additional counterfactual experiments. First, we calculate how individual tax rates should be changed in response to automation in order to keep constant fiscal revenues from the different sources of taxes. However, this experiment reveals that this fiscal policy would have significant harmful effects on output and labor, and that a deep reform of the current tax mix is compulsory to offset the effects of automation on public finance. Second, we calculate the tax rate on capital, without modifying the other tax rates, required to keep constant the size of the government, resulting in a capital income tax rate of around 0.77 for an automation rate of 45%.

Suggested Citation

  • Casas, Pablo & Torres, José L., 2022. "Government size and automation," MPRA Paper 115271, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:115271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/115271/1/MPRA_paper_115271.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Zeira, 1998. "Workers, Machines, and Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1091-1117.
    2. Maya Eden & Paul Gaggl, 2018. "On the Welfare Implications of Automation," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 29, pages 15-43, July.
    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. 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.
    5. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D: The Depreciation Problem," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 341-381, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Fatas, Antonio & Mihov, Ilian, 2001. "Government size and automatic stabilizers: international and intranational evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 3-28, October.
    7. Lankisch, Clemens & Prettner, Klaus & Prskawetz, Alexia, 2019. "How can robots affect wage inequality?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 161-169.
    8. Arnaud Costinot & Iván Werning, 2023. "Robots, Trade, and Luddism: A Sufficient Statistic Approach to Optimal Technology Regulation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(5), pages 2261-2291.
    9. Slavík, Ctirad & Yazici, Hakki, 2014. "Machines, buildings, and optimal dynamic taxes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 47-61.
    10. Basso, Henrique S. & Jimeno, Juan F., 2021. "From secular stagnation to robocalypse? Implications of demographic and technological changes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 833-847.
    11. Chirinko, Robert S., 2008. "[sigma]: The long and short of it," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 671-686, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Hilary W. Hoynes & Jesse Rothstein, 2019. "Universal Basic Income in the US and Advanced Countries," NBER Working Papers 25538, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Berg, Andrew & Buffie, Edward F. & Zanna, Luis-Felipe, 2018. "Should we fear the robot revolution? (The correct answer is yes)," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 117-148.
    15. Juan F. Jimeno, 2019. "Fewer babies and more robots: economic growth in a new era of demographic and technological changes," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 93-114, June.
    16. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2018. "The Race between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1488-1542, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Chari, V.V. & Nicolini, Juan Pablo & Teles, Pedro, 2020. "Optimal capital taxation revisited," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 147-165.
    19. Jaimovich, Nir & Saporta-Eksten, Itay & Siu, Henry & Yedid-Levi, Yaniv, 2021. "The macroeconomics of automation: Data, theory, and policy analysis," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-16.
    20. Zhang, Pengqing, 2019. "Automation, wage inequality and implications of a robot tax," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 500-509.
    21. Chamley, Christophe, 1986. "Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in General Equilibrium with Infinite Lives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 607-622, May.
    22. Ludwig Straub & Iván Werning, 2020. "Positive Long-Run Capital Taxation: Chamley-Judd Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(1), pages 86-119, January.
    23. DeCanio, Stephen J., 2016. "Robots and humans – complements or substitutes?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 280-291.
    24. Guo, Jang-Ting & Harrison, Sharon G., 2006. "Government size and macroeconomic stability: A comment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 1339-1346, July.
    25. Aum, Sangmin & Lee, Sang Yoon (Tim) & Shin, Yongseok, 2018. "Computerizing industries and routinizing jobs: Explaining trends in aggregate productivity," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-21.
    26. Judd, Kenneth L., 1985. "Redistributive taxation in a simple perfect foresight model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 59-83, October.
    27. Frey, Carl Benedikt & Osborne, Michael A., 2017. "The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-280.
    28. David H. Autor, 2015. "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 3-30, Summer.
    29. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:14 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Per Krusell & Lee E. Ohanian & JosÈ-Victor RÌos-Rull & Giovanni L. Violante, 2000. "Capital-Skill Complementarity and Inequality: A Macroeconomic Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1029-1054, September.
    31. Valentine P. Vishnevsky & Viktoriia D. Chekina, 2018. "Robot vs. tax inspector or how the fourth industrial revolution will change the tax system: a review of problems and solutions," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 4(1), pages 6-26.
    32. Fernández-de-Córdoba, Gonzalo & Torres, José L., 2012. "Fiscal harmonization in the European Union with public inputs," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 2024-2034.
    33. Tsu-ting Tim Lin & Charles L. Weise, 2019. "A New Keynesian Model with Robots: Implications for Business Cycles and Monetary Policy," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(1), pages 81-101, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pablo Casas & José L. Torres, 2023. "Automation, automatic capital returns, and the functional income distribution," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 113-135, January.
    2. Mr. Andrew Berg & Lahcen Bounader & Nikolay Gueorguiev & Hiroaki Miyamoto & Mr. Kenji Moriyama & Ryota Nakatani & Luis-Felipe Zanna, 2021. "For the Benefit of All: Fiscal Policies and Equity-Efficiency Trade-offs in the Age of Automation," IMF Working Papers 2021/187, International Monetary Fund.
    3. Stähler, Nikolai, 2021. "The Impact of Aging and Automation on the Macroeconomy and Inequality," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Gasteiger, Emanuel & Prettner, Klaus, 2022. "Automation, Stagnation, And The Implications Of A Robot Tax," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 218-249, January.
    5. Burkhard Heer & Andreas Irmen & Bernd Süssmuth, 2023. "Explaining the decline in the US labor share: taxation and automation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 30(6), pages 1481-1528, December.
    6. Nakatani, Ryota, 2022. "Optimal fiscal policy in the automated economy," MPRA Paper 115003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Guimarães, Luís & Mazeda Gil, Pedro, 2022. "Looking ahead at the effects of automation in an economy with matching frictions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    8. Prettner, Klaus & Strulik, Holger, 2020. "Innovation, automation, and inequality: Policy challenges in the race against the machine," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 249-265.
    9. ARAI Kosuke & FUJIWARA Ippei & SHIROTA Toyoichiro, 2021. "Robot Penetration and Task Changes," Discussion papers 21093, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    10. Pi, Jiancai & Fan, Yanwei, 2021. "The impact of robots on equilibrium unemployment of unionized workers," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 663-675.
    11. Venturini, Francesco, 2022. "Intelligent technologies and productivity spillovers: Evidence from the Fourth Industrial Revolution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 220-243.
    12. Hémous, David & Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Olsen, Morten & Zanella, carlo, 2019. "Automating Labor: Evidence from Firm-level Patent Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 14249, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Spencer Bastani & Daniel Waldenström, 2020. "How Should Capital Be Taxed?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 812-846, September.
    14. Fossen, Frank M. & Sorgner, Alina, 2019. "New Digital Technologies and Heterogeneous Employment and Wage Dynamics in the United States: Evidence from Individual-Level Data," IZA Discussion Papers 12242, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Fierro, Luca Eduardo & Caiani, Alessandro & Russo, Alberto, 2022. "Automation, Job Polarisation, and Structural Change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 499-535.
    16. Davide Dottori, 2021. "Robots and employment: evidence from Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(2), pages 739-795, July.
    17. Alonso, Cristian & Berg, Andrew & Kothari, Siddharth & Papageorgiou, Chris & Rehman, Sidra, 2022. "Will the AI revolution cause a great divergence?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 18-37.
    18. Arthur Jacobs & Freddy Heylen, 2021. "Demographic change, secular stagnation and inequality: automation as a blessing?," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 21/1030, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    19. Ryosuke Shimizu & Shohei Momoda, 2020. "Does Automation Technology increase Wage?," KIER Working Papers 1039, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    20. Berg, Andrew & Buffie, Edward F. & Zanna, Luis-Felipe, 2018. "Should we fear the robot revolution? (The correct answer is yes)," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 117-148.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Automation; Taxes; Fiscal revenues; Autonomous capital; Traditional inputs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • E23 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Production
    • H30 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - General
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:115271. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.