IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unu/wpaper/wp-2020-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Polarization in the South African labour market: Economy-wide scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Rob Davies
  • Dirk van Seventer

Abstract

Technical change impacts both the employment intensity of production and the composition of occupations and skills of employment. Artificial intelligence, automation, and robots are already leading to machines undertaking routinizable tasks previously carried out by workers. This can lead to labour market polarization, with jobs in the middle of the wage/occupation distribution being lost relative to those at the top and bottom ends. South Africa may be a latecomer to this process, but there is already evidence it is under way and may accelerate.

Suggested Citation

  • Rob Davies & Dirk van Seventer, 2020. "Polarization in the South African labour market: Economy-wide scenarios," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2020-121, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    • Handle: RePEc:unu:wpaper:wp-2020-121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2020-121.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Klenert & Enrique Fernández-Macías & José-Ignacio Antón, 2023. "Do robots really destroy jobs? Evidence from Europe," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 44(1), pages 280-316, February.
    2. David H. Autor & David Dorn, 2013. "The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1553-1597, August.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2019. "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    4. Alex Chernoff & Casey Warman, 2023. "COVID-19 and implications for automation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(17), pages 1939-1957, April.
    5. Maarten Goos & Alan Manning & Anna Salomons, 2014. "Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2509-2526, August.
    6. Arntz, Melanie & Gregory, Terry & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2017. "Revisiting the risk of automation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-160.
    7. 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.
    8. Zachary Parolin, 2019. "Automation and occupational wage trends," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 228, OECD Publishing.
    9. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2016. "The Race Between Machine and Man: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares and Employment," NBER Working Papers 22252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Rainer Klump & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "The Normalized Ces Production Function: Theory And Empirics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 769-799, December.
    11. Ms. Mitali Das & Benjamin Hilgenstock, 2018. "The Exposure to Routinization: Labor Market Implications for Developed and Developing Economies," IMF Working Papers 2018/135, International Monetary Fund.
    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. David Kunst, 2019. "Deskilling among Manufacturing Production Workers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-050/VI, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Dec 2020.
    2. Fernández-Macías, Enrique & Klenert, David & Antón, José-Ignacio, 2021. "Not so disruptive yet? Characteristics, distribution and determinants of robots in Europe," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 76-89.
    3. Jasmine Mondolo, 2022. "The composite link between technological change and employment: A survey of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1027-1068, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Azio Barani, 2021. "Innovazione tecnologica e lavoro: automazione, occupazione e impatti socio-economici," QUADERNI DI ECONOMIA DEL LAVORO, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(114), pages 51-79.
    6. Stähler, Nikolai, 2021. "The Impact of Aging and Automation on the Macroeconomy and Inequality," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    7. Fossen, Frank M. & Sorgner, Alina, 2022. "New digital technologies and heterogeneous wage and employment dynamics in the United States: Evidence from individual-level data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Genz, Sabrina & Schnabel, Claus, 2021. "Digging into the digital divide: Workers' exposure to digitalization and its consequences for individual employment," Discussion Papers 118, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Labour and Regional Economics.
    9. Caselli, Mauro & Fracasso, Andrea & Scicchitano, Sergio & Traverso, Silvio & Tundis, Enrico, 2021. "Stop worrying and love the robot: An activity-based approach to assess the impact of robotization on employment dynamics," GLO Discussion Paper Series 802, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    10. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence, Income Distribution and Economic Growth," IZA Discussion Papers 13606, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2022. "Modelling artificial intelligence in economics," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 56, pages 1-12.
    12. 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.
    13. Gabriel Loumeau, 2022. "Land Consolidation Reforms: A Natural Experiment on the Economic and Political Effects of Agricultural Mechanization," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 22/376, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    14. Archanskaia, Liza & Van Biesebroeck, Johannes & Willmann, Gerald, 2020. "Comparative advantage in (non-)routine production," Kiel Working Papers 2154, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Belloc, Filippo & Burdin, Gabriel & Cattani, Luca & Ellis, William & Landini, Fabio, 2022. "Coevolution of job automation risk and workplace governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    16. Clément Bosquet & Paul Maarek & Elliot Moiteaux, 2021. "Routine-biased technological change and wages by education level: Occupational downgrading and displacement effects," Working Papers hal-03270715, HAL.
    17. David Autor & Caroline Chin & Anna M. Salomons & Bryan Seegmiller, 2022. "New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," NBER Working Papers 30389, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gregory, Terry & Salomons, Anna & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2016. "Racing With or Against the Machine? Evidence from Europe," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145843, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Lordan, Grace & Stringer, Eliza-Jane, 2022. "People versus machines: The impact of being in an automatable job on Australian worker’s mental health and life satisfaction," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    20. 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.

    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:unu:wpaper:wp-2020-121. 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: Siméon Rapin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/widerfi.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.