IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jecsur/v40y2026i3p1531-1571.html

Do robots boost productivity? A quantitative meta‐study

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Schneider

Abstract

This meta‐study analyzes the productivity effects of industrial robots. More than 1800 estimates from 85 primary studies are collected. The meta‐analytic evidence suggests that robotization has so far provided, at best, a small boost to productivity. There is strong evidence of publication bias in the positive direction. These findings are observed across all measures of productivity used in the primary literature and are robust to several modern meta‐analytic estimators. My analysis of the drivers of heterogeneity among the findings of primary studies points to diminishing returns to robot adoption. I also find evidence that econometric methods, the level of analysis, as well as the choice of control variables and robot data, can influence the effect size. Finally, several explanatory factors for the emergence of a productivity paradox in the context of robotics are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Schneider, 2026. "Do robots boost productivity? A quantitative meta‐study," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 1531-1571, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jecsur:v:40:y:2026:i:3:p:1531-1571
    DOI: 10.1111/joes.70042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.70042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joes.70042?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
    ---><---

    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:bla:jecsur:v:40:y:2026:i:3:p:1531-1571. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0950-0804 .

    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.