IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-21-00473.html

On the implementability of a "robot tax"

Author

Listed:
  • Hideto Koizumi

    (Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry; Hitotsubashi University)

Abstract

A "robot tax" has been recently attracting attention, while implementing such taxes is challenging, however, in part because of the difficulty in clearly separating which technologies substitute for labor from those which complement it. Modeling automating technologies as intermediate goods, this short note considers a simple illustrative model of the optimal tax policy in this environment. Despite the potential for automating technologies to be complementary to workers, I find that the optimal tax regime includes a strictly positive uniform tax on these intermediate goods with a restricted production functional form.

Suggested Citation

  • Hideto Koizumi, 2023. "On the implementability of a "robot tax"," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(2), pages 759-768.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-21-00473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2023/Volume43/EB-23-V43-I2-P62.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slemrod, Joel & Kopczuk, Wojciech, 2002. "The optimal elasticity of taxable income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 91-112, April.
    2. Guesnerie,Roger, 1998. "A Contribution to the Pure Theory of Taxation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521629560, January.
    3. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1279-1333.
    4. Slavík, Ctirad & Yazici, Hakki, 2014. "Machines, buildings, and optimal dynamic taxes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 47-61.
    5. Joao Guerreiro & Sergio Rebelo & Pedro Teles, 2022. "Should Robots Be Taxed?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(1), pages 279-311.
    6. 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.
    7. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue nov.
    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. Uwe Thuemmel, 2018. "Optimal Taxation of Robots," CESifo Working Paper Series 7317, CESifo.
    2. Marcel Steffen Eckardt, 2022. "Minimum wages in an automating economy," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(1), pages 58-91, February.
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Florian Scheuer & Joel Slemrod, 2020. "Taxation and the Superrich," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 189-211, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Zhang, Pengqing, 2019. "Automation, wage inequality and implications of a robot tax," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 500-509.
    8. J. Carter Braxton & Bledi Taska, 2025. "Technological Change and Insuring Job Loss," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 58, October.
    9. Vedor, Bernardo, 2022. "Investment-Specific Technological Change and Universal Basic Income in the U.S," MPRA Paper 111675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. De Dominicis, Piero, 2020. "Routinization and Covid-19: a comparison between United States and Portugal," MPRA Paper 101003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Brinca, Pedro & Duarte, João B. & Holter, Hans A. & Oliveira, João G., 2019. "Investment-Specific Technological Change, Taxation and Inequality in the U.S," MPRA Paper 91960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Zhang, Jingting & Shi, Zhiru, 2025. "Suppress or let go? The time-varying roles of automation towards labor market," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 158-174.
    13. Firooz, Hamid & Liu, Zheng & Wang, Yajie, 2025. "Automation and the rise of superstar firms," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Santini, Tommaso, 2022. "Automation with heterogeneous agents: The effect on consumption inequality," IWH Discussion Papers 28/2022, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    15. Kudoh, Noritaka & Miyamoto, Hiroaki, 2025. "Robots, AI, and unemployment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    16. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "Reprint of The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    17. Caselli, Mauro & Fracasso, Andrea & Scicchitano, Sergio & Traverso, Silvio & Tundis, Enrico, 2025. "What workers and robots do: An activity-based analysis of the impact of robotization on changes in local employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    18. Colombo, Emilio & Mercorio, Fabio & Mezzanzanica, Mario, 2019. "AI meets labor market: Exploring the link between automation and skills," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 27-37.
    19. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    20. Montobbio, Fabio & Staccioli, Jacopo & Virgillito, Maria Enrica & Vivarelli, Marco, 2022. "Robots and the origin of their labour-saving impact," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-21-00473. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.