IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v11y2023i12p293-d1292672.html

EU Diversity in Terms of Digitalization on the Labor Market in the Post-COVID-19 Context

Author

Listed:
  • Georgiana-Alina Crisan

    (The Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 15-17 Dorobanti Street, Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Madalina Ecaterina Popescu

    (The Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 15-17 Dorobanti Street, Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania
    The National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, 6-8 Povernei Street, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Eva Militaru

    (The National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, 6-8 Povernei Street, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Amalia Cristescu

    (The National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, 6-8 Povernei Street, 010643 Bucharest, Romania
    The Faculty of Theoretical and Applied Economics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 15-17 Dorobanti Street, Sector 1, 010552 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Digital technologies are being integrated into everyday life worldwide, constantly transforming our society and labor markets. The EU requires digitally smart people in the labor market and has promoted this through the Digital Agenda. In this context, our paper aims to investigate the diversity of the EU member states in terms of the digitalization of the labor market in the post-pandemic context. Using a multidimensional perspective, we considered indicators reflecting not only labor market specificities but also the degree of digitalization and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, the strength of the association between digitalization and the labor market indicators was quantified through a Pearson test, while the cluster analysis highlighted some patterns for the high-tech EU economies compared to the medium- and low-tech EU economies. Among the high-tech economies cluster, Finland stands out as the frontrunner in the EU’s digital transformation, with the most digitally skilled workers. At the opposite pole are the South-Eastern countries, which have the most to do to recover and still lack an effective digital policy framework to support youth workers’ access to digital training. The practical implications of our study consist mostly of providing decision-makers with directions on issues to tackle when implementing EU digital policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgiana-Alina Crisan & Madalina Ecaterina Popescu & Eva Militaru & Amalia Cristescu, 2023. "EU Diversity in Terms of Digitalization on the Labor Market in the Post-COVID-19 Context," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:11:y:2023:i:12:p:293-:d:1292672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/12/293/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/12/293/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lukas Schlogl & Andy Sumner, 2018. "The Rise of the Robot Reserve Army: Automation and the Future of Economic Development, Work, and Wages in Developing Countries," Working Papers 487, Center for Global Development.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & James Liang & John Roberts & Zhichun Jenny Ying, 2015. "Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 165-218.
    3. Oğuz Başol & Hüseyin Sevgi & Esin Cumhur Yalçın, 2023. "The Effect of Digitalization on Youth Unemployment for EU Countries: Treat or Threat?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-15, July.
    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. Georgiana-Alina Crisan & Madalina Ecaterina Popescu, 2025. "Investigating The Romanian Digital Transformation Progress In The Eu Context," Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 142-155, March.
    2. Georgiana-Alina Crisan & Anda Belciu & Madalina Ecaterina Popescu, 2025. "Digital Transformation—One Step Further to a Sustainable Economy: The Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-46, February.
    3. Zegrean Andrei & Girlovan Aura & Botoroga Cosmin-Alin & Vrabie Madalina, 2025. "The Role of Digital Transformation in Shaping Labor Productivity across EU Member States," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Paradigm, vol. 19(1), pages 4923-4934.
    4. Georgiana-Alina Crișan & Adrian Domenteanu & Mădălina Ecaterina Popescu & Camelia Delcea, 2025. "Decision-Making for Sustainable Digitalization Through Grey Systems Theory: A Bibliometric Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-42, May.
    5. Simona Ioana Ghita & Cristina Rodica Boboc & Andreea Simona Saseanu & Sorin George Toma, "undated". "Behavioral Patterns of European Countries From the Triple Perspective of Tertiary Education, Labour Market and Digitalization," BASIQ Conference Proceedings 2024:058, Bucharest University of Economic Studies.
    6. Gancho Ganchev & Mariya Paskaleva & Kalina Durova-Angelova & Yordanka Noneva-Zlatkova, 2025. "Socio-Economic Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Digitalization in Post-COVID-19 Europe," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 139-171.

    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. Simisola Johnson, 2022. "Women deserve better: A discussion on COVID‐19 and the gendered organization in the new economy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 639-649, March.
    2. Marjan Shamsi & Tatiana Iakovleva & Espen Olsen & Richard P. Bagozzi, 2021. "Employees’ Work-Related Well-Being during COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrated Perspective of Technology Acceptance Model and JD-R Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Tomiura, Eiichi & Kumanomido, Hiroshi, 2023. "Impacts of inter-firm relations on the adoption of remote work: Evidence from a survey in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    4. Alfred Michael Dockery & Sherry Bawa, 2014. "Is working from home good or bad work? Evidence from Australian employees," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1402, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    5. Yanira Marcela Oviedo-Gil & Favio Ernesto Cala Vitery, 2023. "Teleworking and Job Quality in Latin American Countries: A Comparison from an Impact Approach in 2021," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Deole, Sumit S. & Deter, Max & Huang, Yue, 2023. "Home sweet home: Working from home and employee performance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    7. Takuya HASEBE & Yoshifumi KONISHI & Kong Joo SHIN & Shunsuke MANAGI, 2018. "White Collar Exemption: Panacea for long work hours and low earnings?," Discussion papers 18002, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis, 2020. "Why Working From Home Will Stick," Working Papers 2020-174, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    9. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    10. Ro’i Zultan & Eldar Dadon, 2023. "Missing the forest for the trees: when monitoring quantitative measures distorts task prioritization," Working Papers 2319, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    11. Barbora Mazúrová & Ján Kollár & Gabriela Nedelová, 2021. "Travel Mode of Commuting in Context of Subjective Well-Being—Experience from Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Xin Scott Chen & Ali Jaffery & Guillaume Nolin & Karim Salhab & Peter Shannon & Subrata Sarker, 2020. "Assessing Global Potential Output Growth: October 2020," Discussion Papers 2020-10, Bank of Canada.
    13. Bloom, Nicholas & Davis, Steven J. & Hansen, Stephen & Lambert, Peter John & Sadun, Raffaella & Taska, Bledi, 2023. "Remote work across jobs, companies and space," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121302, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. John (Jianqiu) Bai & Erik Brynjolfsson & Wang Jin & Sebastian Steffen & Chi Wan, 2021. "Digital Resilience: How Work-From-Home Feasibility Affects Firm Performance," NBER Working Papers 28588, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. repec:rim:rimwps:25-04 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Rost Vincent & Erdsiek Daniel, 2026. "Gekommen, um zu bleiben: Homeoffice verstetigt sich auf hohem Niveau," Wirtschaftsdienst, Paradigm, vol. 106(3), pages 221-225.
    17. Kouki, Amairisa, 2023. "Beyond the “Comforts” of work from home: Child health and the female wage penalty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    18. Stefano Magrini & Alessandro Spiganti, 2021. "The Day After Covid-19: Implications for Growth, Specialization, and Inequality," Working Papers 2021:13, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    19. Tim Klopries, 2018. "Discussion of “Working from Home—What is the Effect on Employees’ Effort?”," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(1), pages 57-62, February.
    20. Andrew L. Kun & Raffaella Sadun & Orit Shaer & Thomaz Teodorovicz, 2022. "How does working from home during COVID-19 affect what managers do? Evidence from time-use studies," POID Working Papers 029, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jecomi:v:11:y:2023:i:12:p:293-:d:1292672. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.