IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cjrecs/v13y2020i1p25-35..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand

Author

Listed:
  • Daron Acemoglu
  • Pascual Restrepo

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to influence every aspect of our lives, not least the way production is organised. AI, as a technology platform, can automate tasks previously performed by labour or create new tasks and activities in which humans can be productively employed. Recent technological change has been biased towards automation, with insufficient focus on creating new tasks where labour can be productively employed. The consequences of this choice have been stagnating labour demand, declining labour share in national income, rising inequality and lowering productivity growth. The current tendency is to develop AI in the direction of further automation, but this might mean missing out on the promise of the ‘right’ kind of AI, with better economic and social outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 13(1), pages 25-35.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:25-35.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cjres/rsz022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Zeira, 1998. "Workers, Machines, and Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1091-1117.
    2. Olmstead, Alan L. & Rhode, Paul W., 2001. "Reshaping The Landscape: The Impact And Diffusion Of The Tractor In American Agriculture, 1910–1960," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 663-698, September.
    3. Mokyr, Joel, 1992. "The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195074772.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Karthik Muralidharan & Abhijeet Singh & Alejandro J. Ganimian, 2019. "Disrupting Education? Experimental Evidence on Technology-Aided Instruction in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1426-1460, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Acemoglu, Daron & Autor, David, 2011. "Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 12, pages 1043-1171, Elsevier.
    9. Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1993. "In search of useful theory of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 108-108, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Technical Change, Inequality, and the Labor Market," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 7-72, March.
    12. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "The Green Entrepreneurial State," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-28, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. The Wrong Kind of AI? Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Labor Demand
      by maximorossi in NEP-LTV blog on 2019-05-14 14:30:41

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alekseeva, Liudmila & Azar, José & Giné, Mireia & Samila, Sampsa & Taska, Bledi, 2021. "The demand for AI skills in the labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Anton Korinek, 2019. "Integrating Ethical Values and Economic Value to Steer Progress in Artificial Intelligence," NBER Working Papers 26130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Katya Klinova & Anton Korinek, 2021. "AI and Shared Prosperity," Papers 2105.08475, arXiv.org.
    4. Luigi Marengo, 2019. "Is this time different? A note on automation and labour in the fourth industrial revolution," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(3), pages 323-331, September.
    5. Judith Clifton & Amy Glasmeier & Mia Gray, 2020. "When machines think for us: the consequences for work and place," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 13(1), pages 3-23.
    6. Nippani, Abishek, 2020. "Automation and Labour in India: Policy Implications of Job Polarisation pre and post COVID-19 crisis," SocArXiv h9gaw, Center for Open Science.
    7. Mutascu, Mihai, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and unemployment: New insights," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 653-667.
    8. Atheendar S Venkataramani & Rourke O’Brien & Gregory L Whitehorn & Alexander C Tsai, 2020. "Economic influences on population health in the United States: Toward policymaking driven by data and evidence," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Demiralay, Sercan & Gencer, Hatice Gaye & Bayraci, Selcuk, 2021. "How do Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Stocks co-move with traditional and alternative assets in the age of the 4th industrial revolution? Implications and Insights for the COVID-19 period," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    10. Xie, Mengmeng & Ding, Lin & Xia, Yan & Guo, Jianfeng & Pan, Jiaofeng & Wang, Huijuan, 2021. "Does artificial intelligence affect the pattern of skill demand? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 295-309.
    11. Ballestar, María Teresa & Díaz-Chao, Ángel & Sainz, Jorge & Torrent-Sellens, Joan, 2021. "Impact of robotics on manufacturing: A longitudinal machine learning perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    12. Sequeira, Tiago Neves & Garrido, Susana & Santos, Marcelo, 2021. "Robots are not always bad for employment and wages," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 108-119.
    13. Liu, Liang & Yang, Kun & Fujii, Hidemichi & Liu, Jun, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and energy intensity in China’s industrial sector: Effect and transmission channel," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 276-293.

    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. Songul Tolan & Annarosa Pesole & Fernando Martinez-Plumed & Enrique Fernandez-Macias & José Hernandez-Orallo & Emilia Gomez, 2020. "Measuring the Occupational Impact of AI: Tasks, Cognitive Abilities and AI Benchmarks," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2020-02, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    3. Cirillo, Valeria & Evangelista, Rinaldo & Guarascio, Dario & Sostero, Matteo, 2021. "Digitalization, routineness and employment: An exploration on Italian task-based data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    4. Samwer, Julia & Chen, Chinchih, 2020. "How labor market institutions affect technological choices," ILE Working Paper Series 42, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    5. Hemous, David & Olsen, Morten, 2014. "The Rise of the Machines: Automation, Horizontal Innovation and Income Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 10244, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    7. Yuki, Kazuhiro, 2012. "Mechanization, task assignment, and inequality," MPRA Paper 37754, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. de Vries, Gaaitzen J. & Gentile, Elisabetta & Miroudot, Sébastien & Wacker, Konstantin M., 2020. "The rise of robots and the fall of routine jobs," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Falck, Oliver & Heimisch-Roecker, Alexandra & Wiederhold, Simon, 2021. "Returns to ICT skills," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    11. Michael Coelli & Jeff Borland, 2019. "Behind the headline number: Why not to rely on Frey and Osborne’s predictions of potential job loss from automation," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2019n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    12. Gardberg, Malin & Heyman, Fredrik & Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2020. "Digitization-based automation and occupational dynamics," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Yuki, Kazuhiro, 2021. "Mechanization, Task Assignment, and Inequality," MPRA Paper 107760, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Maria-Chiara Morandini & Anna Thum-Thysen & Anneleen Vandeplas, 2020. "Facing the Digital Transformation: Are Digital Skills Enough?," European Economy - Economic Briefs 054, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    15. Nicola Cassandro & Marco Centra & Dario Guarascio & Piero Esposito, 2021. "What drives employment–unemployment transitions? Evidence from Italian task-based data," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 1109-1147, October.
    16. Roberto Antonietti & Luca Cattani & Francesca Gambarotto & Giulio Pedrini, 2021. "Education, routine, and complexity-biased Knowledge Enabling Technologies: Evidence from Emilia-Romagna, Italy," Discussion Paper series in Regional Science & Economic Geography 2021-07, Gran Sasso Science Institute, Social Sciences, revised May 2021.
    17. Žilvinas Martinaitis & Aleksandr Christenko & Jonas AntanaviÄ ius, 2021. "Upskilling, Deskilling or Polarisation? Evidence on Change in Skills in Europe," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 35(3), pages 451-469, June.
    18. Ryosuke Shimizu & Shohei Momoda, 2020. "Does Automation Technology increase Wage?," KIER Working Papers 1039, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    19. Ni, Bin & Obashi, Ayako, 2021. "Robotics technology and firm-level employment adjustment in Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    automation; artificial intelligence; jobs; inequality; innovation; labour demand; productivity; tasks; technology; wages;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J23 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Demand
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    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:oup:cjrecs:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:25-35.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cjres .

    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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cjres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.