IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295942.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will advancement in technologies bring fear and damage human employment? Evidence from China’s manufacturing industry

Author

Listed:
  • Peng Wang
  • Donghai Li
  • Yangzi Wang
  • Qingjiang Han
  • Yousaf Ali Khan

Abstract

Advancement in technologies such as robotic industries and artificial intelligence bring fear among human being that jobs will be substituted by robots. Base on the panel data of 28 China’s manufacturing industries, this research analyzed the impact of technical progress bias on employment. First, we calculate the technical progress bias index of 28 industries base on the stochastic frontier model with transcendental logarithm function found 16 industries were toward the skilled labor while the remaining 12 industries were toward the unskilled labor. Second, the empirical results show that technical progress bias has a positive impact on the total manufacturing employment and significant positive effect on the unskilled labor, while no significant impact on skilled labor employment. Third, the threshold effect test proves that if taking industry value-added per capita or R&D capital stock as threshold variable, the threshold about the impact exist, making the impact on skilled labor was insignificant.

Suggested Citation

  • Peng Wang & Donghai Li & Yangzi Wang & Qingjiang Han & Yousaf Ali Khan, 2024. "Will advancement in technologies bring fear and damage human employment? Evidence from China’s manufacturing industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295942
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295942
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295942&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295942?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. A. Diamond, 1971. "Disembodied Technical Change in a Two-Sector Model," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 7, pages 53-60, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. 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.
    3. Chen, Shiyi & Jefferson, Gary H. & Zhang, Jun, 2011. "Structural change, productivity growth and industrial transformation in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 133-150, March.
    4. Hansen, Bruce E., 1999. "Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 345-368, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Maarten Goos & Alan Manning, 2007. "Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 118-133, February.
    7. Rainer Klump & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2007. "Factor Substitution and Factor-Augmenting Technical Progress in the United States: A Normalized Supply-Side System Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 183-192, February.
    8. Roshan, Gh.R. & Orosa, J.A & Nasrabadi, T., 2012. "Simulation of climate change impact on energy consumption in buildings, case study of Iran," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 731-739.
    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. Maya Eden & Paul Gaggl, 2018. "On the Welfare Implications of Automation," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 29, pages 15-43, July.
    2. Du, Junhong & He, Jiajia & Yang, Jing & Chen, Xiaohong, 2024. "How industrial robots affect labor income share in task model: Evidence from Chinese A-share listed companies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    3. Florian Brugger & Christian Gehrke, 2017. "The Neoclassical Approach to Induced Technical Change: From Hicks to Acemoglu," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(4), pages 730-776, November.
    4. Loebbing, Jonas, 2018. "An Elementary Theory of Endogenous Technical Change and Wage Inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Battisti, Michele & Gatto, Massimo Del & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2022. "Skill-biased technical change and labor market inefficiency," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Tschopp, Jeanne, 2015. "The Wage Response to Shocks: The Role of Inter-Occupational Labour Adjustment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-37.
    7. Kudoh, Noritaka & Miyamoto, Hiroaki, 2025. "Robots, AI, and unemployment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    9. Silvia Vannutelli & Sergio Scicchitano & Marco Biagetti, 2022. "Routine-biased technological change and wage inequality: do workers’ perceptions matter?," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(3), pages 409-450, September.
    10. Georg Graetz & Guy Michaels, 2017. "Is Modern Technology Responsible for Jobless Recoveries?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 168-173, May.
    11. Jerzmanowski, Michal & Tamura, Robert, 2019. "Directed technological change & cross-country income differences: A quantitative analysis," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    12. Dirk Antonczyk & Thomas DeLeire & Bernd Fitzenberger, 2018. "Polarization and Rising Wage Inequality: Comparing the U.S. and Germany," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-33, April.
    13. David J. Deming, 2017. "The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1593-1640.
    14. Bárány, Zsófia L. & Siegel, Christian, 2020. "Biased technological change and employment reallocation," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. 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).
    16. Younjun Kim & Eric Thompson, 2021. "Routine-Biased Technological Change and Declining Employment Rate of Immigrants," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 319-353, June.
    17. Davide Consoli & Francesco Vona & Francesco Rentocchini, 2016. "That was then, this is now: skills and routinization in the 2000s," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 847-866.
    18. Comin, Diego & Mestieri, Martí & Danieli, Ana, 2020. "Income-Driven Labor Market Polarization," CEPR Discussion Papers 14980, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. David Kunst, 2019. "Deskilling among Manufacturing Production Workers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-050/VI, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Dec 2020.
    20. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).

    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:plo:pone00:0295942. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.