IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2504.07689.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inequality at risk of automation? Gender differences in routine tasks intensity in developing country labor markets

Author

Listed:
  • Janneke Pieters
  • Ana Kujundzic
  • Rulof Burger
  • Joel Gondwe

Abstract

Technological change can have profound impacts on the labor market. Decades of research have made it clear that technological change produces winners and losers. Machines can replace some types of work that humans do, while new technologies increase human's productivity in other types of work. For a long time, highly educated workers benefitted from increased demand for their labor due to skill-biased technological change, while the losers were concentrated at the bottom of the wage distribution (Katz and Autor, 1999; Goldin and Katz, 2007, 2010; Kijima, 2006). Currently, however, labor markets seem to be affected by a different type of technological change, the so-called routine-biased technological change (RBTC). This chapter studies the risk of automation in developing country labor markets, with a particular focus on differences between men and women. Given the pervasiveness of gender occupational segregation, there may be important gender differences in the risk of automation. Understanding these differences is important to ensure progress towards equitable development and gender inclusion in the face of new technological advances. Our objective is to describe the gender gap in the routine task intensity of jobs in developing countries and to explore the role of occupational segregation and several worker characteristics in accounting for the gender gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Janneke Pieters & Ana Kujundzic & Rulof Burger & Joel Gondwe, 2025. "Inequality at risk of automation? Gender differences in routine tasks intensity in developing country labor markets," Papers 2504.07689, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2504.07689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.07689
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonardo Gasparini & Irene Brambilla & Guillermo Falcone & Carlo Lombardo & Andrés César, 2021. "Routinization and Employment: Evidence for Latin America," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0276, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    2. David H. Autor & David Dorn, 2013. "The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1553-1597, August.
    3. Sandra E. Black & Alexandra Spitz-Oener, 2010. "Explaining Women's Success: Technological Change and the Skill Content of Women's Work," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 187-194, February.
    4. Lo Bello,Salvatore & Sanchez Puerta,Maria Laura & Winkler,Hernan Jorge, 2019. "From Ghana to America : The Skill Content of Jobs and Economic Development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8758, The World Bank.
    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. Kijima, Yoko, 2006. "Why did wage inequality increase? Evidence from urban India 1983-99," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 97-117, October.
    7. Katz, Lawrence F. & Autor, David H., 1999. "Changes in the wage structure and earnings inequality," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 26, pages 1463-1555, Elsevier.
    8. Piotr Lewandowski & Albert Park & Wojciech Hardy & Yang Du & Saier Wu, 2022. "Technology, Skills, and Globalization: Explaining International Differences in Routine and Nonroutine Work Using Survey Data," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(3), pages 687-708.
    9. (Maggie) Fu, Xiaoqing & Bao, Qun & Xie, Hongjun & Fu, Xiaolan, 2021. "Diffusion of industrial robotics and inclusive growth: Labour market evidence from cross country data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 670-684.
    10. Maarten Goos & Alan Manning & Anna Salomons, 2014. "Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2509-2526, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Arntz, Melanie & Gregory, Terry & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2017. "Revisiting the risk of automation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-160.
    13. John ARIZA & Josep Lluís RAYMOND BARA, 2020. "Technological change and employment in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico: Which workers are most affected?," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 159(2), pages 137-159, June.
    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. Antonio Martins-Neto & Nanditha Mathew & Pierre Mohnen & Tania Treibich, 2024. "Is There Job Polarization in Developing Economies? A Review and Outlook," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 39(2), pages 259-288.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Bhalotra, Sonia & Fernandez, Manuel & Wang, Fan, 2022. "The Distribution of the Gender Wage Gap: An Equilibrium Model," CEPR Discussion Papers 17253, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Cristian Bonavida & Irene Brambilla & Leonardo Gasparini, 2021. "Automatización y Pandemia: Amenazas sobre el Empleo en América Latina," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0288, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    6. 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).
    7. Antonio Martins-Neto & Xavier Cirera & Alex Coad, 2024. "Routine-biased technological change and employee outcomes after mass layoffs: evidence from Brazil," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 33(3), pages 555-583.
    8. Caitlin Allen Whitehead & Haroon Bhorat & Robert Hill & Tim Köhler & François Steenkamp, 2021. "The Potential Employment Implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies: The Case of the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Sector," Working Papers 202106, University of Cape Town, Development Policy Research Unit.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Jean Philippe Décieux & Alexandra Mergener, 2021. "German Labor Emigration in Times of Technological Change: Occupational Characteristics and Geographical Patterns," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Thomsen, Stephan L, 2018. "Die Rolle der Computerisierung und Digitalisierung für Beschäftigung und Einkommen," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-645, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    14. Bhalotra, Sonia & Fernandez Sierra, Manuel, 2018. "The distribution of the gender wage gap," ISER Working Paper Series 2018-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    15. Rica, Sara De La & Gortazar, Lucas & Lewandowski, Piotr, 2020. "Job Tasks and Wages in Developed Countries: Evidence from PIAAC," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    16. David Autor & Caroline Chin & Anna Salomons & Bryan Seegmiller, 2024. "New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(3), pages 1399-1465.
    17. Consoli, Davide & Marin, Giovanni & Rentocchini, Francesco & Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Routinization, within-occupation task changes and long-run employment dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    18. 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.
    19. Claudia Olivetti & Barbara Petrongolo, 2014. "Gender gaps across countries and skills: Demand, supply and the industry structure," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 17(4), pages 842-859, October.
    20. Piotr Lewandowski & Albert Park & Simone Schotte, 2020. "The global distribution of routine and non-routine work," IBS Working Papers 06/2020, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2504.07689. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.