IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/baf/cbafwp/cbafwp22191.html

Automation and Public Policy Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Colombe Ladreit

Abstract

Automation and globalization triggered sizeable labor market adjustments in the US. While the backlash against globalization has been well-identified in the political economy literature, this is not the case for automation. Using a survey experiment, we study how Americans update their public policy preferences after priming them with an automation story. We show it does not increase their support for government intervention and uncover two explanatory channels behind it: fairness considerations and perceived vulnerability to automation. First, respondents do not see automation as particularly unfair to workers and think that firms are justified in automating. Second, our automation treatment increases respondents'anxiety regarding automation's impact on American jobs in general but not on their own occupations. Hence, while an automation prime increases average anxiety levels, respondents do not feel personally threatened by robots. Finally, we find that respondents are less likely to support nationalist policies once they know the cause of the shock is automation. This suggests that misperceptions about the cause of the shock have partly driven the increase in anti-trade and anti-immigration sentiment following robot adoption. Classification-JEL :

Suggested Citation

  • Colombe Ladreit, 2022. "Automation and Public Policy Preferences," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22191, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:baf:cbafwp:cbafwp22191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.unibocconi.it/baffic/baf/papers/cbafwp22191.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carl Benedikt Frey & Thor Berger & Chinchih Chen, 2018. "Political machinery: did robots swing the 2016 US presidential election?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 34(3), pages 418-442.
    2. 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.
    3. Rafael Di Tella & Dani Rodrik, 2020. "Labour Market Shocks and the Demand for Trade Protection: Evidence from Online Surveys," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(628), pages 1008-1030.
    4. Rafael Di Tella & Juan Dubra, 2016. "Meet the Oligarchs: Business Legitimacy, State Capacity and Taxation," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1607, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    5. Avraham Ebenstein & Ann Harrison & Margaret McMillan, 2015. "Why are American Workers getting Poorer? China, Trade and Offshoring," NBER Working Papers 21027, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Jeffrey, Karen, 2021. "Automation and the future of work: How rhetoric shapes the response in policy preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 417-433.
    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.
    8. Anderson, Michael L., 2008. "Multiple Inference and Gender Differences in the Effects of Early Intervention: A Reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1481-1495.
    9. Stantcheva, Stefanie, 2022. "How to Run Surveys: A guide to creating your own identifying variation and revealing the invisible," CEPR Discussion Papers 17586, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    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. Jeffrey, Karen, 2020. "Automation and the Future of Work: How Rhetoric Shapes the Response in Policy Preferences," SocArXiv beqra, Center for Open Science.
    2. Nicole Wu, 2023. "“Restrict foreigners, not robots”: Partisan responses to automation threat," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 505-528, July.
    3. Ferman, Bruno & Lima, Lycia & Riva, Flávio, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Teacher Tasks and Individualized Pedagogy," SocArXiv qw249, Center for Open Science.
    4. Thomas Kurer & Nikolas Schöll, 2021. "How Technological Change Affects Regional Electorates," Working Papers 1269, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Aina Gallego & Thomas Kurer & Nikolas Schöll, 2018. "Not so disruptive after all: How workplace digitalization affects political preferences," Economics Working Papers 1623, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Oesch, David & Walser, Tanja, 2025. "The impact of automation on firms' reporting quality," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Muendler, Marc-Andreas, 2017. "Trade, technology, and prosperity: An account of evidence from a labor-market perspective," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2017-15, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    8. Brey, Björn, 2024. "The effect of recent technological change on US immigration policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Daron Acemoglu & David Autor, 2012. "What Does Human Capital Do? A Review of Goldin and Katz's The Race between Education and Technology," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 426-463, June.
    10. Fabian Kosse & Tim Leffler & Arna Woemmel, 2025. "Digital Skills: Social Disparities and the Impact of Early Mentoring," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1222, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    11. Gallego, Aina & Kurer, Thomas & Schöll, Nikolas, 2020. "Neither Left-Behind nor Superstar: Ordinary Winners of Digitalization at the Ballot," SocArXiv mu3tw, Center for Open Science.
    12. Christian Gschwendt, 2022. "Routine job dynamics in the Swiss labor market," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 158(1), pages 1-21, December.
    13. David Hope & Julian Limberg & Nina Weber, 2023. "Technological Change, Task Complexity, and Preferences for Redistribution," ifo Working Paper Series 398, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    14. Jeffrey, Karen & Matakos, Konstantinos, 2024. "Automation anxiety, fairness perceptions, and redistribution: Past experiences condition the response to future job loss," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 174-190.
    15. Uwe Thuemmel, 2023. "Optimal Taxation of Robots," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 1154-1190.
    16. Rita Pető & Balázs Reizer, 2021. "Gender differences in the skill content of jobs," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 825-864, July.
    17. Innocenti, Stefania & Golin, Marta, 2022. "Human capital investment and perceived automation risks: Evidence from 16 countries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 27-41.
    18. Ferman, Bruno & Lima, Lycia & Riva, Flavio, 2020. "Experimental Evidence on Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom," MPRA Paper 103934, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jeffrey, Karen, 2021. "Automation and the future of work: How rhetoric shapes the response in policy preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 417-433.
    20. Chemin, Matthieu, 2021. "Does appointing team leaders and shaping leadership styles increase effort? Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 12-32.

    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:baf:cbafwp:cbafwp22191. 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: Michela Pozzi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbbocit.html .

    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.