IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/1350.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Just another cog in the machine? A worker-level view of robotization and tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Nikolova, Milena
  • Lepinteur, Anthony
  • Cnossen, Femke

Abstract

Using survey data from 20 European countries, we construct novel worker-level indices of routine, abstract, social, and physical tasks, which we combine with industry-level robotization exposure. Our conceptual framework builds on the insight that robotization simultaneously replaces, creates, and modifies workers' tasks and studies how these forces impact workers' job content. We rely on instrumental variable techniques and show that robotization reduces physically demanding activities. Yet, this reduction in manual work does not coincide with a shift to more challenging and interesting tasks. Instead, robotization makes workers' tasks more routine, while diminishing the opportunities for cognitively challenging work and human contact. The adverse impact of robotization on social tasks is particularly pronounced for highly skilled and educated workers. Our study offers a unique worker-centric viewpoint on the interplay between technology and tasks, highlighting nuances that macro-level indicators overlook. As such, it sheds light on the mechanisms underpinning the impact of robotization on labor markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikolova, Milena & Lepinteur, Anthony & Cnossen, Femke, 2023. "Just another cog in the machine? A worker-level view of robotization and tasks," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1350, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:1350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/279869/1/GLO-DP-1350.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nikolova, Milena & Cnossen, Femke & Nikolaev, Boris, 2024. "Robots, meaning, and self-determination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    2. Heß, Pascal & Janssen, Simon & Leber, Ute, 2023. "The effect of automation technology on workers’ training participation," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. David H. Autor & Michael J. Handel, 2013. "Putting Tasks to the Test: Human Capital, Job Tasks, and Wages," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(S1), pages 59-96.
    4. 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.
    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. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    7. Hugh Cassidy, 2017. "Task Variation Within Occupations," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 393-410, July.
    8. Alexandra Spitz-Oener, 2006. "Technical Change, Job Tasks, and Rising Educational Demands: Looking outside the Wage Structure," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 235-270, April.
    9. Christian Dustmann & Johannes Ludsteck & Uta Schönberg, 2009. "Revisiting the German Wage Structure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(2), pages 843-881.
    10. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Özcan, Berkay & Philipp, Julia, 2021. "Robots and the gender pay gap in Europe," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Castellacci, Fulvio & Tveito, Vegard, 2018. "Internet use and well-being: A survey and a theoretical framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 308-325.
    12. Semih AKÇOMAK & Suzanne KOK & Hugo ROJAS-ROMAGOSA, 2016. "Technology, offshoring and the task content of occupations in the United Kingdom," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 155(2), pages 201-230, June.
    13. Cortes, Guido Matias & Jaimovich, Nir & Siu, Henry E., 2017. "Disappearing routine jobs: Who, how, and why?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 69-87.
    14. 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).
    15. David Autor, 2014. "Polanyi's Paradox and the Shape of Employment Growth," NBER Working Papers 20485, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Handel, Michael J., 2016. "The O-NET content model: strengths and limitations," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 49(2), pages 157-176.
    17. Jay Dixon & Bryan Hong & Lynn Wu, 2021. "The Robot Revolution: Managerial and Employment Consequences for Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5586-5605, September.
    18. Piotr Lewandowski & Albert Park & Wojciech Hardy & Yang Du & Saier Wu, 2022. "Erratum to: 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 801-801.
    19. Massimo Anelli & Osea Giuntella & Luca Stella, 2024. "Robots, Marriageable Men, Family, and Fertility," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(2), pages 443-469.
    20. Marc F. Bellemare & Casey J. Wichman, 2020. "Elasticities and the Inverse Hyperbolic Sine Transformation," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 82(1), pages 50-61, February.
    21. Ulf Olsson, 1979. "Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(4), pages 443-460, December.
    22. 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.
    23. Handel, Michael J., 2016. "The O-NET content model: strengths and limitations," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 49(2), pages 157-176.
    24. Enrique Fernández-Macías & Martina Bisello, 2022. "A Comprehensive Taxonomy of Tasks for Assessing the Impact of New Technologies on Work," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 159(2), pages 821-841, January.
    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. Albinowski, Maciej & Lewandowski, Piotr, 2024. "The impact of ICT and robots on labour market outcomes of demographic groups in Europe," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Nikolova, Milena & Cnossen, Femke & Nikolaev, Boris, 2024. "Robots, meaning, and self-determination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    4. Karina Doorley & Jan Gromadzki & Piotr Lewandowski & Dora Tuda & Philippe Van Kerm, 2023. "Automation and income inequality in Europe," LISER Working Paper Series 2023-11, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    5. Parteka, Aleksandra & Wolszczak-Derlacz, Joanna & Nikulin, Dagmara, 2024. "How digital technology affects working conditions in globally fragmented production chains: Evidence from Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Arief A. Yusuf & Reza Anglingkusumo & Andy Sumner & Putri R. Halim & Anggita C.M. Kusuma, 2020. "Routinization And The Changing Task Composition In The Labor Market: Evidence From Indonesia," Working Papers WP/06/2020, Bank Indonesia.
    7. Aleksandra Parteka & Joanna Wolszczak-Derlacz, 2020. "Wage response to global production links: evidence for workers from 28 European countries (2005–2014)," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(4), pages 769-801, November.
    8. Dengler, Katharina & Matthes, Britta, 2018. "The impacts of digital transformation on the labour market: Substitution potentials of occupations in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 304-316.
    9. Maarten Goos & Melanie Arntz & Ulrich Zierahn & Terry Gregory & Stephanie Carretero Gomez & Ignacio Gonzalez Vazquez & Koen Jonkers, 2019. "The Impact of Technological Innovation on the Future of Work," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019-03, Joint Research Centre.
    10. 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).
    11. Delaporte, Isaure & Peña, Werner, 2023. "The Dynamics of Labour Market Polarization in Chile: An Analysis of the Link Between Technical Change and Informality," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1262, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. Fabien Petit & Florencia Jaccoud & Tommaso Ciarli, 2023. "Heterogeneous Adjustments of Labor Markets to Automation Technologies," CESifo Working Paper Series 10237, CESifo.
    15. Arntz, Melanie & Genz, Sabrina & Gregory, Terry & Lehmer, Florian & Zierahn-Weilage, Ulrich, 2024. "De-Routinization in the Fourth Industrial Revolution - Firm-Level Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 16740, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Eduard Storm, 2023. "On the measurement of tasks: does expert data get it right?," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 57(1), pages 1-24, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    19. 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).
    20. Maarek, Paul & Moiteaux, Elliot, 2021. "Polarization, employment and the minimum wage: Evidence from European local labor markets," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    robotization; technological change; worker-level data; tasks;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • J30 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - General
    • J32 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions
    • J81 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - Working Conditions
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • M50 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - General

    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:zbw:glodps:1350. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/glabode.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.