Blog Post

The computerisation of European jobs

Who will win and who will lose from the impact of new technology onto old areas of employment? This is a centuries-old question but new literature, which we apply here to the European case, provides some interesting implications.

By: Date: July 24, 2014 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

The key takeaway is this: even though the European policy impetus remains to bolster residually weak employment statistics, there is an important second order concern to consider: technology is likely to dramatically reshape labour markets in the long run and to cause reallocations in the types of skills that the workers of tomorrow will need. To mitigate the risks of this reallocation it is important for our educational system to adapt.

Debates on the macroeconomic implications of new technology divide loosely between the minimalists (who believe little will change) and the maximalists (who believe that everything will).

In the former camp, recent work by Robert Gordon has outlined the hypothesis that we are entering a new era of low economic growth where new technological developments will have less impact than past ones. Against him are the maximalists, like Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, who predict dramatic economic shifts to result from the coming of the ‘Second Machine Age’. They expect a spiralling race between technology and education in the battle for employment which will dramatically reshape the kind of skills required by workers. According to this view, the automation of jobs threatens not just routine tasks with rule-based activities but also, increasingly, jobs defined by pattern recognition and non-routine cognitive tasks.

It is this second camp – those who predict dramatic shifts in employment driven by technological progress – that a recent working paper by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne of Oxford University speaks to, and which has attracted a significant amount of attention. In it, they combine elements from the labour economics literature with techniques from machine learning to estimate how ‘computerisable’ different jobs are. The gist of their approach is to modify the theoretical model of Autor et al. (2003) by identifying three engineering bottlenecks that prevent the automation of given jobs – these are creative intelligence, social intelligence and perception and manipulation tasks. They then classify 702 occupations according to the degree to which these bottlenecks persist. These are bottlenecks which technological advances – including machine learning (ML), developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and mobile robotics (MR) – will find it hard to overcome.

Using these classifications, they estimate the probability (or risk) of computerisation – this means that the job is “potentially automatable over some unspecified number of years, perhaps a decade or two”. Their focus is on “estimating the share of employment that can potentially be substituted by computer capital, from a technological capabilities point of view, over some unspecified number of years.” If a job presents the above engineering bottlenecks strongly then technological advances will have little chance of replacing a human with a computer, whereas if the job involves little creative intelligence, social intelligence or perceptual tasks then there is a much higher probability of ML, AI and MR leading to its computerisation. These risks range from telemarketers (99% risk of computerisation) to recreational therapists (0.28% risk of computerisation).

Predictions are fickle and so their results should only be interpreted in a broad, heuristic way (as they also say), but the findings are provocative. Their headline result is that 47% of US jobs are vulnerable to such computerisation (based on jobs currently existing), and their key graph is shown below, where they estimate the probability of computerisation across their 702 jobs mapped onto American sectoral employment data.

How do these risks distribute across different profiles of people? That is, do we witness a threat to high-skilled manufacturing labour as in the 19th century, a ‘hollowing out’ of routine middle-income jobs observed in large parts of the 20th as jobs spread to low-skill service industries, or something else? The authors expect that new advances in technology will primarily damage the low-skill, low-wage end of the labour market as tasks previously hard to computerise in the service sector become vulnerable to technological advance.

Although such predictions are no doubt fragile, the results are certainly suggestive. So what do these findings imply for Europe? Which countries are vulnerable? To answer this, we take their data and apply it to the EU.

At the end of their paper (p57-72) the authors provide a table of all the jobs they classify, that job’s probability of computerisation and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code associated with the job. The computerisation risks we use are exactly the same as in their paper but we need to translate them to a different classification system to say anything about European employment. Since the SOC system is not generally used in Europe, for each of these jobs we translated the relevant SOC code into an International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) code,  which is the system used by the ILO. (see appendix)  This enables us to apply the risks of computerisation Frey & Osborne generate to data on European employment.

Having obtained these risks of computerisation per ISCO job, we combine these with European employment data broken up according to ISCO-defined sectors. This was done using the ILO data which is based on the 2012 EU Labour Force Survey. From this, we generate an overall index of computerisation risk equivalent to the proportion of total employment likely to be challenged significantly by technological advances in the next decade or two across the entirety of EU-28.

It is worth mentioning a significant limitation of the original paper which the authors acknowledge – as individual tasks are made obsolete by technology, this frees up time for workers to perform other tasks and particular job definitions will shift accordingly. It is hard to predict how the jobs of 2014 will look in a decade or two and consequently it should be remembered that the estimates consider how many jobs as currently defined could be replaced by computers over this horizon.

 


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Libra as a currency board: are the risks too great?

The Libra Association claims it will be analogous to a currency board regime, but they have overlooked the problems of monetary management that come with it

By: Julia Anderson and Francesco Papadia Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 27, 2020
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Jan
28
09:30

A post-Brexit agreement for research and innovation

What is the future of EU's and UK's relationship on research and innovation?

Speakers: Gina Dowding, Michael Leigh, Adrian Hayday, Clare Moody, Martin Muller, Joe Owen, Jaroslaw Pietras, Uta Staiger, André Sapir, Beth Thompson and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
5
12:00

The quality and quantity of work in the age of AI

At this event, the panelists will discuss the implications of Artificial Intelligence on the labour market and the future of work in general.

Speakers: Robert Atkinson, Anna Byhovskaya, Maria Demertzis, Carl Frey and Daniel Samaan Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Do AI markets create competition policy concerns?

AI markets are young and their structure is yet to crystallise. Is European competition law ready for what happens next?

By: Julia Anderson Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 23, 2020
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

The state of health in the EU and the digitalisation of health promotion

The panellists at this event reviewed the general state of health as well as the digitalisation in the industry.

Speakers: Stefania Boccia, Caroline Costongs, Katarzyna Czabanowska, Zsolt Darvas, Guillaume Dedet, Martin Dorazil, Josep Figueras, Joanna Kokot, Martin Seychell and Michael Strübin Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 22, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The European AI policy: writing the first lines of the code

At this closed-door event, an open discussion with Margrethe Vestager will contribute to her work on artificial intelligence. The aim of these discussions is to set out a policy and regulatory approach in the form of a white paper, including the human and ethical implications of AI.

Speakers: Margrethe Vestager and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 21, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

AI in Europe: a conversation with Google's CEO

It seems almost inevitable that Google will be big part of Europe's future. And Europe will be a huge part of Google's too. This week, Alphabet, Google's parent company, hit $1 trillion market cap for the first time. Can Google's AI be socially beneficial? Are big tech companies intrinsically bad? This week, Guntram Wolff talked to Google and Alphabet's CEO, Sundar Pichai.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 20, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Partnering with Europe on responsible AI: a conversation with Sundar Pichai, CEO Google and Alphabet

At this event, Google's and Alphabet's CEO Sundar Pichai will elaborate on his views on Artificial Intelligence.

Speakers: Sundar Pichai and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: SQUARE, Mont des Arts, 1000 Brussels Date: January 20, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Mar
9
10:30

Modernising European Competition Policy

The event addresses the need for modernising European competition policy due to structural changes in the economy caused by shifting global economic landscapes on the one hand and ongoing digitization of the economy on the other.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Georgios Petropoulos, Philipp Steinberg, Achim Wambach and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Could the U.S. economy be experiencing a hidden tech-driven productivity revolution?

In the last decade, most advanced economies have grown more slowly than before. Slower growth has frequently been seen as a legacy of financial crises, especially that of 2007–2009.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 6, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

AI and the Productivity Paradox

In this blog post, I review the main explanations for this paradox and I briefly discuss relevant policy options in order to increase the contribution of AI on productivity

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 24, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

2019 on #econtwitter, in a million tweets

What did academic economists talk about in 2019? I collected one million tweets from popular academic economists over the year, and analysed the topics discussed.

By: Enrico Bergamini Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 19, 2019
Load more posts