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 about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
23
15:30

Financial and digital literacy in the age of fintech

How to ensure the safe use of digital payments and other technological innovations in the area of personal finance?

Speakers: Maria Demertzis and Annamaria Lusardi Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Questions to Sylvie Goulard, Commissioner designate for Internal Market

If confirmed. Commissioner-designate Goulard will soon have direct responsibility for three areas within this broader mandate. Firstly, digital economy and society. Secondly, European industry and the single market. And thirdly, the defence industry and space. Because this diverse brief makes it easy to focus on the trees while losing sight of the forest the role must be defined by a clear overarching strategy

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 30, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Questions to the Competition Commissioner-designate

Commissioner Vestager has been given two portfolios; Executive Vice-President for a Europe fit for the Digital Age and Competition Commissioner. While having more than one portfolio may not be new, combining an important policy coordination function and an enforcement function is a novel approach. This raises a number of important questions related to how the objectives of either portfolio can be delivered cleanly.

By: Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 27, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Questions to Mariya Gabriel the Commissioner-designate for Innovation and Youth

European Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen disseminated her mission letters to commissioner-designates. The letter to the commissioner-designate for Innovation and Youth, Mariya Gabriel, highlights several essential priorities, yet they leave a number of important questions open that I recommend Members of the European Parliament to ask at the upcoming parliamentary hearings of the designates.

By: Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 26, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Addressing the EU’s Global Challenges Locally: the EU’s Competition and Antitrust Tightrope

This blog is part of a series following the 2019 Bruegel annual meetings, which brought together nearly 1,000 participants for two days of policy debate and discussion.

By: Rebecca Christie and Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 23, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Jobs and robots: Europe’s Debate Over the Destiny of the Welfare State

This blog is part of a series following the 2019 Bruegel annual meetings, which brought together nearly 1,000 participants for two days of policy debate and discussion.

By: J. Scott Marcus and Giuseppe Porcaro Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 20, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

In an era of digitalisation, the Single Market needs a software update

This blog post is part of a series following the 2019 Bruegel annual meetings, which brought together nearly 1,000 participants for two days of policy debate and discussion. For more from the sessions, check out our special-edition podcasts and live audio and video recordings of the event’s public panels.

By: Reinhilde Veugelers and Nicholas Barrett Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 19, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: What is a hybrid attack?

Hybrid attacks are fast, dynamic and ever-evolving. They can cross borders and span industries. They are best dealt with at the national level, but without international cooperation, nation-states are bound to be overwhelmed. So hybrid attacks must be repelled by responsive nation-states and by cooperative international bodies.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 18, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage at BAM19: Designing a competition policy fit for Europe's needs.

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Rebecca Christie talks with Mathew Heim on competition policy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 5, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage at BAM19: AI, robots and platform workers

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Giuseppe Porcaro talks with J. Scott Marcus on AI, robots and platform workers.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 4, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage at BAM19: How can Europe's economy thrive in the digital age?

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Giuseppe Porcaro talks with session chair Reinhilde Veugelers on Europe's economy in the digital age.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 4, 2019
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

Bruegel Annual Meetings 2019

Bruegel's 2019 Annual Meetings will be held on 4-5 September and feature the launch of Bruegel's Memos to the New European Commission.

Speakers: Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, Georg Boettcher, Laurence Boone, Niels Brab, Claire Bury, Grégory Claeys, Vítor Constâncio, Zsolt Darvas, Kris Dekeyser, Jérôme Delpech, Maria Demertzis, Baroness Kishwer Falkner of Margravine, Ambroise Fayolle, Alicia García-Herrero, Mikaela Gavas, Sven Giegold, José Manuel González-Páramo, Pierre Heilbronn, Mathew Heim, Jamie Heywood, Yi Huang, Danuta Hübner, Korbinian Ibel, Shada Islam, Kate Kalutkiewicz, Brigitte Knopf, Jörg Kukies, Bernd Lange, Päivi Leino-Sandberg, Mark Leonard, Cecilia Malmström, Stefano Manservisi, J. Scott Marcus, Ann Mettler, Ashoka Mody, Reza Moghadam, Erik F. Nielsen, Jean Pisani-Ferry, Lapo Pistelli, Lucrezia Reichlin, Joakim Reiter, Victoria Roig, André Sapir, Harriet Sena Siaw-Boateng, Maria Spyraki, Philipp Steinberg, Matina Stevis-Gridneff, Alexander Stubb, Simone Tagliapietra, Jean-Claude Trichet, Laura Tyson, Nicolas Véron, Koen Vervaeke, Reinhilde Veugelers, Jasper Wesseling, Sabine Weyand, Thomas Wieser, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Palais des Academies, Rue Ducale 1, 1000 Brussels Date: September 4, 2019
Load more posts