The authors examine the impact of industrial robots on US labor markets between 2005 and 2016. Because some industries adopt robots more intensively, growth in robot stocks more heavily affect local labor markets with larger employment shares in those industries. This robot exposure variation occurs across 722 commuting zones in the continental United States. Analyzing the five-year intervals within this period, the authors find that robot exposure reduces employment in the earlier periods but augments employment in the more recent periods. Similarly, the effect of robot exposure on the local wage is initially negative but gradually rebounds and turns positive in more recent years. The evolving influence of robots is primarily driven by the automotive industry, in which digitization and automation have not only increased labor productivity but also created new tasks. Findings show evidence of spillover effects on other industries within and outside of manufacturing, which may be explained by input-output linkages and aggregate demand effects.
AcemogluDaronLelargeClaireRestrepoPascual. 2020. Competing with robots: Firm-level evidence from France. NBER Working Paper No. 26738. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AcemogluDaronRestrepoPascual. 2018. The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares and employment. American Economic Review108(6): 1488–542.
3.
———. 2019. Artificial intelligence, automation and work. In AgrawalAjayGansJoshuaGoldfarbAvi (Eds.), The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pp. 197–236. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
———. 2020. Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy128(6): 2188–244.
5.
AuerbachAlan J.GorodnichenkoYuriyMurphyDaniel. 2020. Effects of fiscal policy on credit markets. AEA Papers and Proceedings110: 119–24.
6.
AutorDavid H.DornDavid. 2013. The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review103(5): 1553–97.
7.
AutorDavid H.DornDavidHansonGordon. 2013. The China Syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review103(6): 2121–68.
8.
———. 2015. Untangling trade and technology: Evidence from local labor markets. Economic Journal125: 621–46.
9.
BessenJamesGoosMartinSalomonsAnnavan den BergeWiljan. 2019. Automatic reaction—What happens to workers at firms that automate?CPB Discussion Paper No. 19-2, Boston University School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper.
10.
BresnahanTimothyBrynjolfssonErikHittLorin M.2002. Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics117(1): 339–76.
11.
BresnahanTimothyTratjenbergManuel. 1995. General purpose technologies: Engine of growth?Journal of Econometrics65(1): 83–108.
12.
BrynjolfssonErik. 1993. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM36(12): 66–77.
13.
BrynjolfssonErikHittLorin M.2010. Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspective14(4): 23–48.
14.
BrynjolfssonErikMitchellTomRockDaniel. 2018. What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy?AEA Papers and Proceedings108: 43–47.
15.
BrynjolfssonErikRockDanielSyversonChad. 2017. Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. NBER Working Paper No. 24001. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
CarvalhoVasco M.NireiMakotoSaitoYukiko U.Tahbaz-SalehiAlirez. 2021. Supply chain disruptions: Evidence from the Great East Japan Earthquake. Quarterly Journal of Economics136(2): 1255–321.
17.
DavidPaul. 1990. The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. American Economic Review80(2): 355–61.
DixonJayHongBryanWuLynn. 2021. The robot revolution: Managerial and employment consequences for firms. Management Science67(9): 5586–605.
20.
EckertFabianFortTeresa C.SchottPeter K.YangNatalie J.2020. Imputing missing values in the US Census Bureau’s county business patterns. NBER Working Paper No. 26632. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
EgglestonKarenLeeYong SukIizukaToshi. 2021. Robots and labor in the service sector: Evidence from nursing homes. NBER Working Paper No. 28322. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
22.
FeltenEdward W.RajManavSeamansRobert. 2018. A method to link advances in artificial intelligence to occupational abilities. AEA Papers and Proceedings108: 54–57.
23.
GaulierGuillaumeZignagoSoledad. 2010. BACI: International trade database at the product-level: The 1994–2007 version. CEPII Working Paper No. 2010-23. Paris: Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales.
24.
GittlemanMauryMonacoKristen. 2020. Truck-driving jobs: Are they headed for rapid elimination?ILR Review73(1): 3–24.
25.
Goldsmith-PinkhamPaulSorkinIsaacSwiftHenry. 2020. Bartik instruments: What, when, why, and how. American Economic Review110(8): 2586–624.
26.
GoolsbeeAustan D.KruegerAlan B.2015. A retrospective look at rescuing and restructuring General Motors and Chrysler. Journal of Economic Perspectives29(2): 3–24.
27.
GraetzGeorgMichaelsGuy. 2018. Robots at work. Review of Economics and Statistics100(5): 753–68.
[IFR] International Federation of Robotics. 2017. World robotics 2017 industrial robots. IFR Statistical Department Report. Frankfurt, Germany.
30.
JavorcikBeata Smarzynska. 2004. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review94(3): 605–27.
31.
KochMichaelManuylovIlyaSmolkaMarcel. 2019. Robots and firms. CESifo Working Paper No. 7608. CESifo Network: Promoting Economic Research.
RugglesStevenFloodSarahGoekenRonaldGroverJosiahMeyerErinPacasJoseSobekMatthew. 2020. IPUMS USA: Version 10.0 [Dataset]. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V10.0.
36.
StehrerRobertBykovaAlexandraJägerKirstenReiterOliverSchwarzhappel.Monika2019. Industry-level growth and productivity data with special focus on intangible assets: Report on methodologies and data construction for the EU KLEMS Release 2019. https://euklems.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Methodology.pdf
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
