How concerned are workers about the impact of technological changes on employment, and what policies do they prefer to mitigate potential negative effects of these changes? We address these questions by presenting new analytical distinctions among different types of labour market concerns. We differentiate among the risk of job substitution, ‘technostress’ and general apprehension about the impact of technology in the workplace. In terms of policy responses, we distinguish between worker preferences for job loss compensation, retraining and distinct measures of ‘technological protectionism’. Using survey data from Spain and innovative measures of these concepts, our findings reveal that concern about job substitution is modestly correlated with support for some redistribution policies. By contrast, both technostress and general concerns about the impact of technology significantly increase support for protectionist policies but not redistribution. These results contribute to understanding how workers might respond to the labour market effects of new technologies such as artificial intelligence.
AbbottRBogenschneiderB (2018) Should Robots Pay Taxes? Tax Policy in the Age of Automation. Harvard Law & Policy Review12: 145–175.
2.
AcemogluDJohnsonS (2023) Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity. Hachette: Basic Books.
3.
AhrensL (2023) Labor Market Risks and Welfare Preferences: A Bounded Rationality Approach. Socio-Economic Review22: 327–348.
4.
Arel-BundockV (2022) modelsummary: Data and Model Summaries in R. Journal of Statistical Software103 (1): 1–23.
5.
ArntzMGregoryTZierhanU (2017) The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Paris: OECD Publishing.
6.
AutorDLevyFMurnaneRJ (2002) Upstairs, Downstairs: Computers and Skills on Two Floors of a Large Bank. ILR Review55 (3): 432–447.
7.
AutorDHDornD (2013) The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market. American Economic Review103 (5): 1553–1597.
8.
AutorDHLevyFMurnaneRJ (2003) The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics118 (4): 1279–1333.
9.
AyyagariRGroverVPurvisR (2011) Technostress: Technological Antecedents and Implications. MIS Quarterly35: 831–858.
10.
BoixC (2019) Democratic Capitalism at the Crossroads: Technological Change and the Future of Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
BusemeyerMRToberT (2023) Dealing with Technological Change: Social Policy Preferences and Institutional Context. Comparative Political Studies56 (7): 968–999.
13.
BusemeyerMRGandenbergerMKnotzC, et al. (2023) Preferred Policy Responses to Technological Change: Survey Evidence from OECD Countries. Socio-Economic Review21: 593–615.
14.
ColantoneIStanigP (2018) Global Competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review112 (2): 201–218.
15.
D’ArcyJHerathTShossMK (2014) Understanding Employee Responses to Stressful Information Security Requirements: A Coping Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems31 (2): 285–318.
16.
DauthWFindeisenSSüdekumJ, et al. (2021) The Adjustment of Labour Markets to Robots. Journal of the European Economic Association19 (6): 3104–3153.
EichhorstWMarxP (2021) How Stable Is Labour Market Dualism? Reforms of Employment Protection in Nine European Countries. European Journal of Industrial Relations27 (1): 93–110.
19.
FeltenEWRajMSeamansR (2019) The Occupational Impact of Artificial Intelligence: Labor, Skills, and Polarization. NYU Stern School of Business2019: 3368605.
20.
FengAGraetzG (2020) Training Requirements, Automation, and Job Polarisation. The Economic Journal130 (631): 2249–2271.
21.
Fernández-AlbertosJManzanoD (2016) The Lack of Partisan Conflict over the Welfare State in Spain. In: Sánchez-CuencaIDinasE (eds) Voters and Parties in the Spanish Political Space. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.63–85.
22.
FreyCBOsborneMA (2017) The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?Technological Forecasting and Social Change114: 254–280.
23.
GallegoAKurerT (2022) Automation, Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace: Implications for Political Behavior. Annual Review of Political Science25: 463–484.
24.
GallegoAKuoAFernández-AlbertosP, et al. (2022) Technological Risk and Policy Preferences. Comparative Political Studies55 (1): 60–92.
25.
GallegoAKurerTSchöllN (2022) Neither Left Behind nor Superstar: Ordinary Winners of Digitalization at the Ballot Box. The Journal of Politics84 (1): 418–436.
26.
GingrichJAnsellB (2012) Preferences in Context: Micro Preferences, Macro Contexts, and the Demand for Social Policy. Comparative Political Studies45 (12): 1624–1654.
27.
GoosMManningASalomonsA (2009) Job Polarization in Europe. The American Economic Review992: 58–63.
28.
GoosMManningASalomonsA (2014) Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring. American Economic Review104 (8): 2509–2526.
29.
HeinrichTWitkoC (2021) Technology-Induced Job Loss and the Prioritization of Economic Problems in the Mass Public. Review of Policy Research38 (2): 164–179.
30.
HonakerJKingGBlackwellM (2011) Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data. Journal of Statistical Software45 (7): 3–47.
31.
IversenTSoskiceD (2001) An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review95 (4): 875–893.
32.
JeffreyK (2021) Automation and the Future of Work: How Rhetoric Shapes the Response in Policy Preferences. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization192: 417–433.
33.
JohnstonCDLavineHGFedericoCM (2017) Open versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
JostJT (2015) Resistance to Change: A Social Psychological Perspective. Social Research82 (3): 607–636.
35.
KurerTHäusermannS (2022) Automation and Social Policy: Which Policy Responses Do At-Risk Workers Support? In: BusemeyerMRKemmerlingAVan KersbergenK, et al (eds) Digitalization and the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.13–26.
36.
LauterbachASToberTKunzeF, et al. (2023) Can Welfare States Buffer Technostress? Income and Technostress in the Context of Various OECD Countries. PLoS ONE18 (12): e0295229.
37.
NedelkoskaLQuintiniG (2018) Automation, Skills Use and Training – OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers (No. 202). Paris: OECD Publishing.
38.
OeschD (2006) Coming to Grips with a Changing Class Structure: An Analysis of Employment Stratification in Britain, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. International Sociology21 (2): 263–288.
39.
RehmP (2016) Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development and Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SchwanderHHäusermannS (2013) Who Is In and Who Is Out? A Risk-Based Conceptualization of Insiders and Outsiders. Journal of European Social Policy23 (3): 248–269.
41.
SebastianR (2018) Explaining Job Polarisation in Spain from a Task Perspective. Series9: 215–248.
42.
ŠiráEVavrekRVozárováIK, et al. (2020) Knowledge Economy Indicators and Their Impact on the Sustainable Competitiveness of the EU Countries. Sustainability12 (10): 4172.
43.
TarafdarMPullinsEBRagu-NathanTS (2015) Technostress: Negative Effect on Performance and Possible Mitigations. Information Systems Journal25 (2): 103–132.
44.
ThewissenSRuedaD (2019) Automation and the Welfare State: Technological Change as a Determinant of Redistribution Preferences. Comparative Political Studies52 (2): 171–208.
WeisstannerD (2023) Technological Change and Labour Market Policy Preferences. In: CleggDDurazziN (eds) Handbook of Labour Market Policy in Advanced Democracies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.132–147.
47.
ZhangB (2019) No Rage against the Machines: Threat of Automation Does Not Change Policy Preferences. In: Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES’22), Oxford, 1–3 August, MIT Political Science Department Research Paper No. 2019-25. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3455501 (accessed 10 September 2024).
Supplementary Material
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.
