Cited by 452Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityGlobal trade and economicsEconomic Growth and Productivity

Robots and Firms

Open access
Koch, Michael, Manuylov, Ilya, Smolka, Marcel·2021·The Economic Journal

Abstract

We study the microeconomic implications of robot adoption using a rich panel data set of Spanish manufacturing firms over a 27-year period (1990–2016). We provide causal evidence on two central questions: (1) Which firm characteristics prompt firms to adopt robots? (2) What is the impact of robots on adopting firms relative to non-adopting firms? To address these questions, we look at our data through the lens of recent attempts in the literature to formalise the implications of robot technology. As for the first question, we establish robust evidence for positive selection, i.e., ex ante better performing firms (measured through output and labour productivity) are more likely to adopt robots. On the other hand, conditional on size, ex ante more skill-intensive firms are less likely to do so. As for the second question, we find that robot adoption generates substantial output gains in the vicinity of 20–25% within four years, reduces the labour cost share by 5–7% points, and leads to net job creation at a rate of 10%. These results are robust to controlling for non-random selection into robot adoption through a difference-in-differences approach combined with a propensity score reweighting estimator. To further validate these results, we also offer structural estimates of total factor productivity (TFP) where robot technology enters the (endogenous) productivity process of firms. The results demonstrate a positive causal effect of robots on productivity as well as a complementarity between robots and exporting in boosting productivity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ej/ueab009

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Koch, Manuylov, and Smolka (2021) show that on firm level, robot adoption leads to output gains and net job creation within adopters, but substantial job losses at nonadopters.

    “Koch, Manuylov, and Smolka (2021) show that on firm level, robot adoption leads to output gains and net job creation within adopters, but substantial job losses at nonadopters.”

    From Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway (2026) · cites this paper as Koch et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Acemoglu, D., Lelarge, C. and Restrepo, P. (2020). 'Competing with robots: Firm-level evidence from France', AEA Papers and Proceedings , vol. 110, pp. 383-88.
  2. Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2018a). 'Modeling automation', AEA Papers and Proceedings , vol. 108, pp. 48-53.
  3. Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2020). 'Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets', Journal of Political Economy , vol. 128(6), pp. 2188-244.
  4. Ackerberg, D., Benkard, C.L., Berry, S. and Pakes, A. (2007). 'Econometric tools for analyzing market outcomes', in (J.J. Heckman and E.E. Learner, eds.), Handbook of Econometrics , vol. 6, pp. 4171-276, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  5. Autor, D. (2003). 'Outsourcing at will: The contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing', Journal of Labor Economics , vol. 21(1), pp. 1-42.
  6. Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G.H., Pisano, G. and Shu, P. (2020). 'Foreign competition and domestic innovation: Evidence from US patents', American Economic Review: Insights , vol. 2(3), pp. 357-74.
  7. Aw, B.Y., Roberts, M.J. and Xu, D.Y. (2011). 'R&D investment, exporting, and productivity dynamics', American Economic Review , vol. 101(4), pp. 1312-44.
  8. Balasubramanian, N. and Sivadasan, J. (2011). 'What happens when firms patent? New evidence from US economic census data', Review of Economics and Statistics , vol. 93(1), pp. 126-46.
  9. Bessen, J., Goos, M., Salomons, A. and Van den Berge, W. (2020). 'Firm-level automation: Evidence from the Netherlands', AEA Papers and Proceedings , vol. 110, pp. 389-93.
  10. Blinder, A.S. (2006). 'Offshoring: The next industrial revolution?', Foreign Affairs , vol. 85(2), pp. 113-28.
  11. De Loecker, J. (2013). 'Detecting learning by exporting', American Economic Journal: Microeconomics , vol. 5(3), pp. 1-21.
  12. DiNardo, J., Fortin, N.M. and Lemieux, T. (1996). 'Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973-1992: A semiparametric approach', Econometrica , vol. 64(5), pp. 1001-44.
  13. Dolado, J.J., Garc` ıa-Serrano, C. and Jimeno, J.F. (2002). 'Drawing lessons from the boom of temporary jobs in Spain', ECONOMIC JOURNAL, vol. 112(480), pp. F270-95.
  14. Doraszelski, U. and Jaumandreu, J. (2013). 'R&D and productivity: Estimating endogenous productivity', Review of Economic Studies , vol. 80(4), pp. 1338-83.
  15. Egger, H., Kreickemeier, U. and Wrona, J. (2015). 'Offshoring domestic jobs', Journal of International Economics , vol. 97, pp. 112-25.
  16. Garc´ ıa-Santana, M., Moral-Benito, E., Pijoan-Mas, J. and Ramos, R. (2020). 'Growing like Spain: 1995-2007', International Economic Review , vol. 61(1), pp. 383-416.
  17. Gopinath, G., Kalemli- ¨ Ozcan, E., Karabarbounis, L. and Villegas-Sanchez, C. (2017). 'Capital allocation and productivity in South Europe', Quarterly Journal of Economics , vol. 132(4), pp. 1915-67.
  18. Graetz, G. and Michaels, G. (2018). 'Robots at work', Review of Economics and Statistics , vol. 100(5), pp. 753-68.
  19. Groizard, J.L., Ranjan, P. and Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2014). 'Offshoring and jobs: The myriad channels of influence', European Economic Review , vol. 72, pp. 221-39.
  20. Guadalupe, M., Kuzmina, O. and Thomas, C. (2012). 'Innovation and foreign ownership', American Economic Review , vol. 102(7), pp. 3594-627.
  21. Kromann, L. and Sørensen, A. (2020). 'Automation, performance, and international competition: A firm-level comparison of process innovation', Economic Policy , vol. 34(100), pp. 691-722.
  22. Levinsohn, J. and Petrin, A. (2003). 'Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables', Review of Economic Studies , vol. 70(2), pp. 317-41.
  23. Levy, F. and Murnane, R.J. (2004). The New Division of Labor , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  24. Lileeva, A. and Trefler, D. (2010). 'Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity ... for some plants', Quarterly Journal of Economics , vol. 125(3), pp. 1051-99.
  25. Melitz, M.J. (2003). 'The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity', Econometrica , vol. 71(6), pp. 1695-725.
  26. Olley, G.S. and Pakes, A. (1996). 'The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry', Econometrica , vol. 64(6), pp. 1263-97.
  27. Raj, M. and Seamans, R. (2018). 'Artificial intelligence, labor, productivity, and the need for firm-level data', in (A. Agrawal, J. Gans and A. Goldfarb, eds.), The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda , pp. 553-66, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  28. Syverson, C. (2011). 'What determines productivity?', Journal of Economic Literature , vol. 49(2), pp. 326-65.
  29. Wagner, J. (2007). 'Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firm-level data', World Economy , vol. 30(1), pp. 60-82.
  30. Wagner, J. (2012). 'International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical studies since 2006', Review of World Economics , vol. 148, pp. 235-67.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koch, M., Manuylov, I., & Smolka, M.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Europa-Universität Flensburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Koch, Michael
Venue
The Economic Journal
Published
2021-01-30
Volume
131
Issue
638
Pages
2553-2584
ISSN
  • 0013-0133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0297
OpenAlex
W3126711410
Cited by
452
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 102 · 2025: 120 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
42.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Economic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
Keywords
robot adoption, automation, manufacturing companies, firm selection, labor productivity, total factor productivity, job creation, skill intensity, exporting, Spanish manufacturing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review