CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityGlobal trade and economicsFirm Innovation and Growth

The Effects of Automation on Labor Demand

Open access
Aghion, Philippe, Antonin, Céline, Bunel, Simon, Jaravel, Xavier·2022·Robots and AI
DOI 10.4324/9781003275534-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this article, we survey the recent literature and discuss two contrasting views on the impacts of automation on labor demand. A first view predicts that firms that automate reduce employment, even if this may ultimately result in job creations taking advantage of the lower equilibrium wage induced by job destructions. A second approach emphasizes the market size and business stealing effects of automation. Automating firms become more productive, which enables them to lower their quality-adjusted prices, and therefore to increase the demand for their products. The resulting increase in scale translates into higher employment by automating firms, potentially at the expense of their competitors through business stealing. Drawing from our empirical work on French firm-level data and a growing literature covering multiple countries, we provide empirical support for this second view: automation has a positive effect on labor demand at the firm level, which remains positive at the industry level as it is not fully offset by business stealing effects. We discuss the implications of these results for the taxation of automation technologies such as robots.

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 · 10.4324/9781003275534-2

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Previous studies demonstrated that AI technologies can automate routine and time-intensive research activities, allowing researchers to devote greater attention to higher-order analytical and intellectual tasks.

    “This perception is consistent with previous studies that demonstrated that AI technologies can automate routine and time-intensive research activities, thereby allowing researchers to devote greater attention to higher-order analytical and intellectual tasks [2, 54, 59].”

    From Developing the HAKI model as a conceptual framework for AI-assisted academic research (2026) · cites this paper as [2]

    In “Which workers benefit or lose from automation” (page unavailable), the paper says automation replaces routine tasks and can increase demand for non-routine work. It does not show that AI automates research activities specifically or that researchers consequently spend more time on higher-order analytical and intellectual tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Autor, D. & Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low skill service jobs and the polariza- tion of the US labor market, American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553-1597.
  2. Card, D. & DiNardo, J. E. (2002). Skill biased technical change and rising wage inequality: Some problems and puzzles. Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 733-783.
  3. Graetz, G. & Michaels, G. (2018). Robots at work. Review of Economics and Statis- tics, 100(5), 753-767.
  4. Koch, M., Manuylov, I., Smolka, M. (2021). Robots and Firms, The Economic Journal, forthcoming.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Aghion, P., Antonin, C., Bunel, S., & Jaravel, X.
ORCID
Venue
Robots and AI
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2022-06-12
Pages
15-39
DOI
10.4324/9781003275534-2
OpenAlex
W4282044349
Cited by
58
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
82.24
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/T014431/1, ES/T014334/1)
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 › Firm Innovation and Growth
Keywords
automation, labor demand, business stealing, market size effects, job destruction, job creation, firm productivity, price competition, employment effects, robots, French firms

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