Seite - (000065) - in Disrupted Development and the Future of Inequality in the Age of Automation
Bild der Seite - (000065) -
Text der Seite - (000065) -
58 L. SCHLOGL AND A. SUMNER
technological standards as resilient jobs in the industrial and the service
sectors.5 The service sector is generally considered to contribute strongly
to the ARS, as it involves plenty of nonroutine work involving social
interactions. The current occupational structure of an economy reflects
past (expectations of) automatability.
Regarding the second question, there could be a dilemma whereby a
productivity boost in the APS (e.g. in agriculture) creates surplus labor,
but the ARS (e.g. the industrial sector) is not able to fully absorb it.
So-called premature deindustrialization could be due to such “Lewis
2.0” dynamics: workers might be moving to the service sector because
the manufacturing sector has no demand for (unskilled) labor. It is fully
imaginable from today’s point of view that the industrial sector will at
some point be absorbing an equally small number of workers as today’s
extractive and agricultural sectors are. A set of highly productive manu-
facturing clusters would then produce most of the physical goods there is
demand for, while almost all human labor demand would remain in the
service sector.
If that is the case, this would indicate that the digital revolution
creates problems for analysis based on broad economic sectors such
as “services”: Castells (2010, p. 244) criticizes analysis based on sec-
tors for three flaws: (i) the extreme heterogeneity of the service sec-
tor creates a “statistically obsolete category” which (ii) underestimates
the “revolutionary nature of new information technologies” and
(iii) the diversity of advanced societies and interdependence with the
global economy from which different employment and occupational
structures follow.
The historical productivity revolution in agriculture (or the “Green
Revolution” in developing countries) shows how transformative and
labor-saving technological change can be. In the British census of 1841,
22% of citizens were registered as being in agricultural employment
whereas this number has dropped to below 1% in the present (Office for
National Statistics, 2013). Agricultural shares in the developing world,
though considerably higher, have also fallen rapidly (to an extent that
Eastwood, Kirsten, & Lipton [2007] have argued that developing coun-
tries underwent “premature agriculturalization”).
Green revolutions have brought drastic productivity gains, allowing
and incentivizing the reallocation of labor toward other—often hith-
erto nonexistent—economic activities and sectors. Many argue that
technological leaps in agriculture allowed Western countries to escape a
Disrupted Development and the Future of Inequality in the Age of Automation