Advertisement

The Indian Journal of Labour Economics

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 715–729 | Cite as

A Critique of Economic Literature on Technology and Fourth Industrial Revolution: Employment and the Nature of Jobs

  • Ishaan GeraEmail author
  • Seema Singh
Research Note
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Technology has come to the centre stage of the capitalist framework after the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Almost all schools of economic thought have realised the importance of technology in the production process. For the classical economists, technology is a tool to increase the output of the economy, ultimately leading to an increase in employment. However, Ricardo of the classical school differs in his approach from others. Despite being optimistic about the adoption of technology, he contends that labour will be worse off with the onset of technology. The issue of jobs remained the same for Marx and Keynes. For Marx, technology represents a duality which is both advantageous and disadvantageous for labour. For Keynes, it is a root for unemployment and a structural change in society and nature of work. Schumpeter, Veblen and other economists also address the issue of technology. Despite the focus, technology is not central to the theory of development or labour. However, with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, there needs to be more emphasis on the role of technology. By refining the existing literature and using anecdotal and subjective evidence, an attempt is made to put forth a modified idea of technology.

Keywords

Fourth Industrial Revolution Technology change Job losses Computerisation Robotics 3D printing Automation Artificial intelligence 

JEL Classification

B12 B13 B14 B24 B25 B51 B52 O30 O33 

Notes

References

  1. ABI Research. 2018. The rise of Chinese robotics companies: A matter of when not if. Retrieved from ABI Research: https://www.abiresearch.com/press/rise-chinese-robotics-companies-matter-when-not-if/. Accessed 28 Oct 2018
  2. Braverman, H. 1998. Labour and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  3. Feenberg, A. 1991. Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gramsci, A. 1916. Men or Machines? Avanti!, published in http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1916/12/men_or_machines.htm. Accessed 1 Nov 2018
  5. Gurkan, C. 2005. A comparison of Veblen and Schumpeter on technology. STPS working papers (509).Google Scholar
  6. Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Harman, C. 1979. Is a machine after your job?. London: Socialist Workers Party.Google Scholar
  8. Harvey, D. 2013. The fetish of technology: Causes and consequences. Macalester International, 13, Prometheus’s Bequest: Technology and Change, Article 7.Google Scholar
  9. Heideman, P. 2015. Technology and socialist strategy. Retrieved from Jacobin: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/braverman-gramsci-marx-technology/. Accessed 28 Oct 2018
  10. Humphrey, T. 2004. Ricardo versus Wicksell on job losses and technological change. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly 90 (4): 5–24.Google Scholar
  11. Kaldor, N. 1939. Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. The Economic Journal 49 (195): 549–552.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2224835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keynes, J.M. 1963. Essays in persuasion. New York: Classic Book House.Google Scholar
  13. MacKenzie, D. 1984. Marx and the machine. Technology and Culture 25 (3): 473–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marcuse, H. 2007. One-dimensional man. London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
  15. Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse. London: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review.Google Scholar
  16. Marx, K. 1990. Capital volume I. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  17. McCulloch, J.R. 2005. Letter to Ricardo. In The works and correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 8 Letters 1819–June 1821, ed. P. Sraffa and M. Dobb. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  18. Ricardo, D. 2010. On the principles of political economy, and taxation. Project Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  19. Samuelson, P. 1989. Ricardo was right! Scandinavian Journal of Economics 91: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Santens, S. 2017. Why we should all have a basic income. Retrieved from World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-income. Accessed 28 Oct 2018
  21. Say, J.B. 1880. A treatise on political economy. Philadelphia: Claxton, Bemsen and Haffelfinger.Google Scholar
  22. Schumpeter, J.A. 2003. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, A. 2007. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Sao Paulo: MetaLibri.Google Scholar
  24. Spithoven, A. 1996. Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832): Between the labour theory of value and utility. International Journal of Social Economics 23 (7): 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Veblen, T. 1898. Why is economics not an evolutionary science? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 12 (4): 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wicksell, K. 1981. Ricardo on machinery and the present unemployment. Economic Journal 91 (March): 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Labour Economics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesDelhi Technological UniversityDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations