Advertisement

Paradigm Changes in Technology and Employment

  • N. S. SiddharthanEmail author
Chapter
  • 10 Downloads
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

The paper starts with the Schumpeterian concept of creative destruction resulting in turmoil consequent to paradigm shifts in technology. Unlike trajectory changes in technology, paradigm changes are not incremental changes and they could destroy and replace the existing technologies and products. The turmoil is because workers trained in one technological paradigm cannot easily shift to new technologies. New industries would be created but at the same time, several older industries would face destruction. The paper argues that while employment in the Sunset industries would decline the overall employment in the economy need not decline. There would be gainers and victims. Section 2 of the paper discusses the likely gainers and victims of the current technological revolution, namely, digital and genomics revolution. The paper shows that the middle-income group would be more affected than the rest. It argues that computers cannot perform abstract tasks and professionals and persons performing personal services will not be adversely affected. Furthermore, currently collaborative efforts are assuming importance and they need human interactions and cannot be handled by machines. Section 3 discusses the rapid increase in the introduction of robots in manufacturing in the Asian countries led by China. Currently, they are mainly in a few sectors like automobiles, plastics and electronic products. In the future, they are also likely to play a role in garments and textiles. In this context, if one uses ‘occupational’ approach one gets on set of results while if one uses the ‘task based’ approach one gets a more balanced picture. Robots cannot be introduced in all the tasks in these few sectors. There are only a limited number of tasks where robots could be introduced and they turn out to be tasks that are inhospitable for human labour and that require precision. Here again gains outweigh the losses. However, to effectively participate and benefit from the knowledge revolution it is important to concentrate on improving the skill content of the population and spend heavily on education and retraining of the workforce. The ongoing digital and genomics revolutions are knowledge based and knowledge intensive wherein human capital plays a crucial role. Technology and knowledge transfer through foreign direct investments will work only in the presence of highly skilled workforce. In the case of India, the states that enjoyed better human capital in terms of education and health enjoyed higher growth rates of employment and productivity. States that neglected human capital did not experience employment growth. They are the victims of the knowledge revolution and to avoid further decline and the consequent adverse consequences they should go in for a crash programme aimed at human resource development. These issues are discussed in Sect. 4 Information Technology and digitalization facilitates networking and encourages global manufacturing by reducing transaction costs. In the globalized world, different segments in the production chain could be split and undertaken in different countries based on efficiency of production. This could be achieved either through licensing or FDI depending on the transaction costs involved in technology transfers and production transfers. This practice has now become a political and electoral issue in the developed countries. Outward FDI is accused of creating employment in other countries and declining employment in the home country. By and large, empirical studies do not support the concerns of these policymakers of developed countries about the adverse impact of outward FDI to other countries and in particular to low-wage countries. Section 5 examines these issues. Section 6 is devoted to the shape of the things to come. This section is based on the vision of the scientists as expressed in the science journal Nature. By and large, scientists are more positive about the ongoing digital revolution and argue that unemployment fears are exaggerated. Their main argument is that current research and international business involve collaborations across countries and face-to-face interaction in the work units. Participation in the global production network would involve frequent interactions and collaborations by different teams. Machines are not good in carrying out processes where collaborations and interactions are important. However, workforce needs to be retrained. In the future world, people need to collaborate and need to know each other better. Standalone solo workers would disappear. Section 7 deals with opportunities for India and discusses likely advantages India would have when the quantum computers are introduced in future, opening opportunities for participation in hardware and software. It also analyses opportunities that could emerge in solar energy in particular when products like quantum dots and paper-thin solar cells are introduced in the future.

References

  1. Anthes, E. (2017). The shape of work to come. Nature, 550.Google Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D., Filippetti, A., & Frenz, M. (2013). Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation? Research Policy, 42, 303–314.Google Scholar
  3. Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2017). Revisiting the risk of automation. Economic Letters 159, 157–160.Google Scholar
  4. Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhat, S. (2018). A study on differences in employment characteristics across the states in India. http://fgks.in/index.php/conference-papers.
  6. Bhat, S., & Siddharthan, N. S. (2012). Human capital, labour productivity and employment. In N. S. Siddharthan & K. Narayanan (Eds.) Human capital and development. Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J. W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 45(1), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bose, S., Vahabzadeh, S., Bandyopadhyay, A. (2013). Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Materials Today, 16(12), 496–504.Google Scholar
  9. Calvino, F., & Virgillito, M. E. (2018). The innovation-employment nexus: A critical survey of theory and empirics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(1), 83–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, S.-F. S. (2010). A general TCE model of international business institutions: Market failure and reciprocity. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 935–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doytch, N., & Valacchi, G. (2018). Does patent ownership increase greenfield FDI activity of MNEs? http://fgks.in/index.php/conference-papers.
  12. Federico, S., & Minerva, G. A. (2008). Outward FDI and local employment growth in Italy. Review of World Economics, 144(2), 296–324.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.Google Scholar
  14. Mani, S. (2017). Robot apocalypse does it matter for India’s manufacturing industry? CDS Trivandrum, Working Paper 474.Google Scholar
  15. Navaretti, G. B., Castellani, G., & Disdier, A. -C. (2010). How does investing in cheap labour countries affect performance at home? Firm-level evidence from France and Italy. Oxford Economic Papers, 62, 234–260.Google Scholar
  16. Pardos, F. (2017). Changing paradigms in solar industry. http://fgks.in/images/pdf/conf/2017/18_Francoise.pdf.
  17. Partington, R. (2018). Robots in workplace ‘could create double the jobs they destroy’. The Guardian/World Economic Forum Report. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/17/robots-in-workplace-could-create-double-the-jobs-they-destroy.
  18. Rengier, F., Mehndiratta, A., von Tengg-Kobligk, H., Zechmann, C. M., Unterhinninghofen, R., Kauczor, H. -U., Giesel, F. L. (2010). 3D printing based on imaging data: Review of medical applications. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 5(4), 335–341.Google Scholar
  19. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  20. Shampa, P., & Kaushalesh, L. (2018). Technology Intensity and Employment in the Indian Economy. http://fgks.in/images/pdf/conf/2018/3_Paul.pdf.
  21. UNCTAD Policy Brief 50. (October 2016). Robots and industrialisation in developing countries.Google Scholar
  22. Valacchi, G., & Doytch, N. (2018). Determinants of patent activities of greenfield multinationals. http://fgks.in/index.php/conference-papers.
  23. Wang, M. (2009). Manufacturing FDI and economic growth: evidence from Asian economies. Applied Economics, 41, 991–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, M., & Sunny Wong, M. C. (2009). What drives economic growth? The case of cross-border M&A and greenfield FDI activities. Kyklos, 62(2), 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forum for Global Knowledge SharingDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Madras School of EconomicsChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations