۱- Introduction

۲- Conclusion

References

Abstract

The number of ‘future of work’ studies, which estimate the potential impact of automation on employment, has grown rapidly in the past few years. They have, however, received very little critical attention and warrant closer examination. One cause for concern is the shortcomings of their methodological approach, which relies on measuring the technical feasibility of automating particular occupations and tasks. Doing so, however, creates an illusory sense of certainty and discounts the role of non-technical determinates behind advances in, and the utilisation of, automated technologies. Second, the way in which they frame their policy recommendations –as balancing an unfortunate trade-off between economic growth and unemployment – obscures the benefits that fuller automation may bring. This paper argues that these particular characteristics of ‘future of work’ studies invites comparison with the works of Adam Smith, who explored these issues in a closely connected, yet largely forgotten, way. First, Smith emphasised the role of non-technical determinates in technological progress and in this way paints a fuller picture of how automated technologies may develop. Second, Smith provides a normative perspective that would encourage these studies to see the potential of automated technologies to actually reconcile the apparent trade-offs.

Conclusion

Future of work studies (FOWS) that attempt to estimate the potential impact of automation are increasing in number, and there is certainly a large and attentive audience for them. The ‘imagined future’ they are constructing, however, shares certain characteristics, assumptions and attitudes that should not go unchallenged. FOWS have largely left questions about what determines the pace and extent of automated technology unanswered; they reinforce the sense that the impact of automation is inevitable and independent of non-technical factors; and their policy recommendations are informed by a perceived trade-off that automation forces society to make between growth and employment. Adam Smith, however, offers a comprehensive alternative view. Smith recognised that technology does not advance independently of human agency, nor that its impact is unavoidable, and he described a determinate of technical change that shares much in common with ‘new growth theory’ and its attendant concepts of human capital and recombinant innovation. Smith also lays the groundwork for an updated normative perspective that would see the potential of automation to reconcile the trade-off between growth and employment: adopting a Smithian perspective would encourage an assessment of automation based on its ability to generate economic growth, whether and how it can equitably guarantee the livelihoods of individuals, its potential to decrease the amount of work necessary to provide one’s livelihood, and its ability to alleviate the plight of workers engaged in mundane, repetitive and dangerous tasks. At the very least, and as he has been elsewhere, there is a strong case for bringing Smith into the ‘extended present’, engaging with his ideas in the context of automation and the future of work.