Ever since the industrial revolution, humans have been ambivalent about technological progress. While new technology has been a major source of liberation, progress and prosperity, it has also fueled plenty of agony — not least owing to the fear that it will render labor redundant.
So far, experience has seemed to discredit this fear. Indeed, by boosting productivity and underpinning the emergence of new industries, technological progress has historically fueled economic growth and net job creation. New innovations accelerated — rather than disrupted — this positive cycle.
However, some are claiming that the cycle is now broken, especially in technologically savvy countries like the US. Indeed, machines are becoming smarter, with innovations like advanced robotics, 3D printing and big data analytics enabling companies to save money by eliminating even highly skilled workers. As a result of this “productivity paradox” (sometimes called the “great decoupling”), jobless growth is here to stay. We can no longer take human prosperity for granted, however rosy the aggregate indicators for profitability and GDP growth may be.
However, are we really in the throes of a Frankenstein’s dilemma, in which our own creations come back to haunt us? Or can we beat the productivity paradox by harnessing the power of machines to support development in ways that benefit more than the bottom line?
There is good reason to be optimistic. Many countries — even technologically savvy ones — can still benefit from the self-reinforcing cycle of technological advancement, rising productivity and employment growth. Luxembourg, Norway and the Netherlands — three innovative and capital-intensive economies that regularly appear in the upper quartile of productivity per hour and employment, according to Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data from 2001-2013 — are prime examples.
Cynics will suspect that Luxembourg and Norway have managed to sustain this dynamic only because of their peculiar economic structures (a concentration in finance in the former, and in natural resources in the latter). So let us consider the Netherlands, which stands out as the only country that recently has appeared in the upper quartile not only in productivity and employment, but also in labor-market participation.
The Netherlands has been a champion of innovation, gaining a fifth-place ranking in the recent INSEAD Global Innovation Index. A striking 85 percent of large Dutch firms report innovative activities, while more than 50 percent of all firms are “innovation active.” Dutch firms are also world patent leaders; Eindhoven, the hometown of the electronics company Philips, is the world’s most patent-intensive city.
So what is the Dutch secret for ensuring that technological progress benefits all?
The Netherlands seems to be undergoing a sort of industrial revolution in reverse, with jobs moving from factories to homes. The Dutch labor market has the highest concentration of part-time and freelance workers in Europe, with nearly 50 percent of all Dutch workers, and 62 percent of young workers, engaged in part-time employment — a luxury afforded to them by the country’s relatively high hourly wages.
Many young Dutch work part-time as schoolteachers. However, a more lucrative — and common — source of part-time employment in the Netherlands is the subcontracting of “white-collar” services. Highly skilled or specialized workers sell their services to a wide range of businesses, supplementing the work of machines with human value-added activity.
Another key to the Netherlands’ success is entrepreneurship. In 1990-2010, self-employment rates fell across the OECD countries, with business ownership in the US, for example, having declined rapidly since 2002. In the Netherlands, however, business ownership has grown steadily since 1992, reaching 12 percent of the labor force in 2012. Almost 70 percent of Dutch business owners were exclusively self-employed in 2008.
To be sure, rates of business ownership and self-employment are also high in low-income countries like Mexico. However, the Netherlands is much wealthier, and boasts high levels of per-hour productivity, employment and participation — largely owing to its flexible and adaptive labor market.
In short, the Netherlands has restructured its economic value chain to accommodate a new division of labor between humans and machines, embracing new kinds of economic activity — especially part-time work and solo entrepreneurship — to balance human needs with technological advances. In doing so, it has highlighted the importance of “enterprising skills” — including creativity, entrepreneurship, leadership, self-management and communications — in enabling humans to keep pace with technology.
Machines may be reaching new heights of intelligence, but they are no match for human resourcefulness, imagination and interaction. This is a lesson that countries would do well to learn from the Dutch.
Sami Mahroum is academic director of innovation and policy at INSEAD. Elif Bascavusoglu-Moreau is a senior research fellow at INSEAD’s Innovation and Policy Initiative.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new