Mainstream economic theory highlights the role of technological change in cementing wage differences between workers. Traditionally, high-skilled workers benefit the most from the introduction of new technologies, which are frequently seen as complementary to their work. Conversely, low-skilled workers are at a higher risk of being replaced by the same technologies. This phenomenon is then translated into an increasing demand for high-skilled workers, hence the term skill-biased technological change. In this model, technology is assumed to have a homogeneous impact on the labour market structure, blindly increasing the demand for high-skilled workers.
Following the skill-biased approach, a new and more refined perspective was proposed to explain the impact of technological change on the labour market, with a particular focus on computerisation. This new perspective focuses primarily on how technology determines the extent to which production tasks are allocated to labour capital. Essentially, proponents of this approach argue that digitalisation reallocates a particular set of tasks, often characterised by high levels of routine, from labour to digital technology capital, hence the term routine-biased technological change. In this regard, the level of routinisation of work supersedes skills in assessing the potential for digital automation.
Both of the approaches described above resonate with the results of the research on which this article is based. The data shows evidence of skill-biased digitalisation in the Portuguese workforce. The relationship between occupational skills and their level of digitalisation is clearly positive, i.e., high-skilled occupations are more digitalised. However, the researchers also found that occupations characterised by low-skilled workers are not necessarily associated with a higher risk of digital automation. This is important as digital automation has been a primary concern expressed by researchers and policymakers when looking at the risk of digitalisation destroying jobs. However, a first reading of the data suggests that most occupations in Portugal are still characterised by a low risk of digital automation, and therefore a low risk of job substitution. Nevertheless, this might be a signal that the tasks are still characterised by a low level of digitalisation or routinisation. Furthermore, and perhaps more surprisingly, the occupations with the highest risk of digital automation are, in fact, medium- and high-skilled occupations: clerical support workers and technicians, respectively.
In 2021, technicians and clerical support workers represented approximately 21.9% of employees in Portugal. Thus, a high risk of digital automation for these occupational categories is still a concern. However, it is important to bear in mind that these processes will not happen overnight. Moreover, digitalisation is not a uniquely destructive process. Naturally, digitalisation may lead to the automation of some tasks, rendering particular bundles of tasks obsolete. However, it is also expected that it will create a demand for new tasks and occupations. Thus, a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of digitalisation goes beyond a technical reading of occupations and tasks and requires looking into the specific context of workers who will be affected by these transformations.
In this respect, the data from the survey shows that although the overwhelming majority of respondents are optimistic about the future of their jobs, low-skilled workers are more concerned about what an increasingly technology-mediated working environment could bring to their future. This is not surprising, given that low-skilled workers are less prepared to adapt to the changing conditions that naturally emerge as the digitalisation of jobs increasingly becomes the norm. Looking at the particular case of technicians and clerical support workers in Portugal, the fact that these workers have a higher level of skills should also indicate that they are better equipped to deal with the transformations brought about by technological change. Given the correlation between high skills and digitalisation, it can also be inferred that because these workers’ tasks are highly mediated by technology, they are more accustomed to, and therefore less pessimistic about, the changes that technology can bring to their working lives. Conversely, as low-skilled workers interact less with technology, they are more anxious and suspicious of technological change.
To conclude, some important considerations should be taken into account for policy development. Although digital automation has accelerated in the last few years, it is unlikely that its impacts on job destruction will occur suddenly. Occupations are made up of different bundles of tasks that may or may not be automated by technological advancements. Job substitution does not depend on the level of routine and automation of a particular task but rather of a set of tasks, and hence is not the obvious result of automation processes. As tasks are replaced by technology, new tasks may also be assigned to workers, possibly including the role of maintaining the new technological infrastructure. These processes suggest that as technological change increases, workers, organisations, and policies in general will need to adapt rapidly to keep up with these developments. While public policies should promote conditions for the technological upgrading of organisations, and their digital transformation, they must also support complementary innovation in organisational processes and the adaptation and training of human capital to adjust to wider changes in technology and the corresponding skills base. These policies should aim to mitigate the negative impacts of technological advancements on work and employment while promoting the benefits that arise from this process. Investment in human capital is key to equipping workers with the necessary tools to face technological progress. New skilling, reskilling and upskilling will play a crucial role in this endeavour.
