Automation Risk, Social Policy Preferences, and Political Participation
Thomas Kurer, Silja Häusermann
Oxford University Press (United Kingdom)
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
How does automation affect the politics of the welfare state? People at risk of their human labor being automated may react by claiming social protection (passive social policy), upskilling/commodification (active social policy), or both. In this brief contribution, we make use of novel survey data on perceived automation risk and social policy preferences from eight West European countries to estimate the size and preferences of the group of voters who feel threatened by automation. We find that, across countries, only a minority of voters feels imminently threatened by automation. Social policy preferences of at-risk voters are highly consistent: they support and prioritize passive unemployment protection measures, while being less supportive of activation, education, and labor market reintegration policies. In other words: progressive automation increases the support base for consumption-oriented welfare policies, thereby narrowing the support base for human capital-oriented policies that experts tend to recommend in response to automation.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Social Policy and Reform Studies
Labor market dynamics and wage inequality · Electoral Systems and Political Participation
参考文献 27
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 29
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条