Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPiasecki, Ryszard
dc.contributor.authorWolnicki, Miron
dc.contributor.authorBetancourt, Erico Wulf
dc.description.abstractThe impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on business, government, and society is getting more attention. The leading AI sectors have higher productivity but a lower share of GDP than those lagging in digitization and AI. There is a technological gap, with still unknown consequences concerning the social contract, the expected new digital welfare profile, as well as the business strategy about globalization. The hypothesis is that while digitization was already in motion (2000–2005), capital outflow from the US to MHGEs (market high-growth economies) in Asia negatively affected its productivity outcome. Additionally, it is expected that AI will give more market power to multinationals, reshaping the social contract. Thus, the current western social contract will no longer be able to cope with the consequences of the weakness of the nation-state, its policymakers, or the powerful profit-driven multinationals to deal with the overall effect of AI. We aim to look at the impact of this new state of technology on the social contract, focusing on the proper actions of government and business to deal with it. We used a descriptive approach based on desk research concerning productivity data, European government policies, trade model analysis, and business approach to AI. We expect to demonstrate the dynamic interaction of the K/L ratio within the prevailing status of global resources mobility, and the dangers unregulated AI represents to labor. Policy actions are needed concerning the legal status of AI and how to avert the collapse of the social contract and the rise of oligarchic cyber‑autocracies.Our general conclusion is as follows: While capital investments, which would have contributed to improved total factor productivity (TFP) in the USA, went to MHGEs, increasing their GDP growth in less than a decade, the broad use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will reverse massive offshoring, and new types of manufacturing processes will emerge in developed countries.en
dc.description.abstractSztuczna inteligencja musi być kontrolowana w bardziej skuteczny sposób. Dziś stoimy w obliczu wzrostu populizmu, postaw antyimigracyjnych i rozwoju nieliberalnych demokracji. Dowodzi to tego, że zachodnie umowy społeczne nie jest już w stanie poradzić sobie z konsekwencjami słabości państwa narodowego i rosnącej roli potężnych międzynarodowych korporacji nastawionych na zysk. Te ostatnie są silniejsze od państwa narodowego, podejmują autonomiczne decyzje o alokacji czynników produkcji na arenie światowej, zatrudniają maszyny zamiast ludzi, biorą odpowiedzialność za pracowników lub nie, decydują o zanieczyszczeniu środowiska toksycznymi odpadami czy nie. AI daje międzynarodowym korporacjom jeszcze więcej
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe;3pl
dc.subjectartificial intelligenceen
dc.subjectsztuczna inteligencjapl
dc.titleArtificial Intelligence in the Context of Global Resource Mobility. What Can Be Expected from It?en
dc.title.alternativeSztuczna inteligencja w kontekście globalnej mobilności zasobów. Co z tego wynika?pl
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of Lodz, Lodz, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationVillanova University, Villanova, USAen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of La Serena, La Serena, Chileen
dc.referencesAcemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G., Price, B. (2014), Import competition and the great U.S. employment sag of the 2000s, “NBER Working Paper 20395”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
dc.referencesAnnoni, A., Benczur, P., Bertoldi, P., Delipetrev, B., De Prato, G., Feijoo, C., Fernandez Macias, E., Gomez Gutierrez, E., Iglesias Portela, M., Junklewitz, H., Lopez Cobo, M., Martens B., Figueiredo do Nascimento, S., Nativi, S., Polvora, A., Sanchez Martin, J.I., Tolan, S., Tuomi, I., Vesnic Alujevic, L. (2018), Artificial Intelligence: A European Perspective, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
dc.referencesBreton, T.R. (2013), Were Mankiw, Romer, and Weil Right? A Reconciliation of the Micro and Macro Effects of Schooling on Income, “Macroeconomic Dynamics”, 17 (5), pp. 1023–1054,
dc.referencesBureau of Labor Statistics, Geneva, 2016.en
dc.referencesCaliendo, L., Dvorkin, M., Parro, F. (2015), The impact of trade on labour market dynamics, “NBER Working Paper 21149”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
dc.referencesCardarelli, R., Lysinyan, L. (2015), US Total Factor Productivity Decline: Evidence from the U.S. States, “IMF Working Paper”, 15/116,
dc.referencesCensus Bureau, Business Dynamics Statistics, 2014.en
dc.referencesDorn, D., Hanson, G. (2013), The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States, “NBER Working Paper 18054”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
dc.referencesDorn, D., Hanson, G. (2016), The China shock: Learning from labor market adjustment to large changes in trade, “NBER Working Paper 21906”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
dc.referencesEager, J., Whittle, M., Smit, J., Cacciaguerra, G., Lale-Demoz, E. (2020), Opportunities of Artificial Intelligence, European Parliament, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, Bruxelles 2020. (accessed: 9.07.2021).en
dc.referencesElsby, M., Hobijn, B., Sahin, S. (2013), The Decline of the U.S. Labor Share, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Brookings Institution Press, Washington,
dc.referencesErnst & Young (2018), Artificial Intelligence in Europe. Outlook for 2019 and beyond. How 277 benefit the most from AI, Microsoft Western Europe.en
dc.referencesGauthier, D. (1988), Hobbes’s Social Contract, Noûs 22, Wiley,
dc.referencesGauthier, D. (1990), Moral Dealing: Contract, Ethics, and Reason, Cornell University Press, Ithaka,
dc.referencesInternational Labor 2014, Report prepared for the G20 Labor and Employment Ministerial Meeting Melbourne, Australia, 10–11 September 2014 and OECD 2015 Report.en
dc.referencesLawrence, R.Z. (2015a), Recent Declines in Labor’s Share in US Income: A Preliminary Neoclassical Account, “NBER Working Paper 21296”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
dc.referencesLawrence, R.Z. (2015b), Explaining recent declines in labour’s share in US income, (accessed: 20.11.2019).en
dc.referencesMankiw, G., Romer, D., Weil, D. (1990), A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, “NBER Working Paper 3541”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
dc.referencesMankiw, G., Romer, D., Weil, D. (1992), A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, “Quarterly Journal of Economics”, 107 (2), pp. 407–437,
dc.referencesMcKinsey & Company (2018), Digitization, AI, and the future of work: Imperatives for Europe, European Union summit.en
dc.referencesMerling, L. (2016), The looming Threat of automation: The data show a different story, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, (accessed: 17.11.2019).en
dc.referencesOECD (2018), Sovereign borrowing outlook for OECD countries, Paris.en
dc.referencesOECD (2019), SME and entrepreneurship outlook, Paris.en
dc.referencesRousseau, J.J. (1987), The Basic Political Writings, trans. D.A. Cress, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1987.en
dc.referencesSolow, R. (1956), A contribution to the theory of economic growth, “Quarterly Journal of Economics”, 70 (1), pp. 65–94,
dc.referencesStolper, W.F., Samuelson, P.A. (1941), Protection and real wages, “The Review of Economic Studies. Oxford Journals”, 9 (1), pp. 58–73,
dc.referencesSwan, T. (1956), Economic growth and capital accumulation, “Economic Record”, 32 (2), pp. 334–361,
dc.referencesWorld Economic Forum, Davos, (2017), (accessed: 17.11.2019).en

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as