Does Generative AI Narrow Education-Based Productivity Gaps? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment

Guillermo Cruces, Diego Fernandez Meijide, Sebastian Galiani, Ramiro Galvez and Lombardi, María

No 21299, CEPR Discussion Papers from Centre for Economic Policy Research

Abstract: Does generative artificial intelligence (AI) reinforce or reduce productivity differences across workers? Existing evidence largely studies AI within firms and occupations, where organizational selection compresses educational heterogeneity, leaving unclear whether AI narrows productivity gaps across individuals with different levels of education. A related question is whether the productivity gains from AI reflect productive use of the tool or mere delegation, fading once AI is unavailable, and whether the answer differs across education groups. We address both questions using a randomized online experiment outside firms, in which 1,174 adults aged 25–45 complete an incentivized, workplace style business problem-solving task with or without a generative-AI assistant, followed by a non-AI-assisted follow-up module. AI increases performance for all participants, with substantially larger gains for lower-education individuals. In the control group without AI, higher-education participants outperform lower-education participants by 0.548 standard deviations; with AI, this gap falls to 0.139 standard deviations, closing about three-quarters of the initial gap. Chat-log measures explain both why this gap narrows and why it does not disappear: lower-education participants successfully obtain substantial assistance from AI, while higher-education participants use the tool somewhat more effectively across several margins. The follow-up results showthat these gains are not purely driven by delegation; treated participants do not perform worse than controls once AI is removed, and lower-education participants retain part of their gain, although a sizable education gap re-emerges. Consistent with this interpretation, intensive use of the assistant produces strong task performance regardless of how much time and effort participants devote themselves, but follow-up performance is substantially higher only when intensive AI use is combined with sustained effort on the task. We interpret these findings as evidence that generative AI narrows effective productivity differences in task execution while underlying human-capital differences continue to shape unassisted performance and effective use of the tool.

Keywords: Productivity; Inequality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J24 O33 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-03
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ain, nep-bec, nep-edu, nep-eff, nep-exp, nep-lam and nep-lma
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://cepr.org/publications/DP21299 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Does Generative AI Narrow Education-Based Productivity Gaps? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment (2026)
Working Paper: Does generative AI narrow education-based productivity gaps? Evidence from a randomized experiment (2026)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:21299

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
https://cepr.org/publications/DP21299

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CEPR Discussion Papers from Centre for Economic Policy Research 33 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DX, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CEPR ().