Task content routinisation, technological change and labour turnover: Evidence from China

Du Yuhong and Wei Xiahai

The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 2020, vol. 31, issue 3, 324-346

Abstract: This article addresses the unresolved question of whether recent technological change causes job instability in a non-western context. China is now the world’s largest user of industrial robots. A Lewis turning point has been predicted, involving a transition from a plentiful supply of rural low-cost workers to a labour shortage economy in which rising labour costs drive labour-technology substitution. The routine-biased technological change hypothesis suggests that technology-induced routinisation in job task content has a profound impact on employment structure. This study captures the extent of routinisation of jobs in the transitional context of China and examines the incidence and impact of routinisation on labour turnover in the labour market. Using rotating panel data from the China Labour-force Dynamics Survey 2012, 2014 and 2016, this study, based on individual information with regard to flexibility in work schedules and degree of autonomy in workload and task content on the job, follows a recently developed measure to construct a routine intensity index and indicates a division into three routine intensity groups. The empirical findings show that the probability of job mobility is significantly increased with the magnitude of routine task intensity, suggesting that the process of technology-induced routinisation is strongly associated with labour turnover. JEL Codes: J63, J20

Keywords: Chinese labour market; labour turnover; Lewis turning point; routine intensity index; routine-biased technological change; routinisation; skill-based technological change (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1035304620921569 (text/html)

Related works:
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:sae:ecolab:v:31:y:2020:i:3:p:324-346

DOI: 10.1177/1035304620921569

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Economic and Labour Relations Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().