Skills, Place, and Purpose: Building Equitable Futures in the AI Economy
Grainger calls on governments and regulators to support place‑based innovation so prosperity is shared, not concentrated.
The Just Transition Movement
The Just Transition movement supports and advocates for the transfer of employment from carbon-based to green economies in a socially equitable way. But the changing nature of employment, now supercharged by AI, complicates this goal. The AI transformation makes it crucial to distinguish what we mean by “work,” “employment,” and “income.” It is easy, but not helpful, to use these words interchangeably. As in previous industrial revolutions, AI will transform “work,” automating some tasks while creating new forms of work we can’t yet imagine. Societal and political decisions being made now and in the short-term future will determine the impact of these changes on employment and income structures.
The transformation of work and employment structures was underway before AI appeared. Digital technologies that support long-distance employment advanced rapidly during the COVID years and continue to evolve. New structures of employment, including platform, gig, and network employment, have transformed the relationship between employee and employer. Platform employment, where workers’ activity is directed through internet applications, creates an environment in which employees may never meet a manager. Often structured on zero-hour contracts, platforms create an ambiguity around whether workers are employed or self-employed. Platform employment supports gig employment, or short-term, contract work, often of high intensity. As gig work replaces traditional work contracts, workers become self-employed freelancers instead of employees. Another emerging variation is network employment: A small group, with complementary skills, combines for a project, then disperse and join new networks and new projects. Network employment is often regionally based, with proximity facilitating interactions, and supports regional creative and intellectual capital, perhaps around musical or media capacity.
In this model, the employer is the customer and remuneration is negotiated on a project-by-project basis. In all these variations, the trend is towards short-term contracts with no minimum guaranteed income or hours of employment. The onus of soliciting work and skill acquisition is on the employee.
AI is now supercharging the digital transformation of work
AI is now supercharging the digital transformation of work. It has the potential to not only streamline platform employment but also to complete tasks currently being overseen by gig or networked workers, including research, writing, and content production. It is axiomatic that AI, through improved automation and accuracy, will generate the potential for greater wealth.
The big question becomes whether that wealth will be distributed, by whatever means, to society in general or absorbed by the high-tech platforms, with the increased wealth flowing into the pockets of relatively few oligarchs.
It is ironic that while wealth is generally increasing, many employees face increased precarity, and there are apparent shortages of skilled workers who support the social fabric: health workers, police, park keepers, etc. The role of the G20, insofar as it supports the Just Transition, is not simply to support a greener future in a narrow sense, but also to advocate for a more equitable flow of income and economic gains to workers. It’s not enough to identify the potential environmental impacts of data centers. The G20, governments, and civil society must also monitor the impact on employment, income, and social cohesion.
Regionalism
Regionalism is one, perhaps surprising, strategy for supporting an equitable, green transition. While digital technologies make it possible for formal employment to be contracted at greater distances, gig and network employment tend to be more focused on place and locality. This tendency can be leveraged to build networks and structures of employment that support local and regional development and skill acquisition. Add to this mix the local nature of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) oriented universities and colleges. These institutions are vital for developing the skills required in the regional economy and create the capacity for people to work in the new context. Traditionally, TVET institutions have good relationships with local employers and employment.
As Paul Little and I have argued, these institutions contribute to the sense of place. They are also well-positioned to follow the lead of Europe’s Centre for Vocational Education (CEDEFOP) in developing micro-credentials that can replace remote and ponderous national qualifications with short-term, versatile, and locally relevant qualifications.
Micro-credentials will be increasingly important for supporting and documenting skill acquisition. They allow individuals to continue learning relevant skills throughout their lifespan and encourage transitions between learning and working. Where skill acquisition is supported by local government, as in Manchester, there is a strong triangulation of work, skill, and administration.
The G20 skills strategy, adopted before the COVID-19 pandemic, calls for “employment-related skills that are better matched to employer and market needs in order to attract investment and decent jobs.” The updated 2022 strategy reinforces this emphasis on triangulation between work, skill acquisition, and administration. This approach is far more effective at achieving equity and social cohesion than the alternative of a guaranteed minimum income (GMI).
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI)
Experiments in GMI, whether via welfare payments or largesse from wealthy Gulf states, have not proved successful in addressing social integration. Providing income without requiring outputs or work keeps a status quo increasingly out of touch with emerging social and economic realities. It does not help individuals gain skills for meaningful, better-paying jobs in an AI-driven economy. It does not invest in developing the skills necessary to address shortages in the very jobs that support the social fabric and bind together local communities. GMI does not help individuals and communities meet the future. A Just Transition based on developing local and regional networks and skills acquisition would aid “work” both in terms of a skills economy and support society by promoting work that boosts the wellbeing of individuals (e.g., health) and the fabric of society (e.g., social facilities, drama, sport, etc). This would align with the G20 aspiration to bridge the digital divide by focusing on localised skills development.
As the 2018 Argentine G20 working group “The Future of Work” noted, society will see changes to jobs and tasks, which will bring about deep and rapid shifts in the skills requirements. “Employers,” as in the platform economy, may be increasingly remote and abstract. “Income” may become dependent on contributions to society. “Work” may involve tasks that have not yet emerged.
The Just Transition movement can best achieve its goals by supporting local, place-based social and economic innovation.
Policymakers should be encouraged to ensure a just use of the wealth created by encouraging locally based projects. The G20 has a key role to play in supporting and promoting local efforts that align with its goals and ultimately ensure that society, not a handful of oligarchs, benefits from the combined digital, AI, and green transitions.
Paul Grainger, Co-Director and Enterprise Lead, Centre for Education and Work, UCL
Responses