arbiter
JournalsAccount

Automation and Rent Dissipation: Implications for Wages, Inequality, and Productivity

Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo

The Quarterly Journal of Economics2026https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjag006article
FT50AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.41

Abstract

This article studies the effects of automation in a task-based economy in which some jobs pay workers rents—wages above workers' outside options. We show that automation targets high-rent tasks, dissipating rents, amplifying wage losses, and reducing within-group wage dispersion in exposed groups. This form of rent dissipation is inefficient and offsets the productivity gains from automation. Using U.S. data from 1980 to 2016, we find evidence of sizable rent dissipation and reduced within-group wage dispersion due to automation. Automation accounts for 52% of the increase in between-group inequality since 1980, with rent dissipation explaining one-fifth of this total. Our estimates imply that inefficient rent dissipation has offset 60%–90% of the productivity gains from automation over this period.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjag006

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{daron2026,
  title        = {{Automation and Rent Dissipation: Implications for Wages, Inequality, and Productivity}},
  author       = {Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo},
  journal      = {The Quarterly Journal of Economics},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjag006},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Automation and Rent Dissipation: Implications for Wages, Inequality, and Productivity

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.