Carl Benedikt Frey

Frey was born in Germany and has both Swedish and German heritage. He studied economics, history and management at Lund University. Developing a strong interest in economic history and technological change, Frey completed his PhD in 2011 at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich. He subsequently joined the Oxford Martin School where he founded the programme on the Future of Work with support from Citigroup. Between 2012 and 2014, he was teaching at the Department of Economic History at Lund University.{{Cite web|url=https://www.carlbenediktfrey.com/about|title=About|website=Carl Benedikt Frey|access-date=2020-01-31}}

In 2012, Frey became an Economics Associate of Nuffield College and Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, both University of Oxford.{{Cite web|url=http://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/people/view/92|title=Dr Carl Benedikt Frey {{!}} People {{!}} Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School|last=School|first=Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin|website=inet.ox.ac.uk|access-date=2016-06-16}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/People/sites/Carl.Frey/SitePages/Biography.aspx|title=Carl Benedikt Frey - Biography|website=nuffield.ox.ac.uk|access-date=2016-06-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160821204234/https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/People/sites/Carl.Frey/SitePages/Biography.aspx|archive-date=2016-08-21|url-status=dead}} He remains a Senior Fellow of the Department of Economic History at Lund University, and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). In 2019, he joined the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on the [https://www.weforum.org/communities/global-future-council-on-the-new-economic-agenda New Economic Agenda], as well as the Bretton Woods Committee.{{Cite web|url=https://www.weforum.org/communities/global-future-council-on-the-new-economic-agenda/|title=Global Future Council on the New Economic Agenda|website=World Economic Forum|access-date=2019-12-18}} And in 2020, he became a member of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) – a multistakeholder initiative to guide the responsible development and use of AI, hosted by the OECD.{{Cite web|title=Artificial intelligence - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|url=https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/oecd-to-host-secretariat-of-new-global-partnership-on-artificial-intelligence.htm|access-date=2020-08-19|website=oecd.org}}

In May 2023, he was appointed the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and became a Fellow of Mansfield College, Oxford.

Frey’s research and viewpoints frequently appear in global media. His academic work has been featured in over 100 news outlets including The Economist, The New York Times, Time Magazine, The New Yorker, Le Monde, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.{{Cite web |title=Professor Carl Benedikt Frey |url=https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/people/carl-benedikt-frey |access-date=2025-05-28 |website=Oxford Martin School |language=en}} In addition to being interviewed by journalists, Frey actively contributes to public discourse through opinion pieces. He is a regular op-ed contributor to major newspapers and magazines such as the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, and Scientific American.

In 2013, Frey, together with Oxford professor Michael Osborne, co-authored "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization", estimating that 47% of jobs are at risk of automation.{{Cite journal|last1=Frey|first1=Carl Benedikt|last2=Osborne|first2=Michael A.|date=2017-01-01|title=The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?|journal=Technological Forecasting and Social Change|volume=114|pages=254–280|doi=10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019|issn=0040-1625|url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4ed9f1bd-27e9-4e30-997e-5fc8405b0491|url-access=subscription}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/01/18/the-onrushing-wave|title=The onrushing wave|work=The Economist|access-date=2020-01-31|issn=0013-0613}} With over 17,000 citations according to Google Scholar, the study's methodology has been used by President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, the Bank of England, the World Bank, as well as a popular risk-prediction tool by the BBC.{{Cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cea/economic-report-of-the-President|title=2017 Economic Report of the President|website=The White House|access-date=2019-12-18}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/will-a-robot-takeover-my-job|title=Will a robot takeover my job?|website=bankofengland.co.uk|access-date=2019-12-18}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941|title=Will a robot take your job?|publisher=BBC|date=2015-09-11|access-date=2019-12-18}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016|title=World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends|website=World Bank|access-date=2020-01-31}} In 2019, it was debated on HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h1ooyyFkF0|title=Automation: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

|via=YouTube|access-date=2019-04-18}}

The Frey and Osborne study has often been taken to imply an employment apocalypse. For example, Yuval Noah Harari, Kai-Fu Lee, Richard David Precht and Martin Ford have argued that societies need to prepare for a jobless future, citing Frey and Osborne.{{Cite news|url=https://www.zeit.de/2017/05/digitalisierung-revolution-technik-seele-menschen-grundrechte|title=Digitalisierung: Daten essen Seele auf|last1=Broy|first1=Manfred|date=2017-01-26|work=Die Zeit|access-date=2020-01-31|last2=Precht|first2=Richard David|language=de-DE|issn=0044-2070}} However, this is not what the study actually suggests. In an interview with Martin Wolf, Frey made clear that their study should not be taken to mean the end of work, but rather the potential for certain tasks to be automated.{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042jfvz|title=BBC Radio 4 - The Future Is Not What It Used to Be|publisher=BBC|access-date=2019-12-18}}

In a retrospective (published in 2019) on the ensuing debate, The Economist referred to him as "an accidental doom-monger" and pointed out that Frey is in fact much more optimistic than he had been made out to be.{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/business/2019/06/27/will-a-robot-really-take-your-job|title=Will a robot really take your job?, Will a robot really take your job?|work=The Economist|access-date=2019-12-18|issn=0013-0613}} In 2023, he published a co-authored essay in The Economist arguing that the latest wave of Generative AI benefits lower-skilled workers.{{Cite news |title=Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne on how AI benefits lower-skilled workers |work=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/09/18/carl-benedikt-frey-and-michael-osborne-on-how-ai-benefits-lower-skilled-workers |access-date=2023-12-22 |issn=0013-0613}}

Reflecting on their 2013 paper in the light of the wave of Generative AI, Frey and Osborne revisited their estimates in 2024 in an article titled "[https://bjwa.brown.edu/30-1/generative-ai-and-the-future-of-work-a-reappraisal/ Generative AI and the Future of Work: A Reappraisal.]"{{Cite web |date=2024-02-27 |title=Generative AI and the Future of Work: A Reappraisal – the Brown Journal of World Affairs |url=https://bjwa.brown.edu/30-1/generative-ai-and-the-future-of-work-a-reappraisal/ |access-date=2024-04-26}} They note, for example, that as chatbots continue to improve, the ability to communicate effectively face-to-face will become more important as a skill. In their words, "If your AI-written love letters read just like everybody else’s, you had better do well on the first date." They also argue that while AI systems are adept at remixing and reassembling existing works, their capacity for creativity has limits. The reason AI can write letters in the style of William Shakespeare is that Shakespeare existed, providing clear benchmarks. But in the absence of such benchmarks, what do you optimise for? This is, they argue, were much of human creativity resides.

The economics bibliographic database IDEAS/RePEc ranks him among the top 0.5% of economists under a number of criteria.{{citation needed|date=March 2025}}

As of May 2025, Frey's research was cited more than 22,500 times according to Google Scholar.

In 2019, Frey published [https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172798/the-technology-trap The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation]. Comparing the British Industrial Revolution to the Computer Revolution, he argues that the long-run benefits of both events have been immense and indisputable. However, many of those who lived through these massive economic upheavals were not among its main beneficiaries. The Luddites, who smashed machines in the nineteenth century were right in thinking that modern industry reduced their utility.

Frey goes on to argue that the reason why the Industrial Revolution first happened in Britain was that governments there were the first to side with inventors and industrialists, and vigorously repressed any worker resistance to mechanisation. The army that was sent out against the Luddites, for example, was larger than the army Wellington took against Napoleon in the Peninsula War of 1808. In continental Europe (and in China), in contrast, worker resistance was successful, which Frey suggests helps explain why economic growth there was slow to take off. Luddite efforts to avoid the short-term disruption associated with a new technology, can end up denying access to its long-term benefits—something Frey calls a "technology trap".{{Cite book|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172798/the-technology-trap|title=The Technology Trap|date=2019-06-18|isbn=978-0-691-17279-8|last1=Frey|first1=Carl Benedikt}}

Frey also argues that much of today's political and economic polarisation has to do with technology. The central concern that runs through The Technology Trap is that, unless we are very careful, our latest technological revolution may well turn out to be a tumultuous rerun of the Industrial Revolution, with dire social and political consequences. "The message of this book is that we have been here before", writes Frey. An opinion poll by the Pew Research Centre survey in 2017 found that 85 per cent of US respondents favoured policies to restrict the rise of the robots.{{Cite web |last=Thornhill |first=John |date=2019-07-10 |title=Does tech threaten to rerun the worst of the Industrial Revolution? |url=https://www.ft.com/content/f1b84f22-a25b-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1 |access-date=2019-12-18 |website=Financial Times|location=London}}

The book has been lauded by several publications such as The Economist and The Guardian,{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/22/nigel-farage-donald-trump-talking-tech-revolution-automation-populists|title=Why you don't hear Trump or Farage talking about the tech revolution {{!}} John Harris|last=Harris|first=John|date=2019-07-22|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-12-18|issn=0261-3077}} and was selected as a Financial Times Best Books of the Year in 2019.{{Cite web |last=Thornhill |first=John |date=2019-12-03 |title=Best books of 2019: Technology |url=https://www.ft.com/content/4935e2d6-0b21-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84 |access-date=2019-12-18 |website=Financial Times|location=London}} The book also won Princeton University's Richard A. Lester Prize for the most significant contribution to labor economics that year.{{Cite web |title=The Richard A. Lester Book Award |url=https://irs.princeton.edu/lester-award |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=Industrial Relations Section}}

Economic historians have also praised it. Niall Ferguson called it "of vital importance to voters and policy-makers alike". Writing in Project Syndicate, Jane Humphries and Benjamin Schneider called it "a historical odyssey."{{Cite web|url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/work-in-the-twenty-first-century-by-jane-humphries-and-benjamin-schneider-2020-01|title=Work in the Twenty-First Century {{!}} by Jane Humphries & Benjamin Schneider|last=Humphries|first=Jane|date=2020-01-17|website=Project Syndicate|access-date=2020-01-31}} In a review in The Journal of Economic History, Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University called it "an erudite, thoughtful [and] important book that economic historians should read". However, he also called into question how much economists can learn about the present by studying the history of technology.

In another review published by the Economic History Association, [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YK5DrlYAAAAJ&hl=en Alexander J. Field] wrote that "Frey has written an important and timely book... Many works of this nature, which attempt to cover centuries, indeed millennia of economic history, as well as look into the future, end up being superficial and often error-ridden. On these dimensions the book is largely if not entirely an exception. A great deal of effort, thought, and scholarship went into its writing, and it shows. There is much food for thought here".{{Cite web|url=http://eh.net/book_reviews/the-technology-trap-capital-labor-and-power-in-the-age-of-automation/|title=The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation|website=eh.net|access-date=2019-12-18}}

{{reflist}}

{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Frey, Carol Benedikt}}

Category:Year of birth missing (living people)

Category:Living people

Category:Economic historians

Category:Swedish economists

Category:Lund University alumni