Does the new wave of digital technologies portend a future in which robots and automation increasingly replace workers and destroy livelihoods? In one of the first studies of service sector robots, APARC experts find evidence to offset dystopian predictions of robot job replacement.

The researchers — Asia Health Policy Program Director Karen Eggleston, SK Center Fellow Yong Suk Lee, and University of Tokyo health economist Toshiaki Iizuka, our former visiting scholar — set out to examine how robots affect labor, productivity, and quality of care in Japan’s nursing homes. Their findings indicate that robot adoption may not be detrimental to labor and may help address the challenges of rapidly aging societies.

Eggleston recently joined the Future Health podcast, an initiative of the New South Wales Ministry of Health, to discuss the study and its implications. The program is available both as a video and audio podcast. Watch and listen below:

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive the latest updates from our scholars.

Published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the study suggests that robot adoption has increased employment opportunities for non-regular care workers, helped mitigate the turnover problem that plagues nursing homes, and provided greater flexibility for workers. It is also published in AHPP's working paper series and is part of a broader research project by Eggleston, Lee, and Iizuka, that explores the impact of robots on nursing home care in Japan and the implications of robotic technologies adoption in aging societies.

The study has attracted media attention. The Financial Times Magazine, in a feature story and podcast, called it “groundbreaking in several ways but perhaps most clearly for setting its sights not on manufacturing but on the services sector, where robots are only just beginning to make their mark.” The Freakonomics Radio podcast also hosted Eggleston and Lee for a conversation about their research as part of an episode on collaborative robots and the future of work.

1. Can you give us an overview of your research and the topics you’re investigating?

My research addresses the following question: Why are some authoritarian regimes more responsive to social unrest than others? While it might seem counterintuitive to think of authoritarian regimes in this light, repression and responsiveness often occur in tandem under authoritarian rule. Centered on a comparison between Vietnam and China, I document the steps that each has taken to address social discontent fueled by pervasive government seizures of rural land. In response to societal input between 2003 and 2017, Vietnam enacted comprehensive and programmatic reforms to reduce the permissible scope for government land expropriation whereas those enacted by China were relatively marginal and piecemeal. At the subnational level, this difference has had important implications for land rights and the security of villagers in both countries. In summary, despite their many similarities, the manner and degree of their responsiveness have varied. My research then traces the historical origins that undergird the political development and institutional character of Vietnam and China’s divergent responsiveness to social unrest. 

2. How did you first become interested in these topics?

My interest in the repressive-responsive character of authoritarian regimes stems from my preoccupation with questions of political legitimacy, societal resistance, and institutional dynamics in authoritarian contexts. One particular experience that stoked my interest was my visit to Wukan, Guangdong in 2016. Wukan was once hailed as an emblematic case of grassroots democracy and accommodation by the Chinese state, when villagers’ outcries against the local government’s seizure of their land resulted in the re-election of the village committee in 2012. Yet, when I visited in 2016, villagers expressed that nothing had changed, and that “everything that could be done has already been done.” This experience led me to question what responsiveness means in authoritarian contexts.

3. During the last year, the world has changed significantly because of the pandemic and fluctuating politics in many nations. Have these changing global situations given you any new insights into your research?

The pandemic has underscored the need for a nuanced and contextual understanding of democracies and non-democracies. For instance, the variation in state responses to COVID-19 suggests that there is no clear correlation between responsiveness or the effectiveness of government responses to COVID-19 and regime types. Consider Vietnam’s proactive approach and success at containing the pandemic as opposed to the US. Other recent developments such as the crackdowns on pro-democracy protests in Thailand and mass protests against the recent military coup in Myanmar showcase how quickly state responsiveness to social demands can erode, even in multi-party states.

4. What has your experience as one of our Shorenstein Fellows been like during this unusual period of time when we haven’t physically been together at APARC?

My fellowship has been remote, and I have therefore needed to be much more proactive to stay as engaged as possible. I have consulted with my mentor often over Zoom, and reached out to other scholars for their feedback and advice on my research. I have also especially appreciated the chance to participate in the China Social Science Workshop, where I've shared my work and learned from other presenters. Other postdoctoral fellows at APARC and I have also gotten together virtually to exchange stories and to share our experiences from this unusual year.  

5. What are some of the things you've done during this past year to give yourself a break from work and have some fun?

Due to the pandemic, I have been living back home to Austin, Texas, since March of last year. The last time that I was home for this long must have been after I graduated from college. So, for the first time in a long time, I've planted tomatoes, eggplants, and sunflowers in our garden, and I've really enjoyed watching them bloom and ripen. With everything growing, it feels like I've spent most of my break in our backyard defending our flowers, fruits, and vegetables from squirrels and bunnies! But luckily I also have our two dogs, Wishie and Sushi, to help me!

6. As the state of the pandemic changes and things in academia and our communities, what are some things you are looking forward to both professionally and personally?

I'm certainly looking forward to having conferences in person again! I'm also still not sure when it will be possible and safe for me to visit Asia again, especially Vietnam and China, but I have missed these places. I'm also learning Khmer this summer, and I'm excited to eventually visit Cambodia to pursue my research there.

Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan is an online course offered to high school students in Japan. It is offered annually in fall and spring by SPICE and the Japanese NPO e-Entrepreneurship, led by Yusuke Matsuda. The instructors are Irene Bryant (fall) and Maiko Tamagawa Bacha (spring). The goal of the course is to foster creative thinking and problem-solving skills in students with a focus on innovation to address social issues.

Because of my experiences with social issues in Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Japan, and Mexico, my decision to apply to Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan—a course for those with a passion in social issues and innovation—was immediate. However, when I started taking the course, I had little idea of the connection between business and social issues. Soon after classes began, I saw real-life examples of how unique innovations can improve the world. Every two weeks, a different professional gave us a lecture. Getting to hear stories of their first-hand experiences as entrepreneurs was an opportunity I never received at school, and I embraced it fully by asking question after question.

My favorite lecture was one given by David “Mas” Masumoto, who runs a sustainable peach farm in California. Through his lesson on growing organic peaches and passing down the farm to his children, I was able to make connections to a larger social issue in Japan: the lack of young people in agriculture. His lecture provided insights on specific ways professionals were practicing social entrepreneurship.

The course was certainly demanding. After the lectures, we had to work on group projects to come up with our own solutions, which enabled me to further understand and practice aspects of social entrepreneurship. It took hours of preparation and as I was one of the only students who lived abroad, I sometimes had to work with peers at ungodly hours. Nonetheless, all the hard work was absolutely worth it. The diversity provided by the unique regional backgrounds of other students located all around Japan exposed me to important perspectives on social issues.

For the final project, which included an individual research report on a social issue and a group business pitch, we had full control of what we wanted to do. The individual paper was refreshing for me because at school there is never this much flexibility, and it was a perfect chance for me to explore my interest in addressing social issues like environmental sustainability through entrepreneurship. For the group project, we created a business plan for a sustainable toothpaste. I have never worked with such motivated, diverse, and brilliant students willing to put in so many hours of work. Through the project, not only did I get to put skills that I learned during the program into practice, but I also made lifelong friends who shared the same passions as me.

Finally, Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan has grown my interest in how social issues can be resolved through entrepreneurship, and has motivated me to pursue not only the exploration of social issues, but business in college. It is a course like no other, with wonderful peers, invaluable lessons, and a supportive teaching staff. I encourage people who are curious about social issues or business in general to take advantage of the program.