The Green-Inclusive Paradox in the Digital Economy: Technological Progress, Sustainable Development, and Social Stratification
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/knb44t94Keywords:
Digital Economy, Social Inequality, Technological Progress, Social StratificationAbstract
While driving socioeconomic development, the digital economy is also having a profound impact on social inequality. Research shows that digital technology exacerbates social stratification through mechanisms such as skill-biased progress, platform monopolies, and the digital divide. This is manifested in several ways: skill premiums, technological displacement, and digital rent differentiation in income distribution; polarization trends, algorithmic control, and flexible employment inequality in the labor market structure; and disparities in digital access, capabilities, and resources in educational opportunities, which reinforce the intergenerational transmission of inequality. Empirical analyses indicate that while the digital economy may temporarily narrow income gaps through inclusive effects in the short term, its skill-biased nature and digital divide effects are likely to further exacerbate social stratification in the long run. Therefore, we should embed “inclusive digital development” at the core of sustainable transformation, ensuring the digital economy serves as an accelerator for the SDGs rather than a new engine of division.
References
If the digital dividend continues to concentrate at the top, [1] Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Lectures in labor it will simultaneously erode the three pillars of sustain- economics. Manuscript. http://economics. mit. edu/files, 4689, able development: economic, social, and environmental. 22.
Skill premiums and digital rent differentials weaken mac- [2] Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Hazell, J., & Restrepo, P. (2022). ro-level consumption and human capital investment; class Artificial intelligence and jobs: Evidence from online vacancies. solidification reduces mobility and amplifies governance Journal of Labor Economics, 40(S1), S293-S340.
costs; while platform monopolies combined with high [3] Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse, context and cognition. energy consumption in data centers hinder green innova- Discourse studies, 8(1), 159-177. tion. Therefore, “inclusive digital development” must be [4] Zuboff, S. (2019, January). Surveillance capitalism and the embedded at the core of sustainable transformation: up- challenge of collective action. In New labor forum (Vol. 28, No. 1, grading inclusive infrastructure with a green and low-car- pp. 10-29). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
bon orientation, expanding value chain participation for [5] Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. John Wiley & Sons. vulnerable groups through diverse cooperative organiza- [6] Autor, D. H. (2013). The “task approach” to labor markets: tions, and achieving global synergy in data benefit sharing an overview. Journal for Labour Market Research, 46(3), 185- and symmetrical carbon responsibility. This will create a 199. positive feedback loop among economic growth, green [7] Autor, D. H., & Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low-skill transition, and social justice, ensuring the digital economy service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. serves as an accelerator for the SDGs rather than a driver of division. American economic review, 103(5), 1553-1597.
This study expands the theory of social stratification in the [8] Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The digital economy era and provides scientific basis for gov- polarization of the US labor market. American economic review, ernment departments. Governments should take the fol- 96(2), 189-194.
lowing measures. First, strengthen digital skills training to [9] Lu, Q. (2015). The end of polarization? Technological enhance workers’ skill levels and bridge the digital skills change and employment in the US labor market. Unpublished gap. Second, optimize the layout of digital infrastructure manuscript.
to improve digital access conditions in rural and remote [10] Oldenski, L. (2014). Offshoring and the polarization of the areas, ensuring equitable digital opportunities. Third, im- US labor market. Ilr Review, 67(3_suppl), 734-761.
prove the digital governance system to strengthen regula- [11] Kim, J. (2025). Job Polarization within the Middletion of platform companies, prevent data monopolies and Skill Group and Its Impact on Skills Mismatch. Three Essays digital exploitation, and ensure fair distribution of bene- on the Political Economy of Global Value Chains and Skills fits. Fourth, increase investment in education, particularly Governance, 6.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
