Carl Benedikt Frey is a Swedish-German economist and economic historian. He is the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI & Work at theOxford Internet Institute and a Fellow ofMansfield College,University of Oxford. He is also Director of the Future of Work Programme and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at theOxford Martin School.[1]
He is the author ofThe Technology Trap (2019), a widely discussed book comparing historical and modern technological revolutions and Frey is also known for a 2013 study estimating that 47% of U.S. jobs were susceptible to computerization.
His latest bookHow Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations, published by Princeton University Press (2025) is shortlisted for theFinancial Times Business Book of the Year Award.[2]
Frey was born in Stockholm, Sweden. After attendingKatedralskolan, he studied economics, history and management atLund University. Developing a strong interest in economic history and technological change, Frey completed his PhD in 2011 under the supervision ofKnut Blind[3][4] at theMax 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 fromCitigroup. Between 2012 and 2014, he was teaching at the Department of Economic History atLund University.[5]
In 2012, Frey became an Economics Associate ofNuffield College and Senior Fellow at theInstitute for New Economic Thinking, both University of Oxford.[6][7] He remains a Senior Fellow of the Department of Economic History at Lund University, and a Fellow of theRoyal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). In 2019, he joined theWorld Economic Forum'sGlobal Future Council on theNew Economic Agenda, as well as theBretton Woods Committee.[8] And in 2020, he became a member of theGlobal Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) – a multistakeholder initiative to guide the responsible development and use of AI, hosted by theOECD.[9]
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 ofMansfield College, Oxford.
Frey’s research and viewpoints frequently appear in global media. His academic work has been featured in over 100 news outlets includingThe Economist,The New York Times,Time Magazine,The New Yorker,Le Monde, andFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.[10] 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 theFinancial Times,The Wall Street Journal,Foreign Affairs, andScientific American.
In 2013, Frey, together with Oxford professorMichael Osborne, co-authored "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization", estimating that 47% of jobs are at risk of automation.[11][12] With over 17,000 citations according to Google Scholar, the study's methodology has been used by PresidentBarack Obama'sCouncil of Economic Advisors, theBank of England, theWorld Bank, as well as a popular risk-prediction tool by theBBC.[13][14][15][16] In 2019, it was debated on HBO'sLast Week Tonight withJohn Oliver.[17]
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 andMartin Ford have argued that societies need to prepare for a jobless future, citing Frey and Osborne.[18] However, this is not what the study actually suggests. In an interview withMartin 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.[19]
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.[20] In 2023, he published a co-authored essay inThe Economist arguing that the latest wave of Generative AI benefits lower-skilled workers.[21]
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 "Generative AI and the Future of Work: A Reappraisal."[22] 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 ofWilliam 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.[22]
The economics bibliographic database IDEAS/RePEc ranks him among the top 0.5% of economists under a number of criteria.[citation needed]
As of May 2025, Frey's research was cited more than 22,500 times according to Google Scholar.
In 2019, Frey publishedThe 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".[23]
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 thePew Research Centre survey in 2017 found that 85 per cent of US respondents favoured policies to restrict the rise of the robots.[24]
The book has been lauded by several publications such asThe Economist andThe Guardian,[20][25] and was selected as aFinancial Times Best Books of the Year in 2019.[26] The book also won Princeton University's Richard A. Lester Prize for the most significant contribution to labor economics that year.[27]
Economic historians have also praised it.Niall Ferguson called it "of vital importance to voters and policy-makers alike".[23] Writing inProject Syndicate,Jane Humphries and Benjamin Schneider called it "a historical odyssey."[28] In a review inThe Journal of Economic History,Joel Mokyr ofNorthwestern 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 theEconomic History Association,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".[29]
