“We need another industrial revolution.” With an energetic and determined character, Philippe Aghion defended this Tuesday at the Cercle d’Economia in Barcelona the advances that artificial intelligence (AI) will bring to the economy. The economist, who said he was “cautiously optimistic” about innovation, estimated that it will contribute 0.68 percentage points annually to the productivity of companies for ten years. Although it foresees positive effects on employment, . Given these initial effects, the economist advocated for more flexibility, training and active policies in the labor market. “Artificial intelligence will mean a great reorganization of employment,” anticipated the economist.
Aghion, who participated in a talk organized by Cercle and the (BSC), won the Nobel last year for having explained, together with his Canadian colleague Peter Howitt, economic growth driven by innovation. Specifically, the Swedish Academy recalled how in 1992 both built a mathematical model for , which occurs when a new and better product enters the market. This innovation is creative because of its contribution to the market, but at the same time it is destructive because the companies that existed until that moment become obsolete.
Aghion’s theory fits with what is happening with artificial intelligence. During question time, a businesswoman explained it clearly. “What happened in the fourth quarter of 2025 was a change in the rules of the game. Then the AI agents arrived. I am in a leading technology company and we are seeing a 20% impact on the workforce,” the manager explained. I said this based on the graphics that Aghion gave during his talk. The Nobel Prize considers that, in a first phase, AI will destroy jobs, but that its advantages will make companies more competitive and earn and hire more. “The problem is making the transition bearable,” he admitted.
professor at IESE, reflected during his conversation with the Nobel Prize winner that AI may perhaps end up with middle-class jobs, since those linked to manual and care work and those that are more technical may remain. “More robust educational and job creation policies are necessary,” responded Aghion, who recalled: “A horse can make you hit a wall, but it can take you wherever you want if you know how to ride.” And there the risk, he warned, is “leaving part of the population behind.” “In France, we face the danger of a populist president in a year. I can tell you that we are terrified by the idea that this could happen, and not being inclusive has an enormous cost,” added the Nobel Prize winner, who opted for “flexicurity systems” like the one Denmark has.
Another limiting factor to the potential of AI that Aghion insisted on is that of competition. And he gave as an example the impact of the technology sector in the United States. Although for a decade productivity grew in that country on the back of new technologies, it subsequently expanded much more slowly. According to the economist, this was due to business concentration, which led to companies stopping sharing information and progressing. “The cloud today is controlled by three companies: Microsoft, Google and Amazon,” he recalled. Therefore, he argued that Europe must develop its own data centers.
“Competition reform”
The economist also defended a “competition policy reform,” which he judged to be “too static.” As an example, he gave the decision adopted by the European Commission under the direction of . The head of Competition decided to knock it down, considering that it put the European railway market in check. Aghion believes that Brussels should have taken two factors into account: first, that it is a global market and, second, that it is a market in which new players could easily join, especially Chinese firms.
The Nobel Prize also believes that this new technological oligarchy must contribute more to prevent citizens from being harmed. Aghion does not completely agree with the tax promoted by his French colleague Gabriel Zucman on large fortunes because he believes that it could harm European companies. However, he considers that these should contribute to the system, for example, through foundations. And if not, they should be taxed.
