António Moniz
Professor Associado com Agregação
Departamento de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas, Ed. VII, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, 2829-516 Caparica (email)
Interview for Auto Business Reviews (China)
in
The acceptance of Chinese cars in the Portuguese and European markets is no longer an issue; the top priority now is the local production of auto parts.
[Editor's Note]
As one of the co-organizers of the 33rd Gerpisa International Forum on the Global Automotive Industry, Xuanyuan Academy interviewed more than a dozen participating experts, all from countries and regions where Chinese automobile exports are currently popular. On the one hand, through their perspectives, we can understand the development status of China's automobile industry in their respective countries and regions; on the other hand, we also invite these outstanding global automotive experts to offer suggestions on how Chinese automobiles can develop steadily in the local market.
The expert interviewed today is Professor António MONIZ from the Nova University of Lisbon (Portugal). He obtained his PhD (1992) and Habilitation (2001) in Sociology from the same university and later served as a visiting researcher at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany, McMaster University in Canada and Lorraine University in France, researching the intersection of technology assessment and the working environment.
For more than 40 years, he has been teaching and researching social impacts and the effects of technological change. His research focuses on the transformation of the automotive industry, the impact of automation technology on labor relations, and the analysis of Portuguese industrial cases. It involves automated processes, robots, and recently, in addition to the introduction of industrial digitalization, Industry 4.0 is also part of it.
His research scope is mainly in Europe, especially Portugal. In the projects he participates in, he often conducts comparative studies with other European countries such as Germany, Spain, and France. MONIZ is also a core member of the International Automotive Industry Research Network GERPISA, collaborating with scholars from France and Germany to study the transformation strategies of the European automotive industry. He participated in the EU "Horizon Europe" project "Automation and the Future of Work", providing a basis for formulating pan-European ethical guidelines for automation.
The following is a transcript of the interview (with some deletions):
In the industrial development of different countries, the effects of technology application are often significantly different. What do you think are the key factors causing these differences?
Overall, people may feel that there are many differences between countries and regions, but in fact, they are very similar, and the current technical level is also quite close. For example, robots in China and robots in Portugal operate in the same way. The differences mainly lie in the way people use such technologies, but these differences are not at the national level, but mainly exist within individual companies, because each company has its own unique management style or philosophy.
In terms of impact, the differences in results depend more on organizational strategies, which are more important than the technology itself. This has been verified in different periods and industries, and the facts are indeed so.
In many cases, it is not that a technology will produce a specific effect. What really works is not the technology, but the way of managing employees and the mode of developing the organization, which are much more important than the technology itself for the quality of results.
There are many cases showing that the application of the same technology in the same industry has different impacts, which is due to the different ways of managing personnel. This is very interesting, especially for engineers, who usually think that after introducing a technology, the results should be the same, but this is not the case. The so-called "surprises" mostly appear in the process of management. Therefore, the way of organizing work and communicating with the personnel who will use the technology is more important than the technology itself.
For example, in the automotive industry, at some companies producing parts in Portugal the management board wanted to introduce a robot production line without changing the original workflow. After introducing the robot, they did not inform the workers about this process, but only told them: if there is a problem, call the engineer to solve it, and then continue to work. This happened several times, and then some problems arose, such as some things being damaged, or some workstations needing adjustment not being adjusted in time. Later, we found that this was not because of defects in the technology, but because the workers were not informed, and there was a lack of communication within the company, leading to workers sometimes having resistance and negative reactions. Because they felt that the management did not value them, as if this new system to be introduced had nothing to do with them. The company originally expected to improve productivity by introducing robots, but the result was not as good as expected.
However, in other cases in the same industry, such as the metal industry, they introduced the same type of technology, but fully explained it to the workers, involved the workers, and trained the workers in the use of the technology in advance. As a result, the workers accepted the technology very much and even put forward some suggestions and participated in the process, achieving very surprising and positive results. This is indeed very interesting.
What is the current development status of Portuguese enterprises, especially those involved in the production of auto parts? What problems are they facing?
In Portugal, there are some common problems in enterprises, and the core crux lies in the management level. Most managers are conservative in thinking, and they believe that workers have insufficient knowledge, and only engineers are the most important. Therefore, in the relevant work process, only engineers are allowed to participate, and the role of workers is completely ignored.
This concept is further solidified in the context of technological development: in the eyes of many people, with the popularization of new technologies, more complex systems and digitalization, workers only need to learn to press buttons and do not need to understand the entire process. But obviously, this approach is not effective - it has become an obstacle to productivity improvement in Portugal and many European countries.
The reason is closely related to the background of managers. These managers are from different eras, and their average educational level is even lower than that of current labor population average training. Today's young people spend more time in school, learn more, have more technical knowledge, and have a more solid educational foundation when entering the labor market, which also reflects the lag in the cognition and ability of some managers.
At the same time, the management structure of Portuguese enterprises also has problems. Many enterprises (especially small-scale companies) operate based on family models and tend to keep the company within the family rather than manage it in a professional way.
Nevertheless, many such small companies are producing parts for the automotive industry. The characteristics of the automotive industry put forward higher requirements for enterprises: product quality standards are constantly improving, which is a major challenge in itself. Therefore, enterprises involved in auto parts production and product development urgently need to achieve professional management, not only to let workers participate more deeply in the decision-making process, but also to be more modern in technology application and work organization.
This is particularly important during the industry transformation period. At present, the automotive industry is shifting to new products such as electric vehicles, related parts and batteries, and is about to usher in major changes. Making management more professional and workers more involved is one of the key achievements in responding to this change.
What technologies do you think have the greatest impact on parts production? What is the future growth trend of demand for electric vehicles and the market supply situation?
Over the years, the technologies that have the greatest impact on parts production have been concentrated in the field of production processes, especially robotics, automation-related technologies, and information and data management technologies. The development of these fields has been advancing and has accelerated significantly in recent years.
Specifically, the robots first introduced in the 1970s and 1980s have now been fully upgraded and have more complex functions: they can not only collaboratively process complex products but also complete extremely delicate tasks. This is inseparable from the progress of microelectronics and the application of artificial intelligence technology in such systems, and the development of these technologies has been particularly rapid in recent years.
In addition, the application of collaborative robots is also increasing, which can cooperate with humans to complete specific tasks; autonomous systems such as automatic guided vehicles can transport parts to various workstations. These technologies have jointly promoted the production system towards a highly complex direction, which is one of the most significant changes in recent years.
It is worth noting that product electrification has brought a double impact: on the one hand, the manufacturing process of electric vehicles is relatively simplified, because many components or parts can be produced outside the factory and then transported to the factory for assembly; but on the other hand, the overall process of automobile production and assembly has become more complex. In the past, the production of engines and some small parts was quite time-consuming, but electrification has simplified the process in this regard, which has also triggered discussions about the reduction of jobs in electric vehicle production factories - because the work tasks that need to be completed have indeed decreased.
However, the demand for electric vehicles will further grow in the future, not only limited to private cars, but also including public transportation such as small buses. At present, the number of manufacturers in this field is limited. Even in Portugal, although there are large passenger bus manufacturers, their production capacity cannot meet the demand, so a large number of electric buses are imported from China. As mentioned earlier, there are almost no other electric bus manufacturers in Europe (besides Portugal, Turkey and Spain are among the few), and China's electric buses are of quite excellent quality.
In your country, do people prefer to take public transportation rather than own private cars?
Actually, this is not the case. Behind this is more a realistic choice brought about by social inequality: only a few people have sufficient financial resources to buy private cars, especially expensive electric vehicles, so most people have to rely on public transportation. This also confirms the problem mentioned earlier of the lack of low-priced electric vehicle models in the market.
In recent years, the usage of public transportation has indeed increased significantly, and at the same time, the railway system and mass transit network have been continuously improved, and passenger volume has been rising.
This trend has also driven the growth of demand for electric vehicles, but it is mainly concentrated in the field of public transportation, such as buses, small public transport or large urban buses, especially in Lisbon and other larger cities and towns in Portugal. At present, a large part of the local public transportation has been electrified, and the public transportation system widely uses electric transportation methods.
There is a contradictory mentality between China and Europe: dealers and consumers expect Chinese brands to enter the European market - consumers can buy affordable electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, and dealers also hope to make profits by selling such brands; but the problem is that the European governments and industry are worried that this will affect local employment or bring other challenges. What do you think of this phenomenon?
Behind this contradictory mentality actually reflects the structural problems of the European automotive industry: they have not promoted product updates as expected, but instead have overly focused on developing high-profit products for the upper class. This has led to a serious shortage of affordable models for low-budget people, especially in the field of electric vehicles - Europe has almost given up this part of the market.
As a result, this part of consumers have turned to other options, and Chinese brands have just filled the gap. Because China's electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles are not only affordable, but also accurately cover those groups seeking daily practical models. Although they are not the majority, their scale is quite large, so Chinese brand cars are quickly accepted by the European market.
However, Chinese brands also face a practical problem. According to the feedback from some European consumers, the replacement cycle of parts for Chinese vehicles during maintenance and repair is too long. In the event of an accident (which can happen to any model), the required parts often need to be transported from China to Europe, and it can take months to wait. This has to some extent affected consumers' acceptance of long-term use of Chinese cars.
But this is not unsolvable. If Chinese brands build factories locally in Europe in the future, the efficiency of parts supply is expected to be significantly improved.
In the long run, this problem belongs to the adjustable category at the industrial layout and international relations level. What's more, even if there are such small obstacles, the acceptance of Chinese products in Europe is still high. The core reason is that Europe's local market fails to provide similar products. This is undoubtedly an urgent challenge for the European automotive industry to face up to.
We know that China has certain advantages in batteries, smart hardware or some software, so many Chinese vehicle manufacturers or supplier companies want to build factories in Europe. In your opinion, what factors should they consider in different countries such as Germany and France?
Judging from the case of Portugal, CATL is about to build a large battery gigafactory in southern Portugal. An important reason for Chinese enterprises to make such huge investments in Europe is to be close to downstream manufacturers, thereby shortening the time from battery production to vehicle manufacturing and assembly, which is also the necessity of building battery factories.
In addition, the transportation time from local European factories to surrounding countries such as Spain and France is much shorter than that from China, with significant efficiency advantages. At the same time, European countries have many incentive measures for such investments, coupled with the local government's investment support policies, China's investment in battery and electronic product factories in Europe has been increasing in recent years.
It is worth mentioning that building factories locally can also drive employment, thereby enhancing the market's acceptance of Chinese enterprises.
If Chinese vehicle manufacturers choose to build factories in Hungary, Europe, do you think this is a good choice?
Hungary is located in eastern Europe and has traditionally attracted a lot of investment, among which Japanese enterprises have a particularly prominent layout. Japanese automakers such as Suzuki and Mitsubishi are very strong in the local automotive industry. In addition, Mercedes-Benz also has a factory in Hungary.
As for Chinese enterprises, it is not yet certain whether there will be large-scale investment, but there are plans to build battery factories there. This layout is reasonable because China is in a leading position in the battery industry, and various factories in the automotive industry need batteries as core components. Taking Portugal as an example, the batteries used in the local production of electric buses are from China's CATL (but it is not clear where they are specifically produced), which also reflects the application scenarios of Chinese batteries in the European market.
In the European market, which Chinese brand impresses you more?
In the European market, the Chinese brand that impresses me more is BYD. In the investment field, CATL in the battery industry is also prominent - they have quickly entered the market by building factories in multiple countries and have become a very influential participant in this field.
In the automotive field, BYD has always been one of the main brands with high popularity, almost household name. In addition, Volvo in the luxury car field, although originally from Europe, is now controlled by China's Geely Group, and can also be regarded as an important brand with Chinese background. In my opinion, the MG brand is not significantly different from BYD, and their strategies are very similar.
If all Chinese companies invest in building factories or establish other supply chains in Europe, can the panic between China and Europe eventually be eliminated?
From the perspective of actual demand, this is indeed necessary. Just like when American automakers want to export products to Europe, any enterprise needs to be able to quickly supply replacement parts, which is a crucial link in market competition.
Most enterprises choose to produce their own brand parts locally in Europe to improve response speed, and this ability can effectively enhance market trust and acceptance. Nowadays, consumers are quite open to products, whether from China or the United States, but political factors currently have an impact on product acceptance across Europe. Tesla is a typical case: its market share has declined rapidly, which is related to political factors.
Interestingly, this phenomenon also reflects the role of political factors in consumption choices - many consumers who originally considered buying Tesla turned to Chinese products with similar or even lower prices, partly due to political considerations, which has also become one of the reasons for the rise of Chinese products' market share in Europe.
What do you think the market share of Chinese vehicle manufacturers in Europe will be in three or five years? It may be 3% or 5% now.
The current share is about 3% to 4%, but it will grow rapidly in the next few years. I think this share will grow to about 10%, or even 15%. The reason is that the quality of Chinese electric vehicles is quite high, which is very competitive compared with European brands; moreover, Europe has regulations supporting the development of more electric vehicles, and many of the current high-quality electric vehicles come from China, which will inevitably promote the rise of the share.
Then how can Chinese vehicle manufacturers downplay the labels of "outsiders" or "invaders"? What suggestions do you have for Chinese vehicle manufacturers?
This is more a marketing issue. From the perspective of consumers today, there is not much difference between Chinese and European automakers, and many people cannot even tell whether a car brand is from China. For example, people of my age or older, many still think that Volvo is Swedish, but in fact, there are mutual shareholdings and investments between enterprises. Moreover, people's acceptance of Chinese companies is getting higher and higher now, which is no different from their acceptance of companies from other countries.
What people need is a car with good quality, easy to buy and reasonable price, and it doesn't matter whether it is made in China or a product of a Chinese company. Therefore, I don't think there will be a situation of resistance due to the label of "Chinese products"; this phenomenon no longer exists.
What do you think of China's Chery Automobile Company's approach of acquiring a Spanish automobile brand to sell cars?
I think this approach is no longer necessary nowadays. In recent years, the public image of Chinese cars in Europe has changed significantly: a few years ago, Chinese products may have been difficult to accept because they were considered to be of poor quality, but now the quality of Chinese cars is on a par with other products, and they can gain market recognition by selling directly under Chinese brands without encountering resistance.
This is reminiscent of the automotive industry in the 1970s, when Americans strongly boycotted Japanese products. Even though Japanese cars were of good quality and affordable, and with these advantages, they almost impacted traditional American automakers such as General Motors and Ford (because consumers preferred brands such as Honda and Toyota). But now, as I said, Chinese products are quite accepted everywhere. About 20 years ago, Chinese cars may have given people the impression of "cheap but poor quality", and even had safety concerns, but now they not only have guaranteed quality, but also have excellent designs.
Based on this, European consumers have a high acceptance of Chinese cars, and there is no need to promote sales by "packaging them as Spanish cars".
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, although some people think that Chinese products are "invading" Europe, in fact, they have been widely accepted. The basis of this market trust is product quality, but there is still a problem that needs attention: whether Europe has enough Chinese auto parts factories.
Some consumers are worried about the waiting time for parts replacement - for example, someone will say: "I spent $60,000 on a car, but a simple part has to wait two months to arrive. In this case, I would rather choose other brands." This concern may indeed affect consumers' choice preference
Therefore, it is very important for Chinese enterprises to invest in the parts industry in Europe and realize the local production of Chinese auto parts. In this way, the integration of parts will be more convenient, the response speed will be faster, and market trust will be further consolidated.
【Chinese Version】
葡萄牙和欧洲市场对中国车的接受已不成问题，当务之急是零部件的本地化生产
【编者按】
轩辕之学作为在第33届Gerpisa全球汽车产业国际论坛的协办方之一，采访了十多位与会专家，他们都来自目前中国汽车出海比较热门的国家和地区。一方面通过他们的视角了解中国汽车产业在其所在国家和地区的发展状况，另一方面也邀请这些优秀的全球汽车专家对中国汽车在当地如何稳健发展建言献策。
今天采访的专家是新里斯本大学教授安东尼奥·莫尼斯（Antonio MONIZ），他1992年获得里斯本大学社会学博士学位，后在德国卡尔斯鲁厄理工学院（KIT）担任客座研究员，研究技术评估与工作环境的交叉领域。
三十多年来一直在教学和研究社会影响与技术变革的影响。其研究聚焦于汽车产业转型、自动化技术对劳动关系的影响以及葡萄牙工业案例的分析。涉及自动化流程、机器人，最近除了工业数字化的引入，工业 4.0 也是其中一部分。
他的研究范围主要是在欧洲，特别是葡萄牙，在他参与的项目中，很多时候也会与比如德国、西班牙、法国等欧洲其他国家进行比较研究。莫尼斯还是国际汽车产业研究网络 GERPISA 的核心成员，与法国、德国学者合作研究欧洲汽车业转型策略。他参与的欧盟 “Horizon Europe” 项目 “Automation and the Future of Work”，为制定泛欧自动化伦理准则提供依据。
以下是他的访谈实录（有删改）。
一、在不同国家的产业发展中，技术应用的效果往往差异明显，您认为造成这种差异的关键因素是什么？
整体来说，人们可能会觉得国家与国家之间、地区与地区之间存在诸多差异，但实际上它们非常相似，如今的技术水平也相当接近。以中国的机器人和葡萄牙的机器人为例，其运作方式是一样的。差异主要体现在人们使用这类技术的方式上，不过这种差异并非国家层面的，而主要存在于各个公司内部，因为每个公司都有自己独特的管理风格或管理理念。
从影响来看，结果的差异更多取决于组织策略，它比技术本身更为重要，这一点我们在不同时期、不同行业都得到了验证，事实确实如此。
很多时候，并非一项技术会产生某种特定效果，真正起作用的不是技术，而是管理员工的方式、发展组织的模式，这对于结果的好坏而言，比技术本身重要得多。
有不少案例显示，在同一行业中应用相同的技术，却产生了不同的影响，原因就在于人员管理方式的不同。这一点很有意思，尤其是对于工程师来说，他们通常认为引入一项技术后，结果应该是一样的，但事实并非如此。而所谓的 “惊喜”，大多出现在管理过程的方式上。所以，组织工作的方式、与将要使用这项技术的人员沟通的方式，比技术本身更重要。
比如在汽车行业，葡萄牙有一些生产零部件的公司，曾经管理董事会想引进一条机器人生产线，却几乎没有改变原有的工作流程，而且在引进机器人后，没有将这一过程告知工人，只是告诉工人：如果出现问题，就打电话叫工程师来解决，之后继续工作。这种情况发生过好几次，随后出现了一些问题，比如有些东西损坏了，或者有些需要调整的地方没有及时调整。后来我们发现，这并非因为技术存在缺陷，而是由于没有告知工人，公司内部缺乏沟通，导致工人有时会产生抵触情绪和负面反应。因为他们觉得管理层不重视自己，仿佛这项即将引进的新系统与自己无关。公司原本期望通过引进机器人提高生产率，但结果并不像预想的那么好。
不过，在同一行业的其他案例中，比如金属行业，他们引进了同样类型的技术，却向工人进行了充分解释，让工人参与其中，还事先对工人进行了使用该技术的培训。结果工人非常接受这项技术，甚至在过程中提出了一些建议并参与进来，取得的效果非常令人惊喜，是积极正向的。这确实很有意思。
二、葡萄牙的企业尤其是涉及汽车零部件生产的企业的发展现状如何？面临哪些问题？
在葡萄牙，企业中存在一些普遍的问题，核心症结在于管理者层面。多数管理者思想保守，他们认定工人知识水平不足，只有工程师才是最重要的。因此在相关工作过程中，只允许工程师参与，完全忽视了工人的作用。
这种观念在技术发展背景下进一步固化：在许多人看来，随着新技术、更复杂系统及数字化的普及，工人只需学会按按钮即可，无需了解整个流程。但显然，这样做的效果并不好——这已成为葡萄牙及诸多欧洲国家在生产率提升的阻碍。
究其原因，这与管理者的背景密切相关。这些管理者来自不同年代，其平均教育水平甚至低于当前中国工人的平均水平。如今的年轻人在校时间更长、所学知识更多，进入劳动力市场时的教育基础更扎实，这也反衬出部分管理者在认知和能力上的滞后。
同时，葡萄牙企业的管理结构也存在问题。许多企业（尤其是小规模公司）基于家族模式运营，倾向于将公司维持在家族范围内，而非以专业化方式管理。
尽管如此，不少这类小公司却在为汽车行业生产零部件。而汽车行业的特性对企业提出了更高要求：产品质量标准不断提升，这本身就是一大挑战。因此，参与汽车零部件生产及产品开发的企业，亟需实现管理专业化，不仅要让工人更深入地参与决策过程，在技术应用和工作组织上也需更现代化。
这一点在行业转型期尤为重要。当前，汽车行业正转向电动汽车、相关零部件及电池等新型产品，即将迎来重大变革。让管理更专业、工人更参与，正是应对这一变革的关键成果之一。
三、您认为哪些技术对零部件生产影响最大？未来电动汽车需求的增长趋势及市场供给情况如何？
多年来，对零部件生产影响最大的技术集中在生产过程领域，尤其是机器人技术、自动化相关技术，以及信息与数据管理技术。这些领域的发展一直在推进，近年来更是提速明显。
具体来看，上世纪七八十年代首次引入的机器人，如今已全面升级，功能更为复杂：不仅能协同处理复杂产品，还能完成极为精细的任务。这背后离不开微电子学的进步，以及这类系统中人工智能技术的应用，而这些技术的发展在近年尤为迅猛。
此外，协作机器人的应用也在增加，它们能与人类配合完成特定任务；自动导引车等自主系统则可将零部件运送至各个工作站。这些技术共同推动了生产系统朝着高度复杂化的方向发展，这也是近年来最显著的变化之一。
值得注意的是，产品电动化带来了双重影响：一方面，电动汽车的制造过程相对简化，因为许多组件或零件可在工厂外生产，再运至厂区组装；但另一方面，汽车生产与组装的整体流程反而变得更复杂。过去，发动机及部分小零件的生产颇为耗时，而电动化在这方面简化了流程，这也引发了关于电动汽车生产工厂就业岗位减少的讨论——因为所需完成的工作任务确实减少了。
不过，未来对电动汽车的需求会进一步增长，且不仅限于私家车，还包括小型公交车等公共交通领域。目前该领域的生产商数量有限，即便在葡萄牙，尽管有大型客运公交车生产商，但其产能无法满足需求，因此从中国大量进口电动公交车。正如前面提到的，欧洲本土几乎没有其他电动公交车生产商，而中国的电动公交车品质相当出色。
四、在您的国家，人们更喜欢乘坐公共交通而不是拥有私家车吗？
其实并非如此。这背后更多是社会不平等带来的现实选择：只有少数人有足够的财力购买私家车，尤其是价格高昂的电动汽车，因此大多数人不得不依赖公共交通。这也印证了之前提到的 市场上缺乏低价车型的问题。
近年来，公共交通的使用量确实大幅增长，同时铁路系统和大众运输网络也在持续完善，客运量随之不断上升。
这一趋势也带动了对电动汽车需求的增长，但主要集中在公共交通领域，比如公交车、小型公交或城市大型巴士，尤其是在葡萄牙的里斯本及其他较大城镇。目前，当地很大一部分公共交通已实现电动化，公交系统广泛采用电动交通方式。
五、中国与欧洲之间存在一种矛盾心态：经销商和消费者期待中国品牌进入欧洲市场——消费者可借此购买到价格实惠的电动汽车、混合动力汽车，经销商也希望通过销售这类品牌获利；但问题在于，欧洲政府及产业界却担心这会影响本土就业或带来其他挑战。您如何看待这一现象？
这种矛盾心态背后，其实折射出欧洲汽车行业的结构性问题：它们并未如预期般推进产品更新，反而过度专注于为上层社会开发高利润产品。这导致面向低预算人群的平价车型严重短缺，在电动汽车领域尤其明显——欧洲几乎拱手让出了这部分市场。
于是，这部分消费者便转向了其他选择，而中国品牌恰好填补了空白。因为中国的电动汽车和混合动力汽车不仅价格实惠，更精准覆盖了那些寻求日常实用车型的群体，他们虽然并非大多数，但规模很可观，因此中国品牌汽车很快被欧洲市场接受。
不过，中国品牌也面临一个现实问题，根据部分欧洲消费者的反映，中国车辆保养维修时零部件更换周期过长。一旦发生事故（任何车型都可能遇到），所需零部件往往需要从中国运输到欧洲，动辄等待数月。这在一定程度上影响了消费者对中国汽车长期使用的接受度。
但这并非无法解决，如果未来中国品牌在欧洲本地建厂，零部件供应效率有望大幅提升。
从长远看，这一问题属于产业布局和国际关系层面的可调节范畴。更何况，即便存在这样的小障碍，中国产品在欧洲的接受度依然居高不下，核心原因还是欧洲本土未能提供同类产品。这对欧洲汽车行业而言，无疑是一个亟待正视的挑战。
六、我们知道中国在电池、智能硬件或一些软件方面有一定优势，所以很多中国的整车厂或供应商公司想在欧洲建厂。在您看来，他们在不同的国家比如德国、法国，应该考虑哪些因素呢？
从葡萄牙的案例来看，宁德时代即将在葡萄牙南部建成一座大型电池超级工厂。中国企业在欧洲进行这类巨额投资，一个重要原因是为了贴近下游制造商，从而缩短从电池生产到整车制造及组装的流程时间， 这也是建设电池工厂的必要性所在。
此外，从欧洲本地工厂出口到西班牙、法国等周边国家，运输时间远远小于从中国运输，效率优势显著。同时，欧洲各国对这类投资有不少激励措施，加上当地政府的投资支持政策，近年来中国在欧洲的电池、电子产品工厂投资不断增加。
值得一提的是，在当地建厂还能带动就业，进而提升市场对中国企业的接受度。
七、如果中国的整车厂选择在欧洲的匈牙利建厂，您认为这是个好的选择吗？
匈牙利位于欧洲东部，传统上吸引了不少投资，其中日本企业的布局尤为突出，铃木、三菱等日本车企在当地的汽车工业中实力很强，此外奔驰也在匈牙利也设有工厂。
至于中国企业，目前尚不确定是否有大规模投资，但已有关于在当地建设电池工厂的计划。这一布局具有合理性，因为中国在电池行业处于领先地位，而汽车产业的各类工厂都需要电池作为核心零部件。以葡萄牙为例，当地生产的电动公交车所使用的电池便来自中国的宁德时代（但暂不明确具体在哪里生产的），这也体现了中国电池在欧洲市场的应用场景。
八、在欧洲市场上，哪个中国品牌给你的印象更深？
在欧洲市场，给我印象较深的中国品牌是比亚迪。而在投资领域，电池行业的宁德时代同样突出——他们通过在多个国家建厂快速切入市场，已成为该领域极具影响力的参与者。
在汽车领域，比亚迪一直是主要品牌之一，知名度很高，几乎家喻户晓。此外，豪华车领域的沃尔沃虽源自欧洲，但如今由中国吉利集团控股，也算是有中国背景的重要品牌。而名爵品牌，在我看来，与比亚迪并无明显差异，策略上非常相似。
九、如果所有中国公司都在欧洲投资建厂或建立其他供应链，中国和欧洲之间的恐慌最终能消除吗？
从现实需求来看，这确实是必要的，就像美国汽车制造商要向欧洲出口产品时一样，任何企业都需要能快速供应替换零件，这是市场竞争中极为关键的一环。
多数企业选择在欧洲本地生产自有品牌的零部件，正是为了提升响应速度，而这种能力能有效增强市场信任与接受度。如今，消费者对产品的开放度本就较高，无论来自中国还是美国，不过政治因素目前在全欧洲范围内都对产品接受度存在影响。特斯拉就是一个典型案例：其市场份额下滑较快，便与政治因素有关。
有趣的是，这一现象也反映出政治因素对消费选择的作用 —— 不少原本考虑购买特斯拉的消费者，转而选择了价格相当甚至更低的中国产品，部分正是出于政治考量，这也成为中国产品在欧洲市场份额上升的原因之一。
十、您认为三年或五年后，中国整车厂在欧洲的市场份额能达到多少？现在可能是 3% 或 5%。
目前份额大概在 3% 到 4%，但未来几年会快速增长。我认为这一份额会增长到 10% 左右，甚至可能达到 15%。原因在于中国电动汽车质量相当高，与欧洲品牌相比极具竞争力；而且欧洲有支持更多电动汽车发展的法规，而当前质量较好的电动汽车不少来自中国，这必然会推动份额上升。
十一、那么中国的整车厂如何淡化 “外来者” 或 “入侵者” 这样的标签呢？你对中国的整车厂有什么建议？
这更多是营销层面的问题。如今从消费者角度看，中国与欧洲的汽车制造商并无太大区别，很多人甚至分不清某个汽车品牌是否来自中国。比如像我这个年纪或更年长的人，不少仍以为沃尔沃是瑞典的，但实际上企业间存在相互持股和投资的情况。而且现在人们对中国公司的接受度越来越高，与对其他国家公司的接受度没什么不同。
人们需要的是质量好、易购买且价格合理的汽车，至于是否是中国制造或中国公司的产品，并不重要。所以我认为，不会出现因 “中国产品” 这一标签而遭到抵制的情况，这种现象已经不存在了。
十二、您如何看待中国奇瑞汽车公司收购西班牙的汽车品牌来销售汽车的做法？
我认为这种做法如今已没有太大必要。近年来，中国汽车在欧洲的公众形象已发生显著变化：几年前，中国产品可能因被认为质量较差而难以被接受，但现在中国汽车的质量已与其他产品不相上下，以中国品牌直接销售也能获得市场认可，不会遭遇抵触情绪。
这让人联想到上世纪七十年代的汽车行业吗，当时美国人曾强烈抵制日本产品，即便日本车质量优良、价格实惠，且凭借这些优势几乎冲击了通用、福特等美国传统车企（因为消费者更青睐本田、丰田等品牌）。而如今，正如我所说，中国产品在各地的接受度都相当高。大约二十年前，中国汽车可能给人 “价格便宜但质量不佳” 的印象，甚至涉及安全方面的顾虑，但现在不仅质量有保障，设计也十分出色。
基于此，欧洲消费者对中国汽车的接受度已很高，无需通过 “包装成西班牙汽车” 来促进销售。
最后，正如我之前提到的，尽管有人认为中国产品是在 “入侵” 欧洲，但实际上它们已被广泛接受。这种市场信任的基础是产品质量，但仍有一个问题需要关注：欧洲是否有足够的中国汽车零部件工厂。
部分消费者的顾虑在于零部件替换的等待时间 —— 比如有人会说：“我花六万美元买了辆车，一个简单的零部件却要等两个月才能到货。这种情况下，我宁愿选择其他品牌。” 这种担忧确实可能影响消费者的选择偏好。
因此，有一点很重要：中国企业应当在欧洲投资布局零部件产业，实现中国汽车零部件的本地化生产。这样一来，零部件的整合会更便捷、响应速度会更快，从而进一步巩固市场信任。
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pD6tml3vBVbOGdRaQw99YA
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/siZ9C_IOe6o0bt9abUAhZQ
Entrevistas/Interviews
- Intervention at the Berlin TA Conference, 2015
- Semanário Expresso (11.03.2017, 15h30)
- RTP3 (15.03.2017, 22h00)
- Notícias Magazine (04/04/2017)
- Público (Suplemento "Executivos") (22/05/2018)
- Jornal de Negócios (10/10/2018)
- Entrevista "Perguntar não ofende", Daniel Oliveira (14/3/2019)
- Público (01.05.2020)
- Documentário "Estado Social - Todos por Todos", RTP3, 2021
- Semanário Expresso (4.11.2022)
- podcast Work Around da Gi Group Holding, ep. 2, (29/3/2023)
- Semanário Expresso (10.01.2025)
- Interview with Auto Business Review - China (18 e 19/8/2025)
- Interview with KNA (23.10.2025)
Interview with KNA (23.10.2025)
Do, 23.10.2025, 16:04
lkn535 4 ku 472 vvvvt KNA 251023-89-00016#15
Literatur Geschichte Portugal #erklärsmir
Lissabonner Soziologe Moniz zum neuen "Asterix in Lusitanien" - "Melancholischer Humor und zurückhaltender Widerstand"
Von Volker Hasenauer (KNA)
Asterix reist nach Portugal. Und ein Soziologe aus Lissabon hat das genau analysiert.
Freiburg (KNA) Der Soziologe António Moniz ist Asterix-Fan. Beim neuen Band "Asterix in Lusitanien" schwankt er zwischen Begeisterung und Klischee-Kritik. Endlich aber, freut sich Moniz im Interview der Katholischen Nachrichten-Agentur (KNA), hat es Portugal in das "kosmopolitische Netzwerk der gallischen Helden" geschafft.
Frage: Herr Moniz, erstmals kommen Asterix und Obelix nach Lusitanien, das heutige Portugal. Wie zeigen Autor Fabcaro und Zeichner Didier Conrad Landschaften, Menschen und Kultur?
Antwort: Mit einer Mischung aus Zuneigung, Stereotypen und kulturellen Archetypen. Typische Merkmale sind die Geselligkeit beim Essen, der melancholische Humor und der zurückhaltende Widerstand eines kleinen Volkes gegen große Mächte. Der Comic verwendet auch visuelle und sprachliche Kurzformen – Fado-Musik, Kabeljau/Bacalhau, Kork, maritime Symbole, die Blätterteigtörtchen "Pastel de Nata". Das ist hübsch und wiedererkennbar, aber es birgt auch die Gefahr, die portugiesische Identität auf folkloristische Symbole zu reduzieren.
Frage: Was gefällt Ihnen am neuen Asterix besonders gut?
Antwort: Die Stärke des Bandes liegt in seiner visuellen Erzählweise und seinem interkulturellen Witz. Die Darstellung von Lissabon und der portugiesischen Küstenlandschaften ist visuell reichhaltig und historisch fundiert. Der Dialog zwischen den gallischen und lusitanischen Figuren bietet sowohl sprachlichen Humor als auch kulturelles Einfühlungsvermögen. Besonders gelungen ist die spielerische Integration portugiesischer Redewendungen und Architektur - die typischen Kacheln "Azulejos", die Straßenbahn von Lissabon und die Pflasterdekorationen "Calçada" - in die Ästhetik von Asterix.
Frage: Was ist weniger gelungen?
Antwort: Bestimmte Szenen stützen sich zu sehr auf oberflächliche nationale Symbole und lassen die erzählerische Tiefe älterer Asterix-Alben vermissen. Der Humor gleitet gelegentlich in vorhersehbare Gefilde ab - anstelle von kritischer Satire. Die kulturelle Hommage grenzt dann eher an eine touristische Postkarte als an ein sozial fundiertes Porträt. Aus literarischer Sicht hätte das Album von einer differenzierteren Darstellung der portugiesischen Moderne – Technologie, städtisches Leben oder wissenschaftliches Erbe – profitieren können, um ein Gegengewicht zur idyllischen Vergangenheit zu schaffen.
Frage: Was also fehlt für ein echtes Porträt der Portugiesen?
Antwort: Bereichernd wäre gewesen, den portugiesischen Humor anzusprechen: geprägt von Ironie, Understatement und Sprachspielen – das sind Merkmale, die perfekt zum Ton von Asterix gepasst hätten. Klar spielt Asterix in der Antike, aber beispielsweise wäre ein Ausblick auf das portugiesische Zeitalter der Entdeckungen spannend gewesen. Nicht durch imperiale Verherrlichung, sondern als Beispiel für Neugier, Wissenschaft und Seefahrt.
Frage: Ist der neue Asterix trotzdem eine gute Werbung für Portugal?
Antwort: Aus Marketing-Sicht ja. Das Album verstärkt positive Assoziationen – Gastfreundschaft, Küche, Musik und malerische Landschaften – und spricht ein internationales Publikum an. Aus kritisch-kultureller Sicht wiederholt es jedoch ausgewählte Bilder, die die nationale Identität für den Export vereinfachen. Dennoch überwiegt für mich das Positive: Denn das Album präsentiert Portugal - oder Lusitania - zum ersten Mal innerhalb des kosmopolitischen Netzwerks von Asterix und macht damit ein Land sichtbar, das in der europäischen Populärkultur zu oft nur eine Randrolle spielt.
Hinweis: Fotos finden Sie in der KNA-Bilddatenbank auf www.kna-bild.de (http://www.kna-bild.de) oder direkt hier http://kna-bild.de/paket/251023-89-00253 (http://kna-bild.de/paket/251023-89-00253)
Notizblock
Redaktionelle Hinweise
Fotos sind über den Ehapa-Verlag abrufbar: egmont-presseportal.de
Die folgenden Informationen sind nicht zur Veröffentlichung bestimmt
Kontakte
Autor: Volker Hasenauer, +49 (228) 26 00 02 66, <freiburg@kna.de (mailto:freiburg@kna.de) >
KNA/has/joh
Interview for Auto Business Reviews (China)
The acceptance of Chinese cars in the Portuguese and European markets is no longer an issue; the top priority now is the local production of auto parts.
[Editor's Note]
As one of the co-organizers of the 33rd Gerpisa International Forum on the Global Automotive Industry, Xuanyuan Academy interviewed more than a dozen participating experts, all from countries and regions where Chinese automobile exports are currently popular. On the one hand, through their perspectives, we can understand the development status of China's automobile industry in their respective countries and regions; on the other hand, we also invite these outstanding global automotive experts to offer suggestions on how Chinese automobiles can develop steadily in the local market.
The expert interviewed today is Professor António MONIZ from the Nova University of Lisbon (Portugal). He obtained his PhD (1992) and Habilitation (2001) in Sociology from the same university and later served as a visiting researcher at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany, McMaster University in Canada and Lorraine University in France, researching the intersection of technology assessment and the working environment.
For more than 40 years, he has been teaching and researching social impacts and the effects of technological change. His research focuses on the transformation of the automotive industry, the impact of automation technology on labor relations, and the analysis of Portuguese industrial cases. It involves automated processes, robots, and recently, in addition to the introduction of industrial digitalization, Industry 4.0 is also part of it.
His research scope is mainly in Europe, especially Portugal. In the projects he participates in, he often conducts comparative studies with other European countries such as Germany, Spain, and France. MONIZ is also a core member of the International Automotive Industry Research Network GERPISA, collaborating with scholars from France and Germany to study the transformation strategies of the European automotive industry. He participated in the EU "Horizon Europe" project "Automation and the Future of Work", providing a basis for formulating pan-European ethical guidelines for automation.
The following is a transcript of the interview (with some deletions):
In the industrial development of different countries, the effects of technology application are often significantly different. What do you think are the key factors causing these differences?
Overall, people may feel that there are many differences between countries and regions, but in fact, they are very similar, and the current technical level is also quite close. For example, robots in China and robots in Portugal operate in the same way. The differences mainly lie in the way people use such technologies, but these differences are not at the national level, but mainly exist within individual companies, because each company has its own unique management style or philosophy.
In terms of impact, the differences in results depend more on organizational strategies, which are more important than the technology itself. This has been verified in different periods and industries, and the facts are indeed so.
In many cases, it is not that a technology will produce a specific effect. What really works is not the technology, but the way of managing employees and the mode of developing the organization, which are much more important than the technology itself for the quality of results.
There are many cases showing that the application of the same technology in the same industry has different impacts, which is due to the different ways of managing personnel. This is very interesting, especially for engineers, who usually think that after introducing a technology, the results should be the same, but this is not the case. The so-called "surprises" mostly appear in the process of management. Therefore, the way of organizing work and communicating with the personnel who will use the technology is more important than the technology itself.
For example, in the automotive industry, at some companies producing parts in Portugal the management board wanted to introduce a robot production line without changing the original workflow. After introducing the robot, they did not inform the workers about this process, but only told them: if there is a problem, call the engineer to solve it, and then continue to work. This happened several times, and then some problems arose, such as some things being damaged, or some workstations needing adjustment not being adjusted in time. Later, we found that this was not because of defects in the technology, but because the workers were not informed, and there was a lack of communication within the company, leading to workers sometimes having resistance and negative reactions. Because they felt that the management did not value them, as if this new system to be introduced had nothing to do with them. The company originally expected to improve productivity by introducing robots, but the result was not as good as expected.
However, in other cases in the same industry, such as the metal industry, they introduced the same type of technology, but fully explained it to the workers, involved the workers, and trained the workers in the use of the technology in advance. As a result, the workers accepted the technology very much and even put forward some suggestions and participated in the process, achieving very surprising and positive results. This is indeed very interesting.
What is the current development status of Portuguese enterprises, especially those involved in the production of auto parts? What problems are they facing?
In Portugal, there are some common problems in enterprises, and the core crux lies in the management level. Most managers are conservative in thinking, and they believe that workers have insufficient knowledge, and only engineers are the most important. Therefore, in the relevant work process, only engineers are allowed to participate, and the role of workers is completely ignored.
This concept is further solidified in the context of technological development: in the eyes of many people, with the popularization of new technologies, more complex systems and digitalization, workers only need to learn to press buttons and do not need to understand the entire process. But obviously, this approach is not effective - it has become an obstacle to productivity improvement in Portugal and many European countries.
The reason is closely related to the background of managers. These managers are from different eras, and their average educational level is even lower than that of current labor population average training. Today's young people spend more time in school, learn more, have more technical knowledge, and have a more solid educational foundation when entering the labor market, which also reflects the lag in the cognition and ability of some managers.
At the same time, the management structure of Portuguese enterprises also has problems. Many enterprises (especially small-scale companies) operate based on family models and tend to keep the company within the family rather than manage it in a professional way.
Nevertheless, many such small companies are producing parts for the automotive industry. The characteristics of the automotive industry put forward higher requirements for enterprises: product quality standards are constantly improving, which is a major challenge in itself. Therefore, enterprises involved in auto parts production and product development urgently need to achieve professional management, not only to let workers participate more deeply in the decision-making process, but also to be more modern in technology application and work organization.
This is particularly important during the industry transformation period. At present, the automotive industry is shifting to new products such as electric vehicles, related parts and batteries, and is about to usher in major changes. Making management more professional and workers more involved is one of the key achievements in responding to this change.
What technologies do you think have the greatest impact on parts production? What is the future growth trend of demand for electric vehicles and the market supply situation?
Over the years, the technologies that have the greatest impact on parts production have been concentrated in the field of production processes, especially robotics, automation-related technologies, and information and data management technologies. The development of these fields has been advancing and has accelerated significantly in recent years.
Specifically, the robots first introduced in the 1970s and 1980s have now been fully upgraded and have more complex functions: they can not only collaboratively process complex products but also complete extremely delicate tasks. This is inseparable from the progress of microelectronics and the application of artificial intelligence technology in such systems, and the development of these technologies has been particularly rapid in recent years.
In addition, the application of collaborative robots is also increasing, which can cooperate with humans to complete specific tasks; autonomous systems such as automatic guided vehicles can transport parts to various workstations. These technologies have jointly promoted the production system towards a highly complex direction, which is one of the most significant changes in recent years.
It is worth noting that product electrification has brought a double impact: on the one hand, the manufacturing process of electric vehicles is relatively simplified, because many components or parts can be produced outside the factory and then transported to the factory for assembly; but on the other hand, the overall process of automobile production and assembly has become more complex. In the past, the production of engines and some small parts was quite time-consuming, but electrification has simplified the process in this regard, which has also triggered discussions about the reduction of jobs in electric vehicle production factories - because the work tasks that need to be completed have indeed decreased.
However, the demand for electric vehicles will further grow in the future, not only limited to private cars, but also including public transportation such as small buses. At present, the number of manufacturers in this field is limited. Even in Portugal, although there are large passenger bus manufacturers, their production capacity cannot meet the demand, so a large number of electric buses are imported from China. As mentioned earlier, there are almost no other electric bus manufacturers in Europe (besides Portugal, Turkey and Spain are among the few), and China's electric buses are of quite excellent quality.
In your country, do people prefer to take public transportation rather than own private cars?
Actually, this is not the case. Behind this is more a realistic choice brought about by social inequality: only a few people have sufficient financial resources to buy private cars, especially expensive electric vehicles, so most people have to rely on public transportation. This also confirms the problem mentioned earlier of the lack of low-priced electric vehicle models in the market.
In recent years, the usage of public transportation has indeed increased significantly, and at the same time, the railway system and mass transit network have been continuously improved, and passenger volume has been rising.
This trend has also driven the growth of demand for electric vehicles, but it is mainly concentrated in the field of public transportation, such as buses, small public transport or large urban buses, especially in Lisbon and other larger cities and towns in Portugal. At present, a large part of the local public transportation has been electrified, and the public transportation system widely uses electric transportation methods.
There is a contradictory mentality between China and Europe: dealers and consumers expect Chinese brands to enter the European market - consumers can buy affordable electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, and dealers also hope to make profits by selling such brands; but the problem is that the European governments and industry are worried that this will affect local employment or bring other challenges. What do you think of this phenomenon?
Behind this contradictory mentality actually reflects the structural problems of the European automotive industry: they have not promoted product updates as expected, but instead have overly focused on developing high-profit products for the upper class. This has led to a serious shortage of affordable models for low-budget people, especially in the field of electric vehicles - Europe has almost given up this part of the market.
As a result, this part of consumers have turned to other options, and Chinese brands have just filled the gap. Because China's electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles are not only affordable, but also accurately cover those groups seeking daily practical models. Although they are not the majority, their scale is quite large, so Chinese brand cars are quickly accepted by the European market.
However, Chinese brands also face a practical problem. According to the feedback from some European consumers, the replacement cycle of parts for Chinese vehicles during maintenance and repair is too long. In the event of an accident (which can happen to any model), the required parts often need to be transported from China to Europe, and it can take months to wait. This has to some extent affected consumers' acceptance of long-term use of Chinese cars.
But this is not unsolvable. If Chinese brands build factories locally in Europe in the future, the efficiency of parts supply is expected to be significantly improved.
In the long run, this problem belongs to the adjustable category at the industrial layout and international relations level. What's more, even if there are such small obstacles, the acceptance of Chinese products in Europe is still high. The core reason is that Europe's local market fails to provide similar products. This is undoubtedly an urgent challenge for the European automotive industry to face up to.
We know that China has certain advantages in batteries, smart hardware or some software, so many Chinese vehicle manufacturers or supplier companies want to build factories in Europe. In your opinion, what factors should they consider in different countries such as Germany and France?
Judging from the case of Portugal, CATL is about to build a large battery gigafactory in southern Portugal. An important reason for Chinese enterprises to make such huge investments in Europe is to be close to downstream manufacturers, thereby shortening the time from battery production to vehicle manufacturing and assembly, which is also the necessity of building battery factories.
In addition, the transportation time from local European factories to surrounding countries such as Spain and France is much shorter than that from China, with significant efficiency advantages. At the same time, European countries have many incentive measures for such investments, coupled with the local government's investment support policies, China's investment in battery and electronic product factories in Europe has been increasing in recent years.
It is worth mentioning that building factories locally can also drive employment, thereby enhancing the market's acceptance of Chinese enterprises.
If Chinese vehicle manufacturers choose to build factories in Hungary, Europe, do you think this is a good choice?
Hungary is located in eastern Europe and has traditionally attracted a lot of investment, among which Japanese enterprises have a particularly prominent layout. Japanese automakers such as Suzuki and Mitsubishi are very strong in the local automotive industry. In addition, Mercedes-Benz also has a factory in Hungary.
As for Chinese enterprises, it is not yet certain whether there will be large-scale investment, but there are plans to build battery factories there. This layout is reasonable because China is in a leading position in the battery industry, and various factories in the automotive industry need batteries as core components. Taking Portugal as an example, the batteries used in the local production of electric buses are from China's CATL (but it is not clear where they are specifically produced), which also reflects the application scenarios of Chinese batteries in the European market.
In the European market, which Chinese brand impresses you more?
In the European market, the Chinese brand that impresses me more is BYD. In the investment field, CATL in the battery industry is also prominent - they have quickly entered the market by building factories in multiple countries and have become a very influential participant in this field.
In the automotive field, BYD has always been one of the main brands with high popularity, almost household name. In addition, Volvo in the luxury car field, although originally from Europe, is now controlled by China's Geely Group, and can also be regarded as an important brand with Chinese background. In my opinion, the MG brand is not significantly different from BYD, and their strategies are very similar.
If all Chinese companies invest in building factories or establish other supply chains in Europe, can the panic between China and Europe eventually be eliminated?
From the perspective of actual demand, this is indeed necessary. Just like when American automakers want to export products to Europe, any enterprise needs to be able to quickly supply replacement parts, which is a crucial link in market competition.
Most enterprises choose to produce their own brand parts locally in Europe to improve response speed, and this ability can effectively enhance market trust and acceptance. Nowadays, consumers are quite open to products, whether from China or the United States, but political factors currently have an impact on product acceptance across Europe. Tesla is a typical case: its market share has declined rapidly, which is related to political factors.
Interestingly, this phenomenon also reflects the role of political factors in consumption choices - many consumers who originally considered buying Tesla turned to Chinese products with similar or even lower prices, partly due to political considerations, which has also become one of the reasons for the rise of Chinese products' market share in Europe.
What do you think the market share of Chinese vehicle manufacturers in Europe will be in three or five years? It may be 3% or 5% now.
The current share is about 3% to 4%, but it will grow rapidly in the next few years. I think this share will grow to about 10%, or even 15%. The reason is that the quality of Chinese electric vehicles is quite high, which is very competitive compared with European brands; moreover, Europe has regulations supporting the development of more electric vehicles, and many of the current high-quality electric vehicles come from China, which will inevitably promote the rise of the share.
Then how can Chinese vehicle manufacturers downplay the labels of "outsiders" or "invaders"? What suggestions do you have for Chinese vehicle manufacturers?
This is more a marketing issue. From the perspective of consumers today, there is not much difference between Chinese and European automakers, and many people cannot even tell whether a car brand is from China. For example, people of my age or older, many still think that Volvo is Swedish, but in fact, there are mutual shareholdings and investments between enterprises. Moreover, people's acceptance of Chinese companies is getting higher and higher now, which is no different from their acceptance of companies from other countries.
What people need is a car with good quality, easy to buy and reasonable price, and it doesn't matter whether it is made in China or a product of a Chinese company. Therefore, I don't think there will be a situation of resistance due to the label of "Chinese products"; this phenomenon no longer exists.
What do you think of China's Chery Automobile Company's approach of acquiring a Spanish automobile brand to sell cars?
I think this approach is no longer necessary nowadays. In recent years, the public image of Chinese cars in Europe has changed significantly: a few years ago, Chinese products may have been difficult to accept because they were considered to be of poor quality, but now the quality of Chinese cars is on a par with other products, and they can gain market recognition by selling directly under Chinese brands without encountering resistance.
This is reminiscent of the automotive industry in the 1970s, when Americans strongly boycotted Japanese products. Even though Japanese cars were of good quality and affordable, and with these advantages, they almost impacted traditional American automakers such as General Motors and Ford (because consumers preferred brands such as Honda and Toyota). But now, as I said, Chinese products are quite accepted everywhere. About 20 years ago, Chinese cars may have given people the impression of "cheap but poor quality", and even had safety concerns, but now they not only have guaranteed quality, but also have excellent designs.
Based on this, European consumers have a high acceptance of Chinese cars, and there is no need to promote sales by "packaging them as Spanish cars".
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, although some people think that Chinese products are "invading" Europe, in fact, they have been widely accepted. The basis of this market trust is product quality, but there is still a problem that needs attention: whether Europe has enough Chinese auto parts factories.
Some consumers are worried about the waiting time for parts replacement - for example, someone will say: "I spent $60,000 on a car, but a simple part has to wait two months to arrive. In this case, I would rather choose other brands." This concern may indeed affect consumers' choice preference
Therefore, it is very important for Chinese enterprises to invest in the parts industry in Europe and realize the local production of Chinese auto parts. In this way, the integration of parts will be more convenient, the response speed will be faster, and market trust will be further consolidated.
【Chinese Version】
葡萄牙和欧洲市场对中国车的接受已不成问题，当务之急是零部件的本地化生产
【编者按】
轩辕之学作为在第33届Gerpisa全球汽车产业国际论坛的协办方之一，采访了十多位与会专家，他们都来自目前中国汽车出海比较热门的国家和地区。一方面通过他们的视角了解中国汽车产业在其所在国家和地区的发展状况，另一方面也邀请这些优秀的全球汽车专家对中国汽车在当地如何稳健发展建言献策。
今天采访的专家是新里斯本大学教授安东尼奥·莫尼斯（Antonio MONIZ），他1992年获得里斯本大学社会学博士学位，后在德国卡尔斯鲁厄理工学院（KIT）担任客座研究员，研究技术评估与工作环境的交叉领域。
三十多年来一直在教学和研究社会影响与技术变革的影响。其研究聚焦于汽车产业转型、自动化技术对劳动关系的影响以及葡萄牙工业案例的分析。涉及自动化流程、机器人，最近除了工业数字化的引入，工业 4.0 也是其中一部分。
他的研究范围主要是在欧洲，特别是葡萄牙，在他参与的项目中，很多时候也会与比如德国、西班牙、法国等欧洲其他国家进行比较研究。莫尼斯还是国际汽车产业研究网络 GERPISA 的核心成员，与法国、德国学者合作研究欧洲汽车业转型策略。他参与的欧盟 “Horizon Europe” 项目 “Automation and the Future of Work”，为制定泛欧自动化伦理准则提供依据。
以下是他的访谈实录（有删改）。
一、在不同国家的产业发展中，技术应用的效果往往差异明显，您认为造成这种差异的关键因素是什么？
整体来说，人们可能会觉得国家与国家之间、地区与地区之间存在诸多差异，但实际上它们非常相似，如今的技术水平也相当接近。以中国的机器人和葡萄牙的机器人为例，其运作方式是一样的。差异主要体现在人们使用这类技术的方式上，不过这种差异并非国家层面的，而主要存在于各个公司内部，因为每个公司都有自己独特的管理风格或管理理念。
从影响来看，结果的差异更多取决于组织策略，它比技术本身更为重要，这一点我们在不同时期、不同行业都得到了验证，事实确实如此。
很多时候，并非一项技术会产生某种特定效果，真正起作用的不是技术，而是管理员工的方式、发展组织的模式，这对于结果的好坏而言，比技术本身重要得多。
有不少案例显示，在同一行业中应用相同的技术，却产生了不同的影响，原因就在于人员管理方式的不同。这一点很有意思，尤其是对于工程师来说，他们通常认为引入一项技术后，结果应该是一样的，但事实并非如此。而所谓的 “惊喜”，大多出现在管理过程的方式上。所以，组织工作的方式、与将要使用这项技术的人员沟通的方式，比技术本身更重要。
比如在汽车行业，葡萄牙有一些生产零部件的公司，曾经管理董事会想引进一条机器人生产线，却几乎没有改变原有的工作流程，而且在引进机器人后，没有将这一过程告知工人，只是告诉工人：如果出现问题，就打电话叫工程师来解决，之后继续工作。这种情况发生过好几次，随后出现了一些问题，比如有些东西损坏了，或者有些需要调整的地方没有及时调整。后来我们发现，这并非因为技术存在缺陷，而是由于没有告知工人，公司内部缺乏沟通，导致工人有时会产生抵触情绪和负面反应。因为他们觉得管理层不重视自己，仿佛这项即将引进的新系统与自己无关。公司原本期望通过引进机器人提高生产率，但结果并不像预想的那么好。
不过，在同一行业的其他案例中，比如金属行业，他们引进了同样类型的技术，却向工人进行了充分解释，让工人参与其中，还事先对工人进行了使用该技术的培训。结果工人非常接受这项技术，甚至在过程中提出了一些建议并参与进来，取得的效果非常令人惊喜，是积极正向的。这确实很有意思。
二、葡萄牙的企业尤其是涉及汽车零部件生产的企业的发展现状如何？面临哪些问题？
在葡萄牙，企业中存在一些普遍的问题，核心症结在于管理者层面。多数管理者思想保守，他们认定工人知识水平不足，只有工程师才是最重要的。因此在相关工作过程中，只允许工程师参与，完全忽视了工人的作用。
这种观念在技术发展背景下进一步固化：在许多人看来，随着新技术、更复杂系统及数字化的普及，工人只需学会按按钮即可，无需了解整个流程。但显然，这样做的效果并不好——这已成为葡萄牙及诸多欧洲国家在生产率提升的阻碍。
究其原因，这与管理者的背景密切相关。这些管理者来自不同年代，其平均教育水平甚至低于当前中国工人的平均水平。如今的年轻人在校时间更长、所学知识更多，进入劳动力市场时的教育基础更扎实，这也反衬出部分管理者在认知和能力上的滞后。
同时，葡萄牙企业的管理结构也存在问题。许多企业（尤其是小规模公司）基于家族模式运营，倾向于将公司维持在家族范围内，而非以专业化方式管理。
尽管如此，不少这类小公司却在为汽车行业生产零部件。而汽车行业的特性对企业提出了更高要求：产品质量标准不断提升，这本身就是一大挑战。因此，参与汽车零部件生产及产品开发的企业，亟需实现管理专业化，不仅要让工人更深入地参与决策过程，在技术应用和工作组织上也需更现代化。
这一点在行业转型期尤为重要。当前，汽车行业正转向电动汽车、相关零部件及电池等新型产品，即将迎来重大变革。让管理更专业、工人更参与，正是应对这一变革的关键成果之一。
三、您认为哪些技术对零部件生产影响最大？未来电动汽车需求的增长趋势及市场供给情况如何？
多年来，对零部件生产影响最大的技术集中在生产过程领域，尤其是机器人技术、自动化相关技术，以及信息与数据管理技术。这些领域的发展一直在推进，近年来更是提速明显。
具体来看，上世纪七八十年代首次引入的机器人，如今已全面升级，功能更为复杂：不仅能协同处理复杂产品，还能完成极为精细的任务。这背后离不开微电子学的进步，以及这类系统中人工智能技术的应用，而这些技术的发展在近年尤为迅猛。
此外，协作机器人的应用也在增加，它们能与人类配合完成特定任务；自动导引车等自主系统则可将零部件运送至各个工作站。这些技术共同推动了生产系统朝着高度复杂化的方向发展，这也是近年来最显著的变化之一。
值得注意的是，产品电动化带来了双重影响：一方面，电动汽车的制造过程相对简化，因为许多组件或零件可在工厂外生产，再运至厂区组装；但另一方面，汽车生产与组装的整体流程反而变得更复杂。过去，发动机及部分小零件的生产颇为耗时，而电动化在这方面简化了流程，这也引发了关于电动汽车生产工厂就业岗位减少的讨论——因为所需完成的工作任务确实减少了。
不过，未来对电动汽车的需求会进一步增长，且不仅限于私家车，还包括小型公交车等公共交通领域。目前该领域的生产商数量有限，即便在葡萄牙，尽管有大型客运公交车生产商，但其产能无法满足需求，因此从中国大量进口电动公交车。正如前面提到的，欧洲本土几乎没有其他电动公交车生产商，而中国的电动公交车品质相当出色。
四、在您的国家，人们更喜欢乘坐公共交通而不是拥有私家车吗？
其实并非如此。这背后更多是社会不平等带来的现实选择：只有少数人有足够的财力购买私家车，尤其是价格高昂的电动汽车，因此大多数人不得不依赖公共交通。这也印证了之前提到的 市场上缺乏低价车型的问题。
近年来，公共交通的使用量确实大幅增长，同时铁路系统和大众运输网络也在持续完善，客运量随之不断上升。
这一趋势也带动了对电动汽车需求的增长，但主要集中在公共交通领域，比如公交车、小型公交或城市大型巴士，尤其是在葡萄牙的里斯本及其他较大城镇。目前，当地很大一部分公共交通已实现电动化，公交系统广泛采用电动交通方式。
五、中国与欧洲之间存在一种矛盾心态：经销商和消费者期待中国品牌进入欧洲市场——消费者可借此购买到价格实惠的电动汽车、混合动力汽车，经销商也希望通过销售这类品牌获利；但问题在于，欧洲政府及产业界却担心这会影响本土就业或带来其他挑战。您如何看待这一现象？
这种矛盾心态背后，其实折射出欧洲汽车行业的结构性问题：它们并未如预期般推进产品更新，反而过度专注于为上层社会开发高利润产品。这导致面向低预算人群的平价车型严重短缺，在电动汽车领域尤其明显——欧洲几乎拱手让出了这部分市场。
于是，这部分消费者便转向了其他选择，而中国品牌恰好填补了空白。因为中国的电动汽车和混合动力汽车不仅价格实惠，更精准覆盖了那些寻求日常实用车型的群体，他们虽然并非大多数，但规模很可观，因此中国品牌汽车很快被欧洲市场接受。
不过，中国品牌也面临一个现实问题，根据部分欧洲消费者的反映，中国车辆保养维修时零部件更换周期过长。一旦发生事故（任何车型都可能遇到），所需零部件往往需要从中国运输到欧洲，动辄等待数月。这在一定程度上影响了消费者对中国汽车长期使用的接受度。
但这并非无法解决，如果未来中国品牌在欧洲本地建厂，零部件供应效率有望大幅提升。
从长远看，这一问题属于产业布局和国际关系层面的可调节范畴。更何况，即便存在这样的小障碍，中国产品在欧洲的接受度依然居高不下，核心原因还是欧洲本土未能提供同类产品。这对欧洲汽车行业而言，无疑是一个亟待正视的挑战。
六、我们知道中国在电池、智能硬件或一些软件方面有一定优势，所以很多中国的整车厂或供应商公司想在欧洲建厂。在您看来，他们在不同的国家比如德国、法国，应该考虑哪些因素呢？
从葡萄牙的案例来看，宁德时代即将在葡萄牙南部建成一座大型电池超级工厂。中国企业在欧洲进行这类巨额投资，一个重要原因是为了贴近下游制造商，从而缩短从电池生产到整车制造及组装的流程时间， 这也是建设电池工厂的必要性所在。
此外，从欧洲本地工厂出口到西班牙、法国等周边国家，运输时间远远小于从中国运输，效率优势显著。同时，欧洲各国对这类投资有不少激励措施，加上当地政府的投资支持政策，近年来中国在欧洲的电池、电子产品工厂投资不断增加。
值得一提的是，在当地建厂还能带动就业，进而提升市场对中国企业的接受度。
七、如果中国的整车厂选择在欧洲的匈牙利建厂，您认为这是个好的选择吗？
匈牙利位于欧洲东部，传统上吸引了不少投资，其中日本企业的布局尤为突出，铃木、三菱等日本车企在当地的汽车工业中实力很强，此外奔驰也在匈牙利也设有工厂。
至于中国企业，目前尚不确定是否有大规模投资，但已有关于在当地建设电池工厂的计划。这一布局具有合理性，因为中国在电池行业处于领先地位，而汽车产业的各类工厂都需要电池作为核心零部件。以葡萄牙为例，当地生产的电动公交车所使用的电池便来自中国的宁德时代（但暂不明确具体在哪里生产的），这也体现了中国电池在欧洲市场的应用场景。
八、在欧洲市场上，哪个中国品牌给你的印象更深？
在欧洲市场，给我印象较深的中国品牌是比亚迪。而在投资领域，电池行业的宁德时代同样突出——他们通过在多个国家建厂快速切入市场，已成为该领域极具影响力的参与者。
在汽车领域，比亚迪一直是主要品牌之一，知名度很高，几乎家喻户晓。此外，豪华车领域的沃尔沃虽源自欧洲，但如今由中国吉利集团控股，也算是有中国背景的重要品牌。而名爵品牌，在我看来，与比亚迪并无明显差异，策略上非常相似。
九、如果所有中国公司都在欧洲投资建厂或建立其他供应链，中国和欧洲之间的恐慌最终能消除吗？
从现实需求来看，这确实是必要的，就像美国汽车制造商要向欧洲出口产品时一样，任何企业都需要能快速供应替换零件，这是市场竞争中极为关键的一环。
多数企业选择在欧洲本地生产自有品牌的零部件，正是为了提升响应速度，而这种能力能有效增强市场信任与接受度。如今，消费者对产品的开放度本就较高，无论来自中国还是美国，不过政治因素目前在全欧洲范围内都对产品接受度存在影响。特斯拉就是一个典型案例：其市场份额下滑较快，便与政治因素有关。
有趣的是，这一现象也反映出政治因素对消费选择的作用 —— 不少原本考虑购买特斯拉的消费者，转而选择了价格相当甚至更低的中国产品，部分正是出于政治考量，这也成为中国产品在欧洲市场份额上升的原因之一。
十、您认为三年或五年后，中国整车厂在欧洲的市场份额能达到多少？现在可能是 3% 或 5%。
目前份额大概在 3% 到 4%，但未来几年会快速增长。我认为这一份额会增长到 10% 左右，甚至可能达到 15%。原因在于中国电动汽车质量相当高，与欧洲品牌相比极具竞争力；而且欧洲有支持更多电动汽车发展的法规，而当前质量较好的电动汽车不少来自中国，这必然会推动份额上升。
十一、那么中国的整车厂如何淡化 “外来者” 或 “入侵者” 这样的标签呢？你对中国的整车厂有什么建议？
这更多是营销层面的问题。如今从消费者角度看，中国与欧洲的汽车制造商并无太大区别，很多人甚至分不清某个汽车品牌是否来自中国。比如像我这个年纪或更年长的人，不少仍以为沃尔沃是瑞典的，但实际上企业间存在相互持股和投资的情况。而且现在人们对中国公司的接受度越来越高，与对其他国家公司的接受度没什么不同。
人们需要的是质量好、易购买且价格合理的汽车，至于是否是中国制造或中国公司的产品，并不重要。所以我认为，不会出现因 “中国产品” 这一标签而遭到抵制的情况，这种现象已经不存在了。
十二、您如何看待中国奇瑞汽车公司收购西班牙的汽车品牌来销售汽车的做法？
我认为这种做法如今已没有太大必要。近年来，中国汽车在欧洲的公众形象已发生显著变化：几年前，中国产品可能因被认为质量较差而难以被接受，但现在中国汽车的质量已与其他产品不相上下，以中国品牌直接销售也能获得市场认可，不会遭遇抵触情绪。
这让人联想到上世纪七十年代的汽车行业吗，当时美国人曾强烈抵制日本产品，即便日本车质量优良、价格实惠，且凭借这些优势几乎冲击了通用、福特等美国传统车企（因为消费者更青睐本田、丰田等品牌）。而如今，正如我所说，中国产品在各地的接受度都相当高。大约二十年前，中国汽车可能给人 “价格便宜但质量不佳” 的印象，甚至涉及安全方面的顾虑，但现在不仅质量有保障，设计也十分出色。
基于此，欧洲消费者对中国汽车的接受度已很高，无需通过 “包装成西班牙汽车” 来促进销售。
最后，正如我之前提到的，尽管有人认为中国产品是在 “入侵” 欧洲，但实际上它们已被广泛接受。这种市场信任的基础是产品质量，但仍有一个问题需要关注：欧洲是否有足够的中国汽车零部件工厂。
部分消费者的顾虑在于零部件替换的等待时间 —— 比如有人会说：“我花六万美元买了辆车，一个简单的零部件却要等两个月才能到货。这种情况下，我宁愿选择其他品牌。” 这种担忧确实可能影响消费者的选择偏好。
因此，有一点很重要：中国企业应当在欧洲投资布局零部件产业，实现中国汽车零部件的本地化生产。这样一来，零部件的整合会更便捷、响应速度会更快，从而进一步巩固市场信任。
Semanário "Expresso" (10.01.2025)
"A automatização de tarefas não vai ser tão rápida como se achava", p. 19 (Primeiro Caderno)
podcast Work Around (29/3/2023)
Tema:
Futuro do trabalho e o impacto da tecnologia
link: https://www.gigroupholding.com/portugal/workaround-podcast-ep2/
Semanário Expresso (4.11.2022)
Reduzir horas de trabalho é "o futuro inevitável"
Isabel Leiria e Joana Pereira Bastos
Documentário "Estado Social - Todos por Todos", RTP3, 2021
A trajectória das últimas décadas espelha o papel determinante do Estado Social na sociedade portuguesa. Mas conquistas como a longevidade e o controlo da natalidade transformaram-se em desafios à própria sustentabilidade do sistema. Que Estado Social temos e que Estado Social vamos deixar aos mais jovens? Assista ao novo documentário da Fundação, co-produzido com a RTP, com narração do jornalista Carlos Daniel.
Em https://www.ffms.pt/pt-pt/ffms-play/documentarios/estado-social-todos-por-todos#resumo
Público, 1/5/2020
Covid-19: Teletrabalho veio para ficar, mas acarreta riscos, alertam especialistas
https://www.publico.pt/2020/05/01/impar/noticia/covid19-teletrabalho-veio-ficar-acarreta-riscos-alertam-especialistas-1914729
(Agência Lusa)
Entrevista "Perguntar não ofende", Daniel Oliveira (14/3/19)
As profissões associadas aos serviços, comércio, administração e produção industrial serão as mais atingidas. E terá um efeito muito mais violento para quem tenha menos formação. Depois há as questões éticas e legais sobretudo à medida que as máquinas ganham autonomia. Quem assume as responsabilidades por danos e crimes? Qual a identidade jurídica de um robô? Qual o seu vínculo à lei e às regras deontológicas de cada atividade? Quem defende a privacidade? Onde fica o princípio da precaução? É sobre tudo isto que falamos com António Brandão Moniz, sociólogo e investigador do CICS.NOVA.
Agradecimento especial aos patronos deste podcast em https://soundcloud.com/perguntarnaoofende/antonio-brandao-moniz
Jornal de Negócios (10/10/2018)
Entrevista:
Há tarefas complexas que não podem ser substituídas por robôs
Link:
Há tarefas complexas que não podem ser substituídas por robôs (Jornal de Negócios)
Jornal de Negócios, 10/10/2018
António Moniz: “Há tarefas complexas que não podem ser substituídas por robôs”
O autor do livro “Robótica e Trabalho” alerta que a melhoria da produtividade nem sempre se vê nas estatísticas e o efeito é atenuado por custos de trabalho mais elevados. Os portugueses devem elevar as qualificações para aprender novas funções.
António Larguesa alarguesa@negocios.pt 10 de Outubro de 2018 às 11:30
Público, Suplemento "Executivos", 22/5/2018
"As escolas de negócios estão cada vez mais digitais" (pp. 2-4), Samuel Silva (Público)
Notícias Magazine, 04.04.2017 (in Portuguese)
- Notícias Magazine
Os algoritmos já controlam a nossa vida (04/04/2017), Texto de Ricardo J. Rodrigues, com Catarina Carvalho
Sabia que a sua vida é dominada por fórmulas matemáticas? E não é ficção científica: a inteligência artificial existe e já domina as nossas vidas, sobretudo se não formos eremitas e estivermos online. Os algoritmos presumem o que devemos saber e com quem devemos comunicar, o que queremos comprar, ou se somos dignos de ser salvos pela medicina. Estão a substituir o trabalho, a ordenar a mobilidade e a segurança. E há uma pergunta que está a tornar-se assustadoramente atual: será isto o fim da humanidade?
«Caminha sozinho pelo deserto, olha para baixo e vê uma tartaruga. Está deitada com a carapaça para baixo e a barriga ao sol. Debate-se com as patas, tenta virar-se, mas não consegue. O que faz?» A pergunta aparece na primeira cena de Blade Runner, o filme sobre inteligência artificial que Ridley Scott realizou em 1982.
Fazia parte de um questionário para detetar se alguém era ou não humano. A resposta era determinante: uma máquina nunca se disporia a ajudar o animal, por ser incapaz de qualquer empatia. A tecnologia não funciona por impressões nem instinto, mas por padrões repetitivos que permitem aferir tendências e probabilidades.
Esta é a descrição perfeita da Inteligência Artificial. E, caro leitor, vamos dar-lhe uma notícia: já não é ficção científica. Hoje a sociedade está condicionada por equações matemáticas que pensam por elas próprias, sem intervenção humana.
O futuro chegou de mansinho. Os carros pilotados sem condutor estão em testes finais. As empresas de tecnologia invadem as nossas casas com sistemas capazes de executar as tarefas simples que se habituam a ver-nos fazer – e podem ser simples aspiradores inteligentes, no mercado. Há robôs que conversam connosco – seja nos nossos telefones ou nos call centers – e nestes casos até se inventou um nome para este tipo de algoritmo, chat bot.
Os algoritmos determinam as compras e vendas de ações em Wall Street e os filmes que são feitos de acordo com as reações do público. Uma companhia japonesa está a produzir assistentes virtuais holográficas sexuais e há especialistas, como David Levy, que estimam que até 2050 vai ser plausível o casamento entre homens e robôs.
Mas há mais e mais simples: a nossa vida online é hoje toda condicionadas por bots, fórmulas matemáticas ou algoritmos, três formas da mesma coisa, a tal inteligência artificial que pensa por nós. Kevin Slavin, professor do Media Lab, do MIT, avisou, numa conferência TED de 2011, que «a matemática que os computadores usam internamente para decidir coisas está a infiltrar-se em todos os aspetos da nossa vida».
É isso. A nossa presença nas redes sociais é determinada por aquilo que nos chega aos perfis de Facebook e de Twitter ou Instagram. Os anúncios que nos são apresentados vêm filtrados por essas fórmulas de acordo com o perfil do nosso comportamento anterior. As músicas sugeridas, idem. E não estranhemos quando nos aparecem nas redes sociais sugestões de amigos que há muito desapareceram das agendas dos nossos telefones.
A inteligência artificial chegou e talvez seja altura de lhe dedicar uns minutos, porque o facto é que a tecnologia mudou e vai continuar a mudar os nossos comportamentos. E a maneira como nos relacionamos com o mundo.
1. LONGA HISTÓRIA DE ESCOLHAS
Vamos por partes. Os algoritmos existem há séculos. São cálculos matemáticos que, a partir dos dados que recebem, completam uma tarefa e têm capacidade de calcular uma situação futura. Um pouco como uma receita de culinária, na versão equação: pegam nos ingredientes e confecionam-nos até se transformarem num prato. Veja aqui uma fotogaleria das principais datas que marcam a Inteligência Artificial até ao que se tornou hoje.
No início, os algoritmos eram em papel e lápis. Depois vieram as máquinas de computação – e processamento elétrico de dados – que tornaram praticamente infinitas a acumulação de dados e a capacidade de delinear variáveis. Mais tarde ainda, veio a internet, pondo os dados todos a poderem relacionar-se uns com os outros à distância.
Assim se deu a explosão da inteligência artificial – com mais ingredientes e receitas cada vez mais sofisticadas. E nós, a sermos dela cobaias. Através da internet é possível saber quem somos, de que gostamos e do que andamos à procura. De vez em quando, apercebemo-nos disso, a maior parte das vezes, não. Pode ser quando fazemos uma pesquisa no Google para um voo e depois recebemos notificações de promoções para esse destino noutras plataformas. Isso é efeito dos algoritmos que registaram os nossos dados numa rede ligada à publicidade online, e os disponibilizaram a quem quer chegar até nós.
A inteligência artificial é uma área da ciência informática que lida com a linguagem computacional e estuda como os computadores podem imitar o pensamento humano. Cobre áreas como a capacidade de decisão e predição e a visualização de situações. Na prática, significa a criação de algoritmos que analisam situações com dados complexos, aprendem com eles e respondem.
Rapidamente toda a gente percebeu a enorme vantagem comercial de usar uma fórmula matemática para encontrar potenciais clientes, o santo graal do marketing. Mas por vezes isto não acontece apenas à nossa vista, nem é tão evidente.
No ano passado, Cathy O’Neil, uma matemática de Harvard que durante uma década desenvolveu algoritmos financeiros em Wall Street – aqueles que fazem investimentos automáticos com base em probabilidades estatísticas –, publicou um livro chamado Weapons of Math Destruction (em tradução livre, seria algo como «Armas de Destruição Matemática»).
«Estamos a ser avaliados por uma espécie de sistema de pontuações que diz com que nível de urgência devemos ser atendidos no hospital, se merecemos ou não um seguro de saúde, se o banco nos concede crédito ou retira a casa. O risco de injustiça é enorme num processo de decisões automático», disse numa entrevista à revista norte-americana New Yorker. «A aritmética agrupa as pessoas em certas pontuações, que as leva por vezes a terem de pagar mais pelo seguro de um carro, por um cartão de crédito ou a receberem penas mais pesadas de prisão.»
Cada vez que fazemos um pagamento com cartão, uma pesquisa na net, cada vez que clicamos o botão like no Facebook, há uma equação a conseguir perceber-nos um bocadinho melhor, a perceber e escolher o que é importante para nós.
«O problema são os critérios com que esta seleção é feita», diz Amílcar Cardoso, professor de engenharia informática na universidade de Coimbra e especialista em processos criativos de inteligência artificial. E isto é muito importante, por exemplo, quando cada vez mais quantidade de informação sobre o mundo nos chega através das redes digitais. «As notícias são particularmente vulneráveis neste ponto, porque o ser humano precisa de ser desafiado com informação que não conhece nem sabe que precisa de conhecer. Um algoritmo pode decidir que vemos o mundo de uma certa maneira e então alimenta-nos com notícias, verdadeiras ou falsas, que corroborem o que o programa considerou acertado.»
2. TRUMP, BREXIT, FAKE NEWS
Há uma boa parte do resultado das eleições norte-americanas do ano passado que se pode explicar assim. A empresa responsável pela campanha online de Donald Trump é a mesma que esteve no início dos movimentos a favor do brexit: a Cambridge Analytica. Para a maioria dos leitores, é uma ilustre desconhecida. No entanto, tem desempenhado um papel fundamental na forma como os políticos comunicam com as massas.
O que esta companhia faz é processar o Big Data – a informação recolhida pelos nossos cliques, likes e procuras – e, a partir daí, medir-nos psicologicamente. O sistema psicométrico é bastante desenvolvido: avalia os nossos níveis de abertura, consciência, agradabilidade, extroversão e neurose pela interpretação da nossa pegada digital. Até consegue perceber o nosso grau de «informabilidade», ou seja, quão informados e cultos somos.
Tudo isto permite gerir o discurso político, criando argumentos que funcionam com cada nicho de cidadãos, transmitindo a esses cidadãos aquilo que lhes vai dar conforto – ou seja, o reconhecido – evitando mensagens que os desafiem mas também que lhes desagradem.
É a microgestão de expetativas, aquilo que dantes se fazia com as sondagens e hoje se faz quase caso a caso, através dos motores de busca e das redes sociais. Porque muitos nichos criam uma grande massa eleitoral – e a capacidade de chegar a ela pode determinar os vencedores das eleições. Como aconteceu nestes casos.
No início deste ano, o presidente da Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, deu uma entrevista à Motherboard, uma das bíblias da inovação digital, e foi bastante perentório. «Praticamente tudo o que Trump disse durante a campanha, e tudo o que escreveu no Twitter, foi orientado por esta equação de dados.»
Em 2012 o site The Intercept divulgou provas de que a NSA tinha conseguido criar um algoritmo que identificava e decidia que alvos exterminar. Era o algoritmo que decidia, não o homem que observava tudo a partir de um computador.
Hillary Clinton também trabalhou com um algoritmo na sua campanha – e até lhe deu um nome: Ada. O jornal The Washington Post escreveu uma peça sobre isso dias depois das eleições. «Ada conseguia simular 400 mil situações eleitorais por dia e era através dos cenários que o programa estabelecia como mais prováveis que a campanha se movia para um estado ou outro, que apontava baterias a um tema ou outro.»
O problema deste programa era que a análise de dados não conseguia ir tão longe como o de Trump. Os eleitores eram aglomerados em grandes grupos (africanos, latinos, jovens, mulheres) nas habituais classificações estatísticas – e isso não chegou no mundo compartimentado das redes sociais.
Foi, talvez, um efeito «civil» dos algoritmos o que os Estados Unidos sentiram em novembro de 2016. Mas o país já usava há muito a inteligência artificial nos meios militares. Os ataques de drones não são mais do que outro dos seus efeitos. Já eram conhecidos, mas em 2012 o site The Intercept divulgou provas de que a NSA tinha conseguido criar um algoritmo que identificava e decidia que alvos exterminar.
Era o algoritmo que decidia, não o homem que observava tudo a partir de um computador. A taxa de erro era de 0,008 por cento. Parece pouco, certo? O problema é que para a população paquistanesa, sendo que o Paquistão era o país onde mais se usavam os drones americanos, isso se traduzia em 15 mil potenciais vítimas inocentes.
Apesar de terem circulado muitas acusações de que Washington já estava a usar este programa, jornal algum conseguiu em bom rigor prová-lo. Mas há uma certeza: a de que um país criou uma fórmula com autonomia para decidir sobre a vida e a morte dos humanos.
«Corremos grandes riscos ao entregarmos capacidade de decisão a software que não sabemos exatamente o que está a fazer», diz Luiz Moniz Pereira, pioneiro dos estudiosos portugueses em Inteligência Artificial, professor da Universidade Nova de Lisboa e investigador das relações entre ética e tecnologia. «A única maneira de sabermos o que ele está a fazer é impor-lhe regras», sugere.
3. REGULAR E PUNIR?
Esta é uma questão que tem vindo a colocar-se, nomeadamente nas redes sociais e no que respeita à escolha da informação que chega aos leitores.
Há uma corrente que começa a ganhar peso que defende que se os algoritmos determinam a informação que chega às comunidades – ou seja, funcionam como órgãos de comunicação social – a forma como essas escolhas são feitas deve ser transparente e auditada, tal como acontece com os órgãos de comunicação social tradicional, altamente regulados por regras internas e externas. Há que abrir a black box – a caixa negra onde estão as fórmulas, que são dominadas pelas empresas que as detêm.
De certa forma, a pressão que os anunciantes e grandes marcas estão a colocar nos motores de busca e no YouTube para que selecionem melhor os conteúdos ao lado dos quais os seus anúncios irão aparecer, vai também no sentido desta regulação.
A mera utilização de dados para criar mais lucro já ajudou à criação da maior crise financeira deste século – sobretudo com o desenvolvimento de fórmulas abstratas que potenciavam ganhos sobre fundos baseados em coisas inexistentes.
A polémica estalou quando uma investigação do jornal britânico The Times revelou que Wagdi Ghoneim, um pregador islâmico radical que está proibido de entrar no Reino Unido (as autoridades acreditam que ele seja um agente incentivador de práticas terroristas), faturou num ano 70 mil euros através de anúncios colocados antes dos seus vídeos transmitidos no YouTube.
O canal funciona com publicidade programática – ou seja, os anúncios são automáticos, definidos por um algoritmo que não percebe se financiar aquele homem é ou não potencialmente perigoso (leia também Anunciantes retiram do YouTube).
A questão é também pertinente quando falamos de negócios. «Enquanto toda a gente aceita que o algoritmo que determina um sistema de transporte, como por exemplo o comboio, seja regulado superiormente, as instituições financeiras apresentam grande resistência a qualquer forma de controlo», diz o professor Moniz Pereira.
A mera utilização de dados para criar mais lucro já ajudou à criação da maior crise financeira deste século – sobretudo com o desenvolvimento de fórmulas abstratas que potenciavam ganhos sobre fundos baseados em coisas inexistentes.
«Preocupa-me neste momento que os bancos possam ter acesso aos nossos dados como contribuintes. É informação valiosa – e é apenas uma questão de tempo até alguém se aproveitar disso.» Se há ponto onde todos os cientistas parecem concordar é que a criação de software de decisão tem de ser regulada com alguma urgência.
4. ROBÔS: O FUTURO DO TRABALHO
Além das nossas mentes, a inteligência artificial prepara-se também para mudar as nossas vidas, economias e comunidades. Nos primeiros dias de março, um debate sobre o futuro do emprego na RTP 3, apoiado pela Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos, apresentava alguns dados relevantes.
O Fórum Económico Mundial prevê que a automação provoque o desaparecimento de cinco milhões de postos de trabalho até 2020. E 62 milhões até 2055, só em cinco países europeus. Basicamente, tudo o que seja automatizável está em risco, e já não estamos apenas a falar de trabalhos manuais serem substituídos por máquinas. Essa foi a revolução industrial.
Caminhamos agora para a revolução da inteligência – em que as máquinas podem interagir com os homens numa base regular. Trabalhadores administrativos, operadores de call-center, caixas de supermercado… serão substituídos por elas, assim como motoristas de pesados ou leitores de contadores de luz. E a curto prazo.
Sendo que o mundo e a sua economia estão baseados no trabalho, como será o futuro da humanidade? «Se a tecnologia vai aniquilar algumas profissões, a verdade é que também pode criar outras», diz Paulo Novais, professor de informática da Universidade do Minho e presidente da Associação Portuguesa de Inteligência Artificial. «Quem vai ter emprego no futuro é na verdade quem dominar a tecnologia. Os engenheiros informáticos e os programadores, por exemplo, vão ser mais necessários do que nunca.»
Numa entrevista recente à revista digital Quartz, o próprio Bill Gates, que tem lançado vários alertas sobre o perigo de colocarmos máquinas a tomar todas as decisões, propôs que uma taxa sobre robôs poderia financiar certos empregos.
A Comissão Europeia discutiu recentemente e recusou uma proposta que pretendia taxar as empresas que automatizassem serviços, obrigando-as a pagar formação dos trabalhadores desempregados.
E, numa entrevista recente à revista digital Quartz, o próprio Bill Gates, que tem lançado vários alertas sobre o perigo de colocarmos máquinas a tomar todas as decisões, propôs que uma taxa sobre robôs poderia financiar empregos de quem toma conta de idosos ou trabalha em escolas com crianças. Trabalhos para que, segundo ele, não se encontra gente suficiente para os fazer e são mais facilmente feitos por humanos. A ideia foi acolhida com ceticismo e levantou polémica nas redes que se dedicam ao estudo económico do trabalho.
Certo certo é que no futuro não haverá emprego para todos e é preciso encontrar formas alternativas de garantir a sobrevivência das pessoas. Nos últimos anos, tem havido um debate muito sério sobre a possibilidade de criação de um Rendimento Básico Incondicional para todos os cidadãos (leia também Salário para quem ficou sem emprego por causa dos robôs). A ideia é que o Estado atribua uma prestação a cada cidadão, independentemente da sua situação financeira, familiar ou profissional, e suficiente para permitir uma vida com dignidade.
5. PRÓS E CONTRAS
Manuela Veloso dirige o departamento de Aprendizagem Robótica na Faculdade de Ciências Computacionais da Universidade de Carnegie Mellon, nos Estados Unidos. Acredita que o mundo do trabalho não fica ameaçado com o aparecimento de sistemas de inteligência artificial cada vez mais sofisticados, mas também alinha pela batuta da regulação.
Em junho, a investigadora portuguesa vai estar reunida com um comité das Nações Unidas para analisar formas de controlo da aplicação de algoritmos à sociedade. «É realmente necessário fazê-lo», diz, «tal como a indústria farmacêutica não permite que saiam para a rua remédios que não são seguros, terá de haver entidades globais a não deixar que existam sistemas tecnológicos incontroláveis e potencialmente lesivos para a sociedade.»
Um dos grandes problemas com que os investigadores se deparam hoje é que os algoritmos não se sabem explicar. Tomam decisões baseadas na leitura de dados mas não são capazes de explicar o que os levou a esta ou àquela posição.
Veloso criou um sistema que pode resolver o problema: em vez de um robô, um cobot. «São robôs colaborativos, pedem ajuda quando não sabem o que fazer, seja a outros humanos, seja a outros robôs.»
A regra de qualquer ser, humano ou animal, que tenha consciência de si mesmo é a autopreservação. Um algoritmo capaz de decidir tende a ser capaz de proteger-se, também.
A regra de qualquer ser, humano ou animal, que tenha consciência de si mesmo é a autopreservação. Um algoritmo capaz de decidir tende a ser capaz de proteger-se, também. «É verdade que os robôs aprendem e propagam conhecimento muito mais depressa do que os humanos», continua Manuela Veloso. «Mas se um desses organismos conseguisse atingir um ponto de superioridade em relação ao ser humano, nunca teria capacidade para destronar toda a humanidade. Nós somos simplesmente demasiados – e nenhum robô sabe mais do que nós todos juntos.»
Luiz Moniz Pereira tem opinião contrária. «As redes sociais estão a diluir-nos socialmente. As comunicações são superficiais, não nos dão espaço ou tempo para a construção identitária.» No meio de um processo de circulação veloz, é mais natural a indignação rápida do que a oposição construída, a apatia do que o compromisso. «Pensávamos que a tecnologia nos permitiria a abrangência, e afinal sentimos que ela nos está a achatar para a mediania.» A sua visão é a de uma absoluta urgência de regulação.
António Moniz, especialista em sociologia industrial, alerta para o perigo de uma sociedade compartimentada e isolada. [Fotografia de Paulo Spranger/Global Imagens]
«Tem consequências chegarmos a uma sociedade demasiado compartimentada por escolhas de fórmulas matemáticas: impessoalidade, desumanização e racionalização extremas. A tendência para a perda de laços afetivos e de relações humanizadas na esfera pública deixar-nos-á mais isolados», avisa António Moniz, especialista em Sociologia Industrial, professor na Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa e no Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, na Alemanha.
«A tecnologia está a tornar-nos uma sociedade menos livre. Frequentemente nos deparamos com escolhas preestabelecidas e apenas temos de optar por uma. Nada disso nos ajuda a refletir, a pensar sobre soluções alternativas. Retira-nos por isso a liberdade de decidir, e de interagirmos para melhorar a qualidade das nossas decisões.»
Seria isso que, um dia, Larry Page, da Google, tinha em mente quando disse que «a inteligência artificial seria uma versão última do Google, percebendo exatamente o que queremos e dando-nos a coisa certa»?
A ideia da ficção científica de que um dia seremos humilhados pelas máquinas não reúne, por agora, muitos adeptos na comunidade académica. Mas provavelmente a humanidade não precisa de ser espezinhada para deixar de ser humanidade. Basta que os algoritmos continuem o seu caminho no sentido de nos tornarem apáticos, alheados e hiper-racionais. Basta, em boa verdade, que deixemos de ter qualquer vontade de ajudar uma tartaruga que se debate para se virar, com a carapaça para baixo e a barriga exposta ao sol, no meio do deserto. ♦
RTP3 - Fronteiras XXI, 15.03.2017 (In Portuguese)
Como será o trabalho do futuro?
Fronteiras XXI PROGRAMA 02
15 MARÇO 2017, 22H00
Como será o emprego no futuro? Que profissões vão desaparecer e que novas áreas de trabalho serão necessárias? O Fórum Económico Mundial calcula que, até 2020, as novas tecnologias e a robotização acabem com mais de 7 milhões de postos de trabalho. Neste período serão apenas criados 2 milhões de novos empregos, num balanço final que deixa 5 milhões de desempregados.
As previsões dos efeitos daquela que é chamada a quarta revolução industrial são visíveis todos os dias num mundo empresarial cada vez mais automatizado. Só a Foxconn, empresa fornecedora de material eléctrico para a Apple e Samsung, com sede em Taiwan, substituiu 60 mil funcionários por robôs no ano passado. E não são apenas as profissões mecanizadas que vão sofrer este embate. Grande parte dos administrativos em quase todos os sectores serão esvaziados de funções por sistemas informáticos cada vez mais aperfeiçoados.
Como vão viver estes desempregados? O mercado tem capacidade para os absorver? A que custo? Na Finlândia, o governo está a testar soluções sociais inovadoras para lidar com estes problemas: começou a atribuir a duas mil pessoas um rendimento básico mensal de 560 euros, com o qual espera estimular o trabalho. Será uma solução?
Convidados neste programa
Investigadora e professora em Carnegie Mellon
Manuela Veloso
É uma das maiores referências mundiais na área da robótica. A investigadora portuguesa de 59 anos lidera o departamento de Machine Learning da Universidade de Carnegie Mellon, nos EUA onde dá aulas de Ciências da Computação. Foi nesta universidade que se doutorou, depois de ter feito o mestrado e a licenciatura em Engenharia Electrotécnica no Instituto Superior Técnico, em Lisboa. Foi presidente da Associação para o Avanço da Inteligência Artificial e desenvolve investigação nas áreas da inteligência artificial e da robótica. Fundou o grupo Coral (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~coral/ ) que se dedica à investigação de robôs que colaboram, observam, raciocinam e aprendem. Já trabalhou com uma variedade de robôs autónomos, inclusive robôs de serviço, "CoBot", que fazem de guias nos locais de trabalho e transportam objectos. É uma das responsáveis pelo Robocup, um campeonato de futebol de robôs, que se realiza anualmente desde 1997.
Sociólogo e professor na UNL e no Inst. Karlsruhe
António Moniz
Especialista em Sociologia do Trabalho e das Organizações tem feito investigação sobre o futuro do trabalho e o impacto da robótica na organização interna das empresas. É professor associado de Sociologia Industrial na Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), onde coordena o programa de doutoramento em Avaliação de Tecnologia. Na mesma instituição, é também coordenador do pólo de inovação empresarial e do trabalho, o IET/CICS Nova.
É ainda investigador no Instituto de Tecnologia de Karlsruhe, na Alemanha, país onde já tinha sido investigador convidado no Instituto Fraunhofer de Sistemas e Inovação Tecnológica.
Faz parte da direcção do Board of Research Committee 23 da Associação Internacional de Sociologia.
Licenciado no Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE), doutorou-se na Universidade Nova de Lisboa onde fez também a Agregação. Nasceu em Coimbra há 60 anos.
Professor no CES, ex-dirigente da CGTP
Manuel Carvalho da Silva
Esteve 25 anos à frente da CGTP, tornando-se o líder histórico da maior estrutura sindical portuguesa e um especialista nos direitos dos trabalhadores. Manuel Carvalho da Silva, de 68 anos, fez o curso de montador electricista na Escola Industrial de Braga e trabalhou como operário na mesma área. Esteve na Chromolit Portugal e na Electromecânica Portuguesa Preh. Foi eleito coordenador da CGTP-IN em 1986 e Secretário-geral entre 1999 e 2012. Licenciou-se aos 51 anos em Sociologia no ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa onde também concluiu o doutoramento (2007) com a tese “A acção colectiva e o sindicalismo na era da globalização”. Foi professor catedrático convidado na Universidade Lusófona e é investigador do Centro de Estudos Sociais da Universidade de Coimbra (CES), coordenando a delegação de Lisboa e o Observatório sobre Crises e Alternativas. É membro do Conselho Geral da Universidade do Minho.
Administrador executivo da The Navigator Company
João Paulo Oliveira
É administrador executivo da antiga Portucel, hoje The Navigator Company, empresa nacional de produção e transformação de papel. Durante mais de 25 anos esteve ligado à gigante alemã Bosch: Foi Presidente da Unidade de Negócios de Água Quente do grupo a nível mundial e liderou em Portugal a Bosch Termotecnologia. Neste grupo dirigiu também unidades de negócio na Alemanha, China, Índia e Brasil.
Licenciado em Engenharia e Produção Industrial pela Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, é membro do Conselho Geral da Universidade de Aveiro e do Conselho de Supervisão do Fraunhofer Institute em Portugal. Entre 2009 e 2012 assumiu a presidência da Câmara de Comércio e Indústria Luso-Alemã. Tem 51 anos.
Links úteis
Semanário Expresso, 11.03.2017 (in Portuguese)
- Semanário Expresso
DR
Entrevista a António Moniz, especialista em Sociologia do Trabalho
No ano passado, a multinacional Foxconn, fornecedora da Apple e da Samsung, substituiu 60 mil funcionários por robôs. A Uber já tem carros autónomos em fase de teste. E são cada vez mais os exemplos da chamada quarta revolução industrial, que vai generalizar a robotização no mundo do trabalho. Esta semana, a Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos promove um debate sobre o futuro do emprego. António Moniz, professor da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, antecipa algumas das mudanças.
O Fórum Económico Mundial estima que a robotização vai levar à extinção de cerca de cinco milhões de postos de trabalho nos próximos três anos. Caminhamos para uma sociedade sem emprego?
É óbvio que os processos de automatização estão a aumentar fortemente em vários sectores e há desenvolvimentos a nível da tecnologia que vão afetar seriamente algumas profissões, sobretudo aquelas que têm tarefas mais rotineiras. Mas penso que essa previsão é demasiado drástica.
Que profissões estão em risco de desaparecer?
Um estudo da Universidade de Oxford conclui que algumas profissões podem ser substituídas por automatismos. Em alguns casos não tem nada que ver com robôs, mas com a introdução de algoritmos que permitem automatizar cálculos. Por exemplo, uma das profissões que se considera que vão desaparecer rapidamente é a de avaliador de seguros, assim como profissões na área bancária e de avaliação financeira, que passam a ser ‘desempenhadas’ por algoritmos. Os contabilistas, que tratavam do IRS, recolhiam toda a informação relativa a faturas e a introduziam em papel, também serão muito afetados, uma vez que há cada vez mais informação estatística que já foi automatizada. Também os trabalhadores agrícolas têm tendência a desaparecer, já que a agricultura extensiva é cada vez mais automatizada. E, a prazo, também os motoristas, por causa dos avanços na área dos carros autónomos. Algumas linhas de metro em grandes cidades já não têm condutor e a maior parte das pessoas não sabe. Em várias profissões, a pouco e pouco os humanos estão a tornar-se supérfluos.
O que fazer com os novos desempregados?
Há que encontrar alternativas para as pessoas que desempenham profissões que vão desaparecer. E será uma percentagem bastante significativa. O mais importante é apostar na formação para outro tipo de profissões. Temos de preparar as gerações mais jovens para este novo mundo, com o desenvolvimento de novas competências.
Estima-se que dois terços das crianças que estão hoje na escola vão desempenhar profissões que ainda não existem. De que tipo serão?
São profissões mais criativas e de conteúdo mais analítico, por exemplo na área da programação.
Vamos trabalhar menos horas e menos dias por semana?
O desenvolvimento da tecnologia permite diminuir as horas de trabalho mantendo ou até mesmo aumentando a produtividade. Por isso, essa é uma solução que provavelmente será adotada. No final dos anos 90 e no princípio dos anos 2000 já estávamos a assistir a um decréscimo do número médio de horas de trabalho na Europa, Portugal inclusive. Já se estava quase adotar como regra a semana das 35 horas, mas depois de 2008, estritamente por razões políticas, começou a reverter-se esse processo para diminuir os custos do trabalho.
Concorda com a ideia do Rendimento Básico Incondicional, que já está a ser testado na Finlândia?
A maior parte dos estudos sobre o impacto das tecnologias de informação verificam que há um acréscimo muito grande da produtividade. Porém, não se está a conseguir resolver o problema da distribuição desse ganho. Essa seria uma maneira de equilibrar a sociedade, revertendo esse crescimento para as pessoas.
O cientista Stephen Hawking defende que a robotização e a Inteligência Artificial irão “acelerar a desigualdade económica a nível mundial, fazendo com que só sobrevivam os empregos mais criativos ou de supervisão”. Concorda?
A tendência será essa. O modelo de organização económica e social deverá piorar e as tensões sociais tenderão a agravar-se.
Intervention at Berlin TA Conference, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9nvyf2eJhU
Designing a PhD Programme on TA
2015
Featured Posts
Recent Documents
