Yapay Zekâ, Otomasyon ve Sosyal Güvenlik Sistemlerinin Sürdürülebilirliği: Teknolojik İşsizlik Primi Önerisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ (YZ) ve otomasyonun işgücü piyasaları ile prim esaslı sosyal güvenlik sistemlerinin finansal sürdürülebilirliği üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Bütünleştirici literatür taraması ve tematik senteze dayalı nitel bir araştırma tasarımı kullanılan çalışmada, YZ kaynaklı işgücü ikamesinin prim esaslı sosyal güvenlik finansmanını nasıl etkileyebileceği ele alınmaktadır. Analiz, otomasyonun önemli verimlilik artışları sağlayabileceğini; ancak işgücü ikame etkilerinin yeterince güçlü ve kalıcı olması durumunda sigortalı istihdamı azaltabileceğini ve sosyal güvenlik prim gelirlerini zayıflatabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu finansman riskine karşılık çalışma, teknolojinin kendisinden ziyade otomasyonun ölçülebilir istihdam etkileriyle ilişkilendirilen kavramsal bir mekanizma olarak Teknolojik İşsizlik Primi’ni geliştirmektedir. Geleneksel robot vergisi önerileri ve diğer teknoloji temelli finansman yaklaşımlarından farklı olarak önerilen çerçeve, potansiyel prim yükümlülüğünü otomasyona atfedilebilen sigortalı istihdam veya prime esas kazançlardaki ölçülebilir azalmalarla ilişkilendirmekte ve öncül kurumsal sorumluluklar, şeffaf ve doğrulanabilir değerlendirme ölçütleri ile sektöre özgü uygulama unsurları ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, bir finansman mekanizmasının ölçülebilir işgücü ikamesi ve bunun sonucunda prim tabanında meydana gelen aşınmayla nasıl ilişkilendirilebileceğini ortaya koyarak otomasyon ve sosyal güvenliğin finansmanına ilişkin gelişmekte olan literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Yapay zekâ
• Sosyal güvenlik
• Otomasyon
• Teknolojik işsizlik
• Teknolojik İşsizlik Primi

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın, özgün bir çalışma olduğunu; çalışmanın hazırlık, veri toplama, analiz ve bilgilerin sunumu olmak üzere tüm aşamalarından bilimsel etik ilke ve kurallarına uygun davrandığımı; bu çalışma kapsamında elde edilmeyen tüm veri ve bilgiler için kaynak gösterdiğimi ve bu kaynaklara kaynakçada yer verdiğimi; kullanılan verilerde herhangi bir değişiklik yapmadığımı, çalışmanın Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)' in tüm şartlarını ve koşullarını kabul ederek etik görev ve sorumluluklara riayet ettiğimi beyan ederim.

Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Sustainability Of Social Security Systems: The Technological Unemployment Premium Proposal

Abstract

This study examines the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation for labour markets and the financial sustainability of contribution-based social security systems. Using a qualitative research design based on an integrative literature review and thematic synthesis, the study examines how AI-driven labour displacement may affect contribution-based social security financing. The analysis suggests that automation can generate substantial productivity gains, but may also reduce insured employment and weaken contribution revenues when displacement effects are sufficiently strong and persistent. In response to this financing risk, the study develops the Technological Unemployment Premium, a conceptual mechanism linked to the measurable employment effects of automation rather than to the technology itself. Unlike conventional robot tax proposals and other technology-based financing approaches, the proposed framework links potential contribution liability to measurable reductions in insured employment or contribution-generating payroll attributable to automation and outlines preliminary institutional responsibilities, transparent and verifiable assessment criteria, and sector-specific implementation considerations. The study extends the emerging literature on automation and social security financing by showing how a financing response could be tied to measurable labour displacement and the resulting erosion of the contribution base.

Keywords

• Artificial intelligence
• Social security
• Automation
• Technological unemployment
• Technological Unemployment Premium

Ethical Statement

I declare that this manuscript is an original work and that I have adhered to the principles of scientific research and publication ethics throughout all stages of the study, including its design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. All data, information, and ideas obtained from other sources have been appropriately cited and included in the references. No manipulation or alteration has been made to the data used in this study. I further declare that I comply with the ethical responsibilities and standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and have conducted this research in accordance with those principles.

References

1. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1488–1542. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160696
2. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3
3. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188–2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
4. Agrawal, A., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: The ambiguous labor market impact of automating prediction. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.31
5. Alper, Y. (2018). Temel sosyal politika sorunları: Sosyal güvenlik. In A. Tokol & Y. Alper (Eds.), Sosyal politika. Dora Basım Yayın.
6. Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 189). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en
7. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review, 96(2), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806777212620
8. Behrendt, C., Nguyen, Q. A., & Rani, U. (2019). Social protection systems and the future of work: Ensuring social security for digital platform workers. International Social Security Review, 72(3), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12212

9. Boulanin, V. (2019). Artificial intelligence: A primer. In V. Boulanin (Ed.), The impact of artificial intelligence on strategic stability and nuclear risk: Volume I. Euro-Atlantic perspectives (pp. 13–25). Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/sipri1905-ai-strategic-stability-nuclear-risk.pdf
10. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044
11. Cabeçais de Carvalho, M. A. (2026). IoT, artificial intelligence, cloud computing and robotics and the contributory principle on social security. AI and Ethics, 6, Article 213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01045-y
12. Calligaro, F., & Cetrángolo, O. (2023). Financing universal social protection: The relevance and labour market impacts of social security contributions (WIEGO Working Paper No. 47). WIEGO and International Labour Organization. https://www.wiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/wiego-working-paper-no47.pdf
13. Casas, P., & Torres, J. L. (2026). Automation, taxation, and social security sustainability. Hacienda Pública Española/Review of Public Economics, 256(1), 69–104. https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.26.1.3
14. Costinot, A., & Werning, I. (2023). Robots, trade, and luddism: A sufficient statistic approach to optimal technology regulation. The Review of Economic Studies, 90(5), 2261–2291. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdac076
15. Díaz, A., & Grau Ruiz, M. A. (2020). Social security and robotization: Possible ways to finance human reskilling and promote employment. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0020
16. Dilik, S. (1992). Sosyal güvenlik. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
17. Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2024). GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs. Science, 384(6702), 1306–1308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj0998
18. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
19. Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2509–2526. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.8.2509
20. Goudswaard, K., & Caminada, K. (2015). Social security contributions: Economic and public finance considerations. International Social Security Review, 68(4), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12086
21. Guerreiro, J., Rebelo, S., & Teles, P. (2022). Should robots be taxed? The Review of Economic Studies, 89(1), 279–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab019
22. Holtmann, S., Braun, A.-S., Cho, J., Koch, R., & Langenmayr, D. (2025). Investment effects of a quasi-robot tax: Evidence from South Korea (WU International Taxation Research Paper Series No. 2025-14). WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5932438
23. Hötte, K., Theodorakopoulos, A., & Koutroumpis, P. (2024). Automation and taxation. Oxford Economic Papers, 76(4), 945–969. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpae006
24. Immervoll, H. (2024). Financing social protection in OECD countries: Role and uses of revenue earmarking (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 312). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0d53155c-en
25. International Labour Organization. (2002). Social security data required for the valuation of a national social security system. International Labour Office.
26. International Labour Organization. (2024). World Social Protection Report 2024–26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition. International Labour Office. https://doi.org/10.54394/ZMDK5543
27. International Social Security Association. (2025, June 10). Global overview of social security reforms 2023–2025. https://www.issa.int/analysis/global-overview-social-security-reforms-2023-2025
28. Kang, D., Lee, J. H., & Quach, S. (2024). The welfare effects of a robot tax: Evidence from a tax credit for automation technologies in Korea. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5005128
29. Korkusuz, R., & Uğur, S. (2010). Sosyal güvenlik hukukuna giriş. Karahan Kitabevi.
30. Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.-G., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4
31. Nilsson, N. J. (1998). Artificial intelligence: A new synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann.
32. OECD. (2024a). Megatrends and the future of social protection. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6c9202e8-en
33. OECD. (2024b). Revenue statistics 2024. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c87a3da5-en
34. Peetz, D. (2019). Digitalisation and the jobs of the future. In The realities and futures of work (pp. 145–166). ANU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvq4c16w.9
35. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
36. Şakar, M. (2017). Sosyal sigortalar uygulaması. Beta Yayınları.
37. Talas, C. (1983). Sosyal ekonomi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Yayını.
38. Thuemmel, U. (2023). Optimal taxation of robots. Journal of the European Economic Association, 21(3), 1154–1190. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvac062
39. Tuncay, A. C., & Ekmekçi, Ö. (2015). Sosyal güvenlik hukuku dersleri (Yenilenmiş 17. bası). Beta.
40. Turner, M. (2026). The bot tax: Why AI systems should pay social security on the wages they replace—A labor displacement levy proposal with empirical case study. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6723920
41. Tyson, L. D., & Zysman, J. (2022). Automation, AI & work. Daedalus, 151(2), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01914
42. UNU-EGOV. (2023). Digital transformation of social security administration and services: A comparative analysis of Australia, Canada, Denmark and France (ILO Working Paper No. 93). Geneva: International Labour Office. https://doi.org/10.54394/RRID1984
43. Virgilio, G. P. M., Saavedra Hoyos, F., & Bao Ratzemberg, C. B. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence on unemployment: A review. International Journal of Social Economics, 51(12), 1680–1695. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2023-0338
44. Wang, L., Liu, C., Liu, D., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Beyond jobs and wages: The hidden cost of automation on corporate social security contributions. International Review of Financial Analysis, 106, 104516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104516
45. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
46. Zhang, L., Gan, T., & Fan, J. (2023). Do industrial robots affect the labour market? Evidence from China. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 31(3), 787–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12356