The paper summarized here is part of the spring 2026 edition of the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, the leading conference series and journal in economics for timely, cutting-edge research about real-world policy issues. Research findings are presented in a clear and accessible style to maximize their impact on economic understanding and policymaking. The editors are Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellows Janice Eberly and Jón Steinsson.
See the spring 2026 BPEA event page to watch paper presentations and read summaries of all the papers from this edition. Submit a proposal to present at a future BPEA conference here.
Surveys last spring and early this year show that U.S. workers are using artificial intelligence (AI) at a significantly higher rate than European workers, according to a paper to be discussed at the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA) conference on March 27.
“In 2026 we find that 43% of U.S. workers use AI for their job compared to 32% among European workers,” write the authors, Alexander Bick of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Adam Blandin of Vanderbilt University, David J. Deming of Harvard University, and Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln and Jonas Jessen of WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
Additionally, the authors compared a U.S. Census Bureau survey that asked firms whether they were using AI “for production of goods and services” with a European Union (EU) survey.
“In 2025, 7% of U.S. firms use AI for production versus 4% of EU firms,” they write. The authors caution that the worker and firm surveys do not measure AI adoption in the same way and differ for a number of reasons. AI for production is a much narrower definition than the definition the authors used in their worker surveys—generative AI (AI to create new content such as text or computer code).
Also, the U.S. and European Union firm surveys differ. The EU survey found that 20% of firms on average were using at least one AI technology for some purpose (five times the average for using AI for production) whereas the U.S. survey, until recently, did not ask that broader question.
Nevertheless, the authors write, “we conclude that AI adoption by U.S. firms and workers exceeds that of Europe overall.”
The paper explored reasons behind the cross-country variation in AI adoption, including firm size and type, worker demographics (age and education), and management practices. They concluded that while all of the factors account for some of the gap, the major part was driven by management practices. AI adoption is strongly associated with whether a firm actively encourages its employees to use AI and provides access to AI tools.
The authors also examined differences in AI adoption across Europe and found significant variation. The 2026 worker survey (of six European countries) showed use of AI ranging from 36% in the United Kingdom to 26% in Italy. The EU survey of firms in 27 countries showed the share using AI for production in 2025 ranged from 9% in Sweden to 1% in Serbia.
And they considered whether the AI adoption gap between the United States and Europe is affecting productivity. The worker surveys suggest perhaps it is. Aggregate time savings (including both AI users and non-users) were 2.3% of hours in the United States versus 1.4% in Europe. An analysis of firm data produced findings of similar magnitude “consistent with a positive productivity impact from AI” in both the United States and Europe.
And, at least so far, they write, “we find no clear evidence that recent AI adoption is associated with systematic changes in employment in either Europe or the U.S.”
Authors
CITATION
Bick, Alexander, Adam Blandin, David J. Deming, Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln, and Jonas Jessen. 2026. “Mind the Gap: AI Adoption in Europe and the US.” BPEA Conference Draft, Spring.
-
Acknowledgements and disclosures
David Skidmore authored the summary language for this paper. Chris Miller assisted with data visualization.
The views in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or the Federal Reserve System.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
