国际竞争力:14个经合组织国家的劳动生产率领导和趋同

Labor eJournal Pub Date : 1997-06-01 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.329
Morton Schnabel
{"title":"国际竞争力:14个经合组织国家的劳动生产率领导和趋同","authors":"Morton Schnabel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From 1970 through 1991, the United States led other OECD countries in overall labor productivity, a key measure of national competitiveness. During this period, labor productivity in these countries converged, both towards the mean OECD labor productivity and the U.S. level of labor productivity. This suggests living standards among the OECD countries are becoming more alike. In the latter half of the period, the rate of convergence slowed. The industrial components of aggregate labor productivity offer insight into the causes of this convergence slowdown. Although most industry groups continued to converge between 1982 and 1991, two key industry groups--1) Manufacturing, and 2) Finance, insurance and real estate and business services--did not. Growth in Japanese labor productivity created the divergence in Finance, insurance and real estate and business services. Strong manufacturing labor productivity growth in United States high-technology industries was a primary cause of the divergence in Manufacturing. In 1991, the United States was among the labor productivity leaders in almost all manufacturing industries. It was, however, no longer the unequivocal labor productivity leader in these industries. Other countries had overtaken U.S. labor productivity in three of the nine industries and retained the lead in three other industries. Japan, for example, had a dominant lead in Chemicals and chemical petroleum, coal, rubber and plastic products. The United States, however, held a considerable lead in Fabricated metal products, machinery and equipment, which includes most key high-technology manufacturing industries. The slowdown of OECD labor productivity convergence toward the U.S. level since 1982 is a sign of continued U.S. competitiveness. The results of this analysis of selected OECD countries at the aggregate and industry levels suggest that the pundits of the 1980s were too quick to point to the demise of the U.S. competitiveness. These results show that although the United States? overall labor productivity lead is not as overwhelming as it once was, the United States continues to lead in overall labor productivity and in labor productivity in many important individual industries. This is not to say that there are no reasons to watch U.S. labor productivity measures closely and explore the roots of labor productivity changes. The situation is, however, much more complicated and not necessarily as dire as some analysts suggested during the 1980s.","PeriodicalId":114523,"journal":{"name":"Labor eJournal","volume":"67 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Competitiveness: Labor Productivity Leadership and Convergence Among 14 OECD Countries\",\"authors\":\"Morton Schnabel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.329\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From 1970 through 1991, the United States led other OECD countries in overall labor productivity, a key measure of national competitiveness. During this period, labor productivity in these countries converged, both towards the mean OECD labor productivity and the U.S. level of labor productivity. This suggests living standards among the OECD countries are becoming more alike. In the latter half of the period, the rate of convergence slowed. The industrial components of aggregate labor productivity offer insight into the causes of this convergence slowdown. Although most industry groups continued to converge between 1982 and 1991, two key industry groups--1) Manufacturing, and 2) Finance, insurance and real estate and business services--did not. Growth in Japanese labor productivity created the divergence in Finance, insurance and real estate and business services. Strong manufacturing labor productivity growth in United States high-technology industries was a primary cause of the divergence in Manufacturing. In 1991, the United States was among the labor productivity leaders in almost all manufacturing industries. It was, however, no longer the unequivocal labor productivity leader in these industries. Other countries had overtaken U.S. labor productivity in three of the nine industries and retained the lead in three other industries. Japan, for example, had a dominant lead in Chemicals and chemical petroleum, coal, rubber and plastic products. The United States, however, held a considerable lead in Fabricated metal products, machinery and equipment, which includes most key high-technology manufacturing industries. The slowdown of OECD labor productivity convergence toward the U.S. level since 1982 is a sign of continued U.S. competitiveness. The results of this analysis of selected OECD countries at the aggregate and industry levels suggest that the pundits of the 1980s were too quick to point to the demise of the U.S. competitiveness. These results show that although the United States? overall labor productivity lead is not as overwhelming as it once was, the United States continues to lead in overall labor productivity and in labor productivity in many important individual industries. This is not to say that there are no reasons to watch U.S. labor productivity measures closely and explore the roots of labor productivity changes. The situation is, however, much more complicated and not necessarily as dire as some analysts suggested during the 1980s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":114523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Labor eJournal\",\"volume\":\"67 4\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Labor eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.329\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.329","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

从1970年到1991年,美国在整体劳动生产率(衡量国家竞争力的关键指标)方面领先于其他经合组织国家。在此期间,这些国家的劳动生产率趋同,既向经合组织的平均劳动生产率靠拢,也向美国的劳动生产率靠拢。这表明经合组织成员国的生活水平正变得越来越相似。在这一时期的后半段,趋同的速度放缓。总劳动生产率的工业组成部分为这种趋同放缓的原因提供了洞见。尽管大多数工业集团在1982年至1991年间继续趋同,但两个关键的工业集团——1)制造业和2)金融、保险、房地产和商业服务——却没有趋同。日本劳动生产率的增长导致了金融、保险、房地产和商业服务领域的分化。美国高科技产业制造业劳动生产率的强劲增长是制造业分化的主要原因。1991年,美国几乎在所有制造业的劳动生产率方面都处于领先地位。然而,它不再是这些行业中明确的劳动生产率领导者。其他国家在9个行业中的3个行业的劳动生产率超过了美国,并在另外3个行业保持领先地位。例如,日本在化学品和化工石油、煤炭、橡胶和塑料产品方面占据主导地位。然而,美国在包括大多数关键高科技制造业在内的金属制品、机械和设备领域占据相当大的领先地位。经济合作与发展组织(OECD)的劳动生产率自1982年以来向美国趋同的速度有所放缓,这表明美国的竞争力仍在继续。对选定的经合组织国家在总量和产业水平上的分析结果表明,20世纪80年代的专家们过早地指出美国竞争力的消亡。这些结果表明,尽管美国?总体劳动生产率的领先地位不像以前那样压倒性,美国在总体劳动生产率和许多重要的个别行业的劳动生产率方面继续领先。这并不是说没有理由密切关注美国的劳动生产率指标,探索劳动生产率变化的根源。然而,情况要复杂得多,也不一定像一些分析人士在上世纪80年代所说的那样可怕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
International Competitiveness: Labor Productivity Leadership and Convergence Among 14 OECD Countries
From 1970 through 1991, the United States led other OECD countries in overall labor productivity, a key measure of national competitiveness. During this period, labor productivity in these countries converged, both towards the mean OECD labor productivity and the U.S. level of labor productivity. This suggests living standards among the OECD countries are becoming more alike. In the latter half of the period, the rate of convergence slowed. The industrial components of aggregate labor productivity offer insight into the causes of this convergence slowdown. Although most industry groups continued to converge between 1982 and 1991, two key industry groups--1) Manufacturing, and 2) Finance, insurance and real estate and business services--did not. Growth in Japanese labor productivity created the divergence in Finance, insurance and real estate and business services. Strong manufacturing labor productivity growth in United States high-technology industries was a primary cause of the divergence in Manufacturing. In 1991, the United States was among the labor productivity leaders in almost all manufacturing industries. It was, however, no longer the unequivocal labor productivity leader in these industries. Other countries had overtaken U.S. labor productivity in three of the nine industries and retained the lead in three other industries. Japan, for example, had a dominant lead in Chemicals and chemical petroleum, coal, rubber and plastic products. The United States, however, held a considerable lead in Fabricated metal products, machinery and equipment, which includes most key high-technology manufacturing industries. The slowdown of OECD labor productivity convergence toward the U.S. level since 1982 is a sign of continued U.S. competitiveness. The results of this analysis of selected OECD countries at the aggregate and industry levels suggest that the pundits of the 1980s were too quick to point to the demise of the U.S. competitiveness. These results show that although the United States? overall labor productivity lead is not as overwhelming as it once was, the United States continues to lead in overall labor productivity and in labor productivity in many important individual industries. This is not to say that there are no reasons to watch U.S. labor productivity measures closely and explore the roots of labor productivity changes. The situation is, however, much more complicated and not necessarily as dire as some analysts suggested during the 1980s.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信