Listing 1 - 10 of 429 | << page >> |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
Aerospace industries --- Industries aérospatiales --- Industries aérospatiales
Choose an application
Industries --- History
Choose an application
Not only has U.S. productivity been poor by international standards but it is highly heterogeneous at the disaggregated industry level. Manufacturing has continued to do well while nonmanufacturing has done poorly, especially the services. Within services, apparel retailing has done well while food retailing has done badly; railroad productivity has accelerated while airline productivity has decelerated. This dispersion of performance argues against a single over-arching explanation of the slowdown. The recent shift to chain- weighted productivity measures substantially increases the magnitude of the U.S productivity slowdown and shifts it later in time. Performance in the 1970s is better than previously thought, while performance in the 1990s has been substantially worse. In addition, productivity performance in each decade has been understated due to an upward bias in the Consumer Price Index This 'CPI bias' has led to an uneven understatement of productivity change, with major errors in manufacturing, trade, and some services. The paper emphasizes two substantive causes of the productivity slowdown that go beyond measurement errors. First, some industries (e.g. electric utilities and airlines) reached a technological frontier in which the sources of earlier rapid productivity growth were exhausted. Second, slow productivity growth in food retailing and some service industries reflects a feedback from the weak bargaining position of U.S. labor. Weak unions, a falling real minimum wage, and immigration have combined to keep real wages in U.S. service industries relatively low, and this encourages overhiring by the standards of some other industrial nations.
Choose an application
Advance of science and its commercial applications are in a close, symbiotic relationship in the U.S. biotechnology industry. Comparing Japan and the U.S., the structure of the science appears broadly similar, but the organization of the biotechnology industry is quite dissimilar. In the U.S., some 77 percent of new biotechnology enterprises (NBEs) were dedicated new biotechnology firms (NBFs) started for this purpose while 88 percent of Japanese biotech firms in our data base were subunits of existing firms (NBSs). We report pooled poisson regression estimates of the relation of NBE births in Japan to top-producing is at work in Japan and America, stars in Japan induce entry of significantly fewer NBEs than in the U.S. and preexisting economic activity plays a greater role. We find no such significant difference for entry of keiretsu-member and nonmember firms within Japan. We relate the significant Japan-U.S. differences to Japan's relatively compact geography and institutional differences between the higher-education and research funding systems, the venture-capital and IPO markets, cultural characteristics and incentive systems which impact scientists' entrepreneurialism, and tort-liability exposures. The relative importance of these factors and whether differences in organization of biotechnology result in substantial differences in productivity and international competitiveness are issues for future research.
Choose an application
Choose an application
Choose an application
Choose an application
Service industries --- Service industries --- Total quality management.
Choose an application
Biotechnology industries --- Biotechnology --- Biotechnology. --- Biotechnology industries.
Choose an application
Energy industries --- Energy industries. --- Canada. --- United States.
Listing 1 - 10 of 429 | << page >> |
Sort by
|