Technological Leadership and Productivity Leadership in Manufacturing since the Industrial Revolution: Implications for the Convergence Debate
AbstractThe United States has been the labor productivity leader in manufacturing since the early nineteenth century despite changes in technological leadership from Britain to the United States and then to Germany and Japan. U.S. productivity leadership is based on the more widespread use of mass production rather than craft production methods, determined by resource and factor endowments and demand patterns. The two systems can coexist so long as the technologically lagging system imitates and adapts. Changes in the relative dynamism of the two systems explain changes in technological leadership but without necessarily leading to changes in productivity leadership. Copyright 1994 by Royal Economic Society.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Royal Economic Society in its journal The Economic Journal.
Volume (Year): 104 (1994)
Issue (Month): 423 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Office of the Secretary-General, School of Economics and Finance, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AL, UK
Phone: +44 1334 462479
Web page: http://www.res.org.uk/
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Broadberry, S., 1993. "Technological Leadership and Productivity Leadership in Manufacturing Since the Industrial Revolution: Implications for the Convergence Debate," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 414, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Stephen Redding, 2002.
"Path Dependence, Endogenous Innovation, and Growth,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1215-1248, November.
- Stephen Redding, 2002. "Path dependence, endogenous innovation, and growth," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 208, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Stephen Redding, 1999. "Path Dependence, Endogenous Innovation and Growth," CEP Discussion Papers dp0424, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Rensman, Marieke, 1996. "Economic growth and technological change in the long run : a survey of theoretical and empirical literature," Research Report 96C10, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
- Nakabayashi, Masaki, 2011.
"Schooling, employer learning, and internal labor market effect: Wage dynamics and human capital investment in the Japanese steel industry, 1930-1960s,"
30597, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Nakabayashi, Masaki, 2011. "Schooling, employer learning, and internal labor market effect: Wage dynamics and human capital investment in the Japanese steel industry, 1930-1960s," MPRA Paper 30749, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 06 May 2011.
- Broadberry, S. N., 1995. "Comparative productivity levels in manufacturing since the Industrial Revolution: Lessons from Britain, America, Germany and Japan," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 71-95, March.
- Crafts, Nicholas, 2010.
"The Contribution of New Technology to Economic Growth: Lessons from Economic History,"
CAGE Online Working Paper Series
01, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
- Crafts, Nicholas, 2010. "The contribution of new technology to economic growth: lessons from economic history," Revista de Historia Económica, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(03), pages 409-440, December.
- Cameron, G., 1998.
"Catch-Up and Leapfrog Between The USA and Japan,"
148, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Nicholas Crafts, 1998. "Forging Ahead and Falling Behind: The Rise and Relative Decline of the First Industrial Nation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 193-210, Spring.
- Broadberry, Stephen & Klein, Alexander, 2011. "When and why did eastern European economies begin to fail? Lessons from a Czechoslovak/UK productivity comparison, 1921-1991," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-52, January.
- NAKABAYASHI, Masaki, 2008. "Imposed Efficiency of Treaty Port: Japanese Industrialization and Western Imperialist Institutions," ISS Discussion Paper Series (series F) f142, Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo, revised 07 Dec 2013.
- Boschma, Ron A., 1999. "The rise of clusters of innovative industries in Belgium during the industrial epoch," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 853-871, November.
- Cristopher Spencer & Paul Temple, 2013. "Standards, Learning and Growth in Britain 1901-2009," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0613, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
- Christopher Spencer & Paul Temple, 2012. "Alternative Paths of Learning: Standardisation and Growth in Britain, 1901-2009," Discussion Paper Series 2012_10, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Oct 2012.
- Gavin Cameron, 2005.
"The Sun Also Rises: Productivity Convergence Between Japan and the USA,"
Journal of Economic Growth,
Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 387-408, December.
- Gavin Cameron, 2000. "The Sun Also Rises: Productivity Convergence Between Japan and the USA," Economics Series Working Papers 45, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Ahmed S. Rahman, 2010. "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Industrialization," Departmental Working Papers 27, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
- Nicholas Crafts, 2010. "Cliometrics and technological change: a survey," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 1127-1147.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.