IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v67y2000i266p229-244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing Returns, Labour Utilization and Externalities: Procyclical Productivity in the United States and Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Vecchi

Abstract

This paper investigates procyclical productivity and attempts to discriminate among several competing explanations. The study focuses on the United States and Japan, since the different industrial relations in these two economies serve to cast a sharper light on the procyclical productivity debate. Labour hoarding, evaluated through the introduction of a labour utilization proxy, proves to be an important influence. The interpretation of the role of external economies remains an open issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Vecchi, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Labour Utilization and Externalities: Procyclical Productivity in the United States and Japan," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(266), pages 229-244, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:67:y:2000:i:266:p:229-244
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-0335.00205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00205
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-0335.00205?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Darby, Julia & Hart, Robert A. & Vecchi, Michela, 2001. "Labour force participation and the business cycle: a comparative analysis of France, Japan, Sweden and the United States," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 113-133, April.
    2. Darby, Julia & Hart, Robert A. & Vecchi, Michela, 2001. "Wages, work intensity and unemployment in Japan, UK and USA," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 243-258, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:67:y:2000:i:266:p:229-244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.