IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v19y2001i1p23-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking Productivity: Why has Productivity Focussed on Labour Instead of Natural Resources?

Author

Listed:
  • Raimund Bleischwitz

    ()

Abstract

The contribution of natural resources and ecosystems to economic processes still remains under-assessed by market evaluation and productivity analysis. Following the historical lines of the classical productivity debate ranging from the French Physiocrats to early neoclassical growth theories, the productivity concept underwent a gradual transformation from its previous understanding based on natural resources and other environmental factors to its contemporary narrow notion. This paper claims that the course of the classical debate has shaped the scope of predominant contemporary analysis. Except for some very recent findings, multifactor productivity largely focusses on a two-factor model. Material Flow Analysis (MFA) provides a useful step for widening the measurement and notion of productivity. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Suggested Citation

  • Raimund Bleischwitz, 2001. "Rethinking Productivity: Why has Productivity Focussed on Labour Instead of Natural Resources?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(1), pages 23-36, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:19:y:2001:i:1:p:23-36
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1011106527578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1011106527578
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. El Serafy, Salah, 1997. "Green accounting and economic policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 217-229, June.
    2. Jorgenson, Dale W. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 1992. "Global change, energy prices, and US economic growth," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 135-154, June.
    3. Maudos, Joaquin & Pastor, Jose Manuel & Serrano, Lorenzo, 1999. "Total factor productivity measurement and human capital in OECD countries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 39-44, April.
    4. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
    5. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
    6. Hartwick, John M, 1977. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 972-974, December.
    7. W. Erwin Diewert & Kevin J. Fox, 1999. "Can measurement error explain the productivity paradox?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 251-280, April.
    8. Solow, Robert M, 1986. " On the Intergenerational Allocation of Natural Resources," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(1), pages 141-149.
    9. Bernard, Andrew B & Jones, Charles I, 1996. "Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1216-1238, December.
    10. Caton, Hiram, 1985. "The Preindustrial Economics of Adam Smith," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 833-853, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lauwers, Ludwig, 2009. "Justifying the incorporation of the materials balance principle into frontier-based eco-efficiency models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1605-1614, April.
    2. repec:fan:spespe:v:html10.3280/spe2018-001003 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:kap:enreec:v:19:y:2001:i:1:p:23-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.