IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/783.html

Technological innovation and economic performance in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Nickell, S. J.
  • Van Reenen, John

Abstract

Over the period since 1970, Britain has improved its relative productivity performance, but there remains a significant gap in market sector productivity between Britain and both Continental Europe and the United States. Much of the gap between Britain and Continental Europe is due to lower levels of capital intensity and skill. However, even taking these into account, there remains a significant gap between Britain and the United States. This reflects not just a weakness in high tech areas but an inability to absorb best-practice techniques and methods in wide swathes of the market sector. Part of this is due to a weakness in technological innovation despite a high quality science base. This includes comparatively low and falling levels of R&D and patenting as well as a distinct lag in the diffusion of innovations relative to other countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Nickell, S. J. & Van Reenen, John, 2001. "Technological innovation and economic performance in the United Kingdom," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 783, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/783/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Layard, R & Nickell, S, 1989. "The Thatcher Miracle?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(2), pages 215-219, May.
    2. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    3. Hilary Steedman, 1999. "Looking into the Qualifications Black Box: What can International Surveys Tell Us About Basic Competence?," CEP Discussion Papers dp0431, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    4. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2002. "Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 339-376.
    5. McConnell, John J. & Muscarella, Chris J., 1985. "Corporate capital expenditure decisions and the market value of the firm," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 399-422, September.
    6. Nickell, Stephen & Wadhwani, Sushil & Wall, Martin, 1992. "Productivity growth in U.K. companies, 1975-1986," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1055-1085, June.
    7. Crafts,Nicholas & Toniolo,Gianni (ed.), 1996. "Economic Growth in Europe since 1945," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521499644, January.
    8. Bond, Stephen R & Jenkinson, Tim, 1996. "The Assessment: Investment Performance and Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 12(2), pages 1-29, Summer.
    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. Stefania Lionetti, 2010. "Tourism productivity: incentives and obstacles to fostering growth," Quaderni della facoltà di Scienze economiche dell'Università di Lugano 1009, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    2. Christian Ketels, 2006. "Michael Porter’s Competitiveness Framework—Recent Learnings and New Research Priorities," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 115-136, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen Nickell & John Van Reenen, 2001. "Technological Innovation and Performance in the United Kingdom," CEP Discussion Papers dp0488, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    2. Even Caroli & John Van Reenen, 1999. "Organization, skill and technology: evidence from a panel of British and French establishments," IFS Working Papers W99/23, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Alhassan Abdul-Wakeel Karakara & Evans Osabuohien, 2020. "ICT adoption, competition and innovation of informal firms in West Africa: a comparative study of Ghana and Nigeria," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(3), pages 397-414, June.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Claire Lelarge & John Van Reenen & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2007. "Technology, Information, and the Decentralization of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1759-1799.
    5. Goergen, Marc & Manjon, Miguel C. & Renneboog, Luc, 2008. "Recent developments in German corporate governance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 175-193, September.
    6. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    7. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408.
    8. John Vickers, 2000. "Monetary union and economic growth," Working Paper Research 10, National Bank of Belgium.
    9. Xi Li, 2010. "The impacts of product market competition on the quantity and quality of voluntary disclosures," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 663-711, September.
    10. Scarpetta, Stefano & Tressel, Thierry, 2004. "Boosting productivity via innovation and adoption of new technologies : any role for labor market institutions?," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 29144, The World Bank.
    11. Hay, Donald A, 2001. "The Post-1990 Brazilian Trade Liberalisation and the Performance of Large Manufacturing Firms: Productivity, Market Share and Profits," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 620-641, July.
    12. Richard Disney & Jonathan Haskel & Ylva Heden, 2003. "Restructuring and productivity growth in uk manufacturing," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(489), pages 666-694, July.
    13. Gustavo Crespi & Chiara Criscuolo & Jonathan Haskel, 2006. "Information Technology, Organisational Change and Productivity Growth: Evidence from UK Firms," Working Papers 558, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    14. Yosuke Okada, 2005. "Competition and Productivity in Japanese Manufacturing Industries," NBER Working Papers 11540, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Haskel, Jonathan & Criscuolo, Chiara & ,, 2007. "Information Technology, Organisational Change and Productivity," CEPR Discussion Papers 6105, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Brent Lao & Sheng Yi, 2021. "Financial misreporting and peer firms' operational efficiency," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 387-413, March.
    17. Crafts, Nicholas, "undated". "The Postwar British Productivity Failure," Economic Research Papers 269090, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    18. Stephen Broadberry & Nicholas Crafts, 2003. "UK productivity performance from 1950 to 1979: a restatement of the Broadberry‐Crafts view," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 56(4), pages 718-735, November.
    19. Nick Bloom & Tobias Kretschmer & John Van Reenan, 2009. "Work-Life Balance, Management Practices and Productivity," NBER Chapters, in: International Differences in the Business Practices and Productivity of Firms, pages 15-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Patricia Jones, 1994. "Are manufacturing workers really worth their pay?," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/1994-12, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:ehl:lserod:783. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (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.