IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-147670.html

A comment on "US Economic Growth in the Gilded Age"

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Luc De Meulemeester

Abstract

In this paper, we critically assess the contribution of Field (2007) in this issue. The author casts some doubts concerning the exceptionality of the 20th century as experiencing 'growth in the era of knowledge based progress', using new quantitative evidence on the TFP growth on the period 1855-2005, stressing the importance of a proper periodization as well as correcting for biases in earlier assessments by various authors. He shows that the actual TFP growth was rather strong from the 1870s to the first decade of the 20th century, while it was quite low during long periods of the 20th century (1906-1919; 1941-1948; 1973-1989). Field tried to explain this stylized fact using more conventional historical evidence (impact of technological innovation; rise of the Modern Business Enterprise - the latter being favoured by the development of communication technologies). We put forward some methodological discussion concerning the proper meaning of TFP (productivity growth is not the same as technological change) as well as putting the results in a more theoretical perspective (determinants of the periods of high TFP growth). We also stress some elements of a more historical nature not stressed by the author as the role of the State (protectionism, migration policy, R&D...), and more particularly the emergence of the Modern American University during the last three decades of the 19th century.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Luc De Meulemeester, 2009. "A comment on "US Economic Growth in the Gilded Age"," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/147670, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/147670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/147670. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.