Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:53:27.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Conflation of Productivity and Efficiency in Economics and Economic History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Edward Saraydar
Edward Saraydar
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The literature of comparative economics as well as economic history is replete with references to productivity differences as reflecting relative efficiency in production. In socialist economics, for example, the longevity of the relative-productivity/relative-efficiency theme is apparent from Abram Bergson's (1948) early survey where, commenting on a productivity debate that had already been going on for over twenty years, he identified “the only issue outstanding” as the question “which is more efficient, socialism or capitalism?” The issue has continued to be addressed vigorously since then, and it is still outstanding. Again, in European economic history, John Nye (1987) recently pointed out that relative efficiency as reflected in relative productivity has been part and parcel of the postwar debate on French industrialization: the view that less productive and, therefore, “inefficient” family firms led to French “backwardness” in production.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , April 1989 , pp. 55 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balassa, Bela A. 1964. “The Dynamic Efficiency of the Soviet Economy.” American Economic Review 54:490–505.Google Scholar
Bergson, Abram. 1948. “Socialist Economics.” In A Survey of Contemporary Economics, vol. 1, edited by Ellis, Howard S.. Homewood, III.: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Bergson, Abram. 1964. Economics of Soviet Planning. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bergson, Abram. 1968. Planning and Productivity under Soviet Socialism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bergson, Abram. 1978. Productivity and the Social System – The USSR and the West. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergson, Abram. 1987. “Comparative Productivity: The USSR, Eastern Europe, and the West.” American Economic Review 77:342–57.Google Scholar
Berliner, Joseph S. 1964. “The Static Efficiency of the Soviet Economy.” American Economic Review 54:480–89.Google Scholar
Boadway, Robin W., and Bruce, Neil. 1984. Welfare Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
David, Paul A., and Temin, Peter. 1974. “Slavery, The Progressive Institution?” journal of Economic History 34:739–83.Google Scholar
David, Paul A., Gutman, Herbert G., Sutch, Richard, Temin, Peter, and Wright, Gavin (editors). 1976. Reckoning with Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Alessi, Louis. 1983. “Property Rights, Transaction Costs, and X-Efficiency: An Essay in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 73:64–81.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Alexander (editor). 1971. Comparison of Economic Systems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert W., and Elton, G. R. 1983. Which Road to the Past? Two Views of History. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert W., and Engerman, Stanley L. 1974. Time on the Cross. Vols. 1 and 2. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert W., 1977. “Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South.” American Economic Review 67:275–96.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert W., 1980. “Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South: Reply.” American Economic Review 70:672–90.Google Scholar
Haskell, Thomas H. 1979. “Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South: A Reply to Fogel-Engerman.” American Economic Review 69:206–7.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1939. Value and Capital. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, Jack. 1985. “The Expanding Domain of Economics.” American Economic Review 75:53–68.Google Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1939. “Welfare Propositions and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Economic Journal 44:549–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibenstein, Harvey. 1978. “X-Inefficiency Xists – Reply to an Xorcist.” American Economic Review 68:203–11.Google Scholar
Leibenstein, Harvey. 1979. “A Branch of Economics is Missing: Micro-Micro Theory.” Journal of Economic Literature 17:477–502.Google Scholar
Leibenstein, Harvey. 1980. Beyond Economic Man: A New Foundation for Economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leibenstein, Harvey. 1983. “Property Rights and X-Efficiency: Comment.” American Economic Review 73:831–42.Google Scholar
Little, I. M. D. 1957. A Critique of Welfare Economics, 2nd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nadiri, Ishaq. 1970. “Some Approaches to the Theory and Measurement of Total Factor Productivity: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature 8:1137–77.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Nye, John V. 1987. “Firm Size and Economic Backwardness: A New Look at the French Industrialization Debate.” Journal of Economic History 47:649–69.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1976. “The Xistence of X-Efficiency.” American Economic Review 66:213–16.Google Scholar