Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:03:43.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long-Run Data Show

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Stephen N. Broadberry
Stephen N. Broadberry
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7 AL, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commonly accepted chronology for comparative productivity levels, based on GDP data, does not apply to the manufacturing sector, which shows evidence of a much greater degree of stationarity of comparative labor productivity performance among the major industrialized countries of Britain, Germany, and the United States. These results for manufacturing suggest that convergence of GDP per worker must have occurred through trends in other sectors and through compositional effects of structural change. The persistent, large labor productivity gap between the United States and Europe cannot be explained simply by differences in capital per worker, but is related to technological choice.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 772 - 795
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1993

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

Abramovitz, Moses, “Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind,” this Journal, 46 (June 1986), pp. 385–406.Google Scholar
Alford, Bernard W. E., W. D. and H. O. Wills and the UK Tobacco Industry, 1786–1965 (London, 1973).Google Scholar
Ames, Edward, and Nathan, Rosenberg, “The Enfield Arsenal in Theory and History,” Economic Journal, 78 (Dec. 1968), pp. 827–42.Google Scholar
van Ark, Bart, “Comparative Levels of Manufacturing Labour Productivity in Postwar Europe,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (Nov. 1990), pp. 343–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ark, Bart, “Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing,” National Institute Economic Review, 142 (Nov. 1992), pp. 63–74.Google Scholar
Baumol, William J., “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show,” American Economic Review, 76 (Dec. 1986), pp. 1072–85.Google Scholar
Baumol, William J., and Edward N., Wolff, “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Reply,” American Economic Review, 78 (Dec. 1988), pp. 1155–59.Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N., “Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long Run Data Show” (Warwick Economic Research Paper No. 393, 1992).Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N., “Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing during the Nineteenth Century” (Warwick Economic Research Paper No. 399, 1992).Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N., and Crafts, N. F. R., “Explaining Anglo-American Productivity Differences in the Mid-Twentieth Century,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (Nov. 1990), pp. 375–402.Google Scholar
Broadberry, Stephen N., and Fremdling, Rainer, “Comparative Productivity in British and German Industry, 1907–37,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (Nov. 1990), pp. 403–21.Google Scholar
Carter, C. F., Reddaway, W. B., and Stone, Richard, The Measurement of Production Movements (Cambridge, 1948).Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, MA, 1990).Google Scholar
Cornwall, John, Modern Capitalism: Its Growth and Transformation (London, 1977).Google Scholar
Creamer, Daniel, Capital and Output Trends in Manufacturing Industries, 1889–1948 (New York, 1954).Google Scholar
Davies, Stephen W., and Caves, Richard E., Britain's Productivity Gap (Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar
De Long, J. Bradford, “Productivity Growth, Convergence and Welfare: Comment,” American Economic Review, 78 (Dec. 1988), 1138–54.Google Scholar
Denison, Edward F., Why Growth Rates Differ: Postwar Experience in Nine Western Countries (Washington, DC, 1967).Google Scholar
Dowrick, Steve, and Nguyen, Duc-Tho, “OECD Comparative Economic Growth 1950–85: Catch-up and Convergence,” American Economic Review, 79 (Dec. 1989), pp. 1010–30.Google Scholar
Dumke, Rolf, “Reassessing the Wirtschaftswunder: Reconstruction and Postwar Growth in West Germany in an International Context,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (Nov. 1990), pp. 451–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durlauf, Steven N., and Johnson, Paul A., “Local versus Global Convergence Across National Economies” (NBER Working Paper No. 3996, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricant, Solomon, The Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899–1937 (New York, 1940).Google Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H., National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom 1855–1965 (Cambridge, 1972).Google Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H., “Economic Growth since 1870: Britain's Performance in International Perspective,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H., “Sources and Methods of Estimation for Domestic Reproducible Fixed Assets, Stocks and Works in Progress, Overseas Assets and Land,” in Feinstein, Charles H. and Pollard, Sidney, eds. Studies in Capital Formation in the United Kingdom, 1750–1920 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 258–471.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H., “Benefits of Backwardness and Costs of Continuity,” in Graham, Andrew and Seldon, Anthony, eds., Government and Economies in the Postwar World: Economic Policies and Comparative Performance, 1945–85 (London, 1990), pp. 284–93.Google Scholar
Field, Alexander James, “Land Abundance, Interest/Profit Rates, and Nineteenth-Century American and British Technology,” this Journal, 43 (June 1983), pp. 405–31.Google Scholar
Field, Alexander James, “On the Unimportance of Machinery,” Explorations in Economic History, 22 (Oct. 1985), pp. 378–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman-Peck, James, “The American Challenge of the Twenties: Multinationals and the European Motor Industry,” this Journal, 42 (Dec. 1982), pp. 865–81.Google Scholar
Frankel, Marvin, British and American Manufacturing Productivity (Urbana, IL, 1957).Google Scholar
Gilbert, Milton, and Kravis, Irving B., An International Comparison of National Products and the Purchasing Power of Currencies (Paris, 1954).Google Scholar
Gomulka, S., Inventive Activity, Diffusion and the Stages of Economic Growth (Aarhus, 1971).Google Scholar
Habakkuk, H. J., American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1962).Google Scholar
Harley, C. K., “Skilled Labour and the Choice of Technique in Edwardian Industry,” Explorations in Economic History, 11 (Summer 1974), pp. 391–414.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Walther G., Das Wachstum der Deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mine des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1965).Google Scholar
James, John A., and Skinner, Jonathan S., “The Resolution of the Labor Scarcity Paradox,” this Journal, 45 (Sept. 1985), pp. 513–40.Google Scholar
Jefferys, James B., Retail Trading in Britain, 1850–1950 (Cambridge, 1954).Google Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas, Causes of the Slow Rate of Growth in the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture (Cambridge, 1966).Google Scholar
Kendrick, John W., Productivity Trends in the United States (Princeton, 1961).Google Scholar
Krijnse Locker, H., and Faerber, M. D., “Space and Time Comparisons of Purchasing Power Parities and Real Values,” Review of Income and Wealth, 30 (Mar. 1984), pp. 53–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebergott, Stanley, “Labor Force and Employment, 1800–1960,” in Brady, Dorothy S., ed., Output, Employment and Productivity in the US after 1800 (New York, 1966). pp. 117–204.Google Scholar
Lebergott, Stanley, The Americans: An Economic Record (New York, 1984).Google Scholar
Lee, Susan P., and Passell, Peter, A New Economic View of American History (New York, 1979).Google Scholar
Levitt, M. S., and Joyce, M. A. S., The Growth and Efficiency of Public Spending (Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar
Lewchuk, Wayne, American Technology and the British Vehicle Industry (Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar
Lorenz, Edward H., and Wilkinson, Frank, “The Shipbuilding Industry, 1880–1965,” in Elbaum, Bernard and Lazonick, William, eds., The Decline of the British Economy (Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N., Economic Maturity and Entrepreneurial Decline: British Iron and Steel, 1870–1913 (Cambridge, MA, 1973).Google Scholar
Maddison, Angus, Phases of Capitalist Development (Oxford, 1982).Google Scholar
Maddison, Angus, Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development (Oxford, 1991).Google Scholar
Maddison, Angus, and van Ark, Bart, “Comparisons of Real Output in Manufacturing” (World Bank Policy Planning and Research Working Paper No. WPS5).Google Scholar
Mathias, Peter, Retailing Revolution (London, 1967).Google Scholar
Matthews, Robin C. O., Feinstein, Charles H., and Odling-Smee, John C., British Economic Growth, 1856–1973 (Oxford, 1982).Google Scholar
Mitchell, Brian R., British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1988).Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R., and Wright, Gavin, “The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective,” Journal of Economic Literature, 30, (Dec. 1992), pp. 1931–64.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, Mary, “Productivity Levels in British and German Manufacturing Industry,” National Institute Economic Review, 139 (Feb. 1992), pp. 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paige, Deborah, and Bombach, Gottfried, A Comparison of National Output and Productivity of the United Kingdom and the United States (Paris, 1959).Google Scholar
Pilat, Dirk, “Levels of Real Output and Labor Productivity by Industry of Origin: A Comparison of Japan and the United States, 1975 and 1970–1987” (University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics Research Memorandum No. 408, 1991).Google Scholar
Prais, S. J., “Qualified Manpower in Engineering: Britain and Other Industrially Advanced Countries,” National Institute Economic Review, 127 (Feb. 1989), pp. 76–83.Google Scholar
Romer, Paul M., “Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 94 (Oct. 1986), pp. 1002–37.Google Scholar
Romer, Paul M., “Human Capital and Growth: Theory and Evidence,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 32 (1990), pp. 337–67.Google Scholar
Rostas, Laszlo, Comparative Productivity in British and American Industry (Cambridge, 1948).Google Scholar
Rothbarth, Erwin, “Causes of the Superior Efficiency of USA Industry as Compared to British Industry,” Economic Journal, 56 (Sept. 1946), pp. 383–90.Google Scholar
Sandberg, Lars G., Lancashire in Decline (Columbus, 1974).Google Scholar
Smith, A. D., “Changes in Comparative Anglo-American Productivity in Manufacturing Industries” (NIESR Discussion Paper No. 101, 1985).Google Scholar
Smith, A. D., Hitchens, David M. W. N., and Davies, Stephen W., International Industrial Productivity (Cambridge, 1982).Google Scholar
Solow, Robert, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (Aug. 1957), pp. 312–20.Google Scholar
Szilagyi, György, “Procedures for Updating the Results of International Comparisons,” Review of Income and Wealth, 30 (June 1984), pp. 153–65.Google Scholar
Vaizey, John, The Brewing Industry, 1886–1951: An Economic Study (London, 1960).Google Scholar
Wolff, Edward N., “Capital Formation and Productivity Convergence Over the Long Term,” American Economic Review, 81 (June 1991), pp. 565–79.Google Scholar