Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:51:31.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Performance in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: 1997–2002

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Robert Metz ,
Rebecca Riley  and
Martin Weale
Robert Metz
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Rebecca Riley
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Martin Weale
Affiliation:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We assess the performance of France, Germany and the United Kingdom over the period 1997-2002. Gross and net output per hour worked are considerably lower in the UK than in France and Germany. GDP in France and the UK have grown at the same rates over the period although real national income in the UK has grown considerably faster than in France. Seen from the supply side, French growth is substantially attributable to growth in total factor productivity while in the UK factor inputs are more important. There is, nevertheless, a concern that, at the margin, UK growth may be depreciation-intensive and therefore of poor quality. Germany's growth has been slow because productive inputs have grown only slowly and its weak performance is probably structural rather than cyclical. There does seem to be room for substantial increases in labour input in both France and Germany to be achieved through reform to labour market conditions such as tax rates on low paid workers.

Type
Journal Article
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 188 , April 2004 , pp. 83 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

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.)

Footnotes

∗

We are grateful to Ray Barrell and Mary O'Mahony for their comments. This paper was presented at the Institut de la Gestion Publique et du Dévelopment Économique, Ministry of Finance, Paris on 2 April 2004. We thank the ESRC for financial support.

References

Barnes, M. (2004), ‘International comparisons of productivity: better data improve UK productivity position’, Office for National Statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Feb_ICP.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barrell, R, Metz, R. and Riley, R. (2004), ‘ Recent UK growth: a comparison with France, Germany and the US ’, National Institute Economic Review, 187, pp. 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M. and King, R.G. (1999), ‘ Measuring business cycles: approximate band-pass filters for economic time series ’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, pp. 575–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, M. and van Ours, J. (2000), ‘Does the recent success of some OECD countries in lowering their unemployment rates lie in the clever design of their labour market reforms?’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2492.Google Scholar
Chamley, C. (1986), ‘ Optimal taxation of capital income in general equilibrium with infinite lives ’, Econometrica, 54, pp. 607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daveri, F. and Tabellini, G. (2000), ‘ Unemployment, growth and taxation in industrial countries ’, Economic Policy, 30, pp. 47– 104.Google Scholar
Dutta, J., Sefton, J. and Weale, M.R. (2000), ‘Real national income’, National Institute Discussion Paper No 163.Google Scholar
Groth, C., Gutierrez-Domenech, M. and Srinivasan, S. (2004), ‘Measuring total factor productivity growth in the United Kingdom’, Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, pp. 63–73.Google Scholar
Hall, R.E. (1988), ‘ Intertemporal substitution in consumption ’, Journal of Political Economy, 96, pp. 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury (2004), ‘Productivity in the UK 5: benchmarking UK productivity performance’, London, HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Hultgren, T. (1965), Costs, Prices and Profits: Their Cyclical Relations, New York, NBER.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (2001), ‘ Finite sample bias in IV estimation of inter-temporal labour supply models: is the inter-temporal elasticity of substitution really small? ’, Review of Economics and Statistics LXXXIII, pp. 638–646.Google Scholar
Massmann, M, Mitchell, J. and Weale, M.R. (2003), ‘ Business cycles and turning points: a survey of statistical techniques ’, National Institute Economic Review, 183, pp. 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G. and O'Mahony, M. (2004), ‘ICT investments, workforce skills and industrial performance in the UK’, in Raising UK Productivity – Developing the Evidence Base for Policy, DTI Economics Paper No 8.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1998), ‘ Unemployment: questions and some answers ’, Economic Journal, 108, pp. 802–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, S. and van Ours, J. (2000), ‘ The Netherlands and the United Kingdom: a European unemployment miracle? ’, Economic Policy, 30, pp. 135–180.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, M. (1999), Britain's Productivity Performance: 1950–1996, London, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.Google Scholar
Oulton, N. (2002), ‘ Productivity versus welfare: or, GDP versus Weitzman's NDP ’, Bank of England Working Paper No. 163, forthcoming in Review of Income and Wealth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowthorn, R. (1999), ‘ Unemployment, wage bargaining and capital–labour substitution ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 4, pp. 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotemberg, J. and Woodford, M. (1999), ‘The cyclical behaviour of prices and costs’, in Taylor, J. and Woodford, M. (eds), Handbook of Macroeconomics, Amsterdam, North Holland, pp. 1051–1135.Google Scholar
Svensson, L.E.O. (2000), ‘ Open-economy inflation targeting ’, Journal of International Economics, 50, pp. 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar