The Experts below are selected from a list of 62061 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Fabio Sabatini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does social capital improve Labour Productivity in small and medium enterprises
International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 2008Co-Authors: Fabio SabatiniAbstract:This paper reports the findings of an empirical study on the relationship between social capital and Labour Productivity in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Italy. By means of Structural Equations Models (SEMs), the analysis investigates the effect of different aspects of the multifaceted concept of social capital. Bonding social capital of strong family ties and bridging social capital shaped by informal ties connecting friends and acquaintances are proved to exert a negative effect on Labour Productivity, economic performance and human development. On the contrary, linking social capital of voluntary organisations positively influences the stated outcomes.
-
does social capital improve Labour Productivity in small and medium enterprises
Industrial Organization, 2005Co-Authors: Fabio SabatiniAbstract:This paper carries out an empirical assessment of the relationship between social capital and Labour Productivity in small and medium enterprises in Italy. By means of structural equations models, the analysis investigates the effect of different aspects of the multifaceted concept of social capital. While the bonding social capital of strong family ties seems to be irrelevant, the bridging social capital of weak ties connecting friends and acquaintances is proved to exert a significant and positive influence both on Labour Productivity and on human development.
Weimin Wang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
sources of aggregate Labour Productivity growth in canada and the united states
2004Co-Authors: Jianmin Tang, Weimin WangAbstract:In this paper, we propose a decomposition technique to examine the sources of industrial contribution to aggregate Labour Productivity growth. We show that in terms of pure Labour Productivity growth, the manufacturing and service sectors contributed equally to the aggregate Canada-U.S. Labour Productivity growth gap during the 1987-1998 period. But, in terms of total industrial contributions, which also take into account the contributions from a change in relative size, the service sector was the largest contributor. We also find that high Labour Productivity growth industries did not attract resources from stagnant industries - a phenomenon consistent with Baumol's cost disease of stagnant industries.
-
sources of aggregate Labour Productivity growth in canada and the united states
Canadian Journal of Economics, 2004Co-Authors: Jianmin Tang, Weimin WangAbstract:Abstract. In this paper we propose a decomposition technique to examine the sources of industrial contribution to aggregate Labour Productivity growth. We show that in terms of pure Labour Productivity growth, the manufacturing and service sectors contributed equally to the aggregate Canada-U.S. Labour Productivity growth gap during the 1987–98 period. But, in terms of total industrial contributions, which also take into account the contributions from a change in relative size, the service sector was the largest contributor. We also find that high Labour Productivity growth industries did not attract resources from stagnant industries – a phenomenon consistent with Baumol's cost disease of stagnant industries. JEL Classification: O47, C43
Yingqi Wei - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the impact of foreign direct investment on Labour Productivity in the chinese electronics industry
International Business Review, 2001Co-Authors: Xiaming Liu, David Parker, Kirit Vaidya, Yingqi WeiAbstract:Foreign direct investment (FDI) may have a positive impact on Labour Productivity in recipient industries through direct introduction of capital, technology and management skills and indirectly through spillover effects on domestic firms. This study uses a model intended to examine the overall effects of inward FDI in the Chinese electronics industry. Official data are used for 41 sub-sectors of the industry in 1996 and 1997 having differing levels of FDI. Labour Productivity is modelled as dependent on the degree of foreign presence in the industry and other variables, namely capital intensity, human capital and firm size for scale factors. The econometric results suggest that foreign presence in the industry is associated with higher Labour Productivity.
-
the impact of foreign direct investment on Labour Productivity in the chinese electronics industry
International Business Review, 2001Co-Authors: Xiaming Liu, David Parker, Kirit Vaidya, Yingqi WeiAbstract:Foreign direct investment (FDI) may have a positive impact on Labour Productivity in recipient industries through direct introduction of capital, technology and management skills and indirectly through spillover effects on domestic firms. This study uses a model intended to examine the overall effects of inward FDI in the Chinese electronics industry. Official data are used for 41 sub-sectors of the industry in 1996 and 1997 having differing levels of FDI. Labour Productivity is modelled as dependent on the degree of foreign presence in the industry and other variables, namely capital intensity, human capital and firm size for scale factors. The econometric results suggest that foreign presence in the industry is associated with higher Labour Productivity. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Jianmin Tang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
sources of aggregate Labour Productivity growth in canada and the united states
2004Co-Authors: Jianmin Tang, Weimin WangAbstract:In this paper, we propose a decomposition technique to examine the sources of industrial contribution to aggregate Labour Productivity growth. We show that in terms of pure Labour Productivity growth, the manufacturing and service sectors contributed equally to the aggregate Canada-U.S. Labour Productivity growth gap during the 1987-1998 period. But, in terms of total industrial contributions, which also take into account the contributions from a change in relative size, the service sector was the largest contributor. We also find that high Labour Productivity growth industries did not attract resources from stagnant industries - a phenomenon consistent with Baumol's cost disease of stagnant industries.
-
sources of aggregate Labour Productivity growth in canada and the united states
Canadian Journal of Economics, 2004Co-Authors: Jianmin Tang, Weimin WangAbstract:Abstract. In this paper we propose a decomposition technique to examine the sources of industrial contribution to aggregate Labour Productivity growth. We show that in terms of pure Labour Productivity growth, the manufacturing and service sectors contributed equally to the aggregate Canada-U.S. Labour Productivity growth gap during the 1987–98 period. But, in terms of total industrial contributions, which also take into account the contributions from a change in relative size, the service sector was the largest contributor. We also find that high Labour Productivity growth industries did not attract resources from stagnant industries – a phenomenon consistent with Baumol's cost disease of stagnant industries. JEL Classification: O47, C43
John R Baldwin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intangible capital and Productivity growth in canada
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: John R Baldwin, Ryan MacdonaldAbstract:This paper develops a measure of intangible capital and examines the contribution of intangibles to Labour Productivity growth in the Canadian business sector. It applies the methodology developed by Corrado et al. (2005, 2009) for the United States. The paper finds that investment in intangibles totalled an estimated $151 billion in the Canadian business sector in 2008, which represents 13.2% of gross domestic product in that year. Investment in intangibles has increased much faster than investment in tangibles over time, and the ratio of intangible investment to tangible investment increased from 0.23 in 1976 to 0.66 in 2008. The paper shows that intangibles made a significant contribution to Labour Productivity growth and that the contribution of intangibles to Labour Productivity growth was only slightly lower than the contribution of tangibles in the Canadian business sector. The contribution of intangibles to Labour Productivity growth was lower in Canada than in the United States for the post-1995 period, as a result of Canada’s lower investment in intangibles (software as well as research and development) in recent years.More studies related National Economic Accounts and Macro-Economy and to Productivity are available in Update on Economical analysis.
-
relative multifactor Productivity levels in canada and the united states a sectoral analysis
Research Papers in Economics, 2008Co-Authors: John R Baldwin, Beiling YanAbstract:This paper has three main objectives. First, it examines the level of multifactor Productivity (MFP) in Canada relative to that of the United States for the 1994-to-2003 period. Second, it examines the relative importance of differences in capital intensity and MFP in accounting for the Labour Productivity differences between the two countries. Third, it traces the overall MFP difference between Canada and the United States to its industry origins and estimates the contributions of the goods, services and engineering sectors to the overall MFP gap. Our main findings are as follows. First, the overall capital intensity is as high in Canada as in the United States; but there are considerable differences in Canada's capital intensity across asset classes. Canada has considerably less machinery and equipment, about the same amount of buildings and considerably more engineering construction. Second, most of the differences in Labour Productivity between Canada and the United States are due to the differences in MFP. Third, our industry results show that the levels of Labour Productivity and MFP in the goods and the engineering sectors are closer to those of the United States. But, the level of Labour and multifactor Productivity in the services sector is much lower in Canada. The lower levels of Labour Productivity and MFP in the Canadian services sector account for most of the overall Productivity level difference between the two countries.
-
long term Productivity growth in manufacturing in canada and the united states 1961 to 2003
The Canadian Productivity Review, 2007Co-Authors: John R Baldwin, Wulong GuAbstract:In this paper, we provide an international comparison of the growth in Canadian and U.S. manufacturing industries over the 1961-to-2003 period. We find that average annual growth rates of Labour Productivity growth were almost identical in the Canadian and U.S. manufacturing sectors during this period. But the sources of Labour Productivity growth differed in the two countries. Intermediate input deepening was a more important source of Labour Productivity growth in Canada than in the United States, while investment in capital and multifactor Productivity (MFP) growth were more important in the United States than in Canada. After 1996, Labour Productivity growth in Canada was lower than in the United States. The post-1996 slower Labour Productivity growth in Canada relative to the United States was due to slower growth in MFP and slower growth in capital intensity. The slower MFP growth in Canada accounted for 60% of Canada - United States Labour Productivity growth difference, and slower growth in capital intensity accounted for 30%. The slower MFP growth in the Canadian manufacturing sector relative to that of the United States after 1996 was due to lower MFP growth in the computer and electronic products industry. The slower growth in capital'Labour ratio in the Canadian manufacturing compared with the United States after 1996 is related to the changes in relative prices of capital and Labour inputs in the two countries.
