Competitiveness and its predecessors—a 500-year cross-national perspective

Reinert, Erik S.

doi:10.1016/0954-349x(94)00002-q

Cited by 143 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, price measures are important in determining competitiveness, but are insufficient and potentially misleading if they are not complemented by non-price indicators. Accordingly, Aiginger (2006) defines competitiveness as ''the ability of a country or location to create welfare'', which is shared by several scholars (Reinert 1995;Lehner et al 1999;Snowdon and Stonehouse 2006;Salvatore 2010;Voinescu and Moisoiu 2015). To measure welfare, Aiginger (2006) argues to complement cost measures with additional non-price factors, including outcome measures (e.g.…”

Section: Competitiveness and Materials Productivity 21 Macroeconomic mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Krugman (1996) acknowledges that competitiveness has some merit outside standard models: ''[…] people who talk about competitiveness must understand the basics [of trade theory] and have in mind some sophisticated departure from standard economic models, involving imperfect competition, external economies, or both.'' Therefore, proponents of macroeconomic competitiveness typically refer to any types of market failures, including imperfect information, market power, and transaction costs (Reinert 1995;Budzinski 2007;Fagerberg et al 2007). For instance, Lall (2001) argues that countries can generate a competitive advantage temporarily by grasping benefits from correcting market failures faster than others.…”

Section: Competitiveness and Materials Productivity 21 Macroeconomic mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The causal impact of material productivity on macroeconomic competitiveness in the European Union

Flachenecker

2017

Environ Econ Policy Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdisciplinary scholars and policy makers have claimed that increasing material productivity not only reduces environmental pressures but also improves the competitiveness of economies. This is particularly relevant in the context of the European Union (EU) since it motivates its resource efficiency and circular economy agenda by referring to this assertion. However, two limitations in the literature cast doubt on the validity of the claim. First, the literature fails to clarify the concept and measurement of macroeconomic competitiveness. Second, it lacks to take the endogeneity of material productivity into account. Addressing both shortcomings, this paper reviews the concept of macroeconomic competitiveness and identifies six conventional macroeconomic indicators to approximate it. Moreover, using panel data of the 28 member states of the EU between 2000 and 2014, the causal impact of material productivity on the six indicators is estimated, instrumenting material productivity with the number of deaths from natural hazards. The results provide evidence for a positive and causal impact of the material productivity rate on the wage rate and, with lower confidence, on the current account rate, while the remaining macroeconomic indicators are not significantly affected. Overall, these results suggest to be cautious with the claim that increasing material productivity improves macroeconomic competitiveness in the EU. Particularly the positive effect on the wage rate calls for considering possibilities to channel gains from increasing material productivity into eco-innovations to reduce the magnitude of potential rebound effects and thus environmental pressures.

show abstract

Section: Competitiveness and Materials Productivity 21 Macroeconomic mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Competitiveness and Materials Productivity 21 Macroeconomic mentioning

confidence: 99%

The causal impact of material productivity on macroeconomic competitiveness in the European Union

Flachenecker

2017

Environ Econ Policy Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firms that compete in high-tech sectors hire a larger share of educated labor than the average, compete in markets where price competitiveness is less important than innovation and quality, and enjoy higher markup levels (Reinert, 1995). They also pay higher wages and capture monopolistic rents.…”

Section: The Production Structure and Income Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specialization is driven by leads and lags in technological capabilities (Montobbio and Rampa, 2005;Reinert, 1995;Verspagen, 1993): countries that are closer to the technological frontier are competitive in a more diversified set of goods which also entail higher technological intensity. These countries have the necessary capabilities to react swiftly to new competitive challenges and keep their position in the most dynamic segments of world markets.…”

Section: Growth and The Production Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity, social expenditure and income distribution in Latin America

Cimoli

Porcile

Neto

2017

Brazil. J. Polit. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO: Este artigo discute o papel das instituições e das mudanças estruturais sobre a desigualdade de renda. Argumenta-se que enquanto o gasto social e a transferência de renda são fatores cruciais à melhora da distribuição de renda, a continuidade desse processo depende de mudanças estruturais. A importância relativa dessas variáveis em diferentes países é avaliada e uma tipologia é sugerida. Argumenta-se que os países mais igualitários combinam instituições em favor da redistribuição e estruturas produtivas intensivas em conhecimento. Na Amé-rica Latina, instituições e estrutura produtiva falham em promover a igualdade, o que explica seus elevados níveis de desigualdade. Baseado em uma amostra de países em desenvolvimento e desenvolvidos para o período 1990-2010, este artigo apresenta evidência empírica que suporta este argumento. Instituições que favorecem a distribuição são medidas pelo gasto social como uma porcentagem do PIB, enquanto o papel da estrutura produtiva é medido por indicadores de intensidade tecnológica e pela evolução da produtividade do trabalho. A intensidade tecnológica, por sua vez, é capturada por dois indicadores: o Índice de Complexidade Econômica e o Índice de Intensidade Tecnológica da CEPAL. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Distribuição de renda; mudança estrutural; gasto social.ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the role of institutions and structural change in shaping income inequality. It is argued that while social expenditure and direct redistribution are crucial for improving income distribution, sustainable equality requires structural change. The relative importance of these variables in different countries is analyzed and a typology suggested. It is argued that the most equal countries in the world combine strong institutions in favor of redistribution and knowledge-intensive production structures that sustain growth and employment in the long run. Both institutions and the production structure in Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, vol 37, nº 4 (149), pp 660-679, October-December/2017 Latin America fail to foster equality and this explains its extremely high levels of inequality. The paper presents empirical evidence that supports this view, based on a sample of developed and developing countries for the period 1990-2010. Institutions for redistribution are captured through social expenditures as a percentage of GDP, while the role of structural change is captured by indicators of the technological intensity of production and the evolution of labor productivity. The technological intensity of the production structure is proxied through two indicators, the Economic Complexity Index and the ECLAC Index of Technological Intensity.

show abstract

“…En base a esta visión más amplia de la competitividad, Reinert (1994) basándose en la definición que la OCDE a través de su programa de tecnología y economía (OECD 1992) ofrece, propone la siguiente definición de competitividad: Ambas definiciones tienen como finalidad la prosperidad de las economías a largo plazo pero hay matices entre la primera y la segunda definición. En primer lugar que se den condiciones libres de mercado; en segundo lugar, que la finalidad de la competitividad de una economía sea el incremento real de la riqueza de sus ciudadanos 118 .…”

Section: Concepto De Competitividadunclassified

El sector de los operadores logísticos y la externalización de servicios en una economía globalizada. El caso de la Comunidad Valenciana

Castaño¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic globalization supported by technological improvement and price reduction in transportation and communications −amongst others− has generated complex worldwide systems of supply, production and distribution that demand high efficiency in the management of the logistic system. This new reality provides the logistic system with a significant role in products' final costs and consequently influences both company and geographical competitiveness.Presently, production is structured by networks in which each node is a specialized part of the production chain. In this context, more and more companies decide to outsource their logistic services, although with different levels of implementation depending on different geographical areas. This situation has brought up a new concept of the third party logistics provider (3PL) as a company specialized in providing logistic services to the supply and distribution chains.

show abstract

Competitiveness and its predecessors—a 500-year cross-national perspective

Cited by 143 publications

References 3 publications

The causal impact of material productivity on macroeconomic competitiveness in the European Union

The causal impact of material productivity on macroeconomic competitiveness in the European Union

Productivity, social expenditure and income distribution in Latin America

El sector de los operadores logísticos y la externalización de servicios en una economía globalizada. El caso de la Comunidad Valenciana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About