Suchergebnisse

Coordenadas : O14 -E0 /N61 -N49 . Meridiano de París ; Relieve : Lineas perpendiculares normales

Arbeitslosigkeit durch rapide technische Neuerungen wird von vielen in der nahen Zukunft befürchtet. Auch die Einkommensverteilung und damit der gesellschaftliche Zusammenhalt können noch stärker in Schieflage geraten. Worin liegen die Gefahren der sogenannten 'Vierten Industriellen Revolution' und wo ihre Chancen? Der Autor gibt einen Überblick über die Zusammenhänge und empfiehlt wirtschaftspolitische Maßnahmen zur Bewältigung potenzieller Probleme. ; The paper discusses some of the probable effects of what is sometimes called the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution', based on cyber-physical systems and the internet of things. The attention focuses on their impact on the volume and composition of employment and the distribution of income. Some measures to ward off or mitigate socially harmful consequences of the new waves of technological change are discussed.

Recent literature studies structural change and aggregate dynamics in neoclassical multi-sector growth models. A central aspect of this literature is the explanation of Kaldor-Kuznets-stylized-facts , which state that massive structural change takes place while aggregate-dynamics are relatively stable in the long-run. We present a growth model analysing the role of government in structural change and aggregate growth. We show that, besides distortionary effects on the sector structure, the provision of government services has an impact on the intertemporal elasticity of substitution of the representative household and, thus, on aggregate dynamics. These results can be used to explain the Kaldor-Kuznets-facts.

Coordenadas : O14 -E0 /N61 -N49 . Meridiano de París ; Relieve : Lineas perpendiculares normales ; Copia digital . España : Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte. Subdirección General de Coordinación Bibliotecaria, 2010

Structural change is both a challenge and an opportunity for countries and companies. However, there is no silver bullet in terms of superior economic models. Instead, different economic models can deal with structural change in a successful way. Both economies with a focus on services and those with a high share of manufacturing are able to achieve a high degree of economic growth and prosperity. Success factors are related to a solid performance with regard to the key drivers of structural change: globalisation, interconnectedness, innovation and knowledge as well as the economic framework. Economic policy - also at the EU level - should support companies and economies in reaping these potential benefits: fostering open and flexible markets as well as supporting European value chains and an intensification of knowledge in the production of goods and services are key success factors in this respect.

Das deutsche Bildungßsystem steht unter enormem Veränderungsdruck. Um die Schulen auf die Zukunft vorzubereiten und große Investitionsprogramme zu ermöglichen, haben Bund und Länder beschlossen, das Grundgesetz zu ändern. Dazu gehört auch die Öffnung von Artikel 104c. Der Bund wird künftig berechtigt sein, umfangreich in die lokale Bildungsinfrastruktur bzw. in Schulen zu investieren. Bislang waren solche Finanzhilfen stark eingeschränkt. Dies hat eine grundlegende Debatte über den Föderalismus in Deutschland und das Einflussverhältnis zwischen Bund und Ländern ausgelöst. Die Analyse der legislativen Änderung von Artikel 104c nach finanzwissenschaftlichen Kriterien zeigt, dass die politische Entscheidung kritisch bewertet werden muss. ; Angesichts der sich ausbreitenden Digitalisierung wird aktuell befürchtet, daßs die damit verbundenen Prozessinnovationen sich überaus negativ auf die Beschäftigung auswirken könnten. Aus historischer Perspektive zeigt sich indes, dass mehr oder weniger disruptive Produktivitätssteigerungen zur Genese des historisch gesehen recht jungen Kapitalismus gehören. Demzufolge setzen Innovationen allein, so gravierend sie sein mögen, die zentralen Funktionsprinzipien der modernen Ökonomie nicht außer Kraft. Mit einer geeigneten Politik lässt sich im Übrigen ein drohender Stellenabbau infolge solcher Transformationsprozesse des in seiner Grundstruktur gleichbleibenden zeitgenössischen Wirtschaftssystems bekämpfen.

This paper analyzes the reasons for the middle income trap in Latin America, where countries have been at the middle income level for decades, and draws out lessons for Asia. The middle income trap captures a situation where a middle income country can no longer compete internationally in standardized, labor-intensive goods because wages are relatively too high, but it can also not compete in higher value added activities on a broad enough scale because productivity is relatively too low. The result is slow growth, stagnant or falling wages, and a growing informal economy. Insufficient development of domestic innovation capabilities is at the heart of the middle income trap. In Latin America, it is the result of a market-led strategy which generated dismal productivity growth, rapid de-industrialization, a decline in export sophistication in many countries, poor innovation performance, and underinvestment in the requisite social capabilities. The current globalization context provides a challenging context for middle income countries to narrow the capabilities gap, because they have less time to do so, with more players competing in the innovation space and technological innovation changing faster. A comprehensive innovation-focused strategy with strategic active policies is the only way to escape the middle income trap. The nature of the production structure, already existing elements of an innovation eco system, and the possibilities for creating political coalitions in support of a systemic advancement of innovation capabilities are critical factors conditioning the escape from the middle income trap.

Economic development has resulted in structural transformation towards economies based on services, which has raised some concerns about the limited opportunities for sustaining productivity growth. The aim of this paper is to examine total factor productivity (TFP) growth in the service sector in comparison with total industries and the manufacturing sector, as well as within the service sector. The study is based on the data from the EU-KLEMS database (2017), and it covers the years 1995-2015. It refers to EU countries, making it possible to carry out a comparative analysis between countries, in particular between the 'old' and 'new' member states. The study demonstrates that productivity growth in services was significantly lower than in manufacturing, but compared with total industries, the disparity was not significant. Productivity growth was usually higher in the 'new' EU countries than in the 'old' ones, except for information and communications services, which, on the whole, were the main driving force behind the productivity growth in services.

Economic development has resulted in structural transformation towards economies based on services, which has raised some concerns about the limited opportunities for sustaining productivity growth. The aim of this paper is to examine total factor productivity (TFP) growth in the service sector in comparison with total industries and the manufacturing sector, as well as within the service sector. The study is based on the data from the EU‑KLEMS database (2017), and it covers the years 1995–2015. It refers to EU countries, making it possible to carry out a comparative analysis between countries, in particular between the 'old' and 'new' member states. The study demonstrates that productivity growth in services was significantly lower than in manufacturing, but compared with total industries, the disparity was not significant. Productivity growth was usually higher in the 'new' EU countries than in the 'old' ones, except for information and communications services, which, on the whole, were the main driving force behind the productivity growth in services. ; Rozwój gospodarczy przyczynił się do transformacji strukturalnej w kierunku gospodarek usługowych, co zrodziło obawy związane z możliwościami utrzymania wzrostu produktywności. Celem niniejszej pracy jest zbadanie wzrostu łącznej produktywności czynników produkcji (TFP) w sektorze usług w porównaniu z gospodarką ogółem i sektorem przetwórczym, jak również wewnątrz sektora usług. Badanie przeprowadzono w oparciu o dane pochodzące z bazy EU‑KLEMS (2017) i obejmuje ono lata 1995–2015. Badaniem objęto kraje UE, co daje możliwość analizy porównawczej między krajami, a w szczególności między krajami 'starej' i 'nowej' UE. Z badania wynika, że wzrost produktywności w usługach był znaczenie niższy niż w przetwórstwie, ale w porównaniu z gospodarką ogółem różnica nie była już znacząca. Wyższy wzrost produktywności notowały kraje nowoprzyjęte do UE niż kraje starej UE, z wyjątkiem usług informatycznych i komunikacyjnych, które ogólnie były siłą napędową wzrostu produktywności w usługach.

In the past 10 years, the service sector has been a significant contributor to overall economic growth in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. Sector growth has been supported by strong industrial growth in some while in others the critical factors have been liberalization, structural reforms, government support, and foreign investments. In order to increase the labor productivity of the sector and realize its potential to contribute to inclusive growth, these countries must address gaps in human capital and the higher costs of setting up new businesses and of doing business that stifle entrepreneurship and private enterprise. These impediments also stand in the way of developing the industry sector and of broader economic growth and development. Policy reforms that ease those impediments will help to achieve balanced growth in which the service and industry sectors support and reinforce each other. As services tend to be more labor intensive, they can foster inclusive growth by serving as an engine for creating jobs.

Many international organizations, governments and academics concerned with economic development look to Asia's success, recommending that other poor countries follow similar models and paths of development. This study argues that such Asian 'lesson-making' is a grave mistake in policy-thinking - and in the historical understanding of the nature and process of development. In identifying what we can and cannot learn from the Asian experience, this study examines the various paths of successful growth in East and South East Asia and asks: what can other developing countries learn from Asia's success, if anything? The study also examines the arguments of some of the great development thinkers of the past to ascertain what can be learned. Because technological and market circumstances facing today's developing nations have changed it is a mistake to base any strategy on the achievements of past industrializers. There can be no standard list of development prerequisites or 'best practices'. Unfortunately, the basic error of recommending 'follow the leader' catch-up policies has a long tradition in development thinking. However, several distinguished observers of past development (e.g. Gerschenkron, Kuznets, and Abramovitz) maintained that development processes and strategies must be based on the stage of development, distinctive resources, and institutions, and external conditions facing individual nations, not on the paths or models of previous industrializers. Nevertheless, the developing nations of today cannot ignore the rise of Asia and the study identifies useful insights from the Asian experience. Developing countries should (like Asia did) seek to complement not copy the growth paths of more successful economies, including Asian ones. Development ultimately requires, as it did across Asia, significant innovation and creativity in business organization, technology, wider institutional structures, and government policies.