Search results

Compares matched samples of precision engineering plants in Britain and The Netherlands. Suggests that labour productivity levels in British industry are 25‐30 per cent lower than in The Netherlands. This is seen to reflect slower investment in new capital equipment and lower average levels of workforce skills in Britain. The widespread provision of full‐time vocational education in The Netherlands is said to enable Dutch employers to carry out further training to technician and craft levels more quickly and cost‐effectively. Although British engineering companies are devoting more resources to initial and continuous training, this is insufficient to offset the initial Dutch advantage.

Homelessness has many causes and also is stigmatized in the United States, leading to much misunderstanding of its causes and what policy solutions may ameliorate the problem. The problem is of course getting worse and impacting many communities far removed from the West Coast cities the authors examine in this study. This analysis examines the socioeconomic variables influencing homelessness on the West Coast in recent years. The authors utilize a panel fixed effects model that explicitly includes measures of healthcare access and availability to account for the additional health risks faced by individuals who lack shelter. The authors estimate a spatial error model (SEM) in order to better understand the impacts that systemic shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have on a variety of factors that directly influence productivity and other measures of welfare such as income inequality, housing supply, healthcare investment, and homelessness.

Using the EU‐KLEMS database for 12 countries and 16 industries, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the differences in technological capital intensity (R&D capital stock as a percentage of GVA) between industries and the evolution of inequalities between the EU‐11 and the USA, as well as between EU countries.

The authors use shift‐share analysis and a Theil inequality index to break down these inequalities and to quantify the importance of either a country or a specialization effect.

Results from the shift‐share analysis show that there was a technological gap in favor of the USA until the mid‐1990s linked to the greater accumulation of technological capital in most of the productive sectors considered, this being the main reason for the differences in technological innovation between the USA and the EU‐11. However, since 1995 a change in productive specialization has occurred, with a significant drop in the weight of lower technology‐intensive industries in the EU‐11 economy, as well as a significant drop in the weight of some medium technology‐intensive industries in the USA, accounting for the reduction in the technological gap between the EU and the USA. Results from the Theil index show that the differences in the productive structure of European countries explain most of their differences in technological capital intensity.

The study discusses the issue from the standpoint of the distribution of technological innovation across industries. The variable analyzed and constructed is R&D capital stock and not R&D expenditures. It applies a methodology (shift‐share analysis and Theil index) not commonly used to analyze technological innovation inequalities.

This paper documents and accounts for the globalization of the so-called national bourgeoisie in the late twentieth century. A substantial and growing body of sociological literature holds that firms and investors from the developing world have been denationalized, neutered, or destroyed by their efforts to penetrate international markets – and that cross-national economic competition is therefore giving way to transnational class conflict over time. By way of contrast, I hold that not only peripheral capitalists but their elected and appointed representatives are compelled to undertake large-scale, fixed investments, exploit their competitive advantages, and challenge foreign firms – and their respective representatives – on their own soil by the very logic of capitalist competition, and that the aforementioned challenges will occur on political as well as economic terrain.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the European Framework for Measuring Progress (e-Frame). It is a coordination project funded by the European Commission (EC) which builds on the latest political directions with particular attention to the priorities identified by the Europe 2020 strategy.

e-Frame aims at contributing to empower the European debate on “GDP and beyond”, taking a broad approach by looking together on social, economic, environmental and global dimensions. Main general actions are coordinating initiatives of different actors to foster the debate by involving all relevant stakeholders through different communication channels and networking activities; streamlining the stocktaking on what has been reached so far and organizing dissemination events.

The e-Frame project is largely contributing to the gross domestic product (GDP) and beyond debate. Its main outcomes range from thematic achievements to more strategically and politically oriented documents. Particular attention is devoted to the challenges that are emerging from the stocktaking activities carried out within the project and that have been conceptually divided in those pertaining to the official statistical production and those more related to the possible interactions between official and non-official statistics.

e-Frame original features are proposing new ways for delivering information to a wide audience of experts as well as to the society, at large; in defining guidelines for the use of existing well-being indicators by policy-makers; identifying new topics and emerging needs to be put at the center of future research agendas by the EC and by the European Statistical Systems in the area of measuring well-being, societal progress and sustainability.

This article brings a new, broad conceptual framework to the quest for understanding dynamic capability in organizations (i.e., “managing on the edge of chaos”). This approach rests on two major ideas: (i) a duality–paradox perspective and (ii) new typologies of organizational learning (OL) and individual action/thinking. A case of radical innovation at Microsoft provides a multilevel stimulus. Understanding it requires a focus on two dualistic challenges. For use in future ODC research and practical assessment, this broad new conceptual framework includes: (i) collaboration as a central concept; (ii) duality–paradox as a key source of conflicts that can threaten collaboration; (iii) five types of OL, (iv) four types of individual action/thinking, including paradoxical thinking, and (v) the proposition that “golden dualities” can be created from once-troubling duality situations (where critical collaboration was in danger) which have been transformed from the metaphorical “odd (contentious) couple” into a “productive (collaborative) partnership.”