0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
9 vues2 pages
The quality of capital increases labor productivity (more output for the same amount of labor) embodied technical change increases the quantity and quality of labor and capital. A type of technical change that is not specifically embedded in labor or capital is called disembodied tech nical change.
The quality of capital increases labor productivity (more output for the same amount of labor) embodied technical change increases the quantity and quality of labor and capital. A type of technical change that is not specifically embedded in labor or capital is called disembodied tech nical change.
The quality of capital increases labor productivity (more output for the same amount of labor) embodied technical change increases the quantity and quality of labor and capital. A type of technical change that is not specifically embedded in labor or capital is called disembodied tech nical change.
Rising Sign at birth when multiplied by 9 and divided by the number indicating the Ghatikas etc., of the rising time of that sign will show the length of years contributed by the Lagna. The remainder will give the months, days, etc., when suitably multiplied and divided by their appropriate factors. If the Lagna is powerful being occupied or aspected by its lord or a benefic planet or by its lord being in his exaltation, the number of years contributed by the Lagna will correspond with the years signified by the Rasis, etc., reckoned from Aries, in the figure denoting the Lagna. This view is held by some great Astrologers. Macroeconomics Issues An increase in the quality of capital increases labor productivity (more output for the same amount of labor).We thus have our third answer as to why labor productivity has increased over time the quality of capital has increased because of embodied technical change. We will come back to embodied technical change, but to finish the train of thoug ht we turn next to disembodied technical change. Disembodied Technical Change In some situations we can achieve higher levels of output over time even if the quantity and quality of labor and capital don't change. How might we do this? Perhaps we learn how to better organize the plant floor or manage the labor force. In recent years operational improveme nts like lean manufacturing and vendor inventory management systems have increased the ability of many manuf acturing firms to get more output from a fixed amount and quality of labor and capital. E ven improvements in information and accounting systems or incentive systems can lead to improved output levels. A type of technical change that is not specifically embedded in e ither labor or capital but works instead to allow us to get more out of both is called disembodied tech nical change. Recent experiences in the Chinese economy provide an interesting example of what might be considered disembodied technical change broadly defined. Working at the IMF, Zul iu Hu and Mohsin Khan have pointed to the large role of productivity gains in the 20 years following the market reforms in China. In the period after the reforms, productivity growth rates tri pled, averaging almost 4 percent a year. Hu and Khan argue that the productivity gains came prin cipally from the unleashing of profit incentives that came with opening business to the private s ector. Better incentives produced better use of labor and capital. Disembodied technical change can be negative. An example is environmental regula tions that require the whole production process to pollute less and thus, say, run less eff iciently from a private perspective.Another example is health and safety regulations that require the pr oduction process to run slower to reduce injuries to workers. There is an important caveat here, how ever. In these examples, output will be smaller if it does not include the increased quality of air, wate
r, health, and safety
that results from the regulations. So you can think about disembodied technical change in these cases as being negative regarding the usual measure of output, but not necessari ly a broader measure of welfare. To the extent that disembodied technical changes are mostly positive, this is ou r fourth answer as to why labor productivity has increased. People have figured out how to run p roduction processes and how to manage firms more efficiently. More on Technical Change We have seen that both embodied and disembodied technical change increase labor productivity. It is not always easy to decide whether a particular technical innovation is emb odied or disembodied, and in many discussions this distinction is not made. In the rest of this sectio n we will not make the distinction, but just talk in general about technical innovations. The main point to keep in mind is that technical change, regardless of how it is categorized, increases labor productivity. The Industrial Revolution was in part sparked by new technological developments. New techniques of spinning and weaving the invention of the machines known as the mule and the sp inning jenny, for example were critical. The high-tech boom that swept the United States in the early 1980s was driven by the rapid development and dissemination of semiconductor technolog y. The hightech boom in the 1990s was driven by the rise of the Internet and the technology asso ciated with it. In India in the 1960s, new high-yielding seeds helped to create a green revolution in agriculture. Technical change generally takes place in two stages. First, there is an advance in knowledge, or an invention.However, knowledge by itself does nothing unless it is used.When new k nowledge is used to produce a new product or to produce an existing product more efficiently, the re is innovation. Given the centrality of innovation to growth, it is interesting to look at what has been happening to research in the United States over time. A commonly used measure of inputs in to research is the fraction of GDP spent. In 2007, the United States spent 2.6 percent of it GD P on R&D, down from a high of 2.9 percent in the early 1960s.Moreover, over time, the balance o f research funding has shifted away from government toward industry. Since industry research tends to be more applied, some observers are concerned that the United States will lose some of i ts edge in technology unless more funding is provided. In 2007, the National Academies of Science argu ed as follows: Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great m inds