IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/niesru/v173y2000i1p66-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Tale of Two Cycles: Closure, Downsizing and Productivity Growth in Uk Manufacturing, I973-89

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Oulton

Abstract

This article uses the ARD, the new longitudinal database of the Census of Production, to analyse productivity at the establishment level in the two cycles of I973-9 and 1979-89. Contrary to a commonly held view, closures did not play a major role in accounting for productivity growth in 1979-89. Establishments which shut had lower productivity than survivors but the exits were replaced by entrants whose productivity was also lower. Hence most of productivity growth was due to growth within survivors. Most productivity growth occurred in establishments which reduced employment. But despite an overall fall of a quarter in employment, 16 per cent of productivity growth occurred in establishments which expanded employment. The main difference between 1973-9 and 1979-89 was in the productivity growth rate amongst survivors. In 1973-9, it was negative overall and over half of employment in I973 was in establishments where productivity subsequently fell.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Oulton, 2000. "A Tale of Two Cycles: Closure, Downsizing and Productivity Growth in Uk Manufacturing, I973-89," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 173(1), pages 66-79, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:niesru:v:173:y:2000:i:1:p:66-79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ner.sagepub.com/content/173/1/66.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guy Vernon & Mark Rogers, 2013. "Where Do Unions Add Value? Predominant Organizing Principle, Union Strength and Manufacturing Productivity Growth in the OECD," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 51(1), pages 1-27, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:niesru:v:173:y:2000:i:1:p:66-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/niesruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.