IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/bushst/v45y2003i3p52-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

British Manufacturing Financial Performance, 1950-79: Implications for the Productivity Debate and the Post-War Consensus

Author

Listed:
  • David Higgins

Abstract

This article applies accounting rates of return (ROCE) to the debate on the post-war consensus. Using a sample which contains over 39,000 company years divided between 15 manufacturing industries, we examine the speed and extent of convergence in ROCE through time, between industries, and between firms. We find there is some support for the Broadberry-Crafts argument that anti-competitive practices, enshrined in the post-war consensus, appear to have hindered the efficient working of the economy and, by implication, the reallocation of resources to their most profitable uses. However, this support depends crucially upon the type of measurement adopted. We find that the Broadberry-Crafts argument works best when applied to differences in ROCE between industries rather than firms. We suggest that differences in ROCE between firms can be equally well explained by appeal to the resource based view of the firm.

Suggested Citation

  • David Higgins, 2003. "British Manufacturing Financial Performance, 1950-79: Implications for the Productivity Debate and the Post-War Consensus," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 52-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:bushst:v:45:y:2003:i:3:p:52-71
    DOI: 10.1080/713999322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713999322
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/713999322?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:bushst:v:45:y:2003:i:3:p:52-71. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FBSH20 .

    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.