Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the high rates of economic growth of the US economy and the remarkable acceleration of productivity growth since the mid‐1990s which is widely attributed to the modern information and communication technologies (ICTs).

After identifying three key factors for Solow's productivity puzzle and examining ICTs as a general purpose technology, three main channels of ICTs' impact in the economy are discussed: the first transmission channel is direct and consists of the effects generated by rapid technical progress within the ICT‐capital goods producing sector. The second one is due to the increasing accumulation and application of ICT goods and services in the user sectors. ICTs' positive spillover effects comprise the third transmission channel, i.e. they lead to “disembodied” increases in efficiency in the sense of “learning by doing” in the end‐user sector.

The diffusion of ICTs requires investment in all industries, i.e. the improvement of competitiveness on the macro level is strongly linked to investment activities and skill qualifications on the micro level.

The paper concludes with some comparisons between the US and the German economy where the acute need for infrastructure investment in East Germany in the 1990s limited the possibilities for investment in ICTs exactly at a time of high‐technological dynamism at the start of an upswing of a new Kondratieff cycle. Although some comparisons with the EU are made the impact of ICTs in other countries except the USA and Germany is not discussed more intensively.

A very useful source of information for graduate students and policy makers alike on the theoretical and empirical impact of new technologies on economic development.

This paper fulfils an information need for comparing growth in international perspective.

Streissler considers Roscher′s theory of crisis to be highly original and important. Schumpeter, on the other hand, considers it only a rehash of the ideas of others. Examines this contradiction, beginning with a reflection on the essential elements of the debates on Keynes, Say′s law and classical economics. Continues by analysing the statements of German economists before Roscher on the issues of the general glut controversy. Ends with a closer inspection of Roscher′s own theory of crisis.

A review article of Pasinetti and Schefold’s edition of the papers at a conference in Marseilles, 1997, on the impact of Keynes in the twentieth century. The book itself is in three parts – theory; Keynesianism in European countries; and institutional discussions of Keynesian policies. The essay concentrates on the issues raised in the first part by Pasinetti, Leijonhufvud and Skidelsky. Pasinetti uses his vital distinction between principle and theory to examine why the Keynesian revolution may not have succeeded. Leijonhufvud identifies Keynes as the last of the classics, contrasting his approach with those he calls the moderns. Skidelsky asks what policies Keynes would advocate today, had he remained ageless with us.

This paper aims to analyze Emil Lederer's and Sumner Slichter's theses on the concept of technological unemployment.

Given the presence of core elements of both economists' visions in the famous Debate on Technological Unemployment (1928‐1933), it is surprising that so little attention has been paid to their works. This paper makes an attempt to interpret certain parts of Emil Lederer's oeuvre in association with the writings of Sumner Slichter based on a careful examination of their writings and their theoretical investigations.

The writings of both economists seem to converge to similar views. Analytically, they both attempted to explain the inability of the economic system to readjust and absorb the unemployed workers. Moreover, both economists disputed the assertion of Say's law that full equilibrium would be assured by the functioning of market forces. In contrast to other economists, they both attached increased significance to the supply side of the economy and in particular to the role of technical change. Furthermore, it seems that both authors were in favor of restrained technological change, which would be absorbed smoothly from the economic system. Another interesting aspect of both economists' investigations is their respective theoretical shift around 1930, which could be attributed to the disastrous consequences of the Great Depression. The paper concludes that, despite some differences between Lederer and Slichter, the parallels are impressive.

Most aspects of Slichter and Lederer's works remain unexplored. Thus, the connection between them may be very useful for promoting dialogue between different schools or strands of thought.