TECHNOLOGICAL STRUCTURE AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE SERBIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY – THE SECTOR LEVEL

Мићић Владимир, Савић Љубодраг, Бошковић Горица

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME200318065M
First page
1005
Last page
1020

Abstract


Labor productivity of the manufacturing industry is an important factor of economic growth and compatibility. The aim of the research is to point out the significance of conducting efficient structural and technological changes in the manufacturing industry of the Republic of Serbia and to examine their impact on the growth of labor productivity. Technological structure was examined according to the technological intensity and methodology of OECD. Labor productivity was analyzed by partial productivity measure, value added per employee from the aspect of impact of various factors on its growth, shift-share analysis. The results of the research show that labor productivity growth rates in the manufacturing industry are high and positive, that they are higher than gross value added, which is the result of change in the number of employees. Productivity growth is higher in areas that belong to high and medium-level technology and is based on the inter-sector effect. The results of this research are useful to the creators of industrial politics when initiating structural changes and relocating the factors that impact labor productivity towards more productive areas of the manufacturing industry.


Keywords

labor productivity, technological changes, structural changes, manufacturing industry

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abramovitz, M., (1986). Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. The Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385-406.

Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1990). Economic growth and convergence across the United States (No. w3419). National Bureau of Economic Research, 2.

Barro, R.J., Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004) Economic Growth (Second Edition). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 44.

Del Gatto, M., Di Liberto, A., & Petraglia, C. (2011). Measuring productivity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(5), 952.

Fagerberg, J. (2000). Technological progress, structural change and productivity growth: a comparative study. Structural change and economic dynamics, 11(4), 393-411.

Galindo-Rueda, F., & Verger, F. (2016). OECD taxonomy of economic activities based on R&D intensity, 5-15.

Globerman, S. (2000). Linkages between technological change and productivity growth. Industry Canada, 3-5.

Gordon, J., Zhao, S., & Gretton, P. (2015). On productivity: concepts and measurement. Productivity Commission Staff Research Note, Canberra, February.

ISIC, R. (3). Technology intensity definition, classification of manufacturing industries into categories based on R&D intensities (2011). URL:< http://www. oecd. org/sti/ind/48350231. pdf, 3.

Jakopin, E. (2012). Post-crisis reallocation of growth factors. Ekonomski horizonti, 14(2), 77-87.

Ketteni, E., Mamuneas, T., & Pashardes, P. (2017). Factors affecting the productivity of European Economies. Cyprus Economic Policy Review, 11(2), 3-18.

Mai, B., & Warmke, N. (2012). Comparing approaches to compiling macro and micro productivity measures using Statistics New Zealand data. In New Zealand Association of Economists Conference, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 5-8.

Marouani, M. A., & Mouelhi, R. (2015). Contribution of structural change to productivity growth: Evidence from Tunisia. Journal of African Economies, 25(1), 110-132.

McMillan, M. S., & Rodrik, D. (2011). Globalization, structural change and productivity growth (No. w17143). National Bureau of Economic Research, 12.

OECD, (2001). Measuring Productivity, OECD Manual, Measurement of aggregate and industry-level productivity growth, Paris, pp. 11-12.

OECD, (2003), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2003-en

OECD, (2015). The innovation imperative: Contributing to productivity, growth and well-being. OECD Publishing 5-7.

Pasinetti, L. L., & Schefold, B. (1994). Structural economic dynamics: A theory of the economic consequences of human learning. Journal of Economic Literature, 32(4), 1936.

Pereira, A. C., & Romero, F. (2017). A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0 concept. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1206-1214.

Productivity, M., & Manual, O. E. C. D. (2001). Measurement of aggregate and industry-level productivity growth. Organisation for economic co-operation and development.—Р, 11-18.

Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A complex view of industry 4.0. Sage Open, 6(2), doi:2158244016653987, 1-11

Savić, L., Bošković, G., & Mićić, V. (2015). Structural changes in manufacturing industry at division level: Serbia and new EU member states. Industrija, 43(4), 25-45.

Scarpetta, S., Hemmings, P., Tressel, T., & Woo, J. (2002). The role of policy and institutions for productivity and firm dynamics: evidence from micro and industry data.

Schreyer, P., & Pilat, D. (2001). Measuring productivity. OECD Economic studies, 33(2), 127-170.

Schwab, K. (2017). The Global Competitiveness Report 2017- 2018. World Economic Forum, 37-38.

Singh, H., Motwani, J., & Kumar, A. (2000). A review and analysis of the state-of-the-art research on productivity measurement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(5), 234-241.

Stankovic, M., Gupta, R., & Figueroa, J. (2017). Industry 4.0-Opportunities behind the challenge. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 8-9.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (SORS). (2017). Statistical database. Belgrade, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia.

Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity?. Journal of Economic literature, 49(2), 326-365.

Tangen, S. (2002, December). Understanding the concept of productivity. In Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference, Taipei, 18-20.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME200318065M

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 0353-7919
Online ISSN: 1820-7804