Can Intangible Investment Explain the UK Productivity Puzzle? A Response and Comment

Bill Martin and Robert Rowthorn

National Institute Economic Review, 2013, vol. 226, R42-R49

Abstract: This note responds to the recent critique by Goodridge, Haskel and Wallis (GHW) of our 2012 study of Britain's productivity puzzle. We show that a correct reworking of the latest official data on changes in labour composition overturns GHW's main criticism. We also question the strength of the empirical evidence offered by GHW in support of their alternative explanations of the productivity puzzle.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:nierev:v:226:y:2013:i::p:r42-r49_14

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in National Institute Economic Review from National Institute of Economic and Social Research Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().