A Response to Bill Martin and Robert Rowthorn

Peter Goodridge, Jonathan Haskel () and Gavin Wallis

National Institute Economic Review, 2013, vol. 226, R50-R53

Abstract: This note responds to a critique of our recent paper, “Can Intangible Investment Explain the UK Productivity Puzzle?”. In that critique Martin and Rowthorn (MR) present a re-working of data on labour composition which they feel refutes an element of our argument. In this response we argue that the data are still in support of our original position. Essentially, the puzzle is that measured labour productivity has been falling, but labour quality is rising, so, at least on this measure, changes in labour quality cannot explain falling productivity.

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:
Journal Article: A Response to Bill Martin and Robert Rowthorn (2013)
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:r50-r53_15

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 ().