From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 10:02:52 EDT
The productivity paradox that I refer to is the observation made by Solow, and Roach that computers do not seem to have made a significant measurable contribution to productivity. Foley in his review of Sraffa's work - (CJE 2003 -27) says that for the Sraffian critique of capital theory to really bite on the neo-classicals the Sraffians will have to find empirical examples which really illustrate the weakness of neo-classical theory. Doing a brief trawl around the literature on the productivity paradox, this seems a particularly relevant area. Here one encounters: the confusions arising from aggregation effects of different types of means of production - for example assuming only two inputs - computers and non-computer capital in some analyses ambiguities about what is meant by increased productivity if one is going to measure this in money and not material units the failure to discriminate between the use of technology in the basic and non-basic sectors. Hence the concept of productivity which originates in material insustrial production is being applied in areas like banking to which it may be meaningless. -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT