The Essays on Competitiveness, Efficiency, and Productivity: Methodological Issues and Applications (original) (raw)
Related papers
PRODUCTIVITY AND COMPETITIVENESS -AN ANALYSIS
The paper explores the impacts of globalization on industrial performance and productivity. It also records the effects of ISO certification on industries' image and performance. The hypotheses were tested to know how far these statements hold good. For that Chi-Square tests were carried out to know the impacts of globalization and competitions in the present industrial scenario. Regression analysis also highlights the relation between income and Category of industries in the estate considered for the study. The structured questionnaire was used as a tool to collect primary data to use for the statistical analysis. The reliability statistic, Cronbatch's alpha suggests that questionnaire is with consistency and can be used for the analysis. It is concluded that globalization and competitiveness are strongly correlated with improved industrial performance and productivity scenario.
A Note on Technical Efficiency, Productivity Growth and Competitiveness
2010
Productivity and efficiency growth enhances competitiveness'. Similarly formulated statements are common in the literature on the economic performance of firms, industries and nations. This conventional perception in the economic literature, originating from trade and growth theory models, however, lacks a clearly defined mathematical formulation. Earlier work by and Nishimizu and Page (1986) provides an elegant formalization of the relationship between the productivity growth and competitiveness measured by the Domestic Resource Costs (DRC) ratio. However, the relationship between technical efficiency and competitiveness has not been addressed in the literature. Moreover, the DRC is a biased measure of competitiveness. We propose static and dynamic decompositions of competitiveness measured by the unbiased Social Cost Benefit Ratio (SCB) indicator using a distance function approach, and demonstrate these decompositions using simulated data. These decompositions extend earlier work to formalize the relationship between technical efficiency, productivity and competitiveness, and demonstrate that competitiveness is also influenced by other factors that can override the effects of efficiency or productivity improvements.
The shortcoming of the traditional understanding of productivity is that it overlooks the nature of competitiveness. The key question in a competitive market environment is to what degree any activity not only leads to productivity, but also its direct impact on competitiveness. Traditional paradigm of productivity Productivity is a hot topic in Western markets like Australia. Aging populations coupled with low fertility rates and growing social costs only allow one way to maintain current lifestyle levels: an increase in productivity. Problematically, however, Western productivity levels are dropping, and the current understanding of productivity may result in falling behind dynamic East Asian markets. The traditional understanding of productivity is that it is: 'A measure of the efficiency of a person, machine, factory, system, etc, in converting inputs into useful outputs. Productivity is computed by dividing average output per period by the total costs incurred or resources ...
Linking industrial competitiveness and productivity at the firm level
European Journal of Operational Research, 1999
The present paper analytically demonstrates that the competitiveness and productivity levels of a ®rm are related to one another. An industrial competitiveness model is presented ®rst and then an analytical linkage between the competitiveness and productivity levels is established. Also discussed are the managerial implications of this analytical linkage for competitive strategy formulation. Ó
Methodology for analysing competitiveness
PARAMETRIC METHODS OF DEA 2.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEA ANALYSIS 2.1.1 The CCR model (Constant Returns to Scale) 2.1.2 The BCC model (Variable Returns to Scale) 2.1.3 Further extensions to CCR and BCC models 2.2 THE EFFECTS OF EXOGENOUS VARIABLES IN THE ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY
European Journal of Operational Research, 2022
Staff Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. Any views expressed are solely those of the author(s) and so cannot be taken to represent those of IÉSEG School of Management or its partner institutions. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, publication and reprint in the form of a different publication, whether printed or produced electronically, in whole or in part, is permitted only with the explicit written authorization of the author(s). For all questions related to author rights and copyrights, please contact directly the author(s).
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1996
Well sth he United States Competing?" The authors in Johnston and Chinn [1996], a comment on my 1994 article, have selectively misrepresented (or determinedly misunderstood) my conceptualizations, analysis, and argument about U.S. competitiveness. I believe they did so to construct and knock down a straw man. In this Rejoinder I will show that I have not committed the offenses that are alleged, that the authors' own productivity analysis is not compelling counterevidence, and that sector-specific policies may be warranted, as discussed in my original study. My argument here will be framed in four sections: (1) the goals and findings of my original article; (2) what is competitiveness (again)?; (3) the role of productivity; and (4) conclusions. GOALS AND FINDINGS OF THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS My original analysis addressed uncertainty about whether an intrinsic inability to compete afflicted U. S. industry during the 1980s. While we had a very good sense of changes in U S. performance in terms of productivity, trade, and growth, we still had "limited insight into competitive strength as businesses understand it: the ability to prevail in product markets" [1994, p. 21. Policy debate and proposed solutions polarized around the intrinsic (or microeconomic) noncompetitiveness of U .S. business (e.g., management practices, innovation, and productivity) and the macroeconomic problems of exchange rates, trade dynamics, and the federal budget deficit. My goal was to look at the competitive performance of U.S. industry as it derived from intrinsic abilities, since that is where the empirical work is most limited and flawed. In doing so, I wanted to keep microeconomic and macroconomic influences distinct from one another because the causal dynamics of these forces are different, as are their policy implications. Indeed, I specifically stated that "To detect a competitiveness crisis, we need to identify performance patterns that distinguish between systemic effects. . .