Abstract
This article focuses on the importance of structural change on productivity growth and conditions in the labour market. From a productivity perspective, a positive relation is found between structural change and productivity growth from the industrial breakthrough until the first oil crisis. From the early 1970s, this positive relation weakened and eventually became negative as labour moved from high to low productive industries. From a labour market perspective, it is found that extent of sectoral reallocation of labour has become more intense over the twentieth century. The extent of job gains and losses seems to have been more intense during the postwar period than during the industrialization phase.
Notes
1Temin, P., The Golden Age of European Growth Reconsidered, European Review of Economic History, vol. 6, 2002: 3–22.
2Broadberry, S. and Irwin, D., Labor Productivity in the United States and the United Kingdom during the Nineteenth Century, Explorations in Economic History, vol. 43, 2006: 257–279.
3See Baumol W. J., Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crises, American Economic Review, vol. 57, 1967: 415–426; Harberger, A. C., A Vision of the Growth Process, American Economic Review, 88, 1998: 1–23.
4Fagerberg J., Technological Progress, Structural Change and Productivity Growth: A Comparative Study, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 11, 2000: 393–411; Timmer, M. P. and Szirmai, A., Productivity Growth in Asian Manufacturing, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 11, 2000: 371–392.
5See, e.g., Brynjolfsen, E. and Lorin, M. H., Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Perspectives, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, 2000: 23–48.
6Schön, L., Electricity, Technological Change and Productivity in Swedish Industry, 1890–1990, European Review of Economic History, vol. 4, 2000: 175–194.
7Temin, Golden Age of European Growth, 3–22.
8Groshen, E. L. and Potter, S., Has Structural Change Contributed to a Jobless Recovery? Current Issues in Economics and Finance, vol. 9, 2003: 1–7; Aaronson, D., Rissman, E. R. and Sullivan, D. G., Can Sectoral Reallocation Explain the Jobless Recovery? Economic Perspectives, vol. 2, 2004: 36–49; Jacobson, L., LaLonde, R. and Sullivan, D., Earnings Losses of Displaced Workers, American Economic Review, vol. 83, 1993: 685–709.
9Abramamovitz, D. American macroeconomic growth in the era of knowledge based progress: The long-run perspective, in The Cambridge Economic History of the United States, Vol. 2, Eds S. Engerman and R. Gallman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
10Aaronson et al., Sectoral Reallocation; Jacobson et al., Earnings Losses of Displaced Workers.
11Fagerberg, Technological Progress; Peneder, M., Industrial Structure and Aggregate Growth, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 14, 2003: 427–448.
12Pender, Industrial Structure and Aggregate Growth, 427–448.
13Fagerberg, Technological Progress; Timmer and Szirmai, Productivity Growth.
14Krantz, O. and Schön, L., Swedish Historical National Accounts, 1800–2000 (Lund Studies in Economic History 41). Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2007.
15Sveriges Offentliga statistik (Official Statistics of Sweden); Folkräkningen (population census), 1910, 1930, 1945; Folk och bostadsräkningen (population and housing census), 1965 and 1990. Data on employment by age is not accessible before 1910 and the last FoB was accomplished for the year 1990.
16Rissman, E. R., Measuring Labour Market Turbulence, Economic Perspectives, vol. 21, 1997: 2–14.
17In this article, ‘economically active population’ is defined as persons aged 15–60, and ‘employment rate’ is defined as employed persons as a share of the economically active population. Calculations are based on Krantz and Schön (Swedish Historical National Accounts) and Swedish Official Statistics, population.