transition
With regard to policy mechanisms through which policies could become effective, the ILO is pro-posing a “productivity ecosystems for decent work” framework to address existing barriers to productivity growth.35 Enterprises and their workers are embedded in an “ecosystem” in which the drivers of productivity growth and decent work are interlinked across several levels. Policies need to target specific industry and occupational needs to help businesses and employees to acquire the necessary competences to enable a successful technological transformation. Businesses not only lack necessary skills among their employees; they also often lack the requisite managerial experience, which can be acquired, for instance, through more intensive interaction with competitors in similar or related sectors (Bender et al. 2018; Bloom et al.
2019). Low managerial turnover thus hampers the adoption of more productive management practices (Bloom et al. 2020). Moreover, faster productivity growth requires that micro and small enterprises be helped to transition to formality and to achieve and maintain a minimum efficient scale and economic viability.
35 https://www.ilo.org/empent/Projects/productivity-ecosystems/lang--en/index.htm.
36 A recent story from Colombia illustrates very well how social dialogue and collective bargaining have greatly improved product-ivity: https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/multimedia/features/colombia/collective-bargaining/lang--en/index.htm.
Social dialogue is crucial for buttressing efforts to improve productivity.36 This pillar is central to addressing the large productivity differences among individuals and firms as well as the widening gap between productivity growth and wage growth, which disproportionately hurt workers. There is also evidence that bolstering the quality of industrial relations at the shop floor level helps to prevent inefficient restructuring, thereby improving firm productivity. Works councils, which have to be consulted on restructuring, investment plans or layoffs, have been shown to reduce labour turnover. When combined with industry-level bargaining that prevents rent-seeking, works councils have been shown to raise firm-level productivity and speed up the introduction of new technologies (El-Ganainy et al. 2021). The overall effects of trade unions and collective bargaining on productivity are ambiguous and subject to debate (ILO 2022f; Doucouliagos, Freeman and Laroche 2017). Nevertheless, a stronger voice of organized labour at the company level could help to achieve faster and more equitable introduction of new technologies, which in turn could improve the longer-term prospects for productivity and employment, for instance by strengthening incentives for worker training and supporting workforce reorganization.
Special attention should also be given to the role played by policies aiming to reduce the incidence of informal employment. The low productivity of the informal economy is a major drag on aggregate productivity growth and leads to the persistence of poverty. Key policies to ameliorate the informal economy comprise the creation of formal business incentives, access to finance through national de-velopment banking or government-backed loans, the development of business owners’ and workers’
skills (to improve resource allocation and manage-ment practices while raising labour productivity), simple and fair taxation, anti-corruption policies, a stable and conducive business climate and the simplification of registration procedures, among other things (El-Ganainy et al. 2021).
Institutional arrangements to promote productivity and decent work
Central coordinating bodies can play an im-portant role in providing guidance to the pri-vate sector to promote productivity (Mazzucato 2013 and 2022). Public institutions can provide important services to reduce transaction costs for businesses. For instance, they provide information, help coordinate different actors to set standards and promote their application through procure-ment policies, ensure the delivery of relevant skills and training and reduce the risks of investment in moon-shot ventures deemed to have societal importance. Such coordinating institutions are particularly important in developing countries undergoing large structural adjustment processes (Salazar-Xirinachs, Nübler and Kozul-Wright 2014).
At minimum, productivity organizations pro-vide essential information for businesses and workers to make informed decisions about investments and education. The ILO emphasizes the role of such national productivity organizations and their mandate to promote productivity growth. Such organizations are supposed to be independent institutions (neither government nor employers nor workers dominate the institution) and can steer national and regional policies to-wards measures that facilitate productivity growth.
Typically, these organizations carry out economic and statistical analysis and publish their results to influence policies in their countries and encourage reforms that seek sustainable economic growth.
National productivity organizations may consult relevant stakeholders but are required to be ob-jective and neutral.
Productivity organizations can also help to promote standards and streamline public procurement policies. Industry standards are an important tool for coordinating businesses and their investment and reducing transaction costs in their activities. Where soft laws and industry agreements are not sufficient, public actors can step in or help to negotiate agreements. Industry standards have been particularly important in the evolution of the digital economy, where inter-national standards and regulations are important to ensure frictionless trade in digital services.
Further convergence is needed, however, especially in upholding the application of international labour
standards to platform workers, since without this the rewards of the digital transformation may remain concentrated among a small number of players (ILO 2018).
Skills development and vocational training play a prominent role in the productive up-grading of economies, as does the recognition of professional experience gained on the job.
However, the proper development of educational curricula remains a challenge for many countries.
An integrated process of curriculum develop-ment, involving social partners and business and educational institutions, is key to effective and relevant skills development (Nübler 2014). For instance, occupational curricula for Germany’s dual vocational training systems are subject to regular revisions and integration of new course content in line with employers’ requirements. In the Republic of Korea, close collaboration between public and private institutions has ensured that employees receive adequate training and a broad-based general education, helping the country to navigate a rapid structural adjustment process (Cheon 2014). Getting the private sector to take ownership of the provision of skills and training is important to ensuring that relevant and up-to-date content is provided.
Institutional developments with regard to skills anticipation and professional orientation can help workers and businesses to adjust to shifts in eco-nomic opportunities. The Skills Future Singapore initiative, for instance, allows employees to more rapidly find new occupational opportunities in line with their previous professional experience and formal training. New approaches that accord greater value to the professional experience that people build up over their lifetime are needed to support productive occupational transitions (McKinsey 2022). Public certification standards to-gether with new digital forms of (micro-)certificates could constitute a useful strategy to strengthen lifelong learning.
Public spending on general R&D has declined in many countries over the past decade despite its important role in the development of frontier technologies. The use of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), which have proliferated in recent years to manage national resources, should receive more attention (Thatcher and Vlandas 2022). So far, most SWFs have taken a passive stance in the management of their investments both domestically
and abroad. However, given the size these funds have reached, there have been attempts to use at least part of the funds in more active investment strategies, especially in supporting innovative projects. Saudi Arabia, for instance, launched its Future Investment Initiative Institute in 2017, partly funded by its Public Investment Fund, with the specific purpose of investing in sustainability-related moon-shot projects. Similarly, SWFs from Singapore, Malaysia and Abu Dhabi have investments in Silicon Valley to support innovative digital companies with a view to helping to diversify the home economies (WIPO 2020). Overall, a more active stance of such funds would mobilize sufficient resources to help transform economies to fulfil their sustainability goals while improving their productive base (Ernst 2022a).
Finally, the ongoing transition to a green economy offers the potential for significant productive upgrading, especially in developing countries. Many of these countries contain large areas of natural habitats that are essential to ecological regeneration and the regulation of the global climate. Shifts in international governance mechanisms to value these forms of natural capital would allow these countries to obtain additional financial resources to help fund both technological
upgrading and the protection of environmental resources (Ernst 2022b; Ernst, Schörling and Achtnich 2022). In the absence of these mech-anisms, many countries prefer to dispose of their natural resources through mineral and timber extraction, which does not create conditions for successful structural transformation. The conclu-sions on a new “Loss and Damage” fund reached at the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) provide an important step in the development of international governance mechanisms. This fund should be extended to valuing natural capital through, for instance, payment for ecosystem services, an avenue that promises to generate additional financial resources instead of redistributing existing ones as the “Loss and Damage” fund is intended to do (Dasgupta 2021). In combination with SWFs or national development boards, as discussed above, such governance innovations can be used to provide additional resources for private sector development, as has been suggested by the Rwanda Development Board. In combination with the just transition policies discussed above, the pursuit of such nature-based solutions promises to produce significant benefits for sustainable economic development (ILO and UNEP 2022).
XAcemoglu, D., and D.H. Autor. 2011. “Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings”. In Handbook of Labor Economics, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, Vol. 4B, 1043–1171. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
XAcemoglu, D., A. Manera, and P. Restrepo. 2020. “Does the US Tax Code Favour Automation?”
NBER Working Paper 27052.
XAcemoglu, D., and P. Restrepo. 2017. “Secular Stagnation? The Effect of Aging on Economic Growth in the Age of Automation”. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 107 (5):
174–179.
XAcemoglu, D., and R. Shimer. 1999. “Efficient Unemployment Insurance”. Journal of Political Economy 107 (5): 893–928.
X———. 2000. “Productivity Gains from Unemployment Insurance”. European Economic Review 44 (7): 1195–1224.
XAdalet McGowan, M., and D. Andrews. 2015. “Labour Market Mismatch and Labour Productivity: Evidence from PIAAC Data”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1209. https://doi.org/10.1787/5js1pzx1r2kb-en.
XAiyar, S., C. Ebeke, and X. Shao. 2016. “The Impact of Workforce Aging on European Productivity”, IMF Working Paper WP/16/238. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/
wp16238.pdf.
XAkerlof, G. 1982. “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 97:
543–569.
XAlon, T., D. Berger, R. Dent, and B. Pugsley. 2018. “Older and Slower: The Startup Deficit’s Lasting Effects on Aggregate Productivity Growth”. Journal of Monetary Economics 93: 68–85.
XAndrade, R.B., L. Cosentino, and G. Sagazio. 2022. “Improving Productivity through Innovation Policy in Brazil”. In Global Innovation Index 2022, 15th Edition: What Is the Future of Innovation Driven Growth? WIPO.
XAndrews, D., C. Criscuolo, and P. Gal. 2016. “The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy”, OECD Productivity Working Papers No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1787/63629cc9-en.
XArntz, Melanie, Terry Gregory, and Ulrich Zierahn. 2016. “The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 189. https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/the-risk-of-automation-for-jobs-in-oecd-countries_5jlz9h56dvq7-en.
XArulampalam, W., A. Booth, and M. Bryan. 2004. “Training and the Minimum Wage”. Economic Journal 114: C86–C94.
XAutor, D.H. 2013. “The ‘Task Approach’ to Labor Markets: An Overview”. Journal for Labour Market Research 46: 185–199.
XAutor, D.H., D. Dorn, D., L.F. Katz, C. Patterson, and J. Van Reenen. 2020. “The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (2): 645–709, https://doi.
org/10.1093/qje/qjaa004.
XAutor, D.H., F. Levy, and R.J. Murnane. 2003. “The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change:
An Empirical Exploration”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (4): 1279–1333.
XAutor, D.H., and A. Salomons. 2017. “Does Productivity Growth Threaten Employment?” Paper prepared for the ECB Forum on Central Banking, 19 June 2017. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/
conferences/shared/pdf/20170626_ecb_forum/D_Autor_A_Salomons_Does_productivity_growth_
threaten_employment.pdf.
XBadulescu, D., A. Badulescu, R. Simut, D. Bac, Elena-Ana Iancu, and N. Iancu. 2020. “Exploring Environmental Kuznets Curve: An Investigation on EU Economies”. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 26 (1): 1–20.
XBanerjee, R.N., and B. Hofmann. 2020. “Corporate Zombies: Anatomy and Life Cycle”, BIS Working Paper No. 882. https://www.bis.org/publ/work882.htm.
XBank of Finland. 2021. “The Depths of the COVID-19 Crisis, and the Recovery”, Bank of Finland Bulletin 6/2020.
XBarro, R.J. 1999. “Notes on Growth Accounting”. Journal of Economic Growth 4 (2): 119–137.
XBassanini, A., and E. Ernst. 2002. “Labour Market Regulation, Industrial Relations and
Technological Regimes: A Tale of Comparative Advantage”. Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (3):
391–426.
XBaumol, William J. 1967. “Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crisis”.
American Economic Review 57 (3): 415–426.
XBaumol, William J., and William G. Bowen. 1966. Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma: A Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music and Dance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
XBender, S., N. Bloom, D. Card, J. Van Reenen, and S. Wolter. 2018. “Management Practices, Workforce Selection, and Productivity”. Journal of Labor Economics 36 (S1): S371–S409.
XBenigno, P., L.A. Ricci, and P. Surico. 2015. “Unemployment and Productivity in the Long Run:
The Role of Macroeconomic Volatility”. Review of Economics and Statistics 97 (3): 698–709.
XBetcherman, Gordon. 2015. “Promoting Productive Employment and Decent Jobs: What Should Be Done about Informal Employment?” Paper prepared for the Expert Group Meeting on Social Development and Agenda 2030, New York, NY, 21–23 October 2015. https://www.un.org/esa/
socdev/egms/docs/2015/sd-agenda2030/BetchermanPaper.pdf.
XBloom, D., and D. Canning. 2008. “Population Health and Economic Growth”, Commission on Growth and Development Working Paper No. 24.
XBloom, D., R. Kotschy, K. Prettner, D. Canning, and J. Schünemann. 2022. “Health and Economic Growth: Reconciling the Micro and Macro Evidence”, CESifo Working Paper No. 9806.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4148203.
XBloom, D., M. Kuhn, and K. Prettner. 2019. “Health and Economic Growth”. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Economics and Finance, 25 February 2019.
XBloom, N., E. Brynjolfsson, L. Foster, R. Jarmin, M. Patnaik, I. Saporta-Eksten, and J. Van Reenen.
2019. “What Drives Differences in Management Practices?” American Economic Review 109 (5):
1648–1683. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170491.
XBloom, N., A. Mahajan, D. McKenzie, and J. Roberts. 2020. “Do Management Interventions Last?
Evidence from India”. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12 (2): 198–219.
XBornstein, G. 2020. “Entry and Profits in an Aging Economy: The Role of Consumer Inertia”.
Mimeo.
XBrynjolfsson, Erik, and Andrew McAfee. 2014. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
XBrynjolfsson, Erik, and Tom Mitchell. 2017. “What Can Machine Learning Do? Workforce Implications”. Science 358 (6370): 1530–1534.
XBrynjolfsson, Erik, D. Rock, and C. Syverson. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox: A Clash of Expectations and Statistics.” In The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, edited by Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
XByrne, D., J. Fernald, and M.B. Reinsdorff. 2016. “Does the United States Have a Productivity Slowdown or a Measurement Problem?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 10–11 March 2016, 109–157.
XCaballero, R.J., and M.L. Hammour. 1996. “On the Timing and Efficiency of Creative Destruction”.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (3): 805–852.
XChen, X., W. Ma, and V. Valdmanis. 2021. “Can Labor Productivity Growth Reduce Carbon Emission? Evidence from OECD Countries and China”. Management of Environmental Quality 33 (3):
644–656.
XCheon, B.Y. 2014. “Skills Development Strategies 7 and the High Road to Development in the Republic of Korea”. In Transforming Economies: Making Industrial Policy Work for Growth, Jobs and Development, edited by José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs, Irmgard Nübler and Richard Kozul-Wright.
ILO.
XChutchian, Maria. 2022. “Bankruptcy Filings Are Creeping Back Up in 2022”. Reuters, 5 April 2022. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/bankruptcy-filings-are-creeping-back-up-early-2022-2022-04-05/.
XCingano, F. 2014. “Trends in Income Inequality and Its Impact on Economic Growth”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrjncwxv6j-en.
XCoviello, D., E. Deserranno, and N. Persico. 2022. “Minimum Wage and Individual Worker Productivity: Evidence from a Large US Retailer”. Journal of Political Economy 130 (9): 2315–2360.
XDaniele, F., H. Taku, and A.C. Lembcke. 2020. “Ageing and Productivity Growth in OECD Regions:
Combatting the Economic Impact of Ageing through Productivity Growth?” In Ageing and Fiscal Challenges across Levels of Government. OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/dc2ae16d-en/
index.html?itemId=/content/component/dc2ae16d-en.
XDavis, C., Ken-Ichi Hashimoto, and K. Tabata. 2022. “Demographic Structure, Knowledge Diffusion, and Endogenous Productivity Growth”. Journal of Macroeconomics 71: 103396.
XDasgupta, P. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. London: HM Treasury.
XDecker, R., J. Haltiwanger, R. Jarmin, and J. Miranda. 2014. “The Role of Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (3): 3–24.
XDe Loecker, J., and J. Eeckhout. 2017. “The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications”, NBER Working Paper No. 23687. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23687.
XDe Vries, K., A. Erumban, and B. Van Ark. 2021. “Productivity and the Pandemic: Short-Term Disruptions and Long-Term Implications. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Productivity Dynamics by Industry”. International Economics and Economic Policy 18: 541–570.
XDieppe, A., ed. 2021. Global Productivity: Trends, Drivers, and Policies. World Bank. https://www.
worldbank.org/en/research/publication/global-productivity.
XDosso, M. 2022. “Building Place-Based Innovation Capabilities for Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa”. In Global Innovation Index 2022, 15th Edition: What Is the Future of Innovation Driven Growth?
WIPO.
XDoucouliagos, H., R.B. Freeman, and P. Laroche. 2017. “Unions and Productivity Growth”.
In The Economics of Trade Unions, edited by Hristos Doucouliagos, Richard B. Freeman and Patrice Laroche. London: Routledge.
XDuernecker, G., and M. Sanchez-Martinez. 2022. “Structural Change and Productivity Growth in Europe – Past, Present and Future”. European Economic Review 104329.
XEl-Ganainy, Asmaa, Ekkehard Ernst, Rossana Merola, Richard Rogerson, and Martin Schindler.
2021. “Labor Markets”. In How to Achieve Inclusive Growth, edited by Valerie Cerra, Barry
Eichengreen, Asmaa El-Ganainy and Martin Schindler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1093/oso/9780192846938.003.0003.
XEngbom, N. 2019. “Firm and Worker Dynamics in an Aging Labor Market”, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Working Paper 756.
XErnst, E. 2019. “Finance and Jobs: How Financial Markets and Prudential Regulation Shape Unemployment Dynamics”. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 12 (1): 20. https://doi.
org/10.3390/jrfm12010020.
X———. 2022a. “The AI Trilemma: Saving the Planet without Ruining Our Jobs”. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 19 October 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.886561.
X———. 2022b. “How Much Is an Elephant Worth? Valuing Natural Capital to Protect Nature and Improve Wellbeing”. OECD Development Matters, 5 January 2022. https://oecd-development- matters.org/2022/01/05/how-much-is-an-elephant-worth-valuing-natural-capital-to-protect-nature-and-improve-wellbeing/.
XErnst, E., M. Schörling, and L. Achtnich. 2022. “How to Transition to a Green Economy”.
UN Today, 22 November 2022. https://untoday.org/how-to-transition-to-a-green-economy/.
XEscudero, V. 2018. “Are Active Labour Market Policies Effective in Activating and Integrating Low-Skilled Individuals? An International Comparison”. IZA Journal of Labor Policy 7: 4.
XEscudero, V., J. Kluve, E. Lopez Mourelo, and C. Pignatti. 2019. “Active Labour Market Programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from a Meta-analysis”. Journal of Development Studies 55 (12): 2644–2661.
XEuropean Central Bank. 2021. “Scarring Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Economy: Reviewing Recent Evidence”, ECB Economic Bulletin 7/2021.
XEuropean Commission. 2020. Productivity in Europe: Trends and Drivers in a Service-Based Economy. JRC Technical Report, JRC119785. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
handle/JRC119785.
X———. 2022. “Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU: 2022”. In Industrial Performance and Investment in Intangible Assets during Crises.
XFarooq, A., A. Kugler, and U. Muratori. 2020. “Do Unemployment Insurance Benefits Improve Match Quality? Evidence from Recent U.S. Recessions”, NBER Working Paper No. 27574.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27574/revisions/w27574.rev0.pdf.
XFedotenkov, I., V. Kvedaras, and M. Sanchez-Martinez. 2022. “Employment Protection and Labour Productivity Growth in the EU: Skill-Specific Effects during and after the Great Recession”, JRC Working Paper in Economics and Finance 2022/4, JRC129023. https://joint-research-centre.
ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/JRC129023.pdf.
XFeldstein, Martin. 2017. “Underestimating the Real Growth of GDP, Personal Income, and Productivity”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2): 145–164.
XFernald, J., and R. Inklaar. 2020. “Does Disappointing European Productivity Growth Reflect a Slowing Trend? Weighing the Evidence and Assessing the Future”, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2020-22. https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/wp-content/uploads/
sites/4/wp2020-22.pdf.
XFossen, Frank M., Daniel Samaan, and Alina Sorgner. 2022. “How Are Patented AI, Software and Robot Technologies Related to Wage Changes in the United States?” Frontiers, 14 June 2022.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2022.869282/full.
XFrey, Carl Benedikt, and Michael A. Osborne. 2017. “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114 (January): 254–280.
XFurceri, D. 2005. “β and σ-Convergence: A Mathematical Relation of Causality”. Economics Letters 89 (2): 212–215.
XFurman, J., and P. Orszag. 2015. “A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality.” Paper presented at Columbia University’s “A Just Society” Centennial Event in Honor of Joseph Stiglitz, New York, NY, 16 October 2015.
XGallie, D. 2012. “Skills, Job Control and the Quality of Work: The Evidence from Britain”. Economic and Social Review 43 (3): 325–341.
XGallie, D., and Z. Ying. 2013. “Job Control, Work Intensity, and Work Stress”. In Economic Crisis, Quality of Work, and Social Integration: The European Experience, edited by D. Gallie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
XGeorgiadis, A. 2013. “Efficiency Wages and the Economic Effects of the Minimum Wage:
Evidence from a Low-Wage Labour Market”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 75 (6):
962–979.
XGeorgieva, Kristalina, and Tobias Adrian. 2022. “Public Sector Must Play Major Role in Catalyzing Climate Finance”. IMF Blog, 18 August 2022. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/08/18/
public-sector-must-play-major-role-in-catalyzing-private-climate-finance.
XGoldin, I., P. Koutroumpis, F. Lafond, and J. Winkler. Forthcoming. “Why Is Productivity Slowing Down?” Journal of Economic Literature.
XGordon, R.J. 2013. “U.S. Productivity Growth: The Slowdown Has Returned after a Temporary Revival”. International Productivity Monitor 25: 13–19. https://ideas.repec.org/a/sls/ipmsls/
v25y20132.html.
X———. 2017. The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
XGordon, R.J., and H. Sayed. 2019. “The Industry Anatomy of the Transatlantic Productivity Growth Slowdown: Europe Chasing the American Frontier”. International Productivity Monitor 37:
3–38.
X———. 2020. “Transatlantic Technologies: The Role of ICT in the Evolution of U.S. and European Productivity Growth”. International Productivity Monitor 38: 50–80. https://ideas.repec.org/a/sls/
ipmsls/v38y20203.html.
XGoulas, E., and A. Zervoyianni, A. 2018. “Active Labour-Market Policies and Output Growth:
Is There a Causal Relationship?” Economic Modelling 73: 1–14.
XGreenspon, J., A. Stansbury, and L.H. Summers. 2021. “Productivity and Pay in the United States and Canada”. International Productivity Monitor 41: 3–30.
XGust, S., A. Hanushek, and L. Woessmann. 2022. “Global Universal Basic Skills: Current Deficits and Implications for World Development”, RISE Working Paper 22/114. https://riseprogramme.
org/sites/default/files/publications/Global_Universal_Basic_Skills.pdf.
XGutierrez, G., and T. Philippon. 2017. “Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.” NBER Working Paper No. 23583. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23583/w23583.
pdf.
XHallward-Driemeier, Mary, and Gaurav Nayyar. 2018. Trouble in the Making? The Future of Manufacturing-Led Development. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
competitiveness/publication/trouble-in-the-making-the-future-of-manufacturing-led-development.
XHanushek, E., and L. Woessmann. 2020. “The Economic Impacts of Learning Losses”, OECD Education Working Paper 225. https://www.oecd.org/education/The-economic-impacts-of-coronavirus-covid-19-learning-losses.pdf.
XHartwig, J. 2011. “Testing the Baumol–Nordhaus Model with EU KLEMS Data”. Review of Income and Wealth 57 (3): 471–489.
XHaskel, Jonathan, and Stian Westlake. 2018. Capitalism without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
XILO. 2012. “Wage-Led or Profit-Led Supply: Wages, Productivity and Investment”, Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 36. https://www.ilo.org/travail/info/publications/WCMS_187309/
lang--en/index.htm.