Search

What role has labor-saving technological change played in the recent past in charting out the trajectory of employment? Have we already transitioned into a new technological regime where production technologies are more invasive upon labor's terrain? In this study, I provide empirical evidence to answer these questions. Using industry-level data from 12 advanced economies for 1970–2007, I show that capital goods did not become more effective in labor-saving after 1980 or 1990. Similarly, the strength of the relationship between employment and output did not decline after 1980 or 1990. While many recent econometric studies have estimated the number of workers displaced due to industrial robots with which the media and public are highly preoccupied, there is nothing new in the fact that production technologies are labor-saving and displace workers. The importance of demand side factors and structural change (mainly deindustrialization) in determining employment patterns is often neglected, leading to a misleading assessment of the impact of labor-saving technologies on employment. • It is not new that automation is labor-saving or displaces labor. • Deindustrialization is a secular dynamic that depresses manufacturing employment. • No acceleration in within-labor-saving effect of capital goods since around 1980 or 1990. • No weakening in the strength of the relationship between employment and output since around 1980 or 1990. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The article proposes an empirical analysis of Brazilian deindustrialization from a Marxian perspective. • Inter-regional input-output analysis is the quantitative instrument used to measure deindustrialization indicators. • Two critical situations indicating structural change are proposed. • The results indicate a process of deindustrialization in Brazil between 1995 and 2010. • The results show that the primary sector is gaining ground in the dynamization of Brazilian capitalism. The article brings new indicators that reinforce the thesis that the Brazilian economy went through a process of deindustrialization. Based on the guiding principle of Marx's reproduction schemes, the instrument of inter-regional input-output analysis was used as empirical method. The output multipliers obtained from the Leontief and Ghosh models were used as indicators for measuring structural changes. Critical situations that can show whether there were structural changes in the sectors of the economy, considering both the local economic activity and its relationship with the world economy, are presented. The main results confirm the existence of a deindustrialization of the Brazilian economy. However, it was found that, in absolute and relative terms, the reduction in the capacity of the Brazilian manufacturing to drive the economy oscillated between moments of greater and lesser intensity. Furthermore, strong indications that the Brazilian primary sector is becoming an enclave were found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Manufacturing share in India's GDP has increased by about 16 percentage points between 2003 and 2018. • Dominant contribution to increased manufacturing GDP share is made by petroleum refining. • There has been a tremendous increase in the real value-added share of ICT equipment industry. • For assessing properly the performance of manufacturing, double-deflation of GDP is essential. Contrary to a widely held impression that the share of manufacturing in India's GDP has long stagnated, the paper claims that it has increased significantly. Measured at the prices of different goods and services prevailing in 2004-05, and deflation applied separately with input prices as well as output prices to account for differential input price trends, the GDP share of manufacturing has increased during the post-reform period from about 17 per cent in 1993-94 to about 32 per cent in 2018-19. The paper notes that the concept of real share in GDP relates to the volume effect and represents the change in the share of the volume of manufacturing activity out of the volume of all economic activities in the Indian economy. Some explanation is provided for the apparent stagnancy of the share of manufacturing in India's GDP at current prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]