1,721,132 research outputs found

    Productivity, employment and human capital in Eastern and Western EU countries

    No full text
    This chapter analyses some features of the economic performances in EU-27 members, especially highlighting the peculiarities of transition countries. In particular, the focus is on employment rate and productivity levels and dynamics (since 1990), on the trade-off between employment growth and productivity growth; and, lastly, on the main determinants of the productivity differences between countries, with a special consideration for human capital. After a partial review of the theoretical and empirical literature, a preliminary ‘descriptive’ analysis allows to detect different ‘models’ of economic growth (extensive, intensive, virtuous or stagnant) during the post-1989 period. In the econometric investigations (cross section and panel analyses), the authors try to explain the differences between countries in the levels of labour productivity (especially for the post-2000 period), by considering differences in the human capital level as well as in some other explanatory variables (R&D, competitiveness, the progress in transition, some structural indicators and synthetic indices of specialisation, the extent of the ‘shadow economy’ and, at last, the employment rates). The institutional proxy turns out to be particularly significant in the case of transition countries. As to the typologies of growth, the two blocs (East and West) moved in opposite directions: from an ‘extensive’ model to an ‘intensive’ one in the Eastern countries, from ‘intensive’ to ‘extensive’ in many Western countries. The policy implication, on this point, strictly reminds the EU Lisbon’s goal to achieve ‘more and better’ jobs. Finally, the econometric results concerning the education variable place human capital as a key factor of productivity differences and emphasize the peculiar conditions of transition countries

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore