1704380348
1704380349
21.Data are from Kwolek-Folland, Engendering Business.
1704380350
1704380351
22.Some manufacturers continued to produce alternative keyboard layouts into the 1920s.See the Hammond Multiplex in The Virtual Typewriter Museum, http://www.typewritermuseum.org/index.html.During the 1930s, the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard was introduced, claiming superior performance.
1704380352
1704380353
23.Suárez and Utterback, “Dominant Designs.”
1704380354
1704380355
24.See Temin, Iron and Steel.This standard was developed largely by Alexander Holley.The plant design included, among other things, an arrangement where pairs of Bessemer converters were situated next to each other (they were on each side of a pit in the original Bessemer plants), and the converters were elevated so that molten metal could be poured at ground level rather than in a pit.Holley also devised a method for quickly replacing the refractory bottom of the converter, returning the equipment to production much faster.Almost all of the Bessemer plants in the United States in 1880 used Holley’s design.His refractory bottom was developed in 1869–1870 and patented in 1872.
1704380356
1704380357
25.Formally,there is an option value to waiting.See, for example, Bessen, “Waiting for Technology.”
1704380358
1704380359
26.Employers might be willing to train their employees to use a typewriter with a specific keyboard layout, but they would have to recoup the benefits of that training while the typist remained employed.High employee turnover, not unusual in a newly emerging occupation, would impair the ability of the employer to recoup the investment.This situation could also limit the adoption of a new standard and hence the adoption of the technology itself.
1704380360
1704380361
27.Besen and Farrell,“Choosing How to Compete”; Farrell and Saloner, “Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation.” As the literature notes, this situation typically involves a network externality: when I adopt one keyboard layout, other typists and employers using that layout receive an indirect benefit.
1704380362
1704380363
28.Dosi, “Technological Paradigms”; Nelson and Winter, “In Search of Useful Theory.”
1704380364
1704380365
29.Michael Gort and Steven Klepper studied fortysix major new technologies and found several empirical regularities: the number of innovations tends to be highest during the early phases, when many new firms enter the market; industry output tends to grow rapidly at first, then slows as the products mature; prices decline, initially faster than later; typically industry revenues (the product of price and output) grows rapidly at first, but slows and often declines as the technology matures.
1704380366
1704380367
Some of these changes are related to standardization.Steven Klepper explains them with a model in which standardization plays a prominent role.During the early phases, products have relatively few standard features.Consequently firms have opportunities to enter the industry competitively based on feature innovations.However, competitors can imitate successful innovations, making them part of the standard product offering.That is, product knowledge becomes more standardized.When this happens, established producers who can produce the standard product more efficiently have an advantage over many new entrants.This drives less efficient entrants out of the market, causing a shakeout and eventually a stable mature phase.Thus the degree to which product knowledge is standardized affects the relative roles of entrants and established firms.
1704380368
1704380369
This pattern is also related to Clayton Christensen’s notion of “disruptive innovations.” When a new technology competes with an older, mature technology, it may initially operate on a small scale, coexisting with the older technology.Later, when greater standardization facilitates largescale production, it may disrupt the old technology, largely replacing it.
1704380370
1704380371
See Gort and Klepper, “Time Paths”; Winter, “Schumpeterian Competition”; Klepper and Graddy, “Evolution of New Industries”; Klepper, “Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation”; and Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma.
1704380372
1704380373
30.For example, Everett Rogers attributes a technology life cycle to the heterogeneous adoption of a new technology by consumers with different psychological attitudes; see Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations.
1704380374
1704380375
第五章 技术何时能提升工资？
1704380376
1704380377
1.Mantoux, Industrial Revolution.
1704380378
1704380379
2.Clark, Farewell to films.
1704380380
1704380381
3.There are other factors that contribute to growth, such as the amount of effort workers exert, the organization of production, and the efficiency of markets.I include effort along with skills and the organization of production with technology.
1704380382
1704380383
4.Abramovitz, “Resource and Output Trends”; Solow, “Technical Change.”
1704380384
1704380385
5.As Abramovitz put it in “Resource and Output Trends,” the productivity measurements are “some sort of measure of our ignorance about the causes of economic growth.”For example,standard growth accounting assumes that technology is “Hicks neutral.” However, the mechanical inventions of the nineteenth century were largely labor saving: they changed the ratio of machines to workers for a given set of wages and prices.Such change is not Hicks neutral.Also, many implementations (see, for example, Maddison, Dynamic Forces) incorporate technology indirectly into capital by making adjustments for “embodied technical change,” which, as Maddison notes, makes it even more di.cult to disentangle the real sources of growth.The example of weaving shows the large magnitude of differences between growth accounting and an approach based on an actual engineering production function.
1704380386
1704380387
6.Diamond, McFadden, and Rodriguez, “Measurement.”
1704380388
1704380389
7.Bessen, “More Machines.”
1704380390
1704380391
8.Indeed, a standard growth accounting using capital and labor as factors of production would attribute 43 percent of the growth to capital accumulation, based on a growth rate of output per worker of 3.72 percent, a growth rate of capital per worker of 2.89 percent, and capital share of output averaging 55 percent between the beginning and finding periods.This calculation is, however, based on some strong assumptions that don’t apply, including one that technical change is neutral when it was actually labor saving.Given the importance of textiles to overall productivity growth during the Industrial Revolution, this finding suggests that standard multifactor productivity growth estimates understate the role of technology and understate the role of capital accumulation.
1704380392
1704380393
9.Clark, Farewell to films, p.233.
1704380394
1704380395
10.Romer, “Endogenous Technological Change.”
1704380396
1704380397
11.Cowen, Great Stagnation; Gordon, “Demise of U.S.Economic Growth.”
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.704380348e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]