NÁRODOHO632'Èě6.é 2%=25 3 – 2007
58
LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY AS A FACTOR OF COMPETITIVENESS A
COMPARATIVE STUDY1
I. Introduction
Martin Užík, Renáta Vokorokosová
With the globalization process, economies strive towards creation of a business environment
that stimulates economic growth, facilitates cross border trading, encourages the inflow of
foreign direct investments, improves employment, and increases labour productivity. In fact, it
is a common contest among countries granting more favourable business advantages for foreign
investments than competitors do. Hence the present share of a country’s participation along
with its competitiveness on the world market is derived from competitive rather than
comparative advantages. However, these can result in providing preferential business conditions
for foreign companies at the expenses of domestic entities. As long as foreign investments use
temporarily offered competitive advantages without the sustainable ones, consequences in case
of possible investment mobility might have a serious impact on the further development of the
former host economy. Thus for a block of countries (e.g. the EU) to be competitive, success of
individual EU member states encourages the economic development of the entire grouping.
Within the EU this means meeting the goal set in March 2000, when the EU Heads of States
and Governments agreed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven
economy by 2010". This challenge simply calls for a need to present some indicators of
individual national competitiveness within the EU. The presented article copes (deals?) with
national Labour Productivity. From this point of view, this paper handles Labour Productivity
as a decisive factor for a long-term competitiveness in domestic and a foreign competitive
environment. We are trying to find outwhether the new EU countries threaten the
competitiveness of older EU members as far as the Labour Productivity is concerned.
Improving productivity is of national importance because a society improving its standard of
living has to increase its productivity first. We present an overview of trends of Labour
Productivity in Slovakia, the Euro 12, and Germany, respectively. Changes in Labour
Productivity are captured within the six main branches according to NACE Rev. 1 (Statistical
classification of economic activities in the European Community) based on quarterly data from
the first quarter 2000 to the second quarter 2006.
II. Theoretical postulates to the literature of Competitiveness
There are many articles devoted to the notion of competitiveness both on the macro and micro
level. With this respect we do not intend to provide a detailed insight into the overview of
various postulates regarding the theory of competitiveness. However, as far as the definition of
national competitiveness is concerned, there is not any uniform meaning when specifying a
country’s successful participation in the world market or business environment.
The principal goal of a nation is to produce a high and growing standard of living for its
citizens.2
1
This article contains results achieved within the framework of granted scientific project VEGA
1/3815/06 by Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic.
2
E. M. PORTER: Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business Review; 1998 Boston.
This often refers to a macroeconomic event, under the influence of exchange rates,
interest rates and government deficits. The ability to do so depends upon the productivity with
3 – 2007 1È52'2+2632'Èě6.é 2%=25
59
which a nation’s labour and capital are used. A nation’s prosperity3
is sometimes diagnosed
from the point of view of trade flows, monetary, fiscal and budget policies. While it is argued
that economic value is only created by enterprises and that nations can only establish an
environment for hindering or supporting the activities of enterprises, a nation does not directly
generate an economic value added. However, the first known statement of the principle of
comparative advantage and trade appeared in 1815, in an article by Robert Torrens which was
titled Essay on the External Corn Trade. David Ricardo formalized the idea and introduced a
numerical example in his book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. The idea
appeared again in James Mill's Elements of Political Economy in 1821. Finally, the concept
became a key feature of the international political economy by the publication of Principles of
Political Economy by John Stuart Mill in 1848. The theory of competitiveness was in fact
initiated by the postulate of Adam Smith about absolute advantages. In comparison to its
competitor, a country has an absolute advantage in the production of goods if it can produce at
lower cost or with higher productivity. Absolute advantages compare industry productivities
across countries. On the contrary, a country has a comparative advantage in producing goods if
it can produce the goods at lower opportunity costs relative to another country. At present,
when explaining factors driving economic growth, more importance is put upon competitive
rather than comparative advantages. A more comprehensive explanation of the comparative cost
differences between individual countries was brought in by Eli Heckscher in 1919. The H-O
(Heckscher–Ohlin) theorem predicts the pattern of trade between countries based on the
features the economies are characterized by. The H-O theorem4
says that a capital-abundant
country will export the capital-intensive good while the labour-abundant country will export the
labour-intensive good. In addition, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem describes the relationship
between changes in output, or goods, prices and changes in factor prices such as wages and
rents within the context of the H-O model. The Rybczynski theorem demonstrates5
However, a dynamic study
the
relationship between changes in national factor endowments and changes in the outputs of the
final goods within the context of the H-O model. Briefly stated it says that an increase in a
country's endowment of a factor will cause an increase in output of the good which uses that
factor intensively, and a decrease in the output of the other good. Theory of management and
importance of human creative ability added other statements to the postulates of
competitiveness (comparative and competitive advantages). The role of an entrepreneur along
with technological progress was pointed out by Schumpeter and Solow.
6
3
S. GARELLI: Competitiveness of Nations: The Fundamentals, IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
2006.
4
B. OHLIN: International and Interregional Trade, MA, Harward University Press 1933.
5
M. S. SURANOVIC: International Trade Theory and Policy, 1997-2006. Lecture Notes: To define
absolute advantage it is useful to define labour productivity first. To define comparative advantage, it is
useful to define opportunity cost at first. Opportunity cost is defined generally as the value of the next best
opportunity.
6
U. VAN SUNTUM: The Invisible Hand, Springer – Verlag, Berlin, Heilderberg 2004.
on international trade also explains the essentials of intra-industry
trade, as the intra-industry trade became much more popular among industrial nations in
comparison to the classical exchange of different products. Standard economic theory proclaims
that factors of production – labour, land, natural resources, capital, and infrastructure – will
determine the flow of trade. However, a nation does not inherit the factors of production – but it
creates the most important factors of production – such as skilled human resources, or scientific
base. As the entire trade and business environment indicates, the theory of comparative
NÁRODOHO632'Èě6.é 2%=25 3 – 2007
60
advantages based on factors of production does not sufficiently justify the patterns of trade.
Therefore a new model of competitive advantage has risen to the forcewhich features a better
reflection of the fact that nations can develop and improve their competitive positions. It
focuses on the main important features of an economy that allow its companies to create and
sustain competitive advantages in particular fields. For Porter, the only meaningful concept of
competitiveness is productivity.7
Thus the doctrine of competitive advantage substituted the
theory of comparative advantage in economic analysis of international competitiveness. While
competitive – specific advantages can influence the trade flow of internationally competitive
goods, comparative advantages8
are fixed of nature, for at least a given time, and are
determined by a surplus of some factors such as labour or natural resources and are more easily
identified than competitive advantages. Competitive advantages can modify their appearance
more frequently and easily. Hence if a country’s trade output is relative to comparative
advantages, special conditions or factors of production are associated with that output. On the
contrary competitive advantages enable any country or any company to produce the given
output. However, sustainable competitive advantages allow the maintenance and improvement
of the country’s competitive position9
in the market. It is an advantage that enables a nation to
survive against its competitor over a long period of time. Among others, competitive
advantages thus contribute to preserve given comparative advantages, help finding new sources
of additional value, attract foreign investments, create favourable conditions for domestic
investors, and finally generate job creation. Jean-Philippe Cotis, the chief economist of the
OECD, proposes factors for boosting competitiveness. He points out open and closed sectors
within national economy and barriers to entry of new enterprises. However, the major
innovations are often engineered by newcomers. Innovations are important for growth not just
through increased labour utilisation, but also through gains in productivity. Productivity growth
stimulates sufficient growth in income and output to generate overall employment growth.
Labour Productivity is a “single factor productivity” or “partial productivity” concept. Growth
rates or levels of Labour Productivity can differ between countries either because the two
countries use different combinations of resources (labour, capital and intermediate inputs) or
because one of the two countries uses inputs more efficiently.10
True competitiveness is measured by productivity. Productivity allows a nation to support high
wages, a strong currency and attractive returns to capital, and along with that a high standard of
living. Krugman considers a national competitiveness as being generated in the long run by the
ability to increase the output per worker – productivity.11
III. Methodology of Labour Productivity (LP)
Productivity measures are used at the level of firms, industries and entire economies.
Productivity is an overall measure of the ability to produce goods or services. More specifically,
7
M. KITSON – M. RON – P. TYLER: The Regional Competitiveness Debate.
8
FUENTES: The FTAA: Costs and Benefits, Latin America and the Caribbean in the Next Millenium.
Edition No 55. 1999; M. E. PORTER: On Competition, Harvard Business School Press 1998.
9
P. BALÁŽ: $QDOê]D QLHNWRUêFK YêYRMRYêFK IDNWRURY HNRQRPLN\ 65 YR Y]ĢDKX N MHM NRQNXUHQþQHM
výkonnosti. in: Podpora rastu exportnej výkonnosti – základ hospodárskej stratégie transformácie
slovenskej ekonomiky. Bratislava, JAMEX 1998.
10
B. van ARK: Issues in Measurement and International Comparison Issues of Productivity – An
Overview, Croningen Growth and Development Centre, Univeersity of Croningen
11
M. E. PORTER – C. H. M. KETELS: UK Competitiveness: Moving to the next Stage, DTI Economic
Papers 3, London: Department of Trade and Industry 2003.
3 – 2007 1È52'2+2632'Èě6.é 2%=25
61
productivity is the measure of how specified resources are managed in order to accomplish
timely objectives as stated in terms of quantity and quality. Productivity may also be defined as
an index that measures output (goods and services) relative to the input (labour, materials,
energy, etc., used to produce the output). Overall productivity for individual countries is
calculated by dividing output, as measured by GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or GVA (Gross
Value Added) by the country's total employment. Hence, there are two major ways to increase
productivity: increase the numerator (output) or decrease the denominator (input). Of course, a
similar effect would be seen if both input and output increased but output increased faster than
input; or if input and output decreased but the former decreased faster than the latter. Labour
Productivity is typically measured as output per worker or output per labour-hour.12
IV. Selected Indices of National competitiveness based upon Labour Productivity
Evidence
of productivity growth usually means that better ways have been found to create greater output
from given inputs. Labour Productivity is in fact the “average product of labour” (average
output per worker or per worker-hour, an output which could be measured in physical terms or
in prices terms). In principle, inputs can be broadly defined as involving e.g. human capital
(people's skills), land, raw materials, machinery and equipment, energy, time. Most commonly
though, inputs are defined in terms of labour (number of employees or hours of work) and
capital (buildings, machinery and equipment, etc). Labour Productivity is the ratio of output to
labour input; and output is influenced by many factors that are beyond of workers' influence including
the nature and amount of capital equipment that is available, the cost of capital, the
introduction of new technologies, management practices and so on. Productivity growth means
more value is added in production and this means that more income is available to be
distributed. At the national level, productivity growth raises living standards because more real
income improves people's ability to consume more goods and services, to improve their
investment positions, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education.
Labour Productivity is one of the factors used for calculating the Unit labour costs (ULCs).
These represent a direct link between the productivity and the cost of labour in terms of
generating output. Unit labour cost is defined as the cost of labour required to produce one unit
of output in a particular industry, sector or the total economy. In other words, the unit labour
cost measure is a ratio that is constructed from a numerator reflecting the major cost category in
the production process (labour compensation) and the denominator reflecting the output from
the production process per worker (GDP or value added). Comparing ULC among countries
enables us to find a country that might be regarded as cost competitive in comparison to other
countries. A specific characteristic of unit labour cost measures is that the numerator, which
reflects the labour cost component of the equation, is typically expressed in nominal terms,
whereas the denominator (output or productivity) is measured in real or volume terms.
Compensation of employees (at current prices) (ESA 95) is defined as the total remuneration in
cash or in kind, payable by an employer to an employee in return for work done by the latter
during the accounting period. Another indicator is the Real Exchange Rate. It is defined by the
following model:
*
P
PER e
P
§ ·
¨ ¸
© ¹
,
12
R. PUTTEN: Labor productivity: an international perspective, Entrepreneurship in Europe, June 2003.
NÁRODOHO632'Èě6.é 2%=25 3 – 2007
62
where “e” is the exchange rate as the number of foreign currency units per home currency unit,
“P” is the price level of the home country and P* is the foreign price level. Thus the BalassaSamuelson
effect (BS effect) depends on the inter-country differences in the relative
productivity of the tradable and nontradable sectors. Relevant to Labour Productivity the B-S
model is then based upon the assumption that productivity growth rates vary more by country in
the traded goods sectors than in other.
V. Data description and presentation of results
Data for the GVA (Gross value added) expressed in constant Euro prices (2000 as the base
year) were derived from National accounts (ESA 95) published by Eurostat along with total
employment in sectors of countries under review. Starting point was the NACE breakdown by
six branches. This section of our paper hands over the output per worker in NACE of observed
units (Euro 12, Germany and Slovakia). Obtained data are graphically presented as % changes
towards the previous quarter. For the sake of comparison, the entire NACE Labour Productivity
trend of Slovakia was compared to that of Germany and the Euro 12. In addition, the
performance per worker was further classified (described) from the point of view of tradables
and non-tradables.13
13
Tradables are goods and services capable of being traded among countries. Non-tradables are goods that
are not traded, either because they cannot be or because the trade barriers are too high. With the exception
of the case when services are being distinguished from goods, they are often mentioned as examples of
nontraded goods.
For our purposes, the main criterion for classifying as tradable or nontradable
stood the physical transfer of commodities across national boundaries. Then tradable
commodities stemmed from NACE branches of A, B, C, D, E, the rest of them was counted
among the nontradables. The branch section involved following classification:
a, b: Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing;
c, d, e: Total industry (excluding construction);
f: Construction ;
g, h, i: Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles, and personal and
household goods, hotels and restaurants, transport, storage and communication;
j, k: Financial intermediation, real estate, renting and business activities;
l–p: Public administration and defence, compulsory social security, education, health and
social work, other community, social and personal service activities, private
households with employed persons.
The total employment in the Euro 12 on the quarter average was about 136 million workers, in
Germany there were about 39 million people employed in all NACE branches, and in Slovakia
there were about 2 million employees on the quarter average. Fig. 1 indicates the relative
changes of the entire NACE Labour Productivity within the EU 12, Germany and Slovakia
during the observed period.
3 – 2007 1È52'2+2632'Èě6.é 2%=25
63
Fig. 1: Total LP of all NACE branches within Euro 12, Germany, and Slovakia (% changes)
LP percentage changes
-2,50%
0,00%
2,50%
5,00%
2000Q
2
2000Q
3
2000Q
4
2001Q
1
2001Q
2
2001Q
3
2001Q
4
2002Q
1
2002Q
2
2002Q
3
2002Q
4
2003Q
1
2003Q
2
2003Q
3
2003Q
4
2004Q
1
2004Q
2
2004Q
3
2004Q
4
2005Q
1
2005Q
2
2005Q
3
2005Q
4
2006Q
1
2006Q
2
TLP EU 12 TLP G TLP SK
The Labour Productivity trend of Germany complied with the labour performance in the Euro
12 with some exceeds mainly in the first quarter of 2004 and the period between 2005 and
2006. A substantial change in the Euro 12 was recorded in the first quarter of 2001, when the
GVA increased by 2.6 % with a nearly 0.2 % improvement in total employment compared to
the previous quarter. In the same period an increase in the German Labour Productivity of about
1.1 % was registered and about 0.02 % more employees enhanced the total GVA by nearly
1.1 %. Slovakia’s performance per worker seemed somewhat unstable at least in those periods
where the LP of Germany and the Euro 12 achieved positive rates. The highest swinging
periods appeared between 2002 and 2005. In the first quarter of 2002, the output (GVA, with
about 1.8 %) decreased faster than the input (total employment, with about 0.3 %). In addition
to that, the GVA in constant prices in Slovakia dropped by 1.8 % in the first quarter of 2005 and
a nearly 0.5 % increase in total employment was accomplished.
NÁRODOHO632'Èě6.é 2%=25 3 – 2007
64
Fig. 2: Share of the total LP of Slovakia to the total LP of the Euro 12 and Germany
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
2000Q
12000Q
22000Q
32000Q
42001Q
12001Q
22001Q
32001Q
42002Q
12002Q
22002Q
32002Q
42003Q
12003Q
22003Q
32003Q
42004Q
12004Q
22004Q
32004Q
42005Q
12005Q
22005Q
32005Q
42006Q
12006Q
2
TLP SK/TLP G TLP SK / TLP EU 12
On the quarterly average, Labour Productivity of Slovakia reached about 23 % of the value
produced by a worker in Germany and about 25 % of the Labour Productivity of the Euro 12. A
moderate development characterized the Slovak Labour Productivity convergence towards the
Euro 12 and Germany, respectively. However, there was a faster growth of Labour Productivity
recorded in Slovakia than in Germany or the Euro 12 (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 3: LP (cumulative) of Slovakia – NACE breakdown by 6 branches (% changes)
LP cumulative percentage changes
-30,00%
0,00%
30,00%
60,00%
90,00%
120,00%
2000Q2
2001Q2
2002Q2
2003Q2
2004Q2
2005Q2
2006Q2
TLP(a,b) SK
TLP(c,d,e) SK
TLP(f) SK
TLP(g, h, i) SK
TLP(j, k) SK
TLP(l, p) SK
3 – 2007 1È52'2+2632'Èě6.é 2%=25
65
Total industry excluding the construction branch c, d, e showed quite a stable development over
a long run with some exceptions, such as the very negative decline in the fourth quarter of 2005
by nearly 15 %. However, the reason was a rapid slackening of output by 18 % and a slight
increase of employment in this branch by 0.2 %. On the average, the quarterly total employment
growth from the first quarter 2000 to the second quarter 2006 was -0.18 %. The average growth
rate of the GVA was 1.50 %. Thus the average rate of Labour Productivity growth of the Slovak
worker resulted in 1.69 %.
Output per worker employed in the construction – branch f showed a rather unstable trend.
Among other factors, this might have been caused by a volatile domestic demand of individual
economic subjects. There were about 136,000 workers active in this branch on the quarter
average and the average Labour Productivity growth reached 1.50 %.
There was only a slight improvement in the Labour Productivity within the l to p branch public
administration and defence, compulsory social security, education, health and social
work, other community, social and personal service activities, private households with
employed persons. The growth rate of the output per worker was 0.18 % on the quarter average.
The total employment growth rate was -0.05 %. However, the total employment in this branch
seemed to be stable at least from the first quarter of 2004 up to the present.
In Slovakia, the agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing - branch a, b was positively stimulated
by an increasing Labour Productivity. On the quarter average there were about 93,000 people
active in this branch. The average quarter growth of total employment was -1.65 % and the
growth of average Labour Productivity was about 3.92 %.
The branch j, k – financial intermediation, real estate, renting and business activities showed a
high volatility. The highest decreases could be determined in the first quarter of 2003 and 2005
respectively. Consolidation process in the system of financial intermediation and the bankruptcy
of some nonbanking financial entities in Slovakia in 2002 might have been some of the reasons
of this decrease. The quarterly average number of workers employed in this branch was
180,000. The Labour Productivity growth achieved about 0.25 % on the quarterly average.
Similar was the trend of Labour Productivity in the section g, h, i – wholesale and retail trade,
repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods, hotels and restaurants,
transport, storage and communication. In the first quarter of 2002, the Labour Productivity
showed a huge decline, contrary to the first quarter of 2006 in which the output per worker in
this branch resulted in the highest contribution. The first quarter of 2002 was marked by a
nearly 6 % increase in total employment and by an about 15.3 % decrease of GVA. The average
number of total employment in this sector was 550,000 employees, the average quarter Labour
Productivity growth achieved minus 0.10 %.
However, as the graph illustrates, Labour Productivity was growing faster in tradable sectors
than in the non-tradable ones. The tradable sector is under the influence of foreign competition
on the world market and catches the changes and challenges of competition very flexibly and
quickly.
NÁRODOHO632'Èě6.é 2%=25 3 – 2007
66
Fig. 4: LP of the Euro 12 – NACE breakdown by 6 branches (% changes)
LP cumulative percentage changes
-10,00%
-5,00%
0,00%
5,00%
10,00%
15,00%
20,00%
2000Q2
2001Q2
2002Q2
2003Q2
2004Q2
2005Q2
2006Q2
TLP(a,b) EU 12
TLP(c,d,e) EU 12
TLP(f) EU 12
TLP(g, h, i) EU 12
TLP(j, k) EU 12
TLP(l, p) EU 12
In the Euro 12, the average quarterly growth rate of Labour Productivity within the branch l – p
– public administration and defence, compulsory social security, education, health and social
work, other community, social and personal service activities, private households with
employed persons – decreased by 0.05 %. The total employment was about 40 million
employees on the quarterly average. Slow and changing Labour Productivity was detected
within the sector j, k – financial intermediation, real estate, renting and business activities. The
quarter growth rate of the GVA was about 0.48 % and the Labour Productivity growth declined
by 0.11 %.
In the branch g, h, i – wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and
personal and household goods, hotels and restaurants, transport, storage and communication,
the average Labour Productivity growth resulted in 0.27 % and the total employment growth
rate was about 0.23 % on the average.
The sector f – construction in the Euro 12 showed a 0.06 % decreasing Labour Productivity
growth on the quarterly average. The total employment rate was 0.33 %. This branch was
characterized by negative Labour Productivity growth similar to decline of another branch
mentioned above.
The sector of branch a, b – agriculture, hunting, forestry, showed a very unstable growth of
Labour Productivity mainly in the first four years. The average Labour Productivity growth on
the quarterly basis was 0,16 % with a negative total employment growth 0.33 %. However,
development of this sector is under the influence of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
within the EU.
3 – 2007 1È52'2+2632'Èě6.é 2%=25
67
The Labour Productivity trend in the branch c, d, e – total industry (excluding construction) was
characterized by a very fast growth in comparison to the other sectors under review. The
average growth rate of total employment in this sector was minus 0.20 % and the average
Labour Productivity growth rate achieved 0.60 %.
Fig. 5: LP of Germany - Aggregation of NACE branches into tradables and nontradables (%
changes)
-5,00%
0,00%
5,00%
10,00%
15,00%
20,00%
25,00%
30,00%
35,00%
2000Q
2
2000Q
3
2000Q
4
2001Q
1
2001Q
2
2001Q
3
2001Q
4
2002Q
1
2002Q
2
2002Q
3
2002Q
4
2003Q
1
2003Q
2
2003Q
3
2003Q
4
2004Q
1
2004Q
2
2004Q
3
2004Q
4
2005Q
1
2005Q
2
2005Q
3
2005Q
4
2006Q
1
2006Q
2
NTr LP G Tr LP G
This graph (Fig. 5) clearly confirmed the results for Slovakia and the Euro 12 when
characterizing the trend of Labour Productivity within the NACE branches. It was argued that
the output per worker increased faster in the cluster of tradables than in the group of nontradables.
However, from the common point of view, the Labour Productivity in tradables was
more affected by changes on the world market, resulting in rapid exploitation of new
communication systems, implementation of new technologies, new processes, and adaptation of
new business environment, new forms of selling and buying.
VI. Conclusion
Because competitiveness and competitive ability of nations are frequent topics, we focused on
the performance of a worker within individual economic activities. We worked out a comparing
study for presenting the trend of Labour Productivity of Slovakia as a new member state of the
EU, the Euro 12 and Germany. As Germany is an important trading partner of Slovakia, it was
included in our units of observation. Because the Slovak Republic proclaims its intention to join
the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) by 2009, the Euro 12 -countries already participating in
the Euro Currency Area- were chosen to be the benchmark concerning the Slovakian Labour
Productivity. The obtained results helped us clarify the statement set forth at the beginning of
this article which claimed that new EU member countries with their quick growth of Labour
Productivity are not an immediat threat to competitiveness of other countries.
NÁRODOHO632'Èě6.é 2%=25 3 – 2007
68
References
[1] R. VOKOROKOSOVÁ: Komparatívne a NRQNXUHQþQp YêKRG\ Y novej ekonomike,
EKONÓM 2004, Bratislava.
[2] E. M. PORTER: Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business
Review; 1998 Boston;
[3] S. GARELLI: Competitiveness of Nations: The Fundamentals, IMD World
Competitiveness Yearbook 2006.
[4] B. OHLIN: International and Interregional Trade, MA, Harward University Press 1933.
[5] M. S. SURANOVIC: International Trade Theory and Policy, 1997-2006.
[6] U. van SUNTUM: The Invisible Hand, Springer – Verlag, Berlin, Heilderberg 2004.
[7] M. KITSON – M. RON – P. TYLER: The Regional Competitiveness Debate.
[8] FUENTES: The FTAA: Costs and Benefits, Latin America and the Caribbean in the Next
Millenium. Edition No 55. 1999; M. E. Porter: On Competition, Harvard Business School
Press 1998.
[9] P. BALÁŽ: $QDOê]D QLHNWRUêFK YêYRMRYêFK IDNWRURY HNRQRPLN\ 65 YR Y]ĢDKX N MHM
NRQNXUHQþQHM YêNRQQRVWL in: Podpora rastu exportnej výkonnosti – základ hospodárskej
stratégie transformácie slovenskej ekonomiky. Bratislava, JAMEX 1998.
[10] B. van ARK: Issues in Measurement and International Comparison Issues of Productivity
– An Overview, Croningen Growth and Development Centre, Univeersity of Croningen
[11] M. E. PORTER – C. H. M. KETELS: UK Competitiveness: Moving to the next Stage,
DTI Economic Papers 3, London: Department of Trade and Industry 2003.
[12] R. PUTTEN: Labor productivity: an international perspective, Entrepreneurship in
Europe, June 2003.
Summary
ýOiQRN ³3URGXNWLYLWD SUiFH DNR IDNWRU NRQNXUHQþQHM VFKRSQRVWL´ DQDO\]XMH YêYRM Y REODVWL
SURGXNWLYLW\ SUiFH QD 6ORYHQVNX NWRUê ćDOHM SRURYQiYD V YêYRMRP SURGXNWLYLW\ SUiFH Y
Nemecku a EU- $QDOê]D VD Y]ĢDKXMH QD NODVLILNiFLX HNRQRPLFNêFK þLQQRVWt 2.(ý s
dôrazom na pozorovanie dvoch hlavných sektorov – REFKRGRYDWHĐQpKR D QHREFKRGRYDWHĐQpKR
&LHĐRP SUtVSHYNX MH GLDJQRVWLNRYDĢ GOKRGREp NRQNXUHQþQp YêKRG\ QD ]iNODGH YêYRMD
produktivity práce v pozorovaných krajinách.