Abstract
When it comes to the economic affluence of a nation and the ability of a country’s economy to improve the standard of living of its citizens and compete internationally, social scientists are in an unusual agreement that productivity “in the long run is almost everything”.
This text was first published as: Stehr, Nico. 2000. “The Productivity Paradox: ICTs, Knowledge and the Labour Market ”, in: John de la Mothe and Gilles Paquet (eds.), Information, Innovation and Impacts. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 255–271. The permission to republish this text here was granted by Springer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The reasons Castells (1996: 468) offers in support of his label of network society for the emerging social structures throughout modern society refer to a historical trend in which the “dominant functions and processes in the information age are increasingly organized around networks. Networks constitute the social morphology of our societies, and the diffusion of networking logic substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production , experience, power , and culture.” For a critique of aspects of Castells theory of society see Stehr (1999).
- 2.
I will only cite one more example of the by now rather orthodox claim in science, in education, the economy and in much of the public realm that there is a technology driven demand for highly workers. That claim also resonates strongly with technological determinism: Davenport (1997: 2) deferring to Peter Drucker’s ideas on the knowledge society explicates the term knowledge-based economy and indicates that the characteristic technological basis of the knowledge-intensive economy, namely information and communication technology , biotechnology, and new materials have created a “remarkable demand for highly educated workers, not only to advance and manage the technologies themselves, but to serve as experts in the finance, production , and marketing of the new products and services which the technologies produce.” What is remarkable about Davenport’s assertion is that Drucker is one of the few economists who has indicated that the really intriguing dynamics of growth of knowledge workers is the extent to which such gains may not be demand but supply side driven (see Drucker [1968] 1992: 279). I will return to this point in detail later in the paper.
- 3.
Castell’s (1996: 78) expresses the suspicion that the poor validity of the economic statistics might be responsible for the productivity puzzle and therefore may not even be real: “It may well be that a significant proportion of the mysterious productivity slowdown results from a growing inadequacy of economic statistics to capture movements of the new informational economy, precisely because of the broad scope of its transformations under the impact of information technology and related organizational changes.” However, he does not indicate how one might be able to specifically ‘heal’ the deficiencies of the current statistical regime.
- 4.
Jorgenson (1997: 4) sees the productivity paradox as arising from the prevailing identification of “productivity growth with technological change”. Technological change and productivity gains are distinct. Productivity growth is but a minor component to growth. Technological change occurs, he argues, as a result of investments; economic growth also is due to capital investment. Capital investments can be categorized into investments into tangible assets, human and intellectual capital. The purchase of computers constitutes an investment into tangible assets. But the key concept in this context, intellectual capital remains but a vague and perhaps even more irritating to economists an unmeasured and unmeasurable concept.
- 5.
My cautious observations about a gradual rather than an abrupt, decisive transformation of the economy of industrial society into a knowledge-based economy that fully displaces and renders obsolete the earlier economic formations resonate with Sombart ’s ([1927] 2000) reflections about erroneous expectations that economic systems can change in dramatic even violent ways: “All those opinions are mistaken which expect a violent upset of the existing economic constitution and a sudden change of the, bases of economic life. This opinion too misjudges the nature of economic development , which always proceeds in the form of a gradual, ‘organic’ reshaping of existing conditions. A new economy ‘grows’, like a plant, or an animal. Forcible interventions may well destroy, but they build nothing. All previous history confirms the accuracy of this observation.”
- 6.
It is worth noting that the meaning of the terms work and labor now are used almost interchangeably. Labor in contrast to work may or was seen as based in circumstances in another person’s direction and control while work refers to what directly maintain one’s existence and is earned with relative autonomy.
- 7.
- 8.
A brief description of the emergence, nature and recent challenges to mass production in the automobile industry in North America and Europe described as Fordism may be found in Dankbaar (1995).
- 9.
The so-called scientific management principles that Taylor developed were, for example, designed to limit and restrict the exceptional control workers often had with respect to forms of knowledge that related directly to technical and performance-related knowledge on the shop floor.
- 10.
Among the surprising even amazing properties of the transformation of the labor market is that the American economy was able to “satisfy the expectations of all these people with long years of schooling […]. As a result of the change in supply, we now have to create genuine knowledge jobs, whether the work itself demands it or not. For a true knowledge job is the only way to make highly schooled people productive […]. That the knowledge worker came first and knowledge work second—that indeed knowledge work is still largely to come—is a historical accident. From now on, we can expect increasing emphasis on work based on knowledge, and especially skills based on knowledge” (Drucker 1968: 285).
- 11.
John Kenneth Galbraith dismisses Drucker’s argument out of hand. He affirms the orthodox view about the relation between education and the labor market and considers Drucker’s perspective as evidence for the typical self-complacency and pretension of the educator misreading the real power balance in society in the process. Galbraith (1967: 238) suggests it is the “vanity of educators that they shape the educational system to their preferred image. They may not be without influence but the decisive force is the economic system. What the educator believes is latitude is usually latitude to respond to economic need.” In other words, Galbraith insists that the demand-side explanation generally favored by economists (as well as employers, educators and educational policy makers one should add) primarily accounts for the increase in skilled work.
- 12.
The degree of technology intensity in individual firms was measured by the authors of the study by counting the number of technical processes or devices such as computer driven machines, robots and so on found in the plants (see Doms et al. 1997: 287–288 for a detailed description of the different processes and devices).
- 13.
In concrete terms, “the positive relationship between technology use and the percent of skilled workers is primarily due to a dramatic increase in the percent of scientists and engineers in the most technologically advanced plants” (Doms et al. 1997: 263).
- 14.
In response to the question of the reasons for the immense growth of the service sector in recent decades, Landauer without referring to Drucker, also offers an account that stresses factors induced by the demand for jobs. Thus, new jobs were needed, so new services were invented. Many new or expanded services depended on computers: a plethora of investment instruments—complex new mutual funds and trading schemes, a deluge of new insurance policies and options, a myriad of debit and credit cards, dozens of new kinds of bank accounts and novel banking services offered from widely dispersed branches and machines, multitudes of new medical techniques and therapies, fast food restaurants, fast copy stores, fully filled planes with frequent flyer plans, mom and pop mail order firms, direct marketing, PC maintenance, and so forth (Landauer 1995: 74–75).
- 15.
Concerns that the quality of the available jobs may not be compatible with rising educational levels (Harman 1978: 209) correspond to exactly the opposite perspective, namely that the quality of the worlds of work is primarily driven by the nature of the demand.
References
Alexander, T.J. 1997. “Human Capital Investment: Building the ‘Knowledge Economy’”, Policy Options, 18: 5–8.
Attewell, Paul. 1994. “Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox”, in: Douglas H. Harris (ed.), Organizational Linkages. Understanding the Productivity Paradox. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 13–53.
Baldwin, John R. and Guy Gellatly. 1998. Are There High-Tech Industries or Only High-Tech Firms? Evidence from New Technology Based Firms. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
Bell, Daniel. 1968. “The Measurement of Knowledge and Technology”, in: Eleanor B. Sheldon and Wilbert E. Moore (eds.), Indicators of Social Change. Concepts and Measurements. Hartford, CT: Russel Sage Foundation: 145–246.
Berman, Eli, John Bound and Zvi Geliches. 1994. “Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor Within U.S. Manufacturing Industries: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufacturing”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 59: 367–398.
Bernard, Andrew B. and Bradford Jensen. 1997. “Exporters, Skill Upgrading and the Wage Gap,”, Journal of International Economics, 42: 3–31.
Böhle, Fritz. 1998. “Technik und Arbeit – neue Antwoten auf ‘alte’ Fragen”, Soziale Welt, 49: 233–252.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1973. “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction”, in: Richard Brown (ed.), Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change. London: Tavistock: 71–112.
Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brynjolfsson, Erik and Lorin Hitt. 1996. “Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending”, Management Science, 42: 541–558.
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cavestro, William. 1989. “Automation, New Technology and Work Content”, in: Stephen Wood (ed.), The Transformation of Work? London: Unwin Hyman: 219–234.
Dankbaar, Ben. 1995. “The Crisis of Fordism: Restructuring in the Automobile Industry”, in: Rien Hiuskamp van Ruysseveldt and Jacques van Hoff (eds.), Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations. London: Sage: 293–314.
Davenport, Paul. 1997. “The Productivity Paradox and the Management of Information Technology”, Paper presented to the Centre for the Study of Living Standards Conference on Service Sector Productivity and the Productivity Paradox, April 11–13, 1997, Ottawa, Canada.
Diewert, Erwin and Kevin Fox. 1997. “Can Measurement Error Explain the Productivity Paradox?”, Paper presented to the Centre for the Study of Living Standards Conference on Service Sector Productivity and the Productivity Paradox, April 11–13, 1997, Ottawa, Canada.
Doms, Mark, Timothy Dunne and Kenneth Troske. 1997. “Workers, Wages and Technology”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, (February): 253–290.
Drucker, Peter. [1968] 1992. The Age of Discontinuity. Guidelines to Our Changing Society. With a New Introduction by the Author. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Drucker, Peter. 1999. Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: HarperBusiness.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1967. The New Industrial State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gill, Colin. 1985. Work, Unemployment and the New Technology. Oxford: Polity Press.
Gottschalk, Peter. 1997. “Inequality, Income Growth and Mobility”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11: 21–40.
Harman, Willis W. 1978. “Chronic Unemployment: An Emerging Problem of Postindustrial Society”, Futurist, 12: 209–214.
Heisig, Ulrich and Wolfgang Littek. 1995. “Trust as a Basis of Work Organisation”, in: Wolfgang Littek and Tony Charles (eds.), The New Division of Labour: Emerging Forms of Work Organisation in International Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 17–56.
Hirschhorn, Larry and Joan Mokray. 1992. “Automation and Competency Requirements in Manufacturing: A Case Study”, in: Paul S. Adler (ed.), Technology and the Future of Work. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution: 15–45.
Hirst, Paul and Jonathan Zeitlin. 1991. “Flexible Specialization Versus Post-Fordism: Theory, Evidence and Policy Implications”, Economy and Society, 20: 1–56.
Jaeger, Carlo and Huib Ernste. 1989. “Ways Beyond Fordism?”, in: Huib Ernste and Carlo Jaeger (eds.), Information Society and Spatial Structure. London: Belhaven Press: 159–185.
Johnson, George F. 1997. “Changes in Earnings Inequality: The Role of Demand Shifts”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11: 41–54.
Jorgenson, Dale. 1997. “Computers and Productivity”, Paper presented to the Centre for the Study of Living Standards Conferrence on Service Sector Productivity and the Productivity Pradox, April 11–13, 1997, Ottawa, Canada.
Kegan, Robert. 1994. In Over Our Heads. The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krugman, Paul. 1994. The Age of Diminished Expectations. U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s. Revised and Updated Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landauer, Thomas K. 1995. The Trouble with Computers. Usefulness, Usability, and Productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luhmann, Niklas. [1991] 1993. Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Marsick, Victoria J. 1998. “Transformative Learning from Experience in the Knowledge Era”, Daedalus, 127: 119–136.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. [1932] 1960. Die deutsche Ideologie. Berlin: Dietz.
Massey, Doreen B. 1984. Spatial Divisions of Labor: Social Structures and the Geography of Production. London: Macmillan.
Merton, Robert K. 1947. “The Machine, the Worker and the Engineer”, Science, 105: 79–84.
Nelson, Richard R. and Gavin Wright. 1992. “The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective”, Journal of Economic Literature, 30: 1931–1964.
Petit, Pascal and Luc Soete. 1997. “Is a Biased Technological Change Fuelling Dualism”, Paper presented to the Centre for the Study of Living Standards Conferrence on Service Sector Productivity and the Productivity Pradox, April 11–13, 1997, Ottawa, Canada.
Pinsonneault, Rivard S. 1998. “Information Technology and the Nature of Managerial Work: From the Productivity Paradox to the Icarus Paradox?”, MIS Quarterly, 22: 287–311.
Piore, Michael J. and Charles F. Sabel. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
Pryor, Frederic L. and David L. Schaffer. 1999. Who’s Not Working and Why. Employment, Cognitive Skills, Wages, and the Changing U.S. Labor Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, James B. 1996. “The Productivity Paradox Is False: Information Technology Improves Service Performance”, Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 5: 71–84.
Sabel, Charles F. 1991. “Moebius-Strip Organizations and Open Labor Markets: Some Consequences of the Reintegration of Conception and Execution in a Volatile Economy”, in: Pierre Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds.), Social Theory for a Changing Society. Boulder: Westview Press: 23–54.
Schelsky, Helmut. 1954. “Zukunftsaspekte der industriellen Gesellschaft”, Merkur, 8: 13–28.
Sichel, Daniel E. 1999. “Computers and Aggregate Economic Growth: An Update”, Business Economics, 34: 18–24.
Sombart, Werner. [1927] 2000. “The Economic Life of the Future”, in: Werner Sombart (ed.), Economic Life in the Modern Age. Edited and Introduced by Nico Stehr and Reiner Grundmann. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Stehr, Nico. 1999. “Deciphering Information Technologies: Modern Societies as Networks”, European Journal of Social Theory, 3: 84–93.
Tilly, Chris and Charles Tilly. 1998. Work Under Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
United States Department of Commerce 1991 U.S. Industrial Outlook. Washington, DC: U.S, Department of Commerce.
Van Langenhove, Luk. 1999. “Rethinking the Social Sciences? A Point of View”, in: The Social Sciences at a Turning Point? Paris: OECD: 43–51.
Weber, Max. [1913] 1981. “Some Categories of Interpretive Sociology”, The Sociological Quarterly, 22: 151–180.
Wetzel, James R. 1995. “Labor Force, Unemployment, and Earnings”, in: Reynolds Farley (ed.), State of the Union. America in the 1990s. Volume One: Economic Trends. New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 59–105.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stehr, N. (2018). The Productivity Paradox: ICTs, Knowledge and the Labor Market. In: Adolf, M. (eds) Nico Stehr: Pioneer in the Theory of Society and Knowledge. Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76995-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76995-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76994-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76995-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)