Abstract
New Zealand, Ohio, and Sweden have experienced sharply divergent macroeconomic developments since the early 1970s. During the 1980s, New Zealand went from being the most heavily regulated and protectionist OECD country to one of the least regulated and most open economies in the world. Ohio suffered severe economic downturns when its major industries (steel, automobiles, and machinery) went through devastating crises. Since then, a major restructuring has taken place, and manufacturing output, exports, and employment have generally grown faster than in the United States as a whole. Sweden had an outstanding industrial growth record for several decades until the mid-1970s but then suffered economic setbacks from which it has not yet fully recovered. Industrial output declined for several years, resumed growth in the early 1980s but then stagnated again in the early 1990s.
The object of this paper is to study the microeconomic responses to these differences in the macroeconomic environment. While manufacturing employment declined by more than 20 percent in each country, the number of establishments in manufacturing stayed constant in Sweden while it declined by 9 percent in Ohio and more than doubled in New Zealand.
While there are certainly structural differences in the composition of the manufacturing sector in the three economies, these differences explain only a small portion of the differences in development patterns. Only a handful of 3-digit ISIC industries grew in terms of employment in each country between 1978 and 1993, but the growth industries were not the same across countries, and there were substantial differences in the growth patterns within these industries.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
CarlssonBo, 1983, ‘Industrial Subsidies in Sweden: Macroeconomic Effects and an International Comparison’, The Journal of Industrial Economics 32(1), 1–23.
CarlssonBo, 1987. ‘Reflections on “Industrial Dynamics”: The Challenges Ahead’, International Journal of Industrial Organization 5 (2), 135–148.
CarlssonBo (ed.), 1989, Industrial Dynamics: Technological, Organizational, and Structural Changes in Industries and firms, Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
CarlssonBo, 1992, ‘Industrial Dynamics: A Framework for Analysis of Industrial Transformation’, Révue d'Économie Industrielle 61(3), 7–32.
CarlssonBo and RikardStankiewicz, 1991, ‘On the Nature, Function, and Composition of Technological Systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(2), 93–118.
DahménErik, 1950, Svensk industriell företagarverksamhet. Kausalanalys av den industriella utvecklingen 1919–1939 (Swedish Industrial Entrepreneurial Activity. Causal Analysis of the Industrial Development 1919–1939), Stockholm: Industriens Utredningsinstitut (IUI).
DahménErik, 1989, ‘“Development Blocks” in Industrial Economics’, in BoCarlsson (ed.), Industrial Dynamics, Stockholm: Industriens Utredningsinstitut (IUI). pp. 109–121.
FeldmanMaryann, 1994, The Geography of Innovation Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
FraterPaul and GeorgeStuart, 1995, The New Zealand Innovation Environment, Report from Business and Economic Research, Ltd. (BERL), Wellington: BERL.
PorterMichael E., 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: The Free Press.
SaxenianAnnaLee, 1994, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlsson, B. Differing patterns of industrial dynamics: New Zealand, Ohio, and Sweden, 1978–1994. Small Bus Econ 8, 219–234 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388649
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388649