Skip Navigation


Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access originally published online on November 18, 2008
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2009 33(3):433-466; doi:10.1093/cje/ben032
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
33/3/433    most recent
ben032v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tregenna, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution
Right arrow J21 - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
Right arrow L60 - General
Right arrow O14 - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

This article appears in the following Cambridge Journal of Economics issue: Special focus: The intellectual legacy of Brian Reddaway [View the issue table of contents]

Characterising deindustrialisation: An analysis of changes in manufacturing employment and output internationally

Fiona Tregenna*

* Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, UK

Address for correspondence: Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DD, UK; email: fmt21{at}cam.ac.uk

Deindustrialisation is typically conceptualised as a decline in manufacturing as a share of total employment. From a Kaldorian perspective deindustrialisation could have negative implications for long-run growth, given the special growth-pulling properties of manufacturing. However, defining deindustrialisation purely in terms of employment share is conceptually limiting given that some of the Kaldorian processes operate primarily through output rather than employment, as well as blunting empirical analysis by not focussing enough on changes in manufacturing share of gross domestic product (GDP). This study develops a new method using decomposition techniques to analyse changes in manufacturing employment levels and shares in 48 countries over periods of ‘deindustrialisation’. The analysis separates out changes in the levels and shares of employment manufacturing into components associated with changes in the share of manufacturing in GDP, the growth of manufacturing value-added, the labour intensity of manufacturing production and economic growth. The results indicate that in most cases the decline in manufacturing employment is associated primarily with falling labour intensity of manufacturing rather than an overall decline in the size or share of the manufacturing sector. We suggest that deindustrialisation should appropriately be defined in terms of a sustained decline in both the share of manufacturing in total employment and the share of manufacturing in GDP.

Key Words: Deindustrialisation • Manufacturing • Sectors • Employment • Unemployment • Kaldor

JEL classifications: J21, L60, O14, E24

Manuscript received October 19, 2007; final version received May 1, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.