Suchergebnisse

Surveys the literature on the role of exports in economic growth and provides additional qualifications concerning the measurement of the different channels through which exports may contribute to economic growth. Our framework shows that the most commonly used supply‐side approaches have typically underestimated the contribution of exports to economic growth. Using the proposed generalized version of the sources‐of‐growth approach, measures the contribution of exports to the growth of output in the US manufacturing sector and the 20 two‐digit industries. Separates growth of total output into growth attributable to changes in both export‐related and non‐export‐related factor inputs as well as the "residual" or otherwise unexplained growth. For the nation as a whole, over the period of the study, 1971‐1987, finds that export‐related inputs contributed 45.5 per cent to the growth of US output of manufactures, while technology and non‐export‐related inputs contributed 45.4 per cent and 9.1 per cent respectively, significant disparities existing among the industries.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter-response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling-up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between Standards and Principles that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter‐response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling‐up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between "Standards" and "Principles" that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.