ICT and productivity in Europe and the United States

The surge in labour productivity growth in the United States in the late 1990s has prompted much speculation about the capacity of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to structurally increase growth. The simultaneous slowdown in productivity growth in the EU suggests the European countries are falling behind. In this paper we will analyse labour productivity growth in 51 industries in Europe and the United States. Using shift-share techniques we identify the industries in which the U.S. has gained a lead and the underlying reasons for this. The results show that the U.S. has grown faster than the EU because of a larger ICT producing sector and faster growth in services industries that make intensive use of ICT. Lagging growth in Europe is concentrated in wholesale and retail trade and the securities industry.

ICT and productivity in Europe and the United States

The surge in labour productivity growth in the United States in the late 1990s has prompted much speculation about the capacity of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to structurally increase growth. The simultaneous slowdown in productivity growth in the EU suggests the European countries are falling behind. In this paper we will analyse labour productivity growth in 51 industries in Europe and the United States. Using shift-share techniques we identify the industries in which the U.S. has gained a lead and the underlying reasons for this. The results show that the U.S. has grown faster than the EU because of a larger ICT producing sector and faster growth in services industries that make intensive use of ICT. Lagging growth in Europe is concentrated in wholesale and retail trade and the securities industry.

International Comparisons of R&D Expenditure: Does an R&D PPP Make a Difference?

Purchasing power parities (PPPs) for R&D expenditure in 19 manufacturing industries are developed for France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom relative to the United States for the years 1997 and 1987. These PPPs are based on R&D input prices for specific cost categories and differ substantially from current practice of comparing R&D expenditure using GDP PPPs and deflators. After taking into account differences in the relative price of R&D labor and materials, separate PPPs for other R&D cost categories are less essential, and a simpler version using GDP PPPs for these other categories should suffice. Our preferred PPPs are used to compare international R&D costs and intensity. The results suggest that the efforts devoted to R&D in each country are more similar across countries than is apparent using the nominal R&D intensities that are currently the norm.

A prospective analysis of the injury incidence of young male professional football players on artificial turf

Background: The effects of synthetic surfaces on the risk of injuries is still debated in literature and the majority of published data seems to be contradictory. For such reasons the understanding of injury incidence on such surfaces, especially in youth sport, is fundamental for injury prevention. Objectives: The aim of this study was to prospectively report the epidemiology of injuries in young football players, playing on artificial turfs, during a one sports season. Patients and Methods: 80 young male football players (age 16.1 ± 3.7 years; height 174 ± 6.6 cm; weight 64.2 ± 6.3 kg) were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. The participants were then divided in two groups; the first included players age ranging from 17 to 19 (OP) whereas the second included players age ranging from 13 to 16 (YP). Injury incidence was recorded prospectively, according to the consensus statement for soccer. Results: A total of 107 injuries (35 from the OP and 72 from the YP) were recorded during an exposure time of 83.760 hours (incidence 1.28/1000 per player hours); 22 during matches (incidence 2.84/1000 per player hours, 20.5%) and 85 during training (incidence 1.15/1000 per player hours, 79.5%). Thigh and groin were the most common injury locations (33.6% and 21.5%, respectively) while muscle injuries such as contractures and strains were the most common injury typologies (68.23%). No statistical differences between groups were displayed, except for the rate of severe injuries during matches, with the OP displaying slightly higher rates compared to the YP. Severe injuries accounted for 10.28% of the total injuries reported. The average time lost due to injuries was 14 days. Re-injuries accounted for 4.67% of all injuries sustained during the season. Conclusions: In professional youth soccer injury rates are reasonably low. Muscle injuries are the most common type of injuries while groin and thigh the most common locations. Artificial turf pitches don’t seem to contribute to injury incidence in young football players

Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on dirt field and artificial turf field by amateur football players

Abstract Background Data on the incidence, nature, severity and cause of match football injuries sustained on dirt field are scarce. The objectives of this study was to compare the incidence, nature, severity and cause of match injuries sustained on dirt field and artificial turf field by amateur male football players. Methods A prospective two-cohort design was employed. Participants were 252 male football players (mean age 27 years, range 18-43) in 14 teams who participated in a local championship carried on a dirt field and 216 male football players (mean age 28 years, range 17-40) in 12 teams who participated in a local championship carried on a artificial turf field in the same zone of the city. Injury definitions and recording procedures were compliant with the international consensus statement for epidemiological studies of injuries in football. Results The overall incidence of match injuries for men was 36.9 injuries/1000 player hours on dirt field and 19.5 on artificial turf (incidence rate ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.19-3.05). Most common injured part on dirt field was ankle (26.7%) and on artificial turf was knee (24.3%). The most common injury type in the dirt field was skin injuries (abrasion and laceration) and in the artificial turf was sprain and ligament injury followed by haematoma/contusion/bruise. Most injuries were acute (artificial turf 89%, dirt field 91%) and resulted from player-to-player contact (artificial turf 59.2%, dirt field 51.4%). Most injuries were slight and minimal in dirt field cohort but in artificial turf cohort the most injuries were mild. Conclusions There were differences in the incidence and type of football match injuries sustained on dirt field and artificial turf.</p