BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Gender, Innovation and Labour Productivity in Ugandan manufacturing firms

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 21 - 32, 01.12.2014

Niringiye Aggrey

Öz

In this paper, we analyzed the relationship between gender, innovation and labour productivity in Ugandan manufacturing firms. An augmented Cobb Douglas production function was estimated using pseudo panel data. Little was known about the relationship between gender, innovation and labour productivity in Ugandan manufacturing firms. The descriptive results showed that manufacturing firms that are innovative using ICT usage as proxy had on average high levels of labour productivity than their counterparts. In addition, firms owned by male entrepreneurs had higher levels of labour productivity compared firms owned by female entrepreneurs. The regression results did not find any significant differences in terms of labour productivity between firms owned by female and male entrepreneurs. ICT usage was shown to be positively correlated with labour productivity although the correlation was weak. The results show that gender is not complementary to ICT usage in improving labour productivity. These findings have vital policy implications on innovation and gender consideration asa development strategy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ICT usage gender labour productivity manufacturing firms

Kaynakça

  • Alma M and G. Elina (2014). Impact of Information and Telecommunication Technologies Development on Labour Productivity. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences Vol.1 1 0, pp.1 2 7 1 – 1 2 8 2.
  • Atrostic BK and Nguyen SV (2005). Computer Investment, Computer Networks, and Productivity. Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau. Washington, DC.
  • Atrostic BK and Nguyen SV (2002). Computer Networks and US Manufacturing Plant Productivity: New Evidence from the CNUS Data. Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau. Washington, DC.
  • Baily MN (1986). Productivity growth and materials use in US manufacturing. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp. 185–196.
  • Bloom N, Sadun R and van Reenen J (2005). It ain’t what you do it’s the way that you do IT: testing explanations of productivity growth using US affiliates. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
  • Brynjolfsson E and Hitt LM (2002). Computing productivity: firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 793 – 808.
  • Boafo, Kwame (2003), Status of Research on the Information Society, UNESCOPublications for the World Summit on the Information Society available at:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001355/135509e.pdf
  • Bailey, M. and R. Gordon (1988), ‘The Productivity Slowdown,Measurement Issues and the Explosion of Computer Power,’Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol.19, No.2,pp.347S420.
  • Black, S. E. and L. M. Lynch (1996), ‘Human Capital Investments andProductivity’, American Economic Review, May.
  • Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt (1993), ‘New Evidence on the Returns toInformation Systems’, Working Paper, Sloan School ofManagement, MIT.
  • Criscuolo C and Waldron K (2003). E-Commerce and Productivity. Economic Trends 600, UK Office for National Statistics.
  • Dina Mandour(2009).Impact of ICT on Gender Gap in Egypt. Working Paper #004
  • Erbaugh JM, Donnermeyer J, Amujal M, KidoidoM(2010). Assessing the impact of farmer field school participation on IPM adoption in Uganda.JIntAgric Ext Educ 2010,17: 5–17
  • Farooqui S (2005). Information and Communication Technology Use and Productivity. Economic Trends 625, UK Office for National Statistics. Oliner, S. and D. Sichel (1994), ‘Computers and Output GrowthRevisited: How Big is the Puzzle?’, Brookings Papers onEconomic Activity, No.2, pp.273-317.
  • Hafkin, Nancy (2002), Gender Issues in Developing Countries: An Overview, United NationsDivision for the Advancement of Women (DAW), available at:http:// www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/ict2002/reports/Paper-NHafkin.PDF
  • Hafkin, Nancy and Nancy Taggart (2001), Gender, Information Technology, and DevelopingCountries and Developing Countries: An Analytic Study, Academy for EducationalDevelopment, for the Office of Women in Development, Bureau for Global programs, FieldSupport and Research, US Agency for International Development, available at:http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACM294.pdf
  • Hagén H-O and Zeed J (2005). Does ICT use matter for firm productivity?. Yearbook on Productivity 2005, Statistics Sweden.
  • Halvorsen R and Palmquist R (1980). The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semi logarithmic Equations. The American Economic Review, vol. 70, No.3, pp.474- 475.
  • Jones, P.(2001). Are educated workers really more productive? J. Dev. Econ., 64: 57-79.
  • Khayyat N, J. Lee and A. Heshmati (2014). How ICT Investment and Energy Use Influence the Productivity of Korean Industries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8080.
  • Koellinger P (2006). Impact of ICT on Corporate Performance, Productivity and Employment Dynamics.Special Report of the European Commission Enterprise & Industry Directorate GeneralNo. 01/2006, European e-Business Market Watch.
  • Maliranta M and Rouvinen P (2003). Productivity effect of ICT in Finnish business. Discussion Paper No. 852, Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Maliranta M and Rouvinen P (2006). Informational mobility and productivity: Finnish evidence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 15(6), September.
  • Marcelle, M. Gillian (2000), Transforming Information and Communication Technologies forGender Equality, Gender in Development Monograph Series No.9, available at:http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/mono9-ICT.pdf
  • OECD (2007), ICTs and Gender, Working Party on Information Society, Committee forInformation, Computer and Communications Policy, DSTI/ICCP/IE (2006)9/FINAL.
  • UNCTAD (2005). A Case Study of the Electronics Industry in Thailand, Series on Transfer ofTechnology for Successful Integration into the Global Economy.
  • UNCTAD (2007). Information Economy Report 2007-2008.
  • UNCTAD(2008). Measuring the impact of ICT use in business: the case of manufacturing inThailand. UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION. Available at;www. unctad.org
  • UNESCO (2003), Gender Issues in the Information Society, UNESCO Publications for theWorld Summit on the Information Society, CI-2003/WS/05.
  • United Nations Development Programme UNDP (2005), Human Development Report 2005, International Cooperation at a Crossroads, Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World,UNDP, available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/

Gender, Innovation and Labour Productivity in Ugandan manufacturing firms

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 21 - 32, 01.12.2014

Niringiye Aggrey

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Alma M and G. Elina (2014). Impact of Information and Telecommunication Technologies Development on Labour Productivity. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences Vol.1 1 0, pp.1 2 7 1 – 1 2 8 2.
  • Atrostic BK and Nguyen SV (2005). Computer Investment, Computer Networks, and Productivity. Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau. Washington, DC.
  • Atrostic BK and Nguyen SV (2002). Computer Networks and US Manufacturing Plant Productivity: New Evidence from the CNUS Data. Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau. Washington, DC.
  • Baily MN (1986). Productivity growth and materials use in US manufacturing. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp. 185–196.
  • Bloom N, Sadun R and van Reenen J (2005). It ain’t what you do it’s the way that you do IT: testing explanations of productivity growth using US affiliates. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
  • Brynjolfsson E and Hitt LM (2002). Computing productivity: firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 793 – 808.
  • Boafo, Kwame (2003), Status of Research on the Information Society, UNESCOPublications for the World Summit on the Information Society available at:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001355/135509e.pdf
  • Bailey, M. and R. Gordon (1988), ‘The Productivity Slowdown,Measurement Issues and the Explosion of Computer Power,’Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol.19, No.2,pp.347S420.
  • Black, S. E. and L. M. Lynch (1996), ‘Human Capital Investments andProductivity’, American Economic Review, May.
  • Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt (1993), ‘New Evidence on the Returns toInformation Systems’, Working Paper, Sloan School ofManagement, MIT.
  • Criscuolo C and Waldron K (2003). E-Commerce and Productivity. Economic Trends 600, UK Office for National Statistics.
  • Dina Mandour(2009).Impact of ICT on Gender Gap in Egypt. Working Paper #004
  • Erbaugh JM, Donnermeyer J, Amujal M, KidoidoM(2010). Assessing the impact of farmer field school participation on IPM adoption in Uganda.JIntAgric Ext Educ 2010,17: 5–17
  • Farooqui S (2005). Information and Communication Technology Use and Productivity. Economic Trends 625, UK Office for National Statistics. Oliner, S. and D. Sichel (1994), ‘Computers and Output GrowthRevisited: How Big is the Puzzle?’, Brookings Papers onEconomic Activity, No.2, pp.273-317.
  • Hafkin, Nancy (2002), Gender Issues in Developing Countries: An Overview, United NationsDivision for the Advancement of Women (DAW), available at:http:// www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/ict2002/reports/Paper-NHafkin.PDF
  • Hafkin, Nancy and Nancy Taggart (2001), Gender, Information Technology, and DevelopingCountries and Developing Countries: An Analytic Study, Academy for EducationalDevelopment, for the Office of Women in Development, Bureau for Global programs, FieldSupport and Research, US Agency for International Development, available at:http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACM294.pdf
  • Hagén H-O and Zeed J (2005). Does ICT use matter for firm productivity?. Yearbook on Productivity 2005, Statistics Sweden.
  • Halvorsen R and Palmquist R (1980). The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semi logarithmic Equations. The American Economic Review, vol. 70, No.3, pp.474- 475.
  • Jones, P.(2001). Are educated workers really more productive? J. Dev. Econ., 64: 57-79.
  • Khayyat N, J. Lee and A. Heshmati (2014). How ICT Investment and Energy Use Influence the Productivity of Korean Industries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8080.
  • Koellinger P (2006). Impact of ICT on Corporate Performance, Productivity and Employment Dynamics.Special Report of the European Commission Enterprise & Industry Directorate GeneralNo. 01/2006, European e-Business Market Watch.
  • Maliranta M and Rouvinen P (2003). Productivity effect of ICT in Finnish business. Discussion Paper No. 852, Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Maliranta M and Rouvinen P (2006). Informational mobility and productivity: Finnish evidence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 15(6), September.
  • Marcelle, M. Gillian (2000), Transforming Information and Communication Technologies forGender Equality, Gender in Development Monograph Series No.9, available at:http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/mono9-ICT.pdf
  • OECD (2007), ICTs and Gender, Working Party on Information Society, Committee forInformation, Computer and Communications Policy, DSTI/ICCP/IE (2006)9/FINAL.
  • UNCTAD (2005). A Case Study of the Electronics Industry in Thailand, Series on Transfer ofTechnology for Successful Integration into the Global Economy.
  • UNCTAD (2007). Information Economy Report 2007-2008.
  • UNCTAD(2008). Measuring the impact of ICT use in business: the case of manufacturing inThailand. UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION. Available at;www. unctad.org
  • UNESCO (2003), Gender Issues in the Information Society, UNESCO Publications for theWorld Summit on the Information Society, CI-2003/WS/05.
  • United Nations Development Programme UNDP (2005), Human Development Report 2005, International Cooperation at a Crossroads, Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World,UNDP, available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/
Toplam 30 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Niringiye Aggrey Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2014
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2014 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Aggrey, N. (2014). Gender, Innovation and Labour Productivity in Ugandan manufacturing firms. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(2), 21-32.