(This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997) Whereas United States eco- nomic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, Line it has grown at an annual rate of (5) only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since (10) 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. (15) Manufacturing, however, consti- tutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods- producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American (20) workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. (25) Several explanations
have been Offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that tra- (30) ditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manu- (35) facturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue (40) that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service
(45) workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has (50) generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because (55) of slow growth in demand for manu- factured goods. Yet
another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rate would be lower (55) too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technol- ogies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of techno- (60) logical resources, rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- (65) edge service companies indicate that service sector managers
who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve (70) their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces－such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary (75) governmental regulation－that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources. 文章结构清晰，为了回答为什么经济衰退，找到服务业的原因，为什么服务业衰退，找到服务业管理者的原因，最后找到根源：the forces---corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation. (This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997) Whereas United States eco- nomic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, Line it has grown at an annual rate of (5) only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since (10) 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. (15) Manufacturing, however, consti- tutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods- producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American (20) workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. (25) Several explanations
have been Offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that tra- (30) ditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manu- (35) facturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue (40) that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service
(45) workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has (50) generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because (55) of slow growth in demand for manu- factured goods. Yet
another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rate would be lower (55) too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technol- ogies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of techno- (60) logical resources, rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- (65) edge service companies indicate that service sector managers
who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve (70) their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces－such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary (75) governmental regulation－that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources. 文章结构清晰，为了回答为什么经济衰退，找到服务业的原因，为什么服务业衰退，找到服务业管理者的原因，最后找到根源：the forces---corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
匿名
发表于 1970-1-1 08:00:00
楼主
