Abstract
Empirical industry studies too often fall into one of two categories. They may be rich in institutional information and lack generalizability, or heavy in measurement technique, and weak in relevance because little institutional information informs the generalizations. The organization of the professional literature contributes somewhat to the problem in two ways: the general preference for theoretical papers, and the tendencies for journals to specialize in quantitative or qualitative exposition. A mixed paper may well be redirected to an outlet of the “other” type by these journals. The journals that stress quantitative analysis tend to prefer short papers, and have little tolerance for discussion of institutional effects, while the more institutional journals discourage the elaborate quantitative models that may be required to adjust for institutional realities. The quantitative-institutional war should be resolvable by the observation that the technological environment of an enterprise or industry is part of its institutional setting, and that complex industries and technologies cannot be understood in abstraction from the quantitative effects of its institutions on performance. However, academic institutions and practice seem often to be divided along similar lines, so that the relevance of industry studies for technology management is less than it could be.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Endnotes
Norsworthy, J.R. and Jang, S.L. (1992) Empirical Analysis of Technology and Productivity in High Technology and Service Industries, North Holland, USA.
Pitt, I.L. (1991) Technological Change and Investment in Commercial Aircraft, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
See U.S. General Accounting Office, Testimony, (February 1991) U.S. Airlines: Weak Financial Structure Threatens Competition, Washington, D.C. GAO/T-RCED-91-6.
USAir is now known as USAirways. We will continue to use USAir since that was what the carrier was known as during the period of our study of 1970-1992.
ibid., pp. 1-5.
ibid., pp. 10-13.
ibid., pp. 1-24.
ibid., p. 8.
ibid., pp. 15-16.
U.S. Department of Commerce (1986) A Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Civil Aircraft Industry, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 61–9
Norsworthy and Jang (1992).
U.S. Department of Commerce (1986), pp. 61-98.
Norsworthy, J.R. and Tsai, D. (1998) Macroeconomic Policy as Implicit Industrial Policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
ibid.
Pickrell, D. (1991) “The Regulation and Deregulation of U.S. Airlines” in Airline Deregulation—International Experiences, K. Button (ed.), New York University Press, New York, p. 15.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pitt, I.L., Norsworthy, J.R. (1999). Productivity, Technology and Efficiency in the U.S Commercial Airline Industry. In: Economics of the U.S. Commercial Airline Industry: Productivity, Technology and Deregulation. Transportation Research, Economics and Policy. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5031-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5031-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7286-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5031-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive