Change in Manufacturing Productivity in the U.S. South: Implications for Regional Growth Policy

  • Kingsley E. Haynes
  • Mustafa Dinc
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


For over a century the U.S. South has been considered a lagging region in which its rates of income and employment growth relegated it to second class economic status. This was reinforced by a dominantly rural agrarian economic base. Despite reasonable economic growth rates, the gap between the South and the rest of the country did not seem to close significantly until the late 1960s and early 1970s. As industrialization took hold and urban agglomeration stimulated related supporting production and business service development, economic restructuring began to change the South and in the 1970s, the gap suddenly began to close. Manufacturing seems to have played a central role in closing this employment, income and wealth gap and in 1980s the South became part of growing “sunbelt” which until that time had been dominated only by western states. It is the role of manufacturing that is examined in this study to understand its present role in regional economic growth in the U.S. South.


Total Factor Productivity Output Growth Employment Growth Manufacture Productivity Productivity Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barff, R.A. and P.L. Knight III, 1988, “Dynamic Shift-Share Analysis”, Growth and Change, 15:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casetti, E., 1984, “Manufacturing Productivity and Snowbelt-Sunbelt Shifts”, Economic Geography, 60:313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Connaughton, J.E. and R.A. Madsen, 1990, “The Changing Regional Structure of the U.S. Economy”, Growth and Change, Vol. 21, 3:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costrell, R.M., 1994, “Accounting for the Causes and Consequences of Industrial Employment Shift”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, 3:346–364.Google Scholar
  5. Crandall, R.W., 1993, “Manufacturing on the Move”, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Dine, M., K.E. Haynes and L. Qiangsheng, 1998, “A Comparative Evaluation of Shift-Share Models and Their Extensions”, Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, Vol. 4(2):275–302.Google Scholar
  7. Dine, M. and K.E. Haynes, 1999, “Sourced of Regional Inefficiency: An Integrated Shift-share”, Data Envelopment and Input-output Approach The Annals of Regional Science (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Dunn, E.S., 1960, “A Statistical and Analytical Technique for Regional Analysis”, Papers of the Regional Science Association, 6:97–112.Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, R.A., 1976, “The Filtering-Down Process: Industrial Location in Non- Metropolitan Area”, Professional Geographer, 28:254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erickson, R.A. and T.R. Leinbach, 1979, “Characteristics of Branch Plants Attracted to Non-Metropolitan Areas”, in R.E. Lonsdale and H.L. Seyler (eds.), Nonmetropolitan Industrialization, V.H. Winston and Sons, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1996, “Assessing the Midwest Economy”, No:2, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, B. and B. Bluestone, 1988, The Great U-Turn, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Haynes, K.E. and M. Dine, 1997, “Productivity Change in Manufacturing Regions: A Multifactor/Shift-Share Approach”, Growth and Change, 28:150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haynes, K.E., M. Dine and J.H.P. Paelinck, 1997, “Identifying Sources of Regional Productivity Change in Manufacturing: Alternative Productivity Measurement Approach in a Shift-Share Framework”, Paper presented at the 37th European Regional Science Association Annual meeting in Rome, Italy, August 26–29, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. Hoover, E.M., 1948, The Location of Economic Activity, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Huiten, C.R. and R.M. Schwab, 1984, “Regional Productivity Growth in U.S. Manufacturing: 1951–78”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 74, 1:152–2.Google Scholar
  17. Kendrick, J.W., 1961, Productivity Trends in the United States, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  18. Kendrick, J.W., 1973, Postwar Productivity Trends in the United States, 1948–1969, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Kendrick, J.W., 1983, Interindustry Differences in Productuvity Growth, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Kendrick, J.W., 1984, Improving Company Productivity, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  21. Knudsen, D. C., 1998, “Shift-Share Analysis: Further Examination of Models for the Description of Economic Change”, Paper submitted to Socio-Economic Planning Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. Ledebur, L.C. and R.L. Moomaw, 1983, “A Shift-Share Analysis of Regional Labor Productivity in Manufacturing”, Growth and Change, Vol. 14, 1:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loveridge, S. and A.C. Selting, 1997, “A Review and Comparison of Shift-Share Identities”, International Regional Science Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  24. Malecki, E.J., 1995, “Global Cities and Back Roads: Perspectives on the Southern Economy”, The Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 25, 3:237–246.Google Scholar
  25. Moomaw, R.L. and M. Williams, 1991, “Total Factor Productivity Growth in Manufacturing: Further Evidence from the States”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 31, 1:17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moriarty, B.M., 1992, “The Manufacturing Employment Longitudinal Density Distribution in the USA”, The Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 22, 1:1–24.Google Scholar
  27. Moriarty, B.M., 1983, “Hierarchies of Cities and the Spatial Filtering of Industrial Development”, Papers of the Regional Science Association, 52:59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norton, R.D., 1997, “Where are the New U.S. High-Tech Jobs?” Paper presented at the 37th European Regional Science Association Meeting in Rome, Italy, August 26–29, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. Norton, R.D. and J. Rees, 1979, “The Product Cycle and Spatial Decentralization of American Manufacturing”, Regional Studies, Vol. 13,2:141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson, H.W. and J.H. Turek, (eds.), 1985, Economic Prospects for the Northeast, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  31. Rigby, D.L. and W.P. Anderson, 1993, “Employment Change, Growth and Productivity in Canadian Manufacturing: An Extension and Application of Shift- Share Analysis”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. XVI, 1:69–88.Google Scholar
  32. Rigby, D.L., 1992, “The Impact of Output and Productivity Changes on Manufacturing Employment”, Growth and Change, Vol. 23, 4:405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sawers, L. and W.K. Tabb, (eds.), 1984, Sunbelt/Snowbelt: Urban Development and Regional Restructuring, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Schaffer, W.A., 1993, “Stagnation, Decline and Development: A Trip Through the Southern Countryside”, The Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 23, 3:213–218.Google Scholar
  35. Stough, R.R., 1991, “Rise of the Southern Periphery in the United States: Understanding the Frostbelt-Sunbelt Shift”, Working Paper No. 91:5, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax.Google Scholar
  36. Thomson, W.R., 1969, “The Economic Base of Urban Problems”, in H.W. Cham- berlin (ed.), Richard D. Irwin Inc., Homewood Hills.Google Scholar
  37. Vernon, R., 1966, “International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80:190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vernon, R., 1979, “The Product Cycle Hypothesis in a New International Environment”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41:255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kingsley E. Haynes
    • 1
  • Mustafa Dinc
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Public PolicyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations