Effects of Economic Factors on Adoption of Robotics and Consequences of Automation for Productivity Growth of Dairy Farms. Factor Markets Working Paper No. 32, December 2012

In the long term, productivity and especially productivity growth are necessary conditions for the survival of a farm. This paper focuses on the technology choice of a dairy farm, i.e. the choice between a conventional and an automatic milking system. Its aim is to reveal the extent to which economic rationality explains investing in new technology. The adoption of robotics is further linked to farm productivity to show how capital-intensive technology has affected the overall productivity of milk production. The empirical analysis applies a probit model and an extended Cobb-Douglas-type production function to a Finnish farm-level dataset for the years 2000–10. The results show that very few economic factors on a dairy farm or in its economic environment can be identified to affect the switch to automatic milking. Existing machinery capital and investment allowances are among the significant factors. The results also indicate that the probability of investing in robotics responds elastically to a change in investment aids: an increase of 1% in aid would generate an increase of 2% in the probability of investing. Despite the presence of non-economic incentives, the switch to robotic milking is proven to promote productivity development on dairy farms. No productivity growth is observed on farms that keep conventional milking systems, whereas farms with robotic milking have a growth rate of 8.1% per year. The mean rate for farms that switch to robotic milking is 7.0% per year. The results show great progress in productivity growth, with the average of the sector at around 2% per year during the past two decades. In conclusion, investments in new technology as well as investment aids to boost investments are needed in low-productivity areas where investments in new technology still have great potential to increase productivity, and thus profitability and competitiveness, in the long run.

Manufacturing Europe's Future. Bruegel Blueprint 21, 2 October 2013

‘Industrial policy is back!’ This is the message given in the European Commission’s October 2012 communication on industrial policy (COM (2012) 582 final), which seeks to reverse the declining role of the manufacturing industry, and increase its share of European Union GDP from about 16 percent currently to above 20 percent. Historical evidence suggests that the goal is unlikely to be achieved. Manufacturing’s share of GDP has decreased around the world over the last 30 years. Paradoxically, this relative decline has been a reflection of manufacturing’s strength. Higher productivity growth in manufacturing than in the economy overall resulted in relative decline. A strategy to reverse this trend and move to an industrial share of above 20 percent might therefore risk undermining the original strength of industry – higher productivity growth. This Blueprint therefore takes a different approach. It starts by looking in depth into the manufacturing sector and how it is developing. It emphasises the extent to which European industry has become integrated with other parts of the economy, in particular with the increasingly specialised services sector, and how both sectors depend on each other. It convincingly argues that industrial activity is increasingly spread through global value chains. As a result, employment in the sector has increasingly become highly skilled, while those parts of production for which high skill levels are not needed have been shifted to regions with lower labour costs.

Antitrust risk in EU manufacturing: A sector-level ranking. Bruegel Working Paper 2014/07, July 2014

The object of this paper is twofold: to provide a broad descriptive analysis of the risk of collusive behaviour throughout Europe in the manufacturing sector; and to identify those manufacturing sectors in which the European Commission has been more active in the past in its capacity of antitrust authority.