This paper assesses whether the economy of East Germany is catching up with the

West German region in terms of welfare. While the primary measure for convergence and catching up is per capita output, we also look at other macroeconomic indicators such as unemployment rates, wage rates, and production levels in the manufacturingsector. In contrast to existing studies of convergence between regions of reunified Germany, our approach is purely based upon the time series dimension and is thus directly focused on the catching up process in East Germany as a region. Our testing setup includes standard ADF unit root tests as well as unit root tests that endogenously allow for a break in the deterministic component of the process. In our analysis, we find evidence of catching up for East Germany for most of the indicators. However, convergence speed is slow, and thus it can be expected that the catching up process will take further decades until the regional gap is closed.

Die Veröffentlichung beschäftigt sich mit den Determinanten von Produktivitätsgefällen zwischen Firmen in Europäischen Transitionsländern oder –regionen und Firmen in Westdeutschland. Die Analyse findet auf der Unternehmensebene statt und basiert auf einer einzigartigen Datenbank, welche durch Feldforschung erstellt worden ist. Die Determinanten werden in einer einfachen ökonometrischen Regression getestet und fokussieren auf Humankapital und modernes marktorientiertes Management. Die Ergebnisse sind insofern neu als sie eine Lösung anbieten, wie die widersprüchlichen Ergebnisse anderer Analysen zu formalen Qualifikationsmustern in Ost- und Westdeutschland zu erklären sind. Darüber hinaus ist es aufgrund der Analyse möglich eine Art Humankapital und Expertise zu entwickeln, welche meist in post-sozialistischen Firmen gebraucht wird und sich auf bestimmte Ansprüche an eine konkurrenzfähige marktbasierte ökonomische Umwelt bezieht. Letztendlich findet die Analyse auch empirische Beweise für die Rolle einer verbesserten Kapitalausstattung für den Produktivitätsausgleich sowie für das Argument, dass die Unterschiede in Arbeitsproduktivität bedeutend in einer größeren arbeitsintensiveren Produktion verwurzelt sind, was jedoch nicht zu einem wettbewerblichen Nachteil führt.

This paper assess determinants of productivity gaps between firms in the European transition countries and regions and firms in West Germany. The analysis is conducted at the firm level by use of a unique database constructed by field work. The determinants tested in a simple econometric regression model are focussed upon the issue of human capital and modern market-oriented management. The results are novel in as much as a solution was established for the puzzling results in related research with respect to a comparison of formal qualification between East and West. Furthermore, the analysis was able to establish that the kind of human capital and expertise mostly needed in the post-socialist firms are related to the particular requirements of a competitive marketbased economic environment. Finally, the analysis also finds empirical support for the role of capital deepening in productivity catch-up, as well as the case that the gaps in labour productivity are most importantly rooted in a more labour-intense production, which does not give rise to a competitive disadvantage.

This research assesses the firm-specific reasons for lower producitivity levels between West and East German firms. The study is based on a unique data-base generated by field-work in the two particularly important sectors of machinery manufacturers and furniture manufacturers. Our results suggest that the quality of human capital plays an important role in explaining lower productivity levels, as well as particularly networking activities, and the use of modern technologies for communication. Classifying those as management-functions beyond the organisation of the production process itself, we identify management deficits as the main specific determinants of productivity gaps between West and East German firms.

"A product of the Framework V research project, this book addresses one of the key problems facing the EU today: Why is the ‘new’ EU so much poorer than the ‘old’, and how will EU enlargement help to solve the problem? Focusing on the productivity problems underlying the East-West gap, it looks in particular at the role that foreign investment and R&D can play in closing it. Against that background, the book assesses what role proactive development policy might play in attacking the roots of low social productivity. Concluding that there will be a clear-cut process of convergence between East and West, albeit an incomplete one, it finishes with an assessment of the patterns of competitiveness, East and West, that are likely to emerge from this process of incomplete convergence."

Ostdeutschland steht als Investitions- und Produktionsstandort in scharfer Konkurrenz zu anderen Regionen der Welt. Zur Beurteilung der Konkurrenzfähigkeit des Standorts wird dabei neben den standortspezifischen Kosten häufig als weiterer Indikator die in Ostdeutschland verwirklichte Produktivität herangezogen. Dabei spielt die Arbeitsproduktivität, also die erreichbare Bruttowertschöpfung je Erwerbstätigen bzw. je Erwerbstätigenstunde, eine besondere Rolle.

The project assesses the roles played by determinants of productivity gaps between Accession Countries in Central East Europe and the more advanced countries in Western Europe. The focus is on the respective weights of determinants and their influence on the potentials for future productivity catch-up.

The convenient feature about assessing productivity levels is that they inform us about the narrowing or divergence of income gaps, provide an indication of international competitiveness, and the sustainability of growth paths (technological development).

Industrial productivity levels of formerly socialist economies in Central East Europe (including East Germany) are considerably lower than in the more mature Western economies. This research aims at assessing the reasons for lower productivities at the firm level: what are the firm-specific determinants of productivity gaps. To assess this, we have conducted an extensive field study and focussed on a selection of two important manufacturing industries, namely machinery manufacturers and furniture manufacturers, and on the construction industry. Using the data generated in field work, we test a set of determinant-candidates which were derived from theory and prior research in that topic. Our analysis uses the simplest version of the matched-pair approach, in which first hypothesis about relevant productivity level-determinants are tested. In a second step, positively tested hypothesis are further assessed in terms of whether they also constitute firm-specific determinants of the apparent gaps between the firms in our Eastern and such in our Western panels. Our results suggest that the quality of human capital plays an important role in all three industrial branches assessed. Amongst manufacturing firms, networking activities and the use of modern technologies for communication are important reasons for the lower levels of labour productivity in the East. The intensity of long-term strategic planning on behalf of the management turned out to be relevant only for machinery manufacturers. Product and process innovations unexpectedly exhibit an ambiguous picture, as did the extent of specialisation on a small number of products in the firms’ portfolio and the intensity of competition.