English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS in the past fifteen years, my colleagues and I have tried to explain disparities among alternative measures of capacity utilization and to justify our own approach to the measurement problem.1 George Perry, in his contribution to this issue of Brookings Papers, has indicated many of the important issues, and I would like to amplify his points or restate them from another viewpoint in the interests of clarification. Briefly, the Federal Reserve index estimates that as of mid-October 1973, a fair amount of spare capacity existed in the American economy. The estimated operating rate was only 83.4 percent for 1973:3. By contrast, the Wharton index for manufacturing was as high as 96.7 in the same period, and was rising faster than the Federal Reserve index. The McGraw-Hill index was at an intermediate level of 86.5 percent in September. Similar divergences among the indexes had been apparent for several months. These messages are so different that they suggest the need for a close look into the whole subject. For some years the Wharton and Federal Reserve indexes of utilization followed similar paths. They began to diverge in 1965, when the Wharton index rose sharply, as if signaling the onset of the

Capacity Utilization: Concept, Measurement, and Recent Estimates