Example collocations logo

Sectors in sentence

2018 examples of Sectors in a sentence

And agriculture-driven GDP growth is more than twice as effective in reducing poverty as growth in other sectors.
Annual productivity growth in sectors that are users of ICT technologies averaged 0.63% in the US between 1995 and 2000, and a very similar 0.41% in Europe.
The official justification is that national defense budgets are too small to create the demand that would be needed to support R&D in high-tech sectors, while there is still no European defense budget.
Saudi Arabia has many sectors with strong potential for expansion.
That will have to change if the economy is to raise productivity and modernize its non-oil sectors.
And it has disrupted some economic sectors, forced changes to long-established business models, and created a few entirely new industries.
Finally, the IMF’s perspective is universal, looking across sectors and markets.
The culprit in this pessimistic view is the so-called "Balassa-Samuelson" effect: rapid productivity growth in the accession candidates' tradable sectors - export manufacturing, for example - is pushing up real wages throughout their economies, including in non-tradable sectors like services.
Moreover, since the government is unable to pay providers the necessary subsidy to keep prices low, output collapses, as has happened with Venezuela’s electricity and health sectors, among others.
So the state should have only a few firms in strategic sectors or in activities that are rife with market failures.
But increasing efficiency in a wide variety of sectors, as Japan must do, can be a long, difficult, and piecemeal process, as it involves the upgrading of virtually every technology and process.
It seems that involving so many sectors in so many countries actually made it easier to overcome resistance, as it diffused the opposition and prevented any single specific interest from getting the upper hand.
According to NSE, the most effective and sustainable approach for a low-income country to jumpstart dynamic growth and development is to develop those sectors in which it has latent comparative advantages: where production costs are low, but transaction costs are high due to inadequate hard and soft infrastructure.
In fact, China could soon become the world’s largest net creditor, and a portion of its net foreign assets will take the form of patient capital that is suitable for improving infrastructure, developing manufacturing sectors, and creating jobs around the world.
They should start by recognizing that as long as upstream infrastructure remains in the hands of often-inefficient state-owned enterprises, some downstream sectors will have to bear higher costs.
In industrial sectors such as steel, cement, and chemicals, we need carbon prices to unleash a market-driven search for least-cost emission reductions.
Moreover, knowledge-intensive technology has a winner-take-all network effect, whereby hubs seize access to knowledge and power, leaving less-privileged groups, classes, sectors, and regions struggling to compete.
Such differences are questionable not only in terms of fairness; they are also economically inefficient, because they tend to limit labor mobility across firms and sectors.
But it should ensure that all participants in the labor force, whatever their status, enjoy equal access to essential benefits; and it should aim at minimizing the losses that impede mobility across firms, sectors, and types of employment.
For fairness as well as for efficiency reasons, rights and benefits should be attached to individuals, not to companies or employment status, and should be fully portable across sectors and jobs.
Lasting solutions will require partnerships between government, business, and civil society, which can be hard to negotiate and manage, since these different sectors of society often have little or no experience in dealing with each other and may mistrust each other considerably.
We cannot risk the local, regional, and global security threats that climate change will generate if politicians, civil-society groups, industry, academia, the military, and all other sectors of society do not act together and act now.
Effective governance of the security sector requires sustained political will at the top of the government, particularly a readiness to push reforms to sectors of the government and economy with which the security sector interacts.
But the past emphasis on centrally managed security sectors has made them a crucial asset in political contests, enabling them to escape oversight and benefit from de facto legal impunity.
Today’s Arab states in transition are discovering how difficult it is to replace deep-seated authoritarian practices and relationships with sustained democratization, a process that depends crucially on transforming their security sectors.
The added focus on counter-terrorism is further impeding reform, though the failure of unreformed security sectors to fulfill this role effectively, such as in Egypt and Tunisia, should cause it to have the opposite effect.
These types of approaches – what I call “all good things go together” policies – could be applied to other sectors of the economy that are being squeezed by imperfect competition.
They are likely to continue this policy, as the alternative would be a sudden setback to the competitiveness of their export sectors in the all-important US market.
For those in developing and emerging-market countries who harbor grievances against the advanced countries, there is now one more reason for discontent with a brand of globalization that has been managed to serve rich countries’ interests (especially their financial sectors’ interests).
Argentina is vulnerable to external shocks such as declining agricultural commodity prices because Argentina failed to develop a diversified export sector, one in which a broad range of industrial and service sectors are internationally competitive.
BackNext