Productivity, convergence and policy: a study of OECD countries and industries

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 28 - Trang 87-105 - 2007
Dimitris Margaritis1, Rolf Färe2, Shawna Grosskopf2
1Department of Finance, Faculty of Business, AUT, Auckland, New Zealand
2Department of Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA

Tóm tắt

This paper analyses trends in labour productivity and its underlying determinants in a panel of OECD countries from 1979 to 2002. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to estimate a Malmquist measure of multifactor productivity (MFP) change. We decompose the growth in labour productivity into (i) net technological change (ii) input biased technical change (IBTC) (iii) efficiency change and (iv) capital accumulation. We analyse the effect of each of these factors in the transition towards the equilibrium growth paths of both labour productivity and per capita GDP for the OECD countries, controlling for the effects of different policies and institutions. The results indicate that on average gaps in productivity or income levels are narrowing down although there is no evidence to suggest that the entire OECD area comprises a single convergence “club”. Using kernel estimation methods we find that that labour productivity and per capita GDP are settling toward a twin peak (bimodal) distribution. Panel unit root tests over an extended (1960–2001) period provide general support for the convergence hypothesis. Analysis of the contributions of productivity growth within industries and sectoral composition changes show that aggregate productivity change is predominantly driven by ‘net’ within sector effects with very little contribution emerging from sectoral shifts (the ‘in-between’ static or dynamic effects resulting from higher or above average productivity industries gaining employment shares or low productivity industries losing shares).

Tài liệu tham khảo

Bernard AB, Jones CI (1996) Productivity across industries and countries: time series theory and evidence. Rev Econ Stat 78:135–146 Bianchi M (1997) Testing for convergence: evidence from non-parametric multimodality tests. J Appl Economet 12:393–409 Caselli F, Coleman WJ II (2006) The world technology frontier. Am Econ Rev (forthcoming) Caves D, Christensen L, Diewert WE (1982) The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity. Econometrica 50:1390–1414 Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444 Dowrick S, Nguyen D (1989) OECD comparative economic growth 1950–1985: catch up and convergence. Am Econ Rev 79(5):1010–1030 Durlauf SN, Quah DT (1999) The new empirics of economic growth. In: Taylor J, Woodford M (eds) Handbook of macroeconomics, vol 1A. North-Holland, Amsterdam Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996) Intertemporal production frontiers: with dynamic DEA. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston Färe R, Grosskopf S, Margaritis D (2006) Productivity growth and convergence in the European Union. J Product Anal 25(1):111–141 Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, Roos P (1989) Productivity developments in Swedish hospitals: a Malmquist output index approach. In: Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin A, Seiford L (eds) Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and applications. Quorum Books Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, Zhang Z (1994) Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am Econ Rev 84(1):66–83 Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc, Ser A, General 120(3):253–281 Fisher RA (1932) Statistical methods for research workers, 4th ed. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh Hansen E, Margaritis D (1993) Financial liberalisation and monetary policy in New Zealand (with E. Hansen). Aust Econ Rev 104:28–36 Henderson DJ, Attar PK, Russell RR (2002) Modality tests for use in applied econometrics: application to macroeconomic convergence. University of California Riverside (Unpublished paper) Hultberg PT, Nadiri MI, Sickles RC (1999) An international comparison of technology adoption and efficiency: a Dynamic Panel Model. Annals d’Economie et de Statistique 55–56:449–474 Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Economet 115:53–74 Islam N (2003) What have we learnt from the convergence debate? J Econ Surv 17(3):309–362 Kumar S, Russell RR (2002) Technological change, technological catch-up, and capital deepening: relative contributions to growth and convergence. Am Econ Rev 92(3):527–548 Levin A, Lin CF (1993) Unit root tests in panel data: new results. Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper no. 93-56 Levin A, Lin CF, Chu C (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Economet 108:1–24 Maddala GS, Wu S(1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61:631–652 Mankiw NG, Romer D, Weil DN (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q J Econ CVII: 407–437 Maudos J, Pastor JM, Serrano L (2000) Convergence in OECD countries: technical change, efficiency and productivity. Appl Econ 32:757–765 Nicoletti G, Scarpetta S, Boylaud O (1999) Summary indicators of product market regulation with an extension to employment protection legislation. Economics Department Working Paper, No. 226, ECO/WKP(99) OECD. (2004) Understanding economic growth. OECD, Paris Quah DT (1996) Twin peaks: growth and convergence in models of distribution dynamics. Econ J 106:1045–1055 Quah DT (1997) Empirics for growth and distribution: stratification, polarization, and convergence clubs. J Econ Growth 2:27–59 Scarpetta S, Hemmings P, Tressel T, Woo J (2002) The role of policy and institutions for productivity and firm dynamics: evidence from micro and industry data. OECD Working Paper No. 329 Temple J (1999) The new growth evidence. J Econ Lit 37:112–156