DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economics of Productivity the International Library of Critical Writings in Economics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economics of Productivity the International Library of Critical Writings in Economics The Economics of Productivity The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics Series Editor: Mark Blaug Professor Emeritus, University of London, UK Professor Emeritus, University of Buckingham, UK This series is an essential reference source for students, researchers and lecturers in economics. It presents by theme a selection of the most important articles across the entire spectrum of economics. Each volume has been prepared by a leading specialist who has written an authoritative introduction to the literature included. A full list of published and future titles in this series is printed at the end of this volume. Wherever possible, the articles in these volumes have been reproduced as originally published using facsimile reproduction, inclusive of footnotes and pagination to facilitate ease of reference. For a list of all Edward Elgar published titles visit our site on the World Wide Web at www.e-elgar.com The Economics of Productivity Edited by Dale W. Jorgenson Samuel W. Morris University Professor Harvard University, USA THE INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF CRITICAL WRITINGS IN ECONOMICS An Elgar Reference Collection Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA © Dale W. Jorgenson 2009. For copyright of individual articles, please refer to the Acknowledgements. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: ISBN 978 1 84844 484 3 Printed and bound by MPG Books Group, UK Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction Dale W. Jorgenson 1. Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh (2000), ‘Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity’, (1), 125–211, references 1 2. Stephen D. Oliner and Daniel E. Sichel (2000), ‘The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (4), 3–22 93 3. Dale W. Jorgenson (2001), ‘Information Technology and the U.S. Economy’, American Economic Review, 91 (1), Fall, 1–32 113 4. Martin Neil Baily (2002), ‘Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: The New Economy: Post Mortem or Second Wind’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2), Spring, 3–22 145 5. Nicholas Oulton (2002), ‘ICT and Productivity Growth in the United Kingdom’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18 (3), Autumn, 363–79 165 6. Kevin J. Stiroh (2002), ‘Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?’, American Economic Review, 92 (5), December, 1559–76 182 7. Bart van Ark, Robert Inklaar and Robert H. McGuckin (2003), ‘ICT and Productivity in Europe and the United States: Where Do the Differences Come From?’, CESifo Economic Studies, 49 (3), 295–318 200 8. Susanto Basu, John Fernald, Nicholas Oulton and Sylaja Srinivasan (2003), ‘The Case of the Missing Productivity Growth, or Does Information Technology Explain Why Productivity Accelerated in the United States but Not in the United Kingdom?’, in Mark Gertler and Kenneth Rogoff (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2003, 18, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 9–63 224 9. Bart van Ark and Marcin Piatkowski (2004), ‘Productivity, Innovation and ICT in Old and New Europe’, International Economics and Economic Policy, 1 (2–3), 215–46 279 10. Dale W. Jorgenson (2005), ‘Information Technology and the G7 Economies’, Rivista di Politica Economica, 95 (1–2), January–February, 25–56 311 11. Robert Inklaar, Mary O’Mahony and Marcel Timmer (2005), ‘ICT and Europe’s Productivity Performance: Industry-Level Growth Account Comparisons with the United States’, Review of Income and Wealth, 51 (4), December, 505–36 343 12. Marcel P. Timmer and Bart van Ark (2005), ‘Does Information and Communication Technology Drive EU–US Productivity Growth Differentials?’, Oxford Economic Papers, 57 (4), October, 693–716 375 vi The Economics of Productivity 13. Dale W. Jorgenson and Kazuyuki Motohashi (2005), ‘Information Technology and the Japanese Economy’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 19 (4), December, 460–81 399 14. Dale W. Jorgenson and Koji Nomura (2005), ‘The Industry Origins of Japanese Economic Growth’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 19 (4), December, 482–542 421 15. Dale W. Jorgenson and Khuong Vu (2007), ‘Information Technology and the World Growth Resurgence’, German Economic Review, 8 (2), May, 125–45 482 16. Robert Inklaar and Marcel P. Timmer (2007), ‘Of Yeast and Mushrooms: Patterns of Industry-Level Productivity Growth’, German Economic Review, 8 (2), May, 174–87 503 17. Robert Inklaar, Marcel P. Timmer and Bart van Ark (2007), ‘Mind the Gap! International Comparisons of Productivity in Services and Goods Production’, German Economic Review, 8 (2), May, 281–307 517 18. Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, Jon D. Samuels and Kevin J. Stiroh (2007), ‘Industry Origins of the American Productivity Resurgence’, Economic Systems Research, 19 (3), September, 229–52 544 19. Dale W. Jorgenson and Koji Nomura (2007), ‘The Industry Origins of the US– Japan Productivity Gap’, Economic Systems Research, 19 (3), September, 315–41 568 20. Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel and Kevin J. Stiroh (2007), ‘Explaining a Productive Decade’, Brookings Economic Papers, 38 (1), August, 1–55 595 21. Robert Inklaar, Marcel P. Timmer and Bart van Ark (2008), ‘Market Services Productivity across Europe and the U.S.’, Economic Policy, 23 (53), January, 141–94 650 22. Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho and Kevin J. Stiroh (2008), ‘A Retrospective Look at the U.S. Productivity Growth Resurgence’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (1), Winter, 3–24 704 23. Bart van Ark, Mary O’ Mahony and Marcel P. Timmer (2008), ‘The Productivity Gap between Europe and the United States: Trends and Causes’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (1), Winter, 25–44 726 Name Index 747 Acknowledgements The editor and publishers wish to thank the authors and the following publishers who have kindly given permission for the use of copyright material. American Economic Association for articles: Dale W. Jorgenson (2001), ‘Information Technology and the U.S. Economy’, American Economic Review, 91 (1), Fall, 1–32; Martin Neil Baily (2002), ‘Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: The New Economy: Post Mortem or Second Wind’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2), Spring, 3–22; Kevin J. Stiroh (2002), ‘Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?’, American Economic Review, 92 (5), December, 1559–76; Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho and Kevin J. Stiroh (2008), ‘A Retrospective Look at the U.S. Productivity Growth Resurgence’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (1), Winter, 3–24; Bart van Ark, Mary O’ Mahony and Marcel P. Timmer (2008), ‘The Productivity Gap between Europe and the United States: Trends and Causes’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (1), Winter, 25–44. Brookings Institution for articles: Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J. Stiroh (2000), ‘Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity’, (1), 125–211 references; Stephen D. Oliner, Daniel E. Sichel and Kevin J. Stiroh (2007), ‘Explaining a Productive Decade’, Brookings Economic Papers, 38 (1), August, 1–55. Blackwell Publishing Ltd for articles: Dale W. Jorgenson and Khuong Vu (2007), ‘Information Technology and the World Growth Resurgence’, German Economic Review, 8 (2), May, 125–45; Robert Inklaar and Marcel P. Timmer (2007), ‘Of Yeast and Mushrooms: Patterns of Industry-Level Productivity Growth’, German Economic Review, 8 (2), May, 174–87; Robert Inklaar, Marcel P. Timmer and Bart van Ark (2007), ‘Mind the Gap! International Comparisons of Productivity in Services and Goods Production’, German Economic Review, 8 (2), May, 281–307; Robert Inklaar, Marcel P. Timmer and Bart van Ark (2008), ‘Market Services Productivity across Europe and the U.S.’, Economic Policy, 23 (53), January, 141–94. Elsevier for articles: Dale W. Jorgenson and Kazuyuki Motohashi (2005), ‘Information Technology and the Japanese Economy’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 19 (4), December, 460–81; Dale W. Jorgenson and Koji Nomura (2005), ‘The Industry Origins of Japanese Economic Growth’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 19 (4), December, 482–542. Licosa for article: Dale W. Jorgenson (2005), ‘Information Technology and the G7 Economies’, Rivista di Politica Economica, 95 (1–2), January–February, 25–56. viii The Economics of Productivity MIT Press for excerpt: Susanto Basu, John Fernald, Nicholas Oulton and Sylaja Srinivasan (2003), ‘The Case of the Missing Productivity Growth, or Does Information Technology Explain Why Productivity Accelerated in the United States but Not in the United Kingdom?’, in Mark Gertler and Kenneth Rogoff (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2003, 18, 9–63. Oxford University Press for articles: Nicholas Oulton (2002), ‘ICT and Productivity Growth in the United Kingdom’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18 (3), Autumn, 363–79; Bart van Ark, Robert Inklaar and Robert H. McGuckin (2003), ‘ICT and Productivity in Europe and the United States:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Choices
    ECONOMIC CHOICES Daniel McFadden* This Nobel lecture discusses the microeconometric analysis of choice behavior of consumers who face discrete economic alternatives. Before the 1960's, economists used consumer theory mostly as a logical tool, to explore conceptually the properties of alternative market organizations and economic policies. When the theory was applied empirically, it was to market-level or national-accounts-level data. In these applications, the theory was usually developed in terms of a representative agent, with market-level behavior given by the representative agent’s behavior writ large. When observations deviated from those implied by the representative agent theory, these differences were swept into an additive disturbance and attributed to data measurement errors, rather than to unobserved factors within or across individual agents. In statistical language, traditional consumer theory placed structural restrictions on mean behavior, but the distribution of responses about their mean was not tied to the theory. In the 1960's, rapidly increasing availability of survey data on individual behavior, and the advent of digital computers that could analyze these data, focused attention on the variations in demand across individuals. It became important to explain and model these variations as part of consumer theory, rather than as ad hoc disturbances. This was particularly obvious for discrete choices, such as transportation mode or occupation. The solution to this problem has led to the tools we have today for microeconometric analysis of choice behavior. I will first give a brief history of the development of this subject, and place my own contributions in context. After that, I will discuss in some detail more recent developments in the economic theory of choice, and modifications to this theory that are being forced by experimental evidence from cognitive psychology.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence
    Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence Lucia Foster, John Haltiwanger and C.J. Krizan* June 2000 * Respectively, Bureau of the Census; University of Maryland, Bureau of the Census, and NBER; and Fannie Mae and Bureau of the Census. We thank Tomas Dvorak for helpful research assistance. The analyses and results presented in this paper are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect concurrence by the Bureau of the Census. 1 I. Overview Recent research using establishment and firm level data has raised a variety of conceptual and measurement questions regarding our understanding of aggregate productivity growth.1 Several key, related findings are of interest. First, there is large scale, ongoing reallocation of outputs and inputs across individual producers. Second, the pace of this reallocation varies over time (both secularly and cyclically) and across sectors. Third, much of this reallocation reflects within rather than between sector reallocation. Fourth, there are large differentials in the levels and the rates of growth of productivity across establishments within the same sector. The rapid pace of output and input reallocation along with differences in productivity levels and growth rates are the necessary ingredients for the pace of reallocation to play an important role in aggregate (i.e., industry) productivity growth. However, our review of the existing studies indicates that the measured contribution of such reallocation effects varies over time and across sectors and is sensitive to measurement methodology. An important objective of this paper is to sort out the role of these different factors so that we can understand the nature and the magnitude of the contribution of reallocation to aggregate productivity growth.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- TECHNOLOGY Q L M. Muniagurria Econ 464 Microeconomics Handout
    M. Muniagurria Econ 464 Microeconomics Handout (Part 1) I. TECHNOLOGY : Production Function, Marginal Productivity of Inputs, Isoquants (1) Case of One Input: L (Labor): q = f (L) • Let q equal output so the production function relates L to q. (How much output can be produced with a given amount of labor?) • Marginal productivity of labor = MPL is defined as q = Slope of prod. Function L Small changes i.e. The change in output if we change the amount of labor used by a very small amount. • How to find total output (q) if we only have information about the MPL: “In general” q is equal to the area under the MPL curve when there is only one input. Examples: (a) Linear production functions. Possible forms: q = 10 L| MPL = 10 q = ½ L| MPL = ½ q = 4 L| MPL = 4 The production function q = 4L is graphed below. -1- Notice that if we only have diagram 2, we can calculate output for different amounts of labor as the area under MPL: If L = 2 | q = Area below MPL for L Less or equal to 2 = = in Diagram 2 8 Remark: In all the examples in (a) MPL is constant. (b) Production Functions With Decreasing MPL. Remark: Often this is thought as the case of one variable input (Labor = L) and a fixed factor (land or entrepreneurial ability) (2) Case of Two Variable Inputs: q = f (L, K) L (Labor), K (Capital) • Production function relates L & K to q (total output) • Isoquant: Combinations of L & K that can achieve the same q -2- • Marginal Productivities )q MPL ' Small changes )L K constant )q MPK ' Small changes )K L constant )K • MRTS = - Slope of Isoquant = Absolute value of Along Isoquant )L Examples (a) Linear (L & K are perfect substitutes) Possible forms: q = 10 L + 5 K Y MPL = 10 MPK = 5 q = L + K Y MPL = 1 MPK = 1 q = 2L + K Y MPL = 2 MPK = 1 • The production function q = 2 L + K is graphed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Development and Poverty Alleviation
    14 OCTOBER 2019 Scientific Background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2019 UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION The Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel THE ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, founded in 1739, is an independent organisation whose overall objective is to promote the sciences and strengthen their influence in society. The Academy takes special responsibility for the natural sciences and mathematics, but endeavours to promote the exchange of ideas between various disciplines. BOX 50005 (LILLA FRESCATIVÄGEN 4 A), SE-104 05 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN TEL +46 8 673 95 00, [email protected] WWW.KVA.SE Scientific Background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2019 Understanding Development and Poverty Alleviation The Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel October 14, 2019 Despite massive progress in the past few decades, global poverty — in all its different dimensions — remains a broad and entrenched problem. For example, today, more than 700 million people subsist on extremely low incomes. Every year, five million children under five die of diseases that often could have been prevented or treated by a handful of proven interventions. Today, a large majority of children in low- and middle-income countries attend primary school, but many of them leave school lacking proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics. How to effectively reduce global poverty remains one of humankind’s most pressing questions. It is also one of the biggest questions facing the discipline of economics since its very inception.
    [Show full text]
  • Oecd Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2005
    OECD COMPENDIUM OF PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS 2005 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: • To achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy. • To contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and • To contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). © OECD 2005 FOREWORD Over the past few years, productivity and economic growth have been an important focus of OECD work.
    [Show full text]
  • Philippe Aghion
    CURRICULUM VITAE (last updated March 2018) Name: Philippe Aghion Address: College de France 3 rue d Ulm 75005 Paris France Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Date of Birth: August 17, 1956 Place of Birth: Paris, France Education: 1976-80 Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, Mathematics Section 1981 Diplome d’Etudes Approfondies d’Economie Mathématique, Université de Paris I 1983 Doctorat de 3éme cycle d’Economie Mathématique, Université de Paris I- Pantheon-Sorbonne 1987 Ph.D. Harvard University (Economics) Professional Experience: 1986-87 Sloan Foundation Dissertation Fellowship 1987-89 Assistant Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1989- Chargé de Recherches au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 1990-1992 Deputy Chief Economist, EBRD (London) 1992-96 Official Fellow, Nuffield College (Oxford) 1992-2000 Research Co-ordinator, EBRD (London) 1996-2002 Professor of Economics, University College London (UCL) 2000-2002 Professor of Economics, Harvard University 2002- 2015 Robert C. Waggoner Professor of Economics, Harvard University 2015- Professor at College de France, Chair entitled “Institutions, Innovation, et Croissance” 2009-2015 Invited Professor, Institute of International Economic Studies, Stockholm 2015- Centennial Professor of Economics, London School of Economics 2018-2020 Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Harvard University Other Professional Positions or Appointments: 1991-97 Associate Editor, Review of Economic Studies 1992- Managing Editor,
    [Show full text]
  • Zvi Griliches and the Economics of Technology Diffusion: Linking Innovation Adoption, Lagged Investments, and Productivity Growth
    This work is distributed as a Discussion Paper by the STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 15-005 Zvi Griliches and the Economics of Technology Diffusion: Linking innovation adoption, lagged investments, and productivity growth By Paul A. David Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-1874 The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University supports research bearing on economic and public policy issues. The SIEPR Discussion Paper Series reports on research and policy analysis conducted by researchers affiliated with the Institute. Working papers in this series reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research or Stanford University Zvi Griliches and the Economics of Technology Diffusion: Linking innovation adoption, lagged investments, and productivity growth By Paul A. David First version: August 2003 Second version: December 2005 Third version: March 31 2009 Fourth version: March 20, 2011 This version: April 4, 2015 Acknowledgements The present version is a revision of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Discussion Paper No. 10‐029 (March), 2011. The first version of this work was presented to the Conference on R&D, Education and Productivity, held in Memory of Zvi Griliches (1930 –1999) on 25‐27th, August 2003 at CarrJ des Sciences, Ministère de la Recherche, Paris, France. Gabriel Goddard furnished characteristically swift and accurate assistance with the simulations, and the graphics based upon them that appear in Section 4. I am grateful to Wesley Cohen for his perceptive discussion of the conference version, particularly in regard to the supply‐side facet of Griliches’ 1957 article in Econometrica.
    [Show full text]
  • Escaping the Climate Trap? Values, Technologies, and Politics∗
    Escaping the Climate Trap? Values, Technologies, and Politics Tim Besleyyand Torsten Perssonz November 2020 Abstract It is widely acknowledged that reducing the emissions of green- house gases is almost impossible without radical changes in consump- tion and production patterns. This paper examines the interdependent roles of changing environmental values, changing technologies, and the politics of environmental policy, in creating sustainable societal change. Complementarities that emerge naturally in our framework may generate a “climate trap,”where society does not transit towards lifestyles and technologies that are more friendly to the environment. We discuss a variety of forces that make the climate trap more or less avoidable, including lobbying by firms, private politics, motivated scientists, and (endogenous) subsidies to green innovation. We are grateful for perceptive comments by Philippe Aghion, David Baron, Xavier Jaravel, Bård Harstad, Elhanan Helpman, Gilat Levy, Linus Mattauch, and Jean Tirole, as well as participants in a Tsinghua University seminar, and LSE and Hong Kong University webinars. We also thank Azhar Hussain for research assistance. Financial support from the ERC and the Swedish Research Council is gratefully acknowledged. yLSE, [email protected]. zIIES, Stockholm University, [email protected] 1 1 Introduction What will it take to bring about the fourth industrial revolution that may be needed to save the planet? Such a revolution would require major structural changes in production as well as consumption patterns. Firms would have to invest on a large scale in technologies that generate lower greenhouse gas emissions, and households would have to consume goods that produce lower emissions. Already these observations suggest that the required transformation can be reinforced by a key complementarity, akin to the one associated with so- called platform technologies (Rochet and Tirole 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Market Size, Division of Labor, and Firm Productivity
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES MARKET SIZE, DIVISION OF LABOR, AND FIRM PRODUCTIVITY Thomas Chaney Ralph Ossa Working Paper 18243 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18243 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2012 We are grateful to Pol Antras, Holger Breinlich, Alejandro Cunat, Elhanan Helpman, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Henry Overman, Stephen Redding, and Tony Venables. We also thank the editor, Robert W. Staiger, and two anonymous referees, for their thoughtful comments. All remaining errors are ours. This work extends the second chapter of Ossa’s Ph.D. dissertation originally entitled "Trade Liberalization, Outsourcing, and Firm Productivity". The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2012 by Thomas Chaney and Ralph Ossa. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Market Size, Division of Labor, and Firm Productivity Thomas Chaney and Ralph Ossa NBER Working Paper No. 18243 July 2012 JEL No. F10,F12,L22,L25 ABSTRACT We generalize Krugman's (1979) 'new trade' model by allowing for an explicit production chain in which a range of tasks is performed sequentially by a number of specialized teams. We demonstrate that an increase in market size induces a deeper division of labor among these teams which leads to an increase in firm productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Econometrics Methods II Outline of the Course
    Advanced Econometrics Methods II Outline of the Course Joan Llull Advanced Econometric Methods II Master in Economics and Finance Barcelona GSE Chapter 1: Panel Data I. Introduction II. Static Models A. The Fixed Effects Model. Within Groups Estimation B. The Random Effects Model. Error Components C. Testing for Correlated Individual Effects III. Dynamic Models A. Autoregressive Models with Individual Effects B. Difference GMM Estimation C. System GMM Estimation D. Specification Tests References: Sargan(1958), Balestra and Nerlove(1966), Hausman(1978), Cham- berlain(1984), Amemiya(1985), Anderson and Hsiao(1981, 1982), Hansen(1982), Arellano and Bond(1991), Arellano and Bover(1995), Arellano and Honor´e (2001), Wooldridge(2002), Arellano(2003), Cameron and Trivedi(2005), Wind- meijer(2005) Chapter 2: Discrete Choice I. Binary Outcome Models A. Introduction B. The Linear Probability Model C. The General Binary Outcome Model Maximum Likelihood Estimation Asymptotic properties Marginal effects D. The Logit Model 1 E. The Probit Model F. Latent Variable Representation Index function model (Additive) Random utility model II. Multinomial Models A. Multinomial Outcomes B. The General Multinomial Model Maximum Likelihood estimation Asymptotic properties Marginal effects C. The Logit Model The Multinomial Logit (MNL) The Conditional Logit (CL) D. Latent Variable Representation E. Relaxing the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Assumption The Nested Logit (NL) Random Parameters Logit (RPL) Multinomial Probit (MNP) F. Ordered Outcomes III. Endogenous Variables A. Probit with Continuous Endogenous Regressor B. Probit with Binary Endogenous Regressor C. Moment Estimation IV. Binary Models for Panel Datas References: McFadden(1973, 1974, 1984), Manski and McFadden(1981), Amemiya (1985), Wooldridge(2002), Cameron and Trivedi(2005), Arellano and Bonhomme (2011) Chapter 3: Dynamic Discrete Choice Models I: Full Solution Approaches I.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter, R&D, Patents, and Productivity
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: R & D, Patents, and Productivity Volume Author/Editor: Zvi Griliches, ed. Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-30884-7 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/gril84-1 Publication Date: 1984 Chapter Title: Front matter, R&D, Patents, and Productivity Chapter Author: Zvi Griliches Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10041 Chapter pages in book: (p. -13 - 0) R&D, Patents, and Productivity A National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report R&D, Patents, and Productivity Edited by Zvi Griliches The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London The University ofChicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd. , London © 1984 by the National Bureau ofEconomic Research All rights reserved. Published 1984 Paperback edition 1987 Printed in the United States ofAmerica 9695 9493 9291 9089 88 87 6543 2 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING IN PUBLICATION DATA Main entry under title: R&D, patents, and productivity. Papers presented at a conference held in Lenox, Mass., in the fall of 1981, and organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Includes indexes. 1. Research, Industrial-United States-Congresses. 2. Patents-United States-Congresses. 3. Industrial productivity-United States-Congresses. I. Griliches, Zvi, 1930- II. National Bureau of Economic Research. III. Title: Rand D, patents, and productivity. HD30.42.U5R2 1984 338' .06 83-18121 ISBN 0-226-30883-9 (cloth); 0-226-30844-7 (paper) National Bureau of Economic Research Officers Walter W. Heller, chairman Franklin A.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour Productivity
    Labour productivity Introduction Labour productivity is an important economic indicator that is closely linked to economic growth, competitiveness, and living standards within an economy. Labour productivity represents the total volume of output (measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product, GDP) produced per unit of labour (measured in terms of the number of employed persons) during a given time reference period. The indicator allows data users to assess GDP-to-labour input levels and growth rates over time, thus providing general information about the efficiency and quality of human capital in the production process for a given economic and social context, including other complementary inputs and innovations used in production Given its usefulness in conveying valuable information on a country’s labour market situation, it was one of the indicators used to measure progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), under Goal 1 (Eradicate poverty and hunger), and it was included as one of the indicators proposed to measure progress towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), under Goal 8 (Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all). 1 ILOSTAT presents ILO estimates and projections on labour productivity, both in constant 2005 US$ and in constant 2011 international $ in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).2 Concepts and definitions Productivity represents the amount of output per unit of input. In ILOSTAT’s indicator, output is measured as gross domestic product (GDP) for the aggregate economy expressed at purchasing power parities (PPP) to account for price differences in countries. The GDP represents the monetary value of all goods and services produced within a country over a specified period of time.
    [Show full text]