ISSN:
1475-4991
Source:
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
Topics:
Economics
Notes:
In this paper we use an input-output framework to examine two criticisms of standard measures of total factor productivity. These criticisms are (1) that the contribution of capital to productivity growth is underestimated, and (2) that the use of cost shares to weigh factor input contribution is questionable. Using various vertically integrated productivity measures we find that capital's productivity contribution is underestimated in the neoclassical formulation. We also find that in a Pasinetti-Rymes growth model, factor shares do not approximate output elasticities. We conclude that the argument made by Pasinetti, Rymes, and others is supported, that in long-run productivity analysis capital should not be treated as a primary input, but should be measured as an intermediate, produced input.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1992.tb00454.x
Permalink