IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae03/25842.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Appliation Of The Stochastic Latent Variable Approach To The Correction Of Sector Level Tfp Calculations In The Face Of Biased Technological Change

Author

Listed:
  • Bailey, Alastair
  • Irz, Xavier T.
  • Balcombe, Kelvin George

Abstract

The measurement of the impact of technical change has received significant attention within the economics literature. One popular method of quantifying this impact of technical change is the use of growth accounting index numbers. However, in a recent article Nelson and Pack (1999) criticise the use of such index numbers in situations where technical change is likely to be biased in favour of one or other inputs. In particular they criticise the common approach of applying observed factor shares as proxies for partial output elasticities to weight the change in quantities which they claim are only valid under Hicks neutrality. Recent advances in the measurement of product and factor biases of technical change developed by Balcombe et al (2000) provide a relatively straight-forward means of correcting product and factor shares in the face of biased technical progress. This paper demonstrates the correction of factor shares used in the construction of a TFP index for UK agriculture over the period 1953 to 2000 using both revenue and cost function share equations appended with stochastic latent variables to capture the bias effect. Technical progress is shown to be biased between both individual input and output groups. Output and input quantity aggregates are then constructed using both observed and corrected share weights and the resulting TFPs are compared. There does appear to be some significant bias in TFP if the effect of biased technical progress is not taken into account when constructing the weights.

Suggested Citation

  • Bailey, Alastair & Irz, Xavier T. & Balcombe, Kelvin George, 2003. "An Appliation Of The Stochastic Latent Variable Approach To The Correction Of Sector Level Tfp Calculations In The Face Of Biased Technological Change," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25842, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae03:25842
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25842/files/cp03ba01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25842?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murgai, Rinku, 2001. "The Green Revolution and the productivity paradox: evidence from the Indian Punjab," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 199-209, September.
    2. Balcombe, Kelvin George & Bailey, Alastair & Morrison, Jamie & Rapsomanikis, George & Thirtle, Colin G., 2000. "Stochastic biases in technical change in South African agriculture," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 39(4), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Kelvin Balcombe & Alastair Bailey & Jamie Morrison, 2002. "Stochastic Biases in Technical Change in U.S. Agriculture: A Bootstrap Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(1), pages 67-84, March.
    4. Dani Rodrik & Tain-Jy Chen, 1998. "TFPG Controversies, Institutions and Economic Performance in East Asia," International Economic Association Series, in: Yujiro Hayami & Masahiko Aoki (ed.), The Institutional Foundations of East Asian Economic Development, chapter 4, pages 79-105, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (II): Applications of the Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 2, number fuss1978a.
    6. Yougesh Khatri & Colin Thirtle, 1996. "Supply And Demand Functions For Uk Agriculture: Biases Of Technical Change And The Returns To Public R&D," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 338-354, January.
    7. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.), 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780444850133.
    8. Diamond, Peter & McFadden, Daniel & Rodriguez, Miguel, 1978. "Measurement of the Elasticity of Factor Substitution and Bias of Technical Change," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.),Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, volume 2, chapter 5, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    9. Murgai, Rinku, 1999. "The green revolution and the productivity paradox : evidence from the Indian Punjab," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2234, The World Bank.
    10. J. Stephen Clark & Curtis E. Youngblood, 1992. "Estimating Duality Models with Biased Technical Change: A Time Series Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 353-360.
    11. Chambers,Robert G., 1988. "Applied Production Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521314275.
    12. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (I): The Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 1, number fuss1978.
    13. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Yee, Jet & Ball, V. Eldon & Nehring, Richard F., 1998. "Agricultural Productivity in the United States," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33687, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Felipe, Jesus & McCombie, J. S. L., 2001. "Biased Technical Change, Growth Accounting, and the Conundrum of the East Asian Miracle," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 542-565, September.
    15. David K. Lambert & J.S. Shonkwiler, 1995. "Factor Bias under Stochastic Technical Change," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(3), pages 578-590.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luis Lanteri, 2005. "Crecimiento y la paradoja de la productividad: Una estimación en la forma de state-space con componentes no observables para el sector agropecuario argentino, 1955-2003," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 20(1), pages 53-78.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bailey, Alastair & Irz, Xavier & Balcombe, Kelvin, 2004. "Measuring productivity growth when technological change is biased--a new index and an application to UK agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 285-295, December.
    2. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    3. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    4. James Bessen, 2008. "Accounting for Productivity Growth When Technical Change is Biased," Working Papers 0802, Research on Innovation.
    5. Boys, Kathryn A. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2005. "Bias and Scale Effects of Direct Government Payments," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19337, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Paul, Saumik, 2019. "A Decline in Labor's Share with Capital Accumulation and Complementary Factor Inputs: An Application of the Morishima Elasticity of Substitution," IZA Discussion Papers 12219, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. V. Vandenberghe, 2018. "The Contribution of Educated Workers to Firms’ Efficiency Gains: The Key Role of Proximity to the ‘Local’ Frontier," De Economist, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 259-283, September.
    8. Renwick, Alan W. & Revoredo-Giha, Cesar & Reader, Mark A., 2005. "Uk Sugar Beet Farm Productivity Under Different Reform Scenarios: A Farm Level Analysis," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31936, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    9. Guenter Lang, 2002. "Innovative Slowdown, Productivity Reversal? - Estimating the Impact of R&D on Technological Change," Discussion Paper Series 218, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    10. Huiban, Jean-Pierre & Mastromarco, Camille & Musolesi, Antonio & Simioni, Michel, 2016. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: new insights from frontier analysis," Working Papers MOISA 235162, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    11. Caselli, Francesco, 2005. "Accounting for Cross-Country Income Differences," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 679-741, Elsevier.
    12. Hess, Sebastian & Surry, Yves R., 2011. "The CDET Profit Function: Could it generate a Parsimonious Agricultural Sector Model?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114539, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Sauer, J., 2007. "Monotonicity and Curvature – A Bootstrapping Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    14. Kenneth G. Stewart & Jiang Li, 2018. "Are factor biases and substitution identifiable? The Canadian evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(2), pages 528-548, May.
    15. Dawei Zhang & Zhuo (June) Cheng & Hasan A. Qurban H. Mohammad & Barrie R. Nault, 2015. "Research Commentary—Information Technology Substitution Revisited," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 480-495, September.
    16. Andrea Mantovi, 2016. "Smooth preferences, symmetries and expansion vector fields," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 147-169, October.
    17. Robert G. Chambers & Erik Lichtenberg, 1994. "Simple Econometrics of Pesticide Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 407-417.
    18. Francesco Caselli & Wilbur John Coleman II, 2006. "The World Technology Frontier," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 499-522, June.
    19. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2005. "Swedish Industry and Kyoto – An Assessment of the Effects of the European CO2 Emission Permit Trading System," Umeå Economic Studies 668, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    20. Erich Gundlach, 2005. "Solow vs. Solow: Notes on Identification and Interpretation in the Empirics of Growth and Development," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 141(3), pages 541-556, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae03:25842. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.