This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Towards Building A New Consensus About New Zealand’s Productivity

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
W A Razzak (Labour Market Policy Group)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

There is a wide consensus that New Zealand’s productivity has been poor despite the comprehensive market-oriented reforms of the 1980’s. This consensus is based on estimates of New Zealand’s productivity growth measured either in terms of GDP per capita or total factor productivity (TFP). TFP is typically computed using growth accounting (i.e., calibrating a Solow model with fixed capital share). We argue that identification of the nature of the trend and the method of estimation are important elements of any study of productivity growth. Although difficult, it is quite important to determine whether the trend is linear deterministic or stochastic. It is equally important to measure the trend and TFP growth when there is a structural change (the reform in 1984 and the following adjustment periods) because factor shares, which are coefficients in the production function, are unstable. New Zealand data are short and undoubtedly badly measured and estimates of the standard errors of factor shares are quite large. Thus, even when we account for structural change, TFP estimate, which depends on the estimate of factor shares, is an unreliable measure of New Zealand’s productivity. There is evidence, both time series and panel data that productivity has improved in the 1990’s and by more than we thought. There is also significant evidence of increasing returns to scales (spillovers), which when ignored understates the estimate of the share of capital. Also, there is evidence of improving convergence of productivity between New Zealand and Australia during the 1990’s. The conclusion has policy implications. We need to re-think and scrutinise the current consensus regarding current estimates before we engage in planning programmes to lift productivity.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://129.3.20.41/eps/ge/papers/0405/0405002.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by EconWPA in its series GE, Growth, Math methods with number 0405002.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length: 40 pages
Date of creation: 06 May 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpge:0405002

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 40
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://129.3.20.41

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (EconWPA).

Related research
Keywords: productivity TFP Structural change.

Find related papers by JEL classification:
O11 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
O47 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Measurement of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General - - - Estimation

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-37, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Stefano Scarpetta & Andrea Bassanini & Dirk Pilat & Paul Schreyer, 2000. "Economic Growth in the OECD Area: Recent Trends at the Aggregate and Sectoral Level," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 248, OECD Economics Department. [Downloadable!]
  3. W. Erwin Diewert & Kevin J. Fox, 1999. "Can measurement error explain the productivity paradox?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 251-280, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Bob Gregory, 1999. "Labour Market Outcomes in the UK, NZ, Australia and the US: Observations on the Impact of Labour Market and Economic Reforms," Discussion Papers 401, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. [Downloadable!]
  5. Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna & Roberto Perotti & Fabio Schiantarelli, 2000. "Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 504, Boston College Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Mankiw, N Gregory & Romer, David & Weil, David N, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-37, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  7. Peter Mawson, 2002. "Measuring Economic Growth in New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 02/14, New Zealand Treasury. [Downloadable!]
  8. Chang-Tai Hsieh, 2002. "What Explains the Industrial Revolution in East Asia? Evidence from the Factor Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 502-526, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Bruce E. Hansen, 2001. "The New Econometrics of Structural Change: Dating Breaks in U.S. Labour Productivity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 117-128, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Paul Conway & Ben Hunt, 1998. "Productivity growth in New Zealand: economic reform and the convergence hypothesis," Reserve Bank of New Zealand Discussion Paper Series G98/2, Reserve Bank of New Zealand. [Downloadable!]
  11. Friedman, Milton, 1992. "Do Old Fallacies Ever Die?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 2129-32, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Zvi Griliches, 1979. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 92-116, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Razzak, Weshah & Timmins, Jason, 2007. "A Macroeconomic perspective on skill shortages and the skill premium in New Zealand," MPRA Paper 1886, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Matthew D Shapiro, 2003. "Has the rate of economic growth changed? Evidence and lessons for public policy," Reserve Bank of New Zealand Discussion Paper Series DP2003/07, Reserve Bank of New Zealand. [Downloadable!]
  3. Robin Johnson & W A Razzak & Steve Stillman, 2005. "Has New Zealand benefited from its investments in research & development?," Development and Comp Systems 0510022, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. Melleny Black & Melody Guy & Nathan McLellan, 2003. "Productivity in New Zealand 1988 to 2002," Treasury Working Paper Series 03/06, New Zealand Treasury. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can use convenient plug-ins to search directly IDEAS from your browser.

This page was last updated on 2008-7-6.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.