IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v41y2012i03p298-312_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Labor Productivity Growth in the Kansas Farm Sector: A Tripartite Decomposition Using a Non-Parametric Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mugera, Amin W.
  • Langemeier, Michael R.
  • Featherstone, Allen M.

Abstract

We use nonparametric production function methods to decompose farm-level labor productivity growth into components attributable to efficiency change, technical change, and factor intensity. The estimation is accomplished using balanced panel data drawn from the Kansas Farm Management Association for the period 1993 to 2007. We find that labor productivity growth is primarily driven by factor intensity and technical change. Efficiency change is declining with increasing productivity growth, and technical change is not Hicks-neutral and occurs at high levels of factor intensity, suggesting that innovation is embodied in factor intensity.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Mugera, Amin W. & Langemeier, Michael R. & Featherstone, Allen M., 2012. "Labor Productivity Growth in the Kansas Farm Sector: A Tripartite Decomposition Using a Non-Parametric Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(03), pages 298-312, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:41:y:2012:i:03:p:298-312_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1068280500001271
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fuglie, Keith O. & MacDonald, James C. & Ball, V. Eldon, 2007. "Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture," Economic Brief 6382, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 49-61, January.
    3. Shunsuke Managi & David Karemera, 2004. "Input and output biased technological change in US agriculture," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 283-286.
    4. Alfons Weersink & Loren W. Tauer, 1991. "Causality between Dairy Farm Size and Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1138-1145.
    5. Nigel Key & William McBride, 2003. "Production Contracts and Productivity in the U.S. Hog Sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 121-133.
    6. Craig S. Hakkio, 2008. "PCE and CPI inflation differentials: converting inflation forecasts," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q I, pages 51-68.
    7. V. Eldon Ball & Charles Hallahan & Richard Nehring, 2004. "Convergence of Productivity: An Analysis of the Catch-up Hypothesis within a Panel of States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1315-1321.
    8. Serra, Teresa & Zilberman, David & Gil, Jose Maria, 2008. "Farms' technical inefficiencies in the presence of government programs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), March.
    9. Seaver, Bill L & Triantis, Konstantinos P, 1989. "The Implications of Using Messy Data to Estimate Production-Frontier-Based Technical Efficiency Measures," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 7(1), pages 49-59, January.
    10. M-super-a Jesús Delgado-Rodríguez & Inmaculada Álvarez-Ayuso, 2008. "Economic Growth and Convergence of EU Member States: An Empirical Investigation," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 486-497, August.
    11. Teresa Serra & Barry K. Goodwin & Allen M. Featherstone, 2005. "Agricultural Policy Reform and Off-farm Labour Decisions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 271-285.
    12. Wallace E. Huffman & Robert E. Evenson, 1992. "Contributions of Public and Private Science and Technology to U.S. Agricultural Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(3), pages 751-756.
    13. Boris Bravo-Ureta & Daniel Solís & Víctor Moreira López & José Maripani & Abdourahmane Thiam & Teodoro Rivas, 2007. "Technical efficiency in farming: a meta-regression analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 57-72, February.
    14. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & Barry K. Goodwin & Allen Featherstone, 2006. "Effects of decoupling on the mean and variability of output," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 269-288, September.
    15. Daniel J. Henderson & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2007. "Testing for (Efficiency) Catching-up," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1003-1019, April.
    16. Albert K. A. Acquaye & Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey, 2003. "Post-War Productivity Patterns in U.S. Agriculture: Influences of Aggregation Procedures in a State-Level Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 59-80.
    17. Weber, William L. & Domazlicky, Bruce R., 2006. "Capital Deepening and Manufacturing's Contribution to Regional Economic Convergence," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 36(1).
    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. Amin W. Mugera & Michael R. Langemeier & Andrew Ojede, 2016. "Contributions of Productivity and Relative Price Changes to Farm-level Profitability Change," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1210-1229.
    2. Tomas Baležentis, 2014. "Total factor productivity in the Lithuanian family farms after accession to the EU: application of the bias-corrected Malmquist indices," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 731-746, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:agrerw:v:41:y:2012:i:03:p:298-312_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters). General contact details of provider: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_AGE .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.