IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/proeco/v195y2018icp311-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Luenberger and Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicators: How well is total factor productivity approximated?

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstens, Kristiaan
  • Shen, Zhiyang
  • Van de Woestyne, Ignace

Abstract

We empirically compare both the popular Luenberger indicator with the less popular Luenberger-Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indicator on an agricultural panel data set of Chinese provinces over the years 1997–2014. In particular, we test for the differences in distribution when comparing these indicators. These tests are crucial to answer the question to which extent the Luenberger indicator can approximate the Luenberger-Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indicator that has a Total Factor Productivity (TFP) interpretation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstens, Kristiaan & Shen, Zhiyang & Van de Woestyne, Ignace, 2018. "Comparing Luenberger and Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicators: How well is total factor productivity approximated?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 311-318.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:195:y:2018:i:c:p:311-318
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527317303250
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.010?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    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:eee:proeco:v:195:y:2018:i:c:p:311-318. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe .

    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.