IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Levels of Farm Sector Productivity: An International Comparison


  • V. Ball
  • Jean-Christophe Bureau
  • Jean-Pierre Butault
  • Richard Nehring


This articlefocuses on the relative levels of farm sector productivity forthe United States and nine European countries for the period1973 to 1993. At the beginning of the period, Belgium had thehighest level of productivity relative to the United States at1.689. Ireland had the lowest relative productivity at 0.759.By 1993, the range of levels of productivity had narrowed significantly,from 0.709 for Ireland to 1.392 forthe Netherlands. Further evidence of convergence can be seenin the coefficient of variation, which fell steadily from 0.261in 1973 to 0.227 in 1993. Results based on regressionanalysis show a highly significant inverse relation between therate of productivity convergence and the initial level of productivity,consistent with the ``catch-up'' hypothesis. The results generallysupport the existence of a positive interaction between capitalaccumulation and productivity growth, suggesting embodiment. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Suggested Citation

  • V. Ball & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Jean-Pierre Butault & Richard Nehring, 2001. "Levels of Farm Sector Productivity: An International Comparison," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 5-29, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jproda:v:15:y:2001:i:1:p:5-29
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1026554306106

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Fisher, Franklin M. & Shell, Karl, 1972. "The Economic Theory of Price Indices," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780122577505 edited by Shell, Karl.
    2. Robert F. J. Romain & John B. Penson jr. & Rémy E. Lambert, 1987. "Capacity Depreciation, Implicit Rental Price, and Investment Demand for Farm Tractors in Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 35(2), pages 373-385, July.
    3. Ball, V. Eldon & Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Eakin, Kelly & Somwaru, Agapi, 1997. "Cap reform: modelling supply response subject to the land set-aside," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 17(2-3), pages 277-288, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:kap:jproda:v:15:y:2001:i:1:p:5-29. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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.