IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v27y2003i5p695-721.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some methodological problems with the neoclassical analysis of the East Asian miracle

Author

Listed:
  • Jesus Felipe
  • J. S. L. McCombie

Abstract

This paper discusses the recent controversy over the sources of economic growth in East Asia. This empirical work has either used growth accounting or estimated econometrically aggregate production functions. It is shown that it is possible to approximate the value-added accounting identity (i.e., value added equals labour's compensation plus total profits) by a mathematical expression that has all the properties of a well-behaved neoclassical aggregate production function. This implies that statistical estimations of putative aggregate production functions can provide no independent evidence as to whether they accurately describe the production technology of the economy or, indeed, whether the aggregate production function actually exists. A corollary is that the conventional measures of the growth of total factor productivity cannot be unambiguously interpreted as an estimate of the rate of technical progress. The paper reviews the works of Kim and Lau and Young and, in the light of this, explains why both analyses and interpretations of the notion of total factor productivity growth as the rate of technical progress are problematical. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2003. "Some methodological problems with the neoclassical analysis of the East Asian miracle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(5), pages 695-721, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:27:y:2003:i:5:p:695-721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:oup:cambje:v:27:y:2003:i:5:p:695-721. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.