IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea08/6069.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Labor Productivity Growth And Convergence In The Kansas Farm Sector: A Tripartite Decomposition Using The Dea Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mugera, Amin W.
  • Langemeier, Michael R.

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to analyze sources of labor productivity growth in the Kansas farm sector over the period 1993-2006 for a sample of 668 farms. The nonparametric production frontier method is used to decompose labor productivity growth into three components: (1) technological catch-up, (2) technological change, and (3) capital deepening. Kernel estimation methods are used to analyze the evolution of the entire distribution of labor productivity in the sample period. We find that labor productivity is primarily driven by capital deepening. On average, capital deepening is the main source of convergence in productivity and technical change is a source of divergence. We find little evidence of technological catch-up. The impact of the three components of labor productivity varies by farm size.

Suggested Citation

  • Mugera, Amin W. & Langemeier, Michael R., 2008. "Labor Productivity Growth And Convergence In The Kansas Farm Sector: A Tripartite Decomposition Using The Dea Approach," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6069, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea08:6069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/6069
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henderson, Daniel J. & Tochkov, Kiril & Badunenko, Oleg, 2007. "A drive up the capital coast? Contributions to post-reform growth across Chinese provinces," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 569-594, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Los, Bart & Timmer, Marcel P., 2005. "The 'appropriate technology' explanation of productivity growth differentials: An empirical approach," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 517-531, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Daniel J. Henderson & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2007. "Testing for (Efficiency) Catching-up," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1003-1019, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Kerstin Enflo & Per Hjertstrand, 2009. "Relative Sources of European Regional Productivity Convergence: A Bootstrap Frontier Approach," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 643-659.
    8. Diewert, Erwin, 2007. "Index Numbers," Economics working papers diewert-07-01-03-08-17-23, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 31 Jan 2007.
    9. Alan McCunn & Wallace E. Huffman, 2000. "Convergence in U.S. Productivity Growth for Agriculture: Implications of Interstate Research Spillovers for Funding Agricultural Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 370-388.
    10. 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.
    11. V. Eldon Ball & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Richard Nehring & Agapi Somwaru, 1997. "Agricultural Productivity Revisited," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1045-1063.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    labor productivity; growth; technological catch-up; technological change; capital deepening; Labor and Human Capital;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea08:6069. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.