IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01744631.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Kristiaan Kerstens

    (Department of Economics - IESEG School of Managementg, LEM - Lille économie management - UMR 9221 - UA - Université d'Artois - UCL - Université catholique de Lille - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Zhiyang Shen
  • Ignace van de Woestyne

    (Department of Economics - Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel)

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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Kristiaan Kerstens & Zhiyang Shen & Ignace van de Woestyne, 2018. "Comparing Luenberger and Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicators: How well is total factor productivity approximated?," Post-Print hal-01744631, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01744631
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.010
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    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:hal:journl:hal-01744631. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.