Microeconomic Reform and Technical Efficiency in Australian Manufacturing
The technical efficiency dividend reaped by Australian manufacturing industries following the implementation of microeconomic reforms over the past three decades is analysed empirically in this paper. The technical efficiency scores have been estimated for manufacturing industries using a combined stochastic production-frontier inefficiency model that is free of simultaneity bias. The model parameters have been estimated using maximum likelihood techniques using a panel data set covering a cross-section of 8 industries spanning a time-series of 26 years (1969-1995). The empirical results shed light on how technical inefficiency in manufacturing has been whittled down by the microeconomic reform induced trade liberalisation and technology diffusion processes. Generalised likelihood ratio tests reject the null hypotheses that trade liberalisation and technology transfer had no significant impact on the reduction of technical inefficiency. The reduction of effective rate of assistance and technical efficiency and technology proxies such as intra-industry trade and capital deepening are negatively correlated during the study period. These findings give credence to the predictions of endogenous growth theories that openness of the economy provides a conduit for accessing new technology that promotes innovation and technical efficiency. The increase in technical efficiency of manufacturing industries is the unsung hero behind the emergence of the 'new economy' or the spectacular pick-up of productivity growth observed for Australia during the 1990s. The error-correction modelling reported at the outset confirms that this productivity pick-up is not an artefact of a cyclical upturn. It is attributable to the microeconomic reforms and the technology transfer that has followed it. The paper concludes on the need for further research , first, to shed light on the constituents of total factor productivity such as technical change and technical progress and second, to design policy to address the challenging issues of equity-efficiency trade-off lest it degenerates into a back-lash that could nullify the whole reform agenda.
|Date of creation:||2007|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: St. Lucia, Qld. 4072|
Phone: +61 7 3365 6570
Fax: +61 7 3365 7299
Web page: http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- K. Kalirajan, 1981. "An Econometric Analysis of Yield Variability in Paddy Production," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 29(3), pages 283-294, November.
- Tybout, James & de Melo, Jamie & Corbo, Vittorio, 1991.
"The effects of trade reforms on scale and technical efficiency : New evidence from Chile,"
Journal of International Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 31(3-4), pages 231-250, November.
- Tybout, James & de Melo, Jaime & Corbo, Vittorio, 1990. "The effects of trade reforms on scale and technical efficiency : new evidence from Chile," Policy Research Working Paper Series 481, The World Bank.
- Backus, David K. & Kehoe, Patrick J. & Kehoe, Timothy J., 1992.
"In search of scale effects in trade and growth,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 377-409, December.
- Fare,Rolf & Grosskopf,Shawna & Lovell,C. A. Knox, 1993.
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521420334, December.
- Meeusen, Wim & van den Broeck, Julien, 1977. "Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 18(2), pages 435-44, June.
- Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-32.
- Oulton,Nicholas & O'Mahony,Mary, 1994. "Productivity and Growth," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521453455, December.
- Whiteman, John L, 1991. "The Impact of Productivity Growth on the Costs of Production in Australian Manufacturing Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 67(196), pages 14-25, March.
- Karl Lundvall & George Battese, 2000. "Firm size, age and efficiency: Evidence from Kenyan manufacturing firms," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 146-163.
- Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
- Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
- Pitt, Mark M. & Lee, Lung-Fei, 1981. "The measurement and sources of technical inefficiency in the Indonesian weaving industry," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-64, August.
- K.P. Kalirajan & M.B. Obwona & S. Zhao, 1996. "A Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Growth: The Case of Chinese Agricultural Growth before and after Reforms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(2), pages 331-338.
- Bloch, Harry & Madden, Gary G, 1995. "Productivity growth in Australian manufacturing: a vintage capital model," MPRA Paper 13003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:345. 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: (SOE IT)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.