Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 577–590 | Cite as

Another look at technical efficiency in American states, 1979–2000

  • Gregory Brock
  • Constantin Ogloblin
Original Paper

Abstract

A recently developed stochastic frontier production function methodology is used to estimate econometrically how technical efficiency, technological progress, and returns to scale contributed to US states’ economic growth in 1979–2000. Improved regional human capital data that are superior to the traditional “years of school” data are included. In support of the prior literature, overall technical inefficiency is found to be low but unlike earlier studies diverging over time with almost no shifting of the aggregate frontier. Efficiency is positively associated with relative historical wealth, human capital, relatively worse recession experience, greater market concentration, and a smaller informal economy.

JEL Classification

R1 O4 O0 

References

  1. Adkins L, Moomaw R, Savvides A (2002) Institutions, freedom, and technical efficiency. South Econ J 69(1):92–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akai N, Horiuchi Y, Sakata M (2005) Short-run and Long-run effects of Corruption on economic growth: evidence from state-level cross-section data for the United States. CIRJE Discussion Paper CIRJE-F-348Google Scholar
  3. Basher SA, Lagerlof NP (2008) Per-capita income gaps across U.S. States and Canadian provinces. J Macroecon 30:1173–1187Google Scholar
  4. Bertocchi G, Dimico A (2012) The racial gap in education and the legacy of slavery. J Comp Econ 40(4):581–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boylan RT, Long C (2003) A survey of state house reporters’ perception of public corruption. State Politics Policy Q 3(4):420–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock GJ (2001) An econometric look at inefficiency among U.S. States, 1977–86. Rev Reg Stud 31(1): 95–107Google Scholar
  7. Brock GJ (2009) Growth and foreign direct investment in American States, 1977–2001. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud 21(2/3):110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brock GJ, Tan J, Yarbrough R (2014) The informal economy of veracruz state during the fox administration. J Dev Areas 48(2):153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crain WM, Lee KJ (1999) Economic growth regressions for the American States: a sensitivity analysis. Econ Inquiry 37(2):242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dincer OC, Gunalp B (2012) Corruption and income inequality in the United States. Contemp Econ Policy 20(2):283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domazlicky BR, Weber WL (1997) Total factor productivity in the contiguous United States, 1977–1986. J Reg Sci 37(2):213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domazlicky BR, Weber WL (1998) Determinants of total factor productivity, technological change, and efficiency differentials among states, 1977–1986. Rev Reg Stud 28(2):19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia-Mila T, McGuire TJ, Porter RH (1996) Note: The effect of public capital in state-level production functions reconsidered. Rev Econ Stat 78(1):177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garofalo GA, Yamarik S (2002) Regional convergence: evidence from a new state-by-state capital stock series. Rev Econ Stat 84(2):316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghosh T, Andersen S, Powell RL, Sutton PC, Elvidge CD (2009) Estimation of Mexico’s informal economy and remittances using nighttime imagery. Remote Sens 1(3):418–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaeser EL, Saks RE (2006) Corruption in America. J Public Econ 90:1053–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goel RK, Nelson MA (2007) Are corrupt acts contagious? Evidence from the United States. J Policy Model 29:839–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene W (2005a) Fixed and random effects in stochastic frontier models. J Prod Anal 23(1):7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene W (2005b) Efficiency of public spending in developing countries: a stochastic frontier approach. Working Paper, Stern School of Business, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson JV, Storeygard A, Weil DN (2009) Measuring economic growth from outer space. NBER Working Paper 15199, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Henry M, Kneller R, Milner C (2009) Trade, technology transfer and national efficiency in developing countries. Eur Econ Rev 53:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holtz-Eakin D (1994) Public-sector capital and the productivity puzzle. Rev Econ Stat 76(1):12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunt GL, Trostel P (2005) Annual estimates of human capital by state: 1976–2000. Rev Reg Stud 35(1):8–37Google Scholar
  24. Johnson N, LaFountain C, Yamarick S (2011) Corruption is bad for growth (even in the United States). Public Choice 147(3–4):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson N, Rugers W, Sorens J, Yamarik S (2014) Corruption, regulation, and growth: an empirical study of the United States. Econ Gov 15:51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalemli-Ozcan S, Reshef A, Sorensen BE, Yosha O (2010) Why does capital flow to rich states? Rev Econ Stat 92(4):769–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kneller R, Stevens A (2003) The specification of the aggregate production function in the presence of inefficiency. Econ Lett 81:223–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kotzian P (2009) Productive efficiency and heterogeneity of health care systems: results of a measurement for OECD countries. Open Econ J 2:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar S, Russell RR (2002) Technological change, technological catch-up, and capital deepening: relative contributions to growth and convergence. Am Econ Rev 92:527–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumbhakar SC, Wang HJ (2005) Estimation of growth convergence using a stochastic production frontier approach. Econ Lett 88:300–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovell CAK (1995) Econometric efficiency analysis: a policy-oriented review. Eur J Oper Res 80:452–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meon PG, Weill L (2010) Is corruption an efficiency grease? World Dev 38(3):244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meon PG, Schneider F, Weill L (2011) Does taking the shadow economy into account matter when measuring aggregate efficiency? Appl Econ 43:2303–2311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moroney JR, Lovell CAK (1997) The relative efficiencies of market and planned economies. South Econ J 63(4):1084–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mulligan CB, Sala-I-Martin X (2000) Measuring aggregate human capital. J Econ Growth 5:215–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Owyang MT, Piger J, Wall HJ (2005) Business cycle phases in U.S. States. Rev Econ Stat 87(4):604–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Puig-Junoy J (2001) Technical inefficiency and public capital in U.S. States: a stochastic frontier approach. J Reg Sci 41(1):75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlesinger T, Meier K (2002) Variations in corruption among the American States. In: Heidenheimer A, Johnston M (eds) Political corruption: concepts and contexts, 3rd edn. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 627–644Google Scholar
  39. Sharma SC, Sylwester K, Margono H (2007) Decomposition of total factor productivity growth in U.S. States. Q Rev Econ Financ 47(2):215–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiss E, Rosenblatt D (2010) Regional economic growth in Mexico: recent evolution and the role of governance. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper #5369Google Scholar
  41. Yamarik S (2006) Solow and the states: new evidence. Reg Stud 40(6):571–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yamarik S (2011) Human capital and state-level economic growth: what is the contribution of schooling? Ann Reg Sci 47:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yamarik S (2013) State-level capital and investment: updates and implications. Contemp Econ Policy 31(1):62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance and Economics, College of BusinessGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations