Empirical Economics

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 449–468 | Cite as

Improving the estimation of total factor productivity growth: capital operating time in a latent variable approach

Original Paper

Abstract

Measuring labor and capital services accurately is essential to obtaining reliable estimates of production functions and total factor productivity (TFP) growth. Using data on the operating time of capital, a series that exists for the French business sector, greatly improves the measurement of effective capital services in production. The ensuing estimation results are consistent with Cobb–Douglas technology under constant returns to scale, with the factor elasticities not statistically different from their income shares. In the same framework, TFP growth is estimated as a latent variable and found to be less volatile than accounting residuals, negatively correlated with employment, and free of cyclicality. It is statistically best estimated as a first-order autoregressive process, with an autoregressive coefficient of 0.95. Total factor productivity growth was estimated to have declined steadily between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s, but the rate of decline has diminished since then.

Keywords

Capital stock utilization Total factor productivity 

JEL Classification

E32 E22 E24 E27 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn S, Hemmings P (2000) Policy influences on economic growth in OECD countries: an evaluation of the evidence. OECD Econmics Department Working Papers 246Google Scholar
  3. Anxo D, Bosch G, Bosworth D, Cette G, Steiner T, Taddei D (eds) (1995) Work patterns and capital utilization. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Banque de France B (2001) La Durée d’Utilisation d’Equipements: Principaux Résultats 1989–2000. Bulletin de la Banque de France, no. 94, October 2001, pp 75–93Google Scholar
  5. Barro R, Sala-i-Martin X (1995) Economic growth. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu S, Kimball ML (1997) Cyclical productivity with unobserved input variation. NBER No. 5915Google Scholar
  7. Basu S, Fernald J, Kimball ML (2004) Are technology improvements contractionary? NBER No. 10592Google Scholar
  8. Baumol W (1986) Productivity, growth, convergence, and welfare: what the long-run data show. Am Econ Rev 76:1072–1085Google Scholar
  9. Baxter M, Farr DD(2001) The effects of variable capital utilization on the measurement and properties of sectoral productivity: some international evidence. NBER No. 8475Google Scholar
  10. Bils M, Cho J (1994) Cyclical factor utilization. J Monetary Econ 33:319–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosworth D, Cette G (1995) Capital operating time: measurement issues. In: Anxo D et al (eds) Work patterns and capital utilisation: an international comparative study. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 89–120Google Scholar
  12. Burnside C, Eichenbaum M, Rebelo S (1995) Capital utilization and returns to scale. NBER Working Paper 5125Google Scholar
  13. Cette G (2002) Capital operating time and shift work in France. Mimeo manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen EKY (1997) The total factor productivity debate: determinants of economic growth in East Asia. Asian Pac Econ Lit 18:313–328Google Scholar
  15. Cheung YW, Lai KS (1993) Finite sample sizes of Johansen’s likelihood ratio test for cointegration. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 55:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooley TF, Hansen GD, Prescott EC (1995) Equilibrium business cycles with idle resources and variable capacity utilization. Econ Theory 6(1):35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corrado C, Mattey J (1997) Capacity utilization. J Econ Perspect 11(1):151–167Google Scholar
  18. Deardorff AV, Stafford FP (1976) Compensation of cooperating factors. Econonometrica 44:671–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dupaigne M (1998) Capital operating time and economic fluctuations. Rech Econ Louvain 64(3):243–267Google Scholar
  20. Dupaigne M (2002) Travail Posté et Durée d’Utilisation des Equipements dans les Fluctuations Economiques. Ann Econ Stat 66:235–256Google Scholar
  21. Easterly W, Levine R (2001) It’s not factor accumulation: stylized facts and growth models. World Bank Econ Rev 15(2):177–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott G, Rothenberg TJ, Stock J (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64:813–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK (1994) Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Finn MG (1995) Variance properties of Solow’s productivity residual and their cyclical implications. J Econ Dyn Control 19:1249–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foss M (1963) The utilization of capital equipment. Surv Curr Bus 43(6)Google Scholar
  26. Garofalo A, Vinci CP (2000) Employment, capital operating time and efficiency wages hypothesis: is there any room for worksharing? Cah Econ Brux 168(4ème trimestre):397–441Google Scholar
  27. Greenwood J, Hercowitz Z, Huffman GW (1988) Investment, capacity utilization, and the real business cycle. Am Econ Rev 78(3):402–417Google Scholar
  28. Griliches Z (1970) Notes on the role of education in production functions and growth accounting. In: Hansen L (ed) Education, income, and human capital. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 71–115Google Scholar
  29. Grossman G, Helpman E (1991) Quality ladders in the theory of economic growth. Rev Econ Stud 58(1):43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall RA (1989) Invariance properties of Solow’s residual. NBEResearch No. 3034Google Scholar
  31. Harberger AC (1998) A vision of the growth process. Am Econ Rev 88(1):1–32Google Scholar
  32. Hernández JA, Mauleón I (2005) Econometric estimation of a variable rate of depreciation of the capital stock. Empir Econ 30:575–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hornstein A (2002) Towards a theory of capacity utilization: shift work and the workweek of capital. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Quarterly 88(2):65–86Google Scholar
  34. Imbs JM (1999) Technology, growth and the business cycle. J Monetary Econ 44:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jorgenson DW (1966) The embodiment hypothesis. J Polit Econ 74(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King RG, Rebelo ST (1999) Resuscitating real business cycles. In: Taylor JB, Woodford M (eds) Handbook of macroeconomics, vol 1, Chapter 14. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 927–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lucas RE Jr (1970) Capacity, overtime, and empirical production functions. Am Econ Rev 60(2):23–27Google Scholar
  38. Lucas RE Jr (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monetary Econ 22:3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mankiw NG, Romer D, Weil DN (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q J Econ 107:407–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ouliaris S (2001) On extracting business cycles from nonstationary data. International Monetary Fund, manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  41. Romer P (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94(5, part 2):1002–1037Google Scholar
  42. Rumbos B, Auernheimer L (2001) Endogenous capital utilization in a neoclassical growth model. Atl Econ J 29(2):121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapiro MD (1993) Cyclical productivity and the workweek of capital. Am Econ Rev 83(2):229–233Google Scholar
  44. Shapiro MD (1996) Macroeconomic implications of variation in the workweek of capital. Brook Pap Econ Act 2:79–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solow RM (1967) The explanation of productivity change. Rev Econ Stud 34(2):249–283Google Scholar
  46. Temple J (1999) The new growth evidence. J Econ Lit 37(1):112–156Google Scholar
  47. Temple J (2000) Summary of an informal workshop on the causes of growth. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 260Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European DepartmentInternational Monetary FundWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations