Advertisement

Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 367–387 | Cite as

Decompositions of productivity growth into sectoral effects

  • W. Erwin DiewertEmail author
Article

Abstract

The paper provides some new decompositions of labour productivity growth and total factor productivity (TFP) growth into sectoral effects. These new decompositions draw on the earlier work of Tang and Wang (Can J Econ 37:421–444, 2004). The economy wide labour productivity growth rate turns out to depend on the sectoral productivity growth rates, real output price changes and changes in sectoral labour input shares. The economy wide TFP growth decomposition into explanatory factors is similar but some extra terms due to real input price change make their appearance in the decomposition.

Keywords

Total factor productivity Labour productivity Index numbers Sectoral contributions to growth 

JEL Classification

C43 C82 D24 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Bert Balk, Derek Burnell, Ricardo de Avillez, Alice Nakamura, Hiu Wei, Marshall Reinsdorf and two referees for helpful comments and gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the SSHRC of Canada.

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) Estimates of industry multifactor productivity, Australia: detailed productivity estimates. Table 5260.0.55.002, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, December 7 releaseGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Australian system of national accounts: gross value added by industry. Table 5204.0, Canberra: Australian Bureau of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  3. Balk BM (2008) On the decomposition of aggregate productivity change into meaningful components. Unpublished paper, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, April 4 draftGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennet TL (1920) The theory of measurement of changes in cost of living. J R Stat Soc 83:455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Avillez R (2012) Sectoral contributions to labour productivity growth in Canada: does the choice of decomposition formula matter? Productivity Monitor, No. 24, Fall, pp 97–117Google Scholar
  6. Denison EF (1962) The sources of economic growth in the United States and the alternatives before us. Committee for Economic Development, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Diewert WE (1978) Superlative index numbers and consistency in aggregation. Econometrica 46:883–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diewert WE (2004) On the tang and wang decomposition of labour productivity into sectoral effects. In: Diewert WE, Balk BM, Fixler D, Fox KJ, Nakamura AO (eds) Price and productivity measurement, volume 6, Index number theory. Trafford Press, Victoria, pp 67–76Google Scholar
  9. Diewert WE (2005) Index number theory using differences instead of ratios. Am J Econ Sociol 64(1):311–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diewert WE, Mizobuchi H (2009) Exact and superlative price and quantity indicators. Macroecon Dyn 13:335–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher I (1922) The making of index numbers. Houghton-Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Harberger AC (1971) Three basic postulates for applied welfare economics: an interpretive essay. J Econ Lit 9:785–797Google Scholar
  13. Tang J, Wang W (2004) Sources of aggregate labour productivity growth in Canada and the United States. Can J Econ 37:421–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.School of EconomicsUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations