Advertisement

Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 5–29 | Cite as

Levels of Farm Sector Productivity: An International Comparison

  • V. Eldon Ball
  • Jean-Christophe Bureau
  • Jean-Pierre Butault
  • Richard Nehring
Article

Abstract

This articlefocuses on the relative levels of farm sector productivity forthe United States and nine European countries for the period1973 to 1993. At the beginning of the period, Belgium had thehighest level of productivity relative to the United States at1.689. Ireland had the lowest relative productivity at 0.759.By 1993, the range of levels of productivity had narrowed significantly,from 0.709 for Ireland to 1.392 forthe Netherlands. Further evidence of convergence can be seenin the coefficient of variation, which fell steadily from 0.261in 1973 to 0.227 in 1993. Results based on regressionanalysis show a highly significant inverse relation between therate of productivity convergence and the initial level of productivity,consistent with the ``catch-up'' hypothesis. The results generallysupport the existence of a positive interaction between capitalaccumulation and productivity growth, suggesting embodiment.

Agricultural productivity multilateral comparisons production accounts purchasing power parities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, V. E. (1985). “Output, Input, and Productivity Measurement in U.S. Agriculture, 1948–79.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 475–86.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, V. E., J-C Bureau, K. Eakin, and A. Somwaru. (1997). “CAP Reform: Modelling Supply Response Subject to the Land Set-Aside.” Agriculture Economics 17, 277–288.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, V. E., J-C Bureau, R. Nehring, and A. Somwaru. (1997). “Agricultural Productivity Revisited.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1045–1063.Google Scholar
  4. Caves, D., L. Christensen, and W. E. Diewert. (1982). “Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers.” Economic Journal 92, 73–86.Google Scholar
  5. Coen, Robert. (1975). “Investment Behavior in Measurement of Depreciation and Tax Policy.” American Economic Review 65, 59–74.Google Scholar
  6. Diewert, W. E. (1986). “Microeconomic Approaches to the Theory of International Comparisons.” Technical Working Paper No. 53, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Diewert, W. E. (1983). “The Theory of the Output Price Index and the Measurement of Real Output Change,” in W. E. Diewert and C. Montmarquette (eds.), Price Level Measurement. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  8. Diewert, W. E. (1976). “Exact and Superlative Index Numbers.” Journal of Econometrics 4, 115–146.Google Scholar
  9. “Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry.” Annual. Eurostat.Google Scholar
  10. Eichhorn, W. and J. Voeller. (1983). “Axiomatic Foundation of Price Indexes and Purchasing Power Parities,” in W. E. Diewert and C. Montmarquette (eds.), Price Level Measurement. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  11. Eltetö, O and P. Köves. (1964). “On a Problem of Index Number Computation Relating to International Comparisons.” Szatistikai Szemle 42, 507–518.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, F. M. and K. Shell. (1972). The Economic Theory of Price Indexes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, I. (1922). The Making of Index Numbers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Gerschenkron, A. (1952). “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective,” in B. F. Hoselitz (ed.), The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Halvorsen, R. and R. Palmquist. (1980). “The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations.” American Economic Review 70, 474–75.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy, P. E. (1981). “Estimation with Correctly Interpreted Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations.” American Economic Review 71, 801.Google Scholar
  17. Penson, J. B., D. W. Hughes and G. L. Nelson. (1987). “Measurement of Capacity Depreciation Based on Engineering Data.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 35, 321–329.Google Scholar
  18. “Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures.” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. Romain, R., J. B. Penson, and R. Lambert. (1987). “Capacity Depreciation, Implicit Rental Prices, and Investment Demand for Farm Tractors in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 35, 373–78.Google Scholar
  20. Szulc B. (1964). “Indices for Multiregional Comparisons.” Przeglad Statystyczny 3, 239–54.Google Scholar
  21. “SPEL/EU Data 73–97.” (1997). Eurostat.Google Scholar
  22. Voeller, J. (1981). “Purchasing Power Parities for International Comparisons.” Discussion Paper 161, Institut fur Wirtschaftstheorie und Operations Research, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany,.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Eldon Ball
    • 1
  • Jean-Christophe Bureau
    • 2
  • Jean-Pierre Butault
    • 2
  • Richard Nehring
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Dept. of AgricultureEconomic Research ServiceWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.UMR INRA-INAGP Economie Publique BP1GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations