Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries

This paper analyzes productivity growth in seventeen OECD countries over the period 1979-88. A nonparametric programming method (activity analysis) is used to compute Malmquist productivity indexes. These are decomposed into two component measures, namely, technical change and efficiency change. The authors find that U.S. productivity growth is slightly higher than average, all of which is due to technical change. Japan's productivity growth is the highest in the sample with almost half due to efficiency change. Copyright 1994 by American Economic Association.

[1]  W. Baumol.  Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-run Data Show , 1985 .

[2]  R. Banker.  Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis , 1984 .

[3]  A. Deaton,et al.  The Distance Function in Consumer Behaviour with Applications to Index Numbers and Optimal Taxation , 1979 .

[4]  I. Fisher,et al.  The making of index numbers , 1967 .

[5]  R. Färe,et al.  The measurement of efficiency of production , 1985 .

[6]  R. Solow.  TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION , 1957 .

[7]  S. Afriat.  Efficiency Estimation of Production Function , 1972 .

[8]  Paul W. Bauer,et al.  Decomposing TFP growth in the presence of cost inefficiency, nonconstant returns to scale, and technological progress , 1990 .

[9]  M. Farrell.  The Measurement of Productive Efficiency , 1957 .

[10]  Rolf Färe,et al.  Fundamentals of production theory , 1988 .

[11]  Edward N. Wolff,et al.  Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Reply , 1988 .

[12]  Walter Diewert,et al.  Exact and superlative index numbers , 1976 .

[13]  Hans Bjurek,et al.  Essays on efficiency and productivity change with applications to public service production , 1994 .

[14]  M. Abramovitz.  Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind , 1986, The Journal of Economic History.

[15]  Jean-Paul Chavas,et al.  A Non-parametric Analysis of Productivity: The Case of U.S. and Japanese Manufacturing , 1990 .

[16]  S. Dowrick,et al.  OECD Comparative Economic Growth 1950-85: Catch-Up and Convergence , 1989 .

[17]  De Long,et al.  Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Comment , 1988 .

[18]  R. Shepherd.  Theory of cost and production functions , 1970 .

[19]  Bert M. Balk,et al.  Malmquist Productivity Indexes and Fisher Ideal Indexes: Comment , 1993 .

[20]  Edward N. Wolff,et al.  Productivity and American Leadership: The Long View , 1989 .

[21]  W. Diewert.  Fisher ideal output, input, and productivity indexes revisited , 1992 .

[22]  A. Maddison,et al.  Phases of capitalist development , 1983 .

[23]  S. Dowrick.  Sectoral change, catching up and slowing down: OECD post-war economic growth revisited , 1989 .

[24]  S. Perelman,et al.  Productivity growth, technological progress and R&D in OECD industrial activities , 1990 .

[25]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  MULTILATERAL COMPARISONS OF OUTPUT, INPUT, AND PRODUCTIVITY USING SUPERLATIVE INDEX NUMBERS* , 1982 .

[26]  R. Summers,et al.  The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1987 , 1991 .