Search

Understanding the nature of structural change and the sources of economic growth of an economy, especially the relative importance of different industries, is essential for policy-making. This paper estimates industry contribution to economic growth in both Canada and the United States. It argues that industry contribution should be evaluated on the basis of the performance of an industry in terms of creating economic value relative to other industries. In particular, it calls for the quantity and the price effects, which is consistent with real GDP in the chained-Fisher index that values the industry more when its price rises and less when its price declines. This is an important departure from the traditional methodologies that consider only quantity effect. This paper shows that the contribution from demand-driven industries is significantly more than the finding based on traditional thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radical changes, up and down, have taken place in the estimates of growth in total factor productivity in the U.S. made by different economists, or by the same economists at different times. If such estimates provide ‘some sort of measure of our ignorance,’ as Abramovitz once put it, we seemed to be a lot less ignorant in 1927 (when Cobb and Douglas published their famous paper), or in 1967 (when Jorgenson and Griliches published theirs), than we were in the years between (when Schmookler, Abramovitz, Kendrick, and Denison completed their studies), or than we are today (when we have, or will soon have, revised estimates by Denison and by Kendrick, and new estimates by Christensen and Jorgenson). Viewed in this perspective, many questions may be raised about the significance of the current estimates that something like a third or more of the rate of increase in U.S. national output is ‘due’ to increase in productivity, as well as about the concepts, data, and methods that underlie the estimates. A list of particular subjects worth considering for research is given and each is briefly discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the sources of economic growth in Japan and in compare the results with those in the U. S. and Europe as studied by E. F. Denison. The method used by Denison is followed as far as possible. The character of this paper is of fact finding, and the interpretation of results or the originality of methodology is not dealt with here. The results may be summarized as follows. (1) Japan's growth rate is two times that of Europe and three times that of the United States. (2) The contributions of labor, capital, and the residual to economic growth are all higher for Japan than for the U. S. or Europe. (3) Factors which account for the higher contribution of labor to economic growth are (a) the higher rate of increase in employment, (b) less shortening of working hours, and (c) improved age and sex composition. (4) Factors which account for the higher contribution of capital to economic growth are a higher rate of increase in capital input and the high elasticity of production with respect in capital. (5) Other notable points include: (a) the contribution of education is lower for Japan; (b) the capital-labor ratio in Japan increased remarkably; (c) capital's share of national income is higher; and (d) 60% of Japan's economic growth is accounted for by the residual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a part of a larger study of economic growth in Canada, following the methods developed by Edward Denison in his book The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the publication Why Growth Rates Differ. The new material in this paper relates to Canada and the Canadian/U.S. comparison, while the material on Northwest Europe is drawn from the Brookings study. The present paper sets out the results to date on the differences in real output per employed person between Canada and the United States for one year, 1960. At this stage in our research the results indicate that the level of real output per employed person in Canada was about 20 per cent lower than in the United States in that year. On the basis of historical output data, it would appear that this margin of difference in Canadian/U.S. product levels has persisted throughout the present century. The central part of this paper examines the significance of differences in factor inputs in Canada and the United States and their contribution to the difference in income. The level of inputs per employed person in Canada accounts for only about 2 percentage points of the income difference between Canada and the United States. These results indicate that the overwhelming part of the difference in output per employed person between the two countries reflects the differences in output in relation to total factor inputs, rather than the magnitude of other factor inputs used in combination with labour. This result is consistent with earlier studies by Denison and others which have indicated the crucial importance of output in relation to total factor inputs, both in output growth over time and intercountry comparisons of output level. The body of the paper can give only brief attention to the numerous conceptual and statistical questions that arise in such a wide-ranging study, and the authors do not pretend to have tackled, let alone resolved, all of the wide range of problems related to this study. Nor do they claim any high degree of precision for the results, especially in the light of the statistical limitations of the basic data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has become almost a cliché that measured growth in the U.S. is being overstated. The classic on the subject is by Mishan, who argues persuasively that the (uncounted) externalities from production in industrialized economies are overtaking the production which these economies are counting. But externalities are not the only problems in measuring economic activity and economic growth. Two other problems of equal importance, but more amenable to measurement, are the distinction between final and intermediate production, and the quantification of nonmarket productive behavior. In this paper, we concentrate on one aspect of the measurement of nonmarket behavior—the value of production at home by housewives. Specifically, we will present estimates of the value of home based nonmarket production by housewives. These estimates will then be used to supplement various national product aggregates in order to calculate more accurate growth rates for the U.S. economy. We find that the value of nonmarket production by married women during the 1960's has averaged approximately thirty percent of the GNP and close to 40 percent of the national income. The inclusion of the nonmarket work of housewives in GNP would reduce the measured rate of growth of real GNP per potential worker by about ten percent, the exact amount depending on how the value of nonmarket work is estimated. Our estimates indicate a reduction in the absolute rate of growth of almost 0.25 percent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How accurately do we measure the external deficit of the U.S. or the surplus of Japan? If checked at the global level, statistics on international trade and finance show large discrepancies. Such global statistical discrepancies hamper the analysis and understanding of world economic developments. An accounting framework--labelled World Accounting Matrix (WAM)--is proposed to cross-check the statistical consistency of commodity flows, international payments and internal balances across countries. The framework is applied to data for 1990. To obtain global consistency, substantial adjustments had to be made to the estimates of the external balances of the U.S. and Japan. The implications for global modelling work are potentially vast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considerable attention has been devoted in the past to the methodological issues involved in the measurement and explanation of economic growth. Following the method pioneered by Denison and applied by him to the United States and Western Europe, comparative studies have been made of various other countries; that for Japan is of special interest. The present paper extends the analysis to the Soviet Union. In order to preserve comparability, the analysis follows the Denison methodology exactly, and compares the results with those for the United States, Northwest Europe, and Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]