Search

Using cross-country panel data, this study identifies and discusses major factors contributing to China's strong growth in the past four decades. China's low initial per capita income relative to its own long-run potential, combined with sound policy factors including a high investment rate, strong human capital, high trade openness and improved institutions, enabled the economy to converge with advanced economies in terms of income level. The shift-share analysis with industry-level data shows that strong labour productivity growth in the manufacturing sector largely contributed to China's overall labour productivity growth. Although labour reallocation from agriculture to the services sector made a positive contribution to aggregate labour productivity growth, labour productivity growth in the services sector itself was negative over the 1980-2010 period. China's average potential GDP growth is predicted to decline significantly in the coming decade, to 5%-6% and fall further to 3%-4%-due to the convergence effect and structural problems-unless China substantially upgrades its institutions and policy factors and improves productivity, particularly in its services sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As well‐known, the canonical Neo‐Kaleckian growth model fails to reconcile actual and normal rates of utilization in equilibrium. Some recent contributions revive an old proposal for solving this problem—making the normal rate of utilization an endogenous variable that converges to the actual utilization rate—justifying it with new, micro‐founded premises. We argue that these new justifications for the convergence of normal to actual utilization do not stand closer scrutiny. First, the proposed microeconomic model relies on various restrictive assumptions, some of which are mutually inconsistent. Second, the derivation of the macroeconomic adjustment mechanism from the microeconomic analysis involves a logical leap that can be justified only by a very arbitrary assumption with little economic justification. Finally, we discuss the way in which this mechanism has been incorporated into the Neo‐Kaleckian growth model by proposers of this approach. We show that, even if one puts aside, for the sake of argument, the first two points, the existence of autonomous components of demand is sufficient to invalidate the resulting macroeconomic model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]