Search

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 article focuses on the adequacy of the growth record of the American economy in recent years. Within the past several years the question of whether or not the economy is advancing at a rapid enough pace has become a matter of serious interest to the general public as well as the economic specialist. This is true to such an extent that the economy's allegedly inadequate growth rate became one of the major issues in the 1960 presidential election campaign. The question of the adequacy of the growth performance of the American economy has been brought forcefully to public attention from a number of responsible and professionally competent sources. The central question in any discussion of the adequacy of the growth record of the economy is that of criteria. Evidence based upon per capita data rather than growth rates suggests that the economy's performance from 1944 through 1960 was relatively unsatisfactory. Real gains of sizable proportions were recorded in living standards as reflected in per capita consumption outlays, but the primary source of such gains was not the sustained growth iii the economy as a whole, but a large-scale shift in the end-use of the nation's total output. As the 1950's drew to a close, however, the possibilities of further progress in living standards from this particular source were becoming exhausted. The same holds for any future increases in the other major components of the output total, particularly investment outlays. In retrospect, therefore, the era 1945-1960 was primarily one in which the fruits of the economy's massive ware tune surge of growth were adapted to peacetime uses. It was not, an era of satisfactory growth.