期刊文献+

Sustainability of China's Growth Model A Productivity Perspective 被引量:10

Sustainability of China's Growth Model A Productivity Perspective
原文传递
导出
摘要 In the present paper, the debate on China's growth sustainability is first revisited by highlighting the importance of total factor productivity (TFP). China "s TFP performance is then assessed by applying the Jorgensonian aggregate production possibility frontier framework to the latest version of the China lndustry Productivity (CIP) database. We find that of China's 8.9-percent annual GDP growth over the period 1980-2012, 7. 0 percentage points (ppts) could be attributed to the growth of labor productivity and 1.9 ppts to the increase in hours worked. Nevertheless, the labor productivity growth is found to be heavily dependent on capital deepening (5.7) rather than TFP growth (0.8). Notably, the TFP growth turned negative over 2007-2012, which brings into question the sustainability of China's growth. Besides, industries that are less prone to state intervention show faster TFP growth than those controlled by the state. Incorporating the Domar aggregation scheme into our model, we further reveal that two-thirds of the TFP growth originates from within industries and the remainder is attributed to a net factor reallocation effect in which labor plays a positive role, whereas capital appears to behave irrationally. Finally, using a revised Maddison-Wu approach to address the potential flaws in official statistics, we arrive at an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent, or 1.7-ppts slower than the 8.9percent obtained based on the CIP data reconstructed using the official national accounts. In the present paper, the debate on China's growth sustainability is first revisited by highlighting the importance of total factor productivity (TFP). China "s TFP performance is then assessed by applying the Jorgensonian aggregate production possibility frontier framework to the latest version of the China lndustry Productivity (CIP) database. We find that of China's 8.9-percent annual GDP growth over the period 1980-2012, 7. 0 percentage points (ppts) could be attributed to the growth of labor productivity and 1.9 ppts to the increase in hours worked. Nevertheless, the labor productivity growth is found to be heavily dependent on capital deepening (5.7) rather than TFP growth (0.8). Notably, the TFP growth turned negative over 2007-2012, which brings into question the sustainability of China's growth. Besides, industries that are less prone to state intervention show faster TFP growth than those controlled by the state. Incorporating the Domar aggregation scheme into our model, we further reveal that two-thirds of the TFP growth originates from within industries and the remainder is attributed to a net factor reallocation effect in which labor plays a positive role, whereas capital appears to behave irrationally. Finally, using a revised Maddison-Wu approach to address the potential flaws in official statistics, we arrive at an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent, or 1.7-ppts slower than the 8.9percent obtained based on the CIP data reconstructed using the official national accounts.
作者 Harry X. Wu
出处 《China & World Economy》 SCIE 2016年第5期42-70,共29页 中国与世界经济(英文版)
关键词 aggregate production possibility frontier Domar weights government intervention resource reallocation total factor productivity aggregate production possibility frontier, Domar weights, government intervention, resource reallocation, total factor productivity
  • 相关文献

参考文献49

  • 1Adams, F. G. and Y. M. Chen, 1996, "Skepticism about Chinese GDP growth - The Chinese GDP elasticity of energy consumption," Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 231-40.
  • 2Bergson, A., 1961, Real National Income of Soviet Russia Since 1928, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • 3Bosworth, B. and S. M. Collins, 2008, "Accounting for growth: Comparing China and India," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 45-66.
  • 4Cao, J., M. S. Ho, D. W. Jorgenson, R. Ren, L. L. Sun and X. M. Yue, 2009, "Industrial and aggregate measures of productivity growth in China, 1982-2000," The Review of Income and Wealth, Series 55, Special Issue l, pp. 485-513.
  • 5DNA (Department of National Accounts, National Bureau of Statistics of China), 2015, Input- Output Tables of China 2012, Beijing: China Statistical Press.
  • 6Domar, E., 1961, "On the measurement of technological change," Economic Journal, Vol. 71, No. 284, pp. 709-29.
  • 7Garnaut, R. and M. Guonan, 1993, "How rich is China?: Evidence from the food economy," The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, No. 30, pp. 121-46.
  • 8Gerschenkron, A., 1947, "The Soviet indices of industrial production," The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4, pp. 217-26.
  • 9Gerschenkron, A., 1951, A Dollar Index of Soviet Machinery Output, 1927-28 to 1937, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
  • 10Griliches, Z., 1992, "Introduction," in Z. Griliches, ed., Output Measurement in the Service Sectors, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

同被引文献100

引证文献10

二级引证文献34

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部