Межстрановой анализ отраслевой производительности труда и душевого ВВП в 1991-2008 годах

Zaytsev, Alexander (2013): Межстрановой анализ отраслевой производительности труда и душевого ВВП в 1991-2008 годах.

Abstract

The work presents labor productivity estimates from 1991 to 2008 for 17 countries on industry ISIC. 3 – level (calculations for the whole economy-level last till 2012 year). The group of countries includes USA, Canada, Brazil, Russia, Japan, China, Australia and number of major European econo-mies. The goal is to investigate Russia`s industries comparative progress, productivity gap changes and asses possible sources for technology borrowing. In contrast to previous works analysis captures dy-namics of wider country grouping on more detailed industry level. Productivity is calculated as value added per hour worked for the following industries: agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing (A+B), mining, electricity, gas and water supply (C+E), manufacturing (D), construction (F), wholesale and re-tail trade, hotels and restaurants (G+H), transport (I) and others (J-P). After period of transition Russia has reached own 1991`s level of productivity (per worker) and per capita GDP in 2004 and 2005-2006 years respectively. But if we measure Russia`s productivity or per capita GDP in terms of US levels, the question of reaching 1991 level has no unequivocal answer. It depends on preferred estimation methodology of catching up development, more precisely, on way of converting productivity and per capita GDP to common currency: use general accepted constant prices and constant PPP methodology (as in ((Maddison, 1995) and OECD, BLS USA, PWT calculations), or use current (benchmark) PPPs (WB data) to asses relative (to US) performance of Russia. Reasons of faster per capita GDP growth comparing to labor productivity in Russia in 2000s are explained. In 2008 productivity (per hour) gap between Russia and US was approximately threefold, com-paring with European countries – twofold. Sectoral productivity analysis shows that such a differences in some industries are even greater: up to 4 times in agriculture and transportation comparing with US and 13.5 times in mining and energy sectors (C+E I.S.I.C.) comparing with Norway. Such productivity gaps are the evidence of technological weakness of Russian economy, but also it implies the possibility of catching up by means of technology borrowing. Perspective sources for technology borrowing are identified for Russia`s industries. To asses Russia`s gap in agricultural efficiency and estimate perspective sources for technology borrowing, more detailed comparative analysis is done using indicators such as output per worker, output per hectare of arable land, labor intensity (workers per hectare of arable land), capital intensity and others.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: International comparisons of sectoral labor productivity and per capita GDP in 1991-2008 period
• Language: Russian
• Keywords: sectoral labor productivity, per capita GDP dynamics, international comparisons, productivity gap, productivity ranking, catching-up effect, technology borrowing, value added, hours worked, PPP, agricultural productivity, industry efficiency
• Subjects: J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor > J24 - Human Capital ; Skills ; Occupational Choice ; Labor Productivity; N - Economic History > N3 - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy > N30 - General, International, or Comparative; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O47 - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth ; Aggregate Productivity ; Cross-Country Output Convergence; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O5 - Economywide Country Studies > O57 - Comparative Studies of Countries

References

Бессонов В.А., Гимпельсон В.Е., Кузьминов Я.И., Ясин Е.Г. Производительность труда и факторы долгосрочного раз-вития российской экономики. ГУ ВШЭ. М.: 2009.

Волчкова Н.А. Новая география торговли России // Экономический вестник о вопросах переходной экономики “Beyond Transition”. 2007. №16, с. 23.

Гнидченко А.А. Новый метод оценки структуры и базы экспортного потенциала // Доклад на Конференции молодых ученых Второго Российского экономического конгресса, г. Суз-даль. 2013. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43691/1/MPRA_paper_43691.pdf

Завадский М. Первоначальное накопление технологий // Эксперт. 2012. №12.

Зайцев А.А. Региональная диагностика и отраслевой анализ производительности труда// «Федерализм», 2013, №1(69), стр. 57-74.

Кондратьев В.Б., Куренков Ю.В. Проблемы повышения эффективности российской эконо-мики // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2008. № 12. С. 34-43.

Маккинзи. Эффективная Россия. Производительность как фундамент роста. 2009.

Полтерович В.М. О стратегии догоняющего развития России. Экономическая наука со-временной России, 2007, № 3 (38), 17-23.

Полтерович В.М. Элементы теории реформ. М.: Экономика. 2007.

Benedictow, A., Fjærtoft, D.,Løfsnæs, O. Oil dependency of the Russian economy: An econo-metric analysis // journal Economic Modelling. Volume 32, 2013. pp. 400-428. http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp617.pdf

Broadberry S. How Did the United States and Germany Overtake Britian? A Sectoral Analysis of Comparative Productivity Levels, 1870–1990// The Journal of Economic History, 1998, vol. 58, issue 02, pages 375-407.

Maddison A. Monitoring the World Economy, 1820-1992. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1995.

Milanovic В. Global Inequality Recalculated The Effect of New 2005 PPP Estimates on Global In-equality// Policy Research Working Paper 5061. World Bank. Sept. 2009.

Ackland, R., Dowrick, S., Freyens, B. Measuring Global Poverty: Why PPP Methods Matter // Draft Paper presented on Conference of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, 2004.

Ackland, R., Dowrick, S., Freyens, B. Measuring Global Poverty: Why PPP Methods Matter // The Review of Economics and Statistics, №95(3): 813–824. July 2013.

Deaton, А., Heston A. Understanding PPPs and PPP-based national accounts // Paper presented at CRIW-NBER Summer Workshop (July 14-15, 2008). Nov. 2009.

Gray S., Gust C., Hofman D., Kim D., Oura D. IMF Country Report No. 12/218. Russia federation: Selected Issues. Aug. 2012. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=26149.0

Hausmann R., Hwang J., Rodrik D. What You Export Matters // National Bureau of Economic Research. 2005. Working Paper 11905.

Hausmann R., Klinger B. Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space // John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 2006. Research Working Paper RWP06–041.

Hausmann R., Klinger B. The Structure of the Product Space and the Evolution of Comparative Advantage // Center for In-ternational Development at Harvard University. 2007. Working Paper 146.

Isaksson, A. World Productivity Database: A Technical Description // Research and Statistics Staff Working Paper 10/2007 (UNIDO:Vienna).

Isaksson, A. The UNIDO World Productivity Database: An Overview// International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, 2009, Vol. 19

OECD methodology comments. http://www.oecd.org/std/prices-ppp/1961296.pdf

Oomes, N. and O. Dynnikova, 2006, “The Utilization-Adjusted Output Gap: Is the Russian Econ-omy Overheating?” IMF Working Paper WP/06/68 (Washington: International Monetary Fund). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0668.pdf

Polterovich, V., Tonis, A. Innovation and Imitation at Various Stages of Development: A Model with Capital. M. : NES working paper#2005/048.

Sharpe A., Arsenault J., Harrison P. The Relationship between Labour Productivity and Real Wage Growth in Canada and OECD Countries // Centre for the study of living standards. 2008.

Sharpe А. Productivity concepts,trends and prospects: an overview // The review of economic performance and social progress. 2002. С. 3 (33).

Solow R. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 1957.