世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

In this book, Andrew Harvey sets out to provide a unified and comprehensive theory of structural time series models. Unlike the traditional ARIMA models, structural time series models consist explicitly of unobserved components, such as trends and seasonals, which have a direct interpretation. As a result the model selection methodology associated with structural models is much closer to econometric methodology. The link with econometrics is made even closer by the natural way in which the models can be extended to include explanatory variables and to cope with multivariate time series. From the technical point of view, state space models and the Kalman filter play a key role in the statistical treatment of structural time series models. The book includes a detailed treatment of the Kalman filter. This technique was originally developed in control engineering, but is becoming increasingly important in fields such as economics and operations research. This book is concerned primarily with modelling economic and social time series, and with addressing the special problems which the treatment of such series poses. The properties of the models and the methodological techniques used to select them are illustrated with various applications. These range from the modellling of trends and cycles in US macroeconomic time series to to an evaluation of the effects of seat belt legislation in the UK.

Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter

Why do growth rates differ? This paper surveys the recent empirical literature on economic growth, starting with a discussion of stylized facts, data problems, and statistical methods. Six research questions are emphasized, drawing on growth and convergence research. In answering these questions, the paper argues that efficiency has grown at different rates across countries, casting doubt on neoclassical models in which technology is a public good. The latter half of the paper rounds up a variety of findings before providing answers to all six questions, including a short summary of how differences in growth rates arise.

The New Growth Evidence

The East Asian miracle: Economic growth and public policy: By the World Bank. (New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank, 1993. 389 pp. $19.95, paper.)

After World War II a select number of countries outside Japan and the West-those that Alice Amsden calls "the rest"-gained market share in modern industries and altered global competition. By 2000, a great divide had developed within "the rest", the lines drawn according to prewar manufacturing experience and equality in income distribution. China, India, Korea and Taiwan had built their own national manufacturing enterprises that were investing heavily in R&D. Their developmental states had transformed themselves into champions of science and technology. By contrast, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico had experienced a wave of acquisitions and mergers that left even more of their leading enterprises controlled by multinational firms. The developmental states of Mexico and Turkey had become hand-tied by membership in NAFTA and the European Union. Which model of late industrialization will prevail, the "independent" or the "integrationist," is a question that challenges the twenty-first century.

http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/347405/mod_resource/content/1/Amsden%20Rise%20of%20the%20Rest%20caps%2067.pdf

The Rise of "The Rest": Challenges to the West from Late-Industrializing Economies

This article surveys the recent empirical literature on total factor productivity (TFP) growth in East Asia, and the debate about the sources of growth in the region. It is concluded that: (i) the main merit of this literature is that it has helped focus the attention of scholars on the growth process of East Asia; (ii) the theoretical problems underlying the notion of TFP are so significant that the whole concept should be seriously questioned; (Hi) the TFP growth estimates for the region vary significantly, even for the same country and time period; and (iv) research on growth in East Asia based on the estimation of TFP growth is an activity subject to decreasing returns. If we are to advance in understanding how East Asia grew during the last 30 years we need new avenues of research.

/pdf/total-factor-productivity-growth-in-east-asia-a-critical-8l62o8fuat.pdf

Total factor productivity growth in East Asia : a critical survey

This paper surveys the theoretical literature on aggregation of production functions. The objective is to make neoclassical economists aware of the insurmountable aggregation problems and their implications. We refer to both the Cambridge capital controversies and the aggregation conditions. The most salient results are summarized, and the problems that economists should be aware of from incorrect aggregation are discussed. The most important conclusion is that the conditions under which a well-behaved aggregate production function can be derived from micro production functions are so stringent that it is difficult to believe that actual economies satisfy them. Therefore, aggregate production functions do not have a sound theoretical foundation. For practical purposes this means that while generating GDP, for example, as the sum of the components of aggregate demand (or through the production or income sides of the economy) is correct, thinking of GDP as GDP=F(K, L), where K and L are aggregates of capital and labor, respectively, and F(•) is a well-defined neoclassical function, is most likely incorrect. Likewise, thinking of aggregate investment as a well-defined addition to ‘capital’ in production is also a mistake. The paper evaluates the standard reasons given by economists for continuing to use aggregate production functions in theoretical and applied work, and concludes that none of them provides a valid argument.

/pdf/aggregation-in-production-functions-what-applied-economists-5anfuvj922.pdf

Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know

https://levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_616.pdf

Product complexity and economic development

This paper provides a working definition of what the middle-income trap is. We start by defining four income groups of GDP per capita in 1990 PPP dollars: low-income below $2,000; lower-middle-income between $2,000 and $7,250; upper-middle-income between $7,250 and $11,750; and high-income above $11,750. We then classify 124 countries for which we have consistent data for 1950–2010. In 2010, there were 40 low-income countries in the world, 38 lower-middle-income, 14 upper-middle-income, and 32 high-income countries. Then we calculate the threshold number of years for a country to be in the middle-income trap: a country that becomes lower-middle-income (i.e., that reaches $2,000 per capita income) has to attain an average growth rate of per capita income of at least 4.7 percent per annum to avoid falling into the lower-middle-income trap (i.e., to reach $7,250, the upper-middle-income threshold); and a country that becomes upper-middle-income (i.e., that reaches $7,250 per capita income) has to attain an average growth rate of per capita income of at least 3.5 percent per annum to avoid falling into the upper-middle-income trap (i.e., to reach $11,750, the high-income level threshold). Avoiding the middle-income trap is, therefore, a question of how to grow fast enough so as to cross the lower-middle-income segment in at most 28 years, and the upper-middle-income segment in at most 14 years. Finally, the paper proposes and analyzes one possible reason why some countries get stuck in the middle-income trap: the role played by the changing structure of the economy (from low-productivity activities into high-productivity activities), the types of products exported (not all products have the same consequences for growth and development), and the diversification of the economy. We compare the exports of countries in the middle-income trap with those of countries that graduated from it, across eight dimensions that capture different aspects of a country’s capabilities to undergo structural transformation, and test whether they are different. Results indicate that, in general, they are different. We also compare Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines according to the number of products that each exports with revealed comparative advantage. We find that while Korea was able to gain comparative advantage in a significant number of sophisticated products and was well connected, Malaysia and the Philippines were able to gain comparative advantage in electronics only.

https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_715.pdf

Tracking the Middle-income Trap: What Is It, Who Is in It, and Why?

The Cobb-Douglas production function is still today the most ubiquitous form in theoretical and empirical analyses of growth and productivity The estimation of the parameters of aggregate production functions is central to much of today's work on growth, technological change, productivity, and labor This paper has taken up Samuelson's [1979] invitation to verify empirically his claim that all the regression of the Cobb-Douglas [1928] production function does is to reproduce the income accounting identity according to which value added equals the sum of the wage bill plus total profits This paper concludes that Samuelson was right, and believes that this argument has very serious implications for today's work in macroeconomics

/pdf/a-theory-of-production-1-the-estimation-of-the-cobb-douglas-yj4confdl3.pdf

Jesus Felipe

Papers

Total factor productivity growth in East Asia : a critical survey

Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know

Product complexity and economic development

Tracking the Middle-income Trap: What Is It, Who Is in It, and Why?

"a theory of production" 1 the estimation of the cobb-douglas function: a retrospective view