Premium
GROWTH ACCOUNTING AND PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT *
Author(s) -
Norsworthy J. R.
Publication year - 1984
Publication title -
review of income and wealth
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.024
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1475-4991
pISSN - 0034-6586
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-4991.1984.tb00554.x
Subject(s) - economics , growth accounting , productivity , total factor productivity , econometrics , production (economics) , capital (architecture) , national accounts , slowdown , productivity model , partial productivity , accounting identity , aggregate (composite) , factors of production , quality (philosophy) , measure (data warehouse) , macroeconomics , accounting information system , accounting , throughput accounting , financial accounting , economic growth , computer science , history , philosophy , materials science , epistemology , database , composite material , archaeology
This paper compares the growth accounting approaches to aggregate productivity measurement and analysis of three major researchers: E. F. Denison, D. W. Jorgenson, and J. W. Kendrick. The investigetors are compared in terms of their treatment of a number of crucial elements, including measurement of output and of capital and labor inputs (including composition or quality changes), total factor productivity growth, economies of scale, and intensity of demand (for output). Judged by the standard of the neoclassical economic theory of production‐the only generally accepted basis for input aggregation‐Denison departs significantly from the production theory framework in his measurement of output and capital input, Kendrick to some degree in his measure of capital input, and Jorgenson not at all. The effects of these departures are illustrated with reference to the recent productivity slowdown. The probable near‐term future utility of growth accounting methods for productivity analysis is assessed, and some related econometric modeling issues are noted.