• No results found

Appendix 2. Comparison between output share of Belgium and USA

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Appendix 2. Comparison between output share of Belgium and USA"

Copied!
3
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Appendix 1. Three variants in surplus labour (summarized from Wellisz, 1968)

Keynesian

Malthusian

Structural

Marginal productivity per

worker

>= Average productivity

> 0

= 0 or very low

< Average productivity

Average productivity

>= physical subsistence

level

< physical subsistence

level

>= physical subsistence

< physical subsistence

Removing some workers

Reduce output, not

recommended

Reduce output, not

recommended

No effect in output,

recommended

Causes

Structural misallocation of

labour (dual economy)

Excess population

Declining (lack) of demand

Solution

Public works (to increase

effective demand)

Increase food production

Decrease birth rate

Public works (to create

capital)

Transfer of worker from

agriculture to manufacture

(to increase aggregate

labour productivity)

Appendix 2. Comparison between output share of Belgium and USA

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Belgium agric. output share USA agric.output share

85 87 89 91 93 95 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

(2)

Appendix 3. Efficiency, K/L and Y/L level of developed countries in 1975 and 1990 (intra and shift effect)

Developed countries Developing countries

1975 1990 1975 1990

Countries

Eff. K/La) Y/Lb) Eff. K/La) Y/Lb)

Countries

Eff. K/La) Y/Lb) Eff. K/La) Y/Lb) Norway 0.88 69.08 30.41 0.79 116.27 40.63 Korea 0.9 3.33 4.09 0.49 22.94 11.58 N. Zealand 0.59 64.63 20.29 0.51 72.84 25.8 Poland 0.24 12.47 3.32 0.1 33.59 3.55 Australia 0.7 69.87 24.19 0.64 69.91 31.96 Israel 0.81 39.38 23.54 0.73 61 35.06 UK 0.89 32.01 23.46 0.84 53.72 39.24 Peru 0.6 6.67 4.7 0.52 6.16 3.78 Canada 0.79 65.75 27.37 0.75 82.29 38.57 S. Africa 0.34 16.09 5.83 0.38 20.94 8.33 Sweden 0.98 64.06 33.94 0.96 93.57 49.39 Egypt 0.29 2.07 0.92 0.34 4.05 1.8 Greece 0.5 14.53 7.83 0.49 18.96 9.91 Taiwan 0.6 7.87 5.41 0.66 23.87 16.4 Denmark 0.72 57.87 24.89 0.78 86.95 40.05 Tunisia 0.27 6.61 2.12 0.34 8.62 3.29 USA 0.9 55.95 30.76 0.99 65.06 48.46 Cyprus 0.38 11.02 4.56 0.49 24.94 12.75 Italy 0.65 34.15 17.7 0.75 80.98 38.17 Czehoslo 0.28 17.33 5.21 0.39 17.65 7.32 Austria 0.63 50.6 20.49 0.75 77.63 38.43 Costa Ric 0.22 15.81 3.75 0.34 11.09 4.14 Japan 0.71 36.19 19.76 0.83 59.04 40 Jamaica 0.43 6.52 3.32 0.55 3.64 2.67 Nederland 0.74 63.03 25.61 0.87 94 44.46 India 0.21 1.49 0.46 0.35 1.15 0.56 France 0.76 61.97 26.28 0.9 88.34 46.08 Pakistan 0.17 1.7 0.43 0.32 1.5 0.7 Turkey 0.44 5.36 2.85 0.62 4.73 3.67 Venezuela 0.26 26.57 6.16 0.42 14.82 6.74 Finland 0.73 52.34 24.2 0.96 117.57 49.29 Indonesia 0.5 0.86 0.56 0.68 1.11 1.05 Belgium 0.73 66.71 25.25 1 92.17 51.4 Chile 0.19 13.68 2.74 0.39 8.64 3.81 Colombia 0.32 5.83 2.22 0.58 4.12 3.08 Philippines 0.49 1.77 1.31 0.93 1.19 1.56 Sri Lanka 0.25 1.67 0.62 0.79 0.76 0.76 Average 0.73 50.83 22.66 0.79 74.94 37.38 Average 0.39 9.94 4.06 0.49 13.59 6.45 Notes: Data is arranged vertically on the basis of difference between efficiency 1975 and 1990

a) Gross fixed capital stock per worker (in 1990 USD) b) GDP per worker (in 1990 USD)

Appendix 4. Decomposition of labour productivity growth 1975 – 1990 in developed and developing countries

(intra effect E=1)

Decomposition of growth Decomposition of growth

K/La) 1975 Growthb) L C I K/La) 1975 Growthb) L C I Turkey 4.95 -0.04 1.82 -1.86 0.00 Jamaica 6.86 -2.86 0.84 -3.70 0.00 Greece 14.53 1.18 0.01 1.17 0.00 Venezuela 26.57 -0.42 2.68 -3.52 0.42 New Zealand 65.20 1.92 -0.57 0.05 2.44 Peru 6.32 0.03 -0.52 0.55 0.00 Australia 70.28 1.94 -0.51 -0.04 2.49 Costa Rica 15.81 0.10 2.34 -2.24 0.00

Norway 69.44 1.97 -0.71 0.09 2.59 Poland 12.15 0.38 -5.83 5.45 0.76

Canada 67.92 2.37 -0.29 0.10 2.56 Philippines 1.78 0.81 4.21 -3.40 0.00 Sweden 64.75 2.52 -0.16 0.16 2.53 Colombia 5.85 0.91 3.17 -2.27 0.00

USA 55.12 2.99 0.50 0.20 2.29 Sri Lanka 1.65 1.08 7.73 -6.65 0.00

Denmark 57.97 3.03 0.34 0.26 2.43 India 1.50 1.14 3.41 -2.28 0.00 UK 32.50 3.51 -0.26 1.94 1.83 South Africa 15.01 1.60 0.47 1.13 0.00 France 62.55 3.67 0.99 0.19 2.49 Chile 13.68 1.95 4.48 -2.53 0.00 Netherlands 62.49 3.69 1.01 0.19 2.49 Czechoslovakia 17.34 2.07 1.87 0.21 0.00 Austria 51.38 4.02 1.07 0.48 2.46 Tunisia 6.60 2.43 1.03 1.40 0.00 Japan 35.20 4.21 0.49 1.78 1.94 Israel 41.23 2.46 -0.86 1.09 2.24 Finland 52.33 4.71 1.77 0.47 2.47 Pakistan 1.70 3.19 4.13 -0.94 0.00 Italy 34.45 4.74 0.52 2.09 2.12 Indonesia 0.84 3.24 1.77 1.47 0.00 Belgium 67.46 4.75 2.07 0.12 2.57 Egypt 2.07 3.74 1.25 2.49 0.00 Cyprus 11.36 5.28 -0.11 4.92 0.47 Average 51.09 3.01 0.48 0.43 2.10 Korea 2.85 5.52 -4.84 10.36 0.00 Taiwan, China 7.00 6.44 0.43 6.00 0.00 Average 9.91 1.95 1.38 0.38 0.19

Note Data is arranged vertically on the basis of growth a) Gross fixed capital stock per worker (in 1990 USD)

(3)

Appendix 5. Labour productivity frontier in 1975 and 1990 for E=0.7; E=0.5; E=0.3; and E=0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Capi tal / wor ker (1990 USD) Y / L 19 7 5 & Y / L 19 9 0 Fr on t ier 19 7 5 Fr on t ier 19 9 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Capi t al / wor k er (1990 USD ) Y / L 19 7 5 & Y / L 19 9 0 Fr on t ier 19 7 5 Fr on t ier 19 9 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Capi tal / wor ker (1990 USD) Y / L 19 7 5 & Y / LY / L 19 9 0 Fr on t ier 19 7 5 Fr on t ier 19 9 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Capi tal / wor ker (1990 USD) Y / L 19 7 5 & Y / L 19 9 0 Fr on t ier 19 7 5 Fr on t ier 19 9 0

Appendix 6. Leader countries in labour productivity frontier 1975 and 1990 for E=0.7; E=0.5; E=0.3; and E=0

Leader countries in laour productivity frontier 1975

Intra effect (E=0.7) Intra effect (E=0.5) Intra effect (E=0.3) Intra effect (E=0)

K/L Y/L K/L Y/L K/L Y/L K/L Y/L

Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47 Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47 Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47 Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47

Korea 1971 2.18 3.41 Korea 1971 2.18 3.40 Korea 1971 2.18 3.40 Korea 1971 2.18 3.39

UK 1970 19.60 20.68 UK 1970 19.60 20.68 UK 1970 19.60 20.68 UK 1970 19.60 20.68

UK 1973 27.75 24.42 UK 1973 27.75 24.38 UK 1973 27.75 24.35 UK 1973 27.75 24.29

Sweden 1970 38.81 28.97 Sweden 1970 38.81 28.97 Sweden 1970 38.81 28.97 Sweden 1970 38.81 28.97

Sweden 1971 42.98 30.47 Sweden 1971 42.98 30.42 Sweden 1971 42.98 30.36 USA 1973 47.52 31.76

USA 1973 47.52 31.80 USA 1973 47.52 31.79 USA 1973 47.52 31.78 Sweden 1974 57.45 33.26

Sweden 1974 57.45 33.99 Sweden 1974 57.45 33.78 Sweden 1974 57.45 33.57

Leader countries in laour productivity frontier 1990

Intra effect (E=0.7) Intra effect (E=0.5) Intra effect (E=0.3) Intra effect (E=0)

K/L Y/L K/L Y/L K/L Y/L K/L Y/L

Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47 Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47 Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47 Indonesia 1971 0.46 0.47

Korea 1971 2.18 3.41 Korea 1971 2.18 3.40 Korea 1971 2.18 3.40 Korea 1971 2.18 3.39

UK 1970 19.60 20.68 UK 1970 19.60 20.68 UK 1970 19.60 20.68 UK 1970 19.60 20.68

Belgium 1985 45.80 44.62 Belgium 1985 45.80 44.37 Belgium 1985 45.80 44.12 Belgium 1985 45.80 43.74

Belgium 1989 73.99 50.47 Belgium 1989 73.99 50.20 Belgium 1989 73.99 49.94 USA 1990 64.83 47.68

Belgium 1990 92.91 50.92 Belgium 1990 92.91 50.65 Belgium 1990 92.91 50.39 Belgium 1989 73.99 49.55

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Dummy fixed effect 6 2212 Uitgeverijen van dagbladen DF6 Dummy fixed effect 7 2410 Productie basischemicaliën DF7 Dummy fixed effect 8 2413 Prod. Voedings-

Total panel (unbalanced) observations: 289 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations. Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. corrected) Variable Coefficient

For instance, it is assumed that the residuals are normally distributed, they have a mean of zero and a constant variance across levels of independent variables,

How do you rate the influence of the development of the Pearl River Delta on Hong Kong’s position as gateway to

Table D: Exports by commodity group in Landlocked Developing Countries (UN: Development and Globalization: Facts and

High labour productivity may lead to a higher educational level of the labour force, to a greater openness in trading, higher share of urban population or higher capital

4.3.1 Independent samples t-test hypothesis 1 total sample.

13 Zie Van der Hoeven en Thurik (1986b) voor modelmatige analyses op het gebied van winstvorming in de horeca, waarbij gebruik wordt gemaakt van hetzelfde