estimates of labor and total factor productivity by 72 industries in korea (1970-2003) oct 17. 2006...

Estimates of Labor and Total Factor Productivity by 72 industries in Korea (1970-2003)

Oct 17. 2006

Hak K. Pyo, Keun Hee Rhee and Bongchan HaInstitute of Economic Research

Seoul National University

OECD Bern Workshop , October 16-18, 2006

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Data Structure 2.1 Gross Output Data 2.2 Measurement of Capital Input 2.3 Measurement of Labor Input 2.4 Energy, Material, and Service and Input Shares

3. Estimates of Labor Productivity and TFP by 72-industry 3.1 Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector 3.2 Gross Output Growth Accounting and TFP Growth 3.3 Cumulative Contribution of Sectors to TFP growth 3.4 Relations between Labor Productivity and TFP growth

4. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The purpose - To explain the data structure of Korea for the estimation of productivit

ies by industry in KLEMS model - To present preliminary estimates of labor productivity and total factor

productivity (TFP) at reasonably detailed industry level.

We have used 72-sector industrial classification following the guidelines of EU KLEMS project for the future comparability with EU member countries, the United States, and Japan.

An analysis based on detailed industrial classification gives us better views on productivity and growth, which is difficult to grasp in broader industrial classifications.

Economy growth and investment growth

경제성장률과 설비투자 변화율

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

년도

% 설비투자 변화율경제성장률

Average economy growth and average investment growth

평균성장률과 평균설비투자변화율

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

년도

%

평균 설비투자변화율 평균 경제성장률

Gross Output Data

(1) Estimation of Use Tables

- In order to reconcile the National Accounts data to our industrial classification, we have used other data sources, such as Mining & Manufacturing Census and Surveys, Wholesale and Retail Surveys, and so on.

- Since we do not have detailed information on intermediate input structures, we have assumed the same intermediate input structures for the industries belonging to the same category of National Accounts classification.

- As for Input-Output Tables, they have detailed commodity classifications enough to match the 21-commodity classification in National Accounts. However, since they are not annually published, we have used interpolation method for the missing years.

2. Data Structure

Gross Output Data

(2) Estimation of Make and Use Tables for the Missing Years

- We have estimated the Make and Use Tables for the missing years, 1970-1984 and 2003-2004 through a biproportional adjustment methodology, RAS.

- For the years 1970-1984 we have used the 1985 tables as benchmark tables, and for the years 2003-2004 we have used the 2002 tables.

- We have annual series of each industry's gross output, value-added, intermediate input, and so on. However, because we do not have annual series of each commodity's data in Input-Output Tables, we have applied the interpolation method between existing tables and normalized them to the National Accounts data

2. Data Structure

Gross Output Data

(3) Aggregation Issues

- We have applied a simple summation for the Make Table aggregation over commodities under the assumption of the same deflator over all commodities produced in the same industry following Timmer (2005).

- With regard to the aggregation in Use Tables, we have not applied any aggregation technique considering each commodity as different inputs.

2. Data Structure

2. Data Structure

Gross Output Data

(3) Make Tables at Purchase Prices and Use Tables at Basic Prices

Figure 1. Make Table at purchase prices

commodity

industry PYijbas PYj

PYiD

PYiIM

TRiTT iTi

PYipur

2. Data Structure

Gross Output Data

Figure 3. Trend of Real Gross Output (2000 prices)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Trillio

n Won

Measurement of Capital Input

(1) Estimation of Capital Stock

- Estimating Method for 1970-1997:

we have applied the polynomial benchmark year estimation method to estimating depreciation by types of assets only. Thus we have generated net stocks by types of assets first for the period of 1968-97 and then, distributed them over different sectors of industries by using interpolated industrial weights between the respective benchmark years.

- Estimating Method after 1997

we have to estimate capital stocks by a modified perpetual inventory method using 1997 NWS as benchmark estimates .

2. Data Structure

Measurement of Capital Input

(1) Estimation of Capital Stock

- Reconciliation with Database of Pyo (2003)

Since the database of Pyo (2003) covers 10 broad categories of industrial sector together with 28 sub-sectors of Manufacturing, it has been reclassified and reconciled with 72 industry classification using other sources .

2. Data Structure

Table 2. Depreciation Rates of Assets (Unit: %)

before 1978 1978-1987 after 1988

Residential Building 5.5 1.2 3.3

Non-residential Building -6.7 -1.3 3.0

Other Construction 9.7 8.4 1.0

Transportation Vehicles 49.3 28.7 16.9

Machinery 1.1 11.4 9.2

Source : Pyo (2003)

Measurement of Labor Input

(1) data

- For the present study, we have obtained the raw data file of Survey Report on Wage Structure from the Ministry of Labor and Economically Active Population Survey from National Statistical Office for the period of 1980-2003.

- The data are classified by two types of gender (Male and Female), three types of age (below 30, 30-49, and 50 above), and four types of education (middle school and under, high school, college, and university above).

2. Data Structure

Table 3. Classification of Labor Input

Categories

Gender (1) male (2) female

Age (1) below 30 (2) 30-49 (3) above 50

Education (1) middle school and under (2) high school

(3) college (4) university or above

2. Data Structure

Measurement of Labor Input

(2) Estimating Labor Quantity and Quality Inputs

2. Data Structure

Energy, Material, and Service and Input Shares - In order to decompose intermediate inputs into energy (E),

material (M), and service (S) inputs, we have identified coal and lignite, crude petroleum and natural gas, uranium and thorium ores, metal ores, coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel, gas, water, and electricity commodities as energy inputs, both primary commodities and remaining manufacturing commodities as material inputs, and remaining service inputs as service inputs.

- Regarding shares of inputs, we have used compensation of employees as shares of labor inputs and remaining value-added as shares of capital inputs. This method may underestimate the shares of labor input by allocating the compensation of self-employed to the shares of capital input, and this gap would be especially large in primary industry.

3. Estimates of Labor Productivity and TFP by 72-industry

Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (1) The Level of Labor Productivity and its Trend

- The general trend of labor productivity reveals a rising trend but with a remarkable difference between Manufacturing and Service. the catch-up process of Korea has been well-documented by Timmer (1999) and Pyo (2001).

- As observed in Pyo and Ha (2005), the labor productivity level was not reduced during the years (1997-1998) of the Asian Financial Crisis because of IMF-mandated industrial restructuring: the reduced output was matched by reduced employment leaving labor productivity level unaffected.



Figure 4 Trend of labor productivity level <unit: gross output per hour(won)>

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Economy-wide Manufacturing Service



- The relatively sluggish productivity gain in Service sector has been pointed out by IMF in their recent consultation with the Korean authorities as a bottleneck of sustainable growth for Korea. Inklaar, Timmer and van Ark (2006) also pointed out the slower productivity gain of service industries in Europe relative to those in the United States.

3. Estimates of Labor Productivity and TFP by 72-industry Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (2) The growth rates of labor productivity by Sector - The growth rates of labor productivity as summarized in Table 4 and shown in Figure 5 confirm the remarkable difference between Manufacturing and Service sector. Throughout the entire period of

1971-2003, the economy-wide labor productivity has grown at the average rate of 5.59 percent but with the sectoral difference between Manufacturing (6.99 %) and Service (2.91 %). The difference did not shrink but rather has expanded as the process of industrialization continued. For example, the difference in the 1990’s (9.55 % vs. 2.64 %) has been more than doubled since 1970’s (4.01 % vs. 2.15 %).

3. Estimates of Labor Productivity and TFP by 72-industry Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (2) The growth rates of labor productivity by Sector

- The observed difference in both levels and growth rates of labor productivity between Manufacturing and Service can signal the difference in the degree of foreign competition, the proportion of tradable and non-tradable and the degree of domestic competition due to historically different regulatory environments.

- For example, the proportion of public enterprises and their subsidiaries in total output of many service industries such as utilities (electricity, water and gas), transportation and communication is a lot greater than their proportion in Manufacturing so that their productivity improvement could have been sluggish over time. In addition, many non-tradable sectors of service industries such as retail trade, real estate and financial services, hotels and restaurants etc. have been subject to all kinds of regulations such as zoning, sanitary standards and segregated financial market services etc


Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (2) The growth rates of labor productivity by Sector

Table 6 Growth Rates of Labor Productivity by Sector (%)

PeriodEconomy-wide Manufacturing Service

72-'79 4.32 4.01 2.15

80-'89 6.87 6.75 3.77

90-'99 5.54 9.55 2.64

90-'98 5.14 9.01 2.40

99-'03 5.87 8.61 3.33

72-'03 5.59 6.99 2.91


Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector

(2) The growth rates of labor productivity by Sector

Figure 5 The growth rates of labor productivity <unit: log growth rates(%)>

Economy-wide

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03



Manufacturing

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Service

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Figure 5 The growth rates of labor productivity <unit: log growth rates(%)>



Figure 6 Growth Rates of Labor Productivity in Manufacturing (1972-03/ %)

- 10.00

- 5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Airc

raft

and

spa

cecr

aft

Elec

tron

ic v

alve

s an

d tu

bes

Oth

er e

lect

rical

mac

hine

ry a

nd a

ppar

atus

nec

Woo

d an

d pr

oduc

ts o

f w

ood

and

cork

Basi

c m

etal

s

Offi

ce,

acco

untin

g an

d co

mpu

ting

mac

hine

ry

Che

mic

als

excl

udin

g ph

arm

aceu

tical

s

Rubb

er a

nd p

last

ics

prod

ucts

Radi

o an

d te

levi

sion

rec

eive

rs

Scie

ntifi

c in

stru

men

ts

Man

ufac

turin

g ne

c

Oth

er n

on-m

etal

lic m

iner

al p

rodu

cts

Fabr

icat

ed m

etal

pro

duct

s

Text

iles

Mac

hine

ry,

nec

Publ

ishi

ng

Tele

com

mun

icat

ion

equi

pmen

t

Pulp

, pa

per

and

pape

r pr

oduc

ts

Insu

late

d w

ire

Phar

mac

eutic

als

Food

pro

duct

s an

d be

vera

ges

Mot

or v

ehic

les,

tra

ilers

and

sem

i-tr

aile

rs

Wea

ring

appa

rel,

dres

sing

and

dyi

ng o

f fu

r

Cok

e, r

efine

d pe

trol

eum

pro

duct

s an

d nu

clea

r fu

el

Prin

ting

and

repr

oduc

tion

Build

ing

and

repa

iring

of

ship

s an

d bo

ats

Railr

oad

equi

pmen

t an

d tr

ansp

ort

equi

pmen

t ne

c

Leat

her,

leat

her

prod

ucts

and

foo

twea

r

Toba

cco

prod

ucts



(2) The growth rates of labor productivity by Sector

Figure 7 Growth Rates of Labor Productivity in Service (1972-03/ %)

- 40.00

- 30.00

- 20.00

- 10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Wate

r su

pply

Ele

ctr

icity

supply

Fin

ancia

l in

term

edia

tion

Gas

supply

Post

and t

ele

com

mun

ications

Wate

r tr

ansp

ort

Insu

rance a

nd

pensi

on f

undin

g

Inla

nd t

ransp

ort

Sup

port

ing a

nd a

uxili

ary

tra

nsp

ort

activi

tie

s

Activi

ties

of

mem

bers

hip

org

aniz

ations

nec

Lega

l, t

echnic

al and a

dve

rtis

ing

Const

ruction

Activi

ties

rela

ted t

o fi

na

ncia

l in

term

edia

tio

n

Educ

ation

Sew

age a

nd r

efu

se d

isp

osa

l, s

anitation a

nd s

imila

r activi

ties

Renting o

f m

achin

ery

and e

qui

pm

ent

Media

activi

tie

s

Reta

il tr

ade

Rese

arc

h a

nd d

eve

lopm

ent

Oth

er

recre

ati

onal activi

tes

Healt

h a

nd s

ocia

l w

ork

Oth

er

real est

ate

activi

ties

Air t

ransp

ort

Imput

ation o

f ow

ner

occup

ied r

ents

Whole

sale

tra

de a

nd c

om

mis

sion t

rade

Hote

ls a

nd r

est

aur

ants

Sale

, m

ain

tenance a

nd

repair o

f m

oto

r ve

hic

les

an

d m

oto

rcyc

les

Com

put

er

and

rela

ted a

ctivi

ties

Oth

er

bus

iness

activi

ties,

nec

Pub

lic a

dm

in a

nd d

efe

nce

Oth

er

serv

ice a

ctivi

ties

Priva

te h

ous

eh

old

s w

ith

em

plo

yed p

ers

ons

3. Estimates of Labor Productivity and TFP by 72-industry Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (3) Trend of TFP Growth by Sector - The growth rates of TFP by sector are shown in Figure 8. Throughout the entire period 1972-2003, Korean economy experienced about 2 break-points: mid-1970s which was the first oil shock and in

1997 which was the financial crisis. - The difference between two break points can be summarized as follows. During the second half of 1970’s, the growth rate of gross output was not low, but the growth rates of inputs such as

capital(4.56%), labor(1.79%), energy(0.69%), intermediate goods(3.34%) especially, were relatively higher. - Therefore, the growth rates of TFP have been estimated as negative. In case of late 1990’s the negative growth of TFP has been resulted from the shrink of gross output rooted from economic crisis.


Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (3) Trend of TFP Growth by Sector

- In addition we observe that the estimated TFP growth rates in Manufacturing are in general greater than in Service. It maybe due to the fact that an innovation process such as product innovation or process innovation is more sensitive and stronger in manufacturing than in service.

- Also the R&D investment for innovation is in general more intensive in manufacturing than in service. So the growth rates of TFP in Manufacturing seem to be greater than in Service.


Trend of Labor Productivity Level and Growth Rates by Sector (3) Trend of TFP Growth by Sector

Figure 8 The growth rates of TFP (%)

Economy-wide

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03



(3) Trend of TFP Growth by Sector

Figure 8 The growth rates of TFP (%)

Manufacturing

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Service

-6.00

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03


Gross Output Growth Accounting and TFP Growth

Table 9 Gross Output Growth Accounting and TFP growth in economy-wide<unit: log growth rates(%)>

PeriodGross output

Capitalinput

Labor inputEnergyinput

Intermediateinput

Serviceinput

TFPTotal labor

Quantity labor

Qualitylabor

'72-79 9.48 4.56 1.79 1.03 0.76 0.69 3.34 1.13 -2.03

'80-'89 8.36 3.05 0.62 0.28 0.34 0.45 3.18 0.98 0.08

'90-'99 6.43 2.40 0.49 0.19 0.31 0.70 1.64 1.76 -0.56

'90-'98 5.84 2.54 0.49 0.15 0.34 0.63 1.30 1.71 -0.84

'99-'03 7.61 1.11 0.48 0.33 0.14 0.75 2.78 1.62 0.86

'72-'03 7.81 2.98 0.85 0.44 0.41 0.61 2.63 1.32 -0.59

contribution to output growth

'72-79 100.0 48.1 18.9 10.9 8.1 7.3 35.3 11.9 -21.5

'80-'89 100.0 36.5 7.4 3.4 4.0 5.3 38.0 11.8 0.9

'90-'99 100.0 37.3 7.7 2.9 4.8 10.9 25.6 27.3 -8.7

'90-'98 100.0 43.5 8.4 2.5 5.8 10.8 22.4 29.4 -14.4

'99-'03 100.0 14.6 6.3 4.4 1.9 9.9 36.6 21.3 11.4

'72-'03 100.0 38.2 10.9 5.6 5.3 7.8 33.7 17.0 -7.5



Table 10 Gross Output Growth Accounting and TFP growth in manufacturing<unit: log growth rates(%)>

PeriodGross output

Capitalinput


Intermediateinput

Serviceinput

TFPTotal labor

Quantity labor

Qualitylabor

'72-79 15.30 2.41 1.72 1.28 0.43 1.66 8.29 1.17 0.06

'80-'89 10.27 1.68 0.59 0.40 0.19 0.88 5.83 0.80 0.49

'90-'99 6.94 1.20 -0.14 -0.34 0.20 1.19 2.94 1.17 0.58

'90-'98 5.56 1.26 -0.22 -0.44 0.22 1.08 2.17 1.04 0.23

'99-'03 10.11 0.70 0.26 0.16 0.09 1.02 5.26 1.32 1.55

'72-'03 10.18 1.59 0.59 0.35 0.24 1.15 5.33 1.04 0.48


'72-79 100.0 15.8 11.2 8.4 2.8 10.8 54.2 7.6 0.4

'80-'89 100.0 16.3 5.7 3.9 1.8 8.6 56.8 7.8 4.8

'90-'99 100.0 17.3 -2.0 -4.9 2.8 17.2 42.3 16.9 8.4

'90-'98 100.0 22.6 -3.9 -7.9 4.0 19.5 39.0 18.7 4.1

'99-'03 100.0 6.9 2.5 1.6 0.9 10.1 52.1 13.0 15.3

'72-'03 100.0 15.6 5.8 3.4 2.4 11.3 52.3 10.2 4.7



Table 11 Gross Output Growth Accounting and TFP growth in service<unit: log growth rates(%)>

PeriodGross output

Capitalinput


Intermediateinput

Serviceinput

TFPTotal labor

Quantity labor

Qualitylabor

'72-79 7.86 4.77 2.05 1.52 0.54 0.26 1.43 1.36 -2.01

'80-'89 7.92 3.70 1.33 1.11 0.22 0.18 1.52 1.27 -0.08

'90-'99 6.54 3.17 1.28 1.12 0.16 0.37 0.69 2.37 -1.35

'90-'98 6.61 3.37 1.39 1.22 0.17 0.34 0.69 2.40 -1.58

'99-'03 5.87 1.39 0.86 0.68 0.18 0.54 0.73 2.02 0.33

'72-'03 7.22 3.51 1.45 1.17 0.28 0.30 1.14 1.73 -0.92


'72-79 100.0 60.7 26.1 19.3 6.8 3.3 18.1 17.3 -25.6

'80-'89 100.0 46.6 16.8 14.0 2.8 2.3 19.2 16.0 -0.9

'90-'99 100.0 48.5 19.6 17.2 2.5 5.7 10.6 36.3 -20.7

'90-'98 100.0 51.1 21.0 18.4 2.6 5.1 10.5 36.4 -24.0

'99-'03 100.0 23.6 14.7 11.6 3.1 9.3 12.4 34.4 5.6

'72-'03 100.0 48.7 20.1 16.3 3.9 4.2 15.8 23.9 -12.8



Table 12 The investment in IT sector

YearIT Investment (billion won) Growth(%)

1995 15,125.7 -

1996 17,916.0 16.9

1997 19,122.0 6.5

1998 17,099.2 -11.2

1999 23,716.0 32.7

2000 32,190.9 30.6

2001 31,502.0 -2.2

2002 33,143.8 5.1

2003 31,551.8 -4.9

2004 31,391.9 -0.5


Cumulative Contribution of Sectors to TFP growth

- Following Fukao et. al, (2006) we can examine the sectoral contribution of TFP growth in Manufacturing and we can identify what are core sectors for enhancing productivity. As shown in Figure 9, the weight of gross output of the sectors with positive TFP growth is 72.4% while the weight with negative TFP growth is 27.6% during 1972-2003.

- The former are basic metals, chemicals, machinery, textiles, rubber and plastic, fabricated metal, wood, other non metallic mineral, motor vehicles and trailers as non IT sectors, and electronic valves and tubes, office, accounting and computing machinery, telecommunications, radio and TV receivers as IT sectors. The latter are leather and footwear, wearing and apparel, coke and refined petroleum etc.



Figure 9 Cumulative Contribution of sectors to TFP Growth in Economy-wide (1972-2003)

Office, accounting andcomputing machinery

Telecommunication equip

Forestry Computer and relatedactivities

Retail trade Food and beveragesOther recreational activities

Wholesale trade

Health and social work

Other service activities

Media activities

Imputation of owneroccupied rents

Hotels and restaurants

agriculture

Electricity supplyGas supply

Inland transportPost andtelecommunications Electronic valves and

tubesBasic metals

Financial intermediation

Chemicals Other electrical machinery

ConstructionMachinery

Insurence

Water transport

Texiles Rubber and plastics

Wearing apparel

-1.30

-0.80

-0.30

0.20

0.70

1.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00



Figure 10 Cumulative Contribution of sectors to TFP Growth in Manufacturing (1972-2003)

Motor vehicles, trailers

Other non metallic mineral

Radio and TV receivers

Wood

Leather and footwearWearing apparel

Coke, refines petroleum

Food and beverages

Office, accounting andcomputing machinery

Telecommunication

Fabricated metalRubber and plastics

TexilesMachinery

Other eletrical machinery

Chemicals

Eletronic valves and tubes

Basic metals

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0



Figure 11 Cumulative Contribution of sectors to TFP Growth in Service (1972-2003)

Post and telecommunicatios

Financial intermedition

Inland transportConstruction Water transport

Insurance and pentionGas supply

Electricity supply

Hotel and restaurants

Media activities

Imputation of owneroccupied rents

Other service activities

Wholesale trade

Health and social workOther recreational

activities

Retail tradeComputer and related activities

Air transportOther business activities

Legal,technical and advertising

-1.20

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00


Relations between Labor Productivity and TFP growth

Figure 12 Plotting between Sectoral Labor Productivity Growth and TFP Growth (1972-2003, %)

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

-40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

Labor productivity growth

TFP

gro

wth

* In case of EU-KLEMS code, #5,#6,#33,#39,#66#,#72 are excluded because of data insufficiency


Relations between Gross Output Growth and TFP growth

Figure13 Plotting between Sectoral Gross output Growth and TFP Growth (1972-2003, %)

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Gross output growth

TFP

gro

wth

* In case of EU-KLEMS code, #5,#6,#33,#39,#66#,#72 are excluded because of data insufficiency


Relations between Labor Productivity and TFP growth


Relations between Gross Output Growth and TFP growth

Wilcoxon Rank-Sum(Mann-Whitney) Test

This test is used in place of a two sample t test when the populations being compared are not normal.

Null hypothesis: two distributions are the same.

(1)TFP-LP Rank Testn1 n2 u P(two-

tailed)P(one-tailed)

66 66 2178 1* 0.500766*

1* 0.5*

*These values are approximate The two samples are not significantly different(P>=0.05, two-tailed test)

(2)TFP-Gross output Rank Testn1 n2 u P(two-

tailed)P(one-tailed)

66 66 2178 1* 0.500777*

1* 0.5*

*These values are approximate The two samples are not significantly different(P>=0.05, two-tailed test)

4. Conclusion

Throughout the entire period of 1971-2003, the economy-wide labor productivity has grown at the average rate of 5.59 percent but with the sectoral difference between Manufacturing (6.99 %) and Service (2.91 %).

The difference did not shrink but rather has expanded as the process of industrialization continued.

4. Conclusion

The growth rate of economy-wide TFP has been estimated as -0.59 percent. The growth rates of TFP in Manufacturing and Service are estimated as 0.48 percent and -0.92 percent respectively throughout the entire period of 1972-2003.

4. Conclusion

We can identify sectors that have contributed to the growth of economy-wide TFP positively by decomposing relative contribution of each sector to total TFP growth (Y-axis) with each sector’s relative weight of output (X-axis).

Leading sectors in this group include Financial Intermediation and Post and Telecommunications in Service and Basic Metals and Electronic Valves and Tubes in Manufacturing among others.

We also identify sectors with negative contribution to Economy-wide TFP growth such as Agriculture, Hotels and Restaurants, Imputation of owner-occupied housing and Media activities etc.

4. Conclusion

The relations of TFP with labor productivity and output growth can be examined by looking at the scatter diagrams and a regression analysis.

A visual inspection tells us that TFP growth is positively correlated with both labor productivity growth and output growth and TFP-LP relation is stronger than TFP –Output relation. We have adopted an implicit hypotheses that higher LP and output growth induces TFP growth through enhanced human capital and economies of scale.

In both regressions, the coefficients of LP growth and Output Growth are significant. The TFP-LP regression seems more significant than TFP-Output regression.

estimates of labor and total factor productivity by 72 industries in korea (1970-2003) oct 17. 2006...

Documents

tfp growth

total factor productivity

growth rates

economy growth

measurement of labor

gross output growth

gross output data

detailed industry level