Measuring productivity growth when technological change is biased - A new index and an application to UK agriculture

Agricultural Economics

Volumn 31, Issue 2-3 SPEC. ISS., 2004, Pages 285-295

  Bailey, Alastair ^a   Irz, Xavier ^b   Balcombe, Kelvin ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Latent variables; Technological change bias; TFP; UK agriculture

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION; INDEX METHOD; MEASUREMENT METHOD; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE;

EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE; WORLD;

EID: 9644302792     PISSN: 01695150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.agecon.2004.09.020     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Ahearn, M., Yee, J., Ball, E., Nehring, R., 1998. Agricultural productivity in the United States, USDA-ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 740, in press.
2. K. Balcombe, A. Bailey, J. Morrison, G. Rapsomanikis, and C. Thirtle Stochastic biases in technical change in South African agriculture Agrekon 39 4 2000 495 503
3. K. Balcombe, A. Bailey, and J. Morrison Stochastic biases in technical change in US agriculture: a bootstrap approach Can. J. Agric. Econ. 50 2002 67 83
4. R.G. Chambers Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach 1988 Cambridge University Press p. 219
5. J.S. Clark, and C.E. Youngblood Estimating duality models with biased technical change: a time series approach Am. J. Agric. Econ. 74 1992 353 360
6. P. Diamond, D. McFadden, and M. Rodriguez Measurement of the elasticity of factor substitution and bias of technical change M. Fuss D. MacFadden Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications vol. 2 1978 Contribution to Economic Analysis North Holland
7. J. Felipe, and J.S.L. McCombie Biased technical change, growth accounting, and the conundrum of the East Asian miracle J. Comp. Econ. 29 2001 542 565
8. C.E. Ferguson Neoclassical theory of technical progress and relative factor shares South. Econ. J. 34 4 1968 490 504
9. C.E. Ferguson Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution 1969 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
10. J. Hicks The Theory of Wages first ed. 1932 Macmillan and Co. London
11. Holding, J., Thirtle, C.G., 2002. Productivity of UK Agriculture - Causes and Constraints, Final Report on Project No. ER0001/3, DEFRA, UK.
12. Hsieh, C., 2000. Measuring Biased Technological Change. Working paper available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/∼chsieh/.
13. Y. Khatri, C. Thirtle, and R. Townsend Testing the induced innovation hypothesis: a third order cost function approach applied to UK agriculture Econ. Innovation New Technol. 6 1998 1 28
14. D.K. Lambert, and J.S. Shonkwiler Factor bias under stochastic technical change Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77 1995 578 590
15. G.S. Maddala, and I-M. Kim Unit Roots, Cointegration and Structural Change 1998 Cambridge University Press p. 470
16. Murgai, R., 1999. The Green Revolution and the Productivity Paradox - Evidence from the Indian Punjab. World Bank Working Paper, World Bank.
17. R. Murgai The green revolution and the productivity paradox - evidence from the Indian Punjab Agric. Econ. 25 2001 199 209
18. R. Nelson, and H. Pack The asian miracle and modern growth theory Econ. J. 109 1999 416 436
19. Rodrik, D., 1997. TFPG Controversies, Institutions, and Economic Performance in East Asia. NBER Working Paper 5914, National Bureau of Economic Research.
20. R.M. Solow Technical change and the aggregate production function Rev. Econ. Stat. 39 1957 312 320
21. R.F. Townsend, Y. Khatri, and C. Thirtle Biases of technical change in South African agriculture: a cost function approach J. Stud. Econ. Econometrics 22 1998 15 27