IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v61y1985i4p507-526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mesure de la productivité : la méthode de Divisia

Author

Listed:
  • Ouellette, Pierre

    (C.R.D.E., Université de Montréal)

  • Lasserre, Pierre

    (C.R.D.E., Université de Montréal)

Abstract

We survey and synthetize the literature on the measurement of technical progress by the method of Divisia. The approach is first presented under a number of crucial simplifying assumptions. Then we relax those assumptions to allow for non constant returns, the presence of quasi-fix factors of production, and the absence of perfect competition. This is followed by a discussion on the limits of the method and on some of the ways those limits be overcome. Cet article constitue un survol de la littérature portant sur la mesure du progrès technique par la méthode de Divisia. Dans un premier temps, la méthode est exposée en posant a priori certaines hypothèses simplificatrices. Dans un deuxième temps, ces hypothèses sont mises de côté de façon à englober le cas des firmes en présence de rendements non unitaires, de facteurs quasi fixes et en l’absence de concurrence parfaite. Le tout est suivi d’une discussion sur les limites de la méthode et de la façon dont on peut envisager de les dépasser.

Suggested Citation

  • Ouellette, Pierre & Lasserre, Pierre, 1985. "Mesure de la productivité : la méthode de Divisia," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 61(4), pages 507-526, décembre.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:61:y:1985:i:4:p:507-526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/601350ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ouellette, P. & Lasserre, P., 1984. "Mesure du Progres Technique: Theories et Methodes," Cahiers de recherche 8425, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    2. Erwin Diewert, 2000. "The Challenge of Total Factor Productivity," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 1, pages 45-52, Fall.
    3. Sato, Ryuzo, 1970. "The Estimation of Biased Technical Progress and the Production Function," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 11(2), pages 179-208, June.
    4. Nelson, Richard R, 1981. "Research on Productivity Growth and Productivity Differences: Dead Ends and New Departures," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1029-1064, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guyomard, H. & Tavéra, C., 1990. "Technical change and agricultural supply-demand analysis problems of measurement and problems of interpretation," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 26.
    2. Charles Dufour & Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry, 1995. "Regulation and Productivity in the Quebec Manufacturing Sector," CIRANO Working Papers 95s-12, CIRANO.
    3. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2001. "Productivité et réglementation environnementale: une analyse de l'hypothèse de Porter," Cahiers de recherche 0107, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    4. Sofiane Ghali & Sami Rezgui, 2008. "FDI Contribution to Technical Efficiency in the Tunisian Manufacturing Sector," Working Papers 421, Economic Research Forum, revised 06 Jan 2008.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elias Kourliouros & George Korres & Emmanuel Marmaras & George Tsobanoglou, 2006. "Economic Geography and Regional Growth: An Empirical Evidence From Greece," ERSA conference papers ersa06p30, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Pierre J. Tremblay, 1998. "Informal Thinkering: How Is It Important?," CIRANO Working Papers 98s-13, CIRANO.
    3. Ryuzo Sato & Tamaki Morita, 2009. "Quantity Or Quality: The Impact Of Labour Saving Innovation On Us And Japanese Growth Rates, 1960–2004," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 60(4), pages 407-434, December.
    4. Liu, Lili, 1991. "Entry-exit, learning, and productivity change : evidence from Chile," Policy Research Working Paper Series 769, The World Bank.
    5. Gilles Bourque & Pierre Mohnen & Thijs Ten Raa, 1996. "Mesures de la croissance de la productivité dans un cadre d'équilibre général : L'économie du Québec entre 1978 et 1984," CIRANO Working Papers 96s-11, CIRANO.
    6. Beaulieu, Anne & Patry, Michel & Raynauld, Jacques, 1989. "L’analyse de la productivité des transporteurs aériens canadiens dans les années soixante-dix : pour un autre plan de vol," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 65(2), pages 183-207, juin.
    7. Sanjaya Lall, 1996. "Understanding Technology Development," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Learning from the Asian Tigers, chapter 2, pages 27-58, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Lapid, Dennis D., 1994. "Appliance Industry," Research Paper Series RPS 1994-05, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    9. Nien-Huei Jiang, 2000. "Information Spillover and Economic Development," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0030, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    10. Giovanni Bonifati, 2002. "Produzione, investimenti e produttivitˆ. Rendimenti crescenti e cambiamento strutturale nellÕindustria manifatturiera americana (1960-1994)," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 55(217), pages 19-54.
    11. Zoltán J. Ács & Pontus Braunerhjelm & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 7, pages 129-144, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Saon Ray, 2014. "What Explains the Productivity Decline in Manufacturing in the Nineties in India?," Working Papers id:6280, eSocialSciences.
    13. Patalinghug, Epictetus, 2001. "A Review of the Components of the Medium-Term National Action Agenda for Productivity (MNAAP) 2000-2004," Research Paper Series RPS 2001-02, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    14. Zhou, Xiaoxiao & Pan, Zixuan & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Song, Malin, 2020. "Directed technological progress driven by diversified industrial structural change," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 112-129.
    15. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    16. Wintjes, R. & Douglas, D. & Fairburn, J. & Hollanders, H. & Pugh, G., 2014. "Beyond product innovation; improving innovation policy support for SMEs in traditional industries," MERIT Working Papers 2014-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Giulio Bottazzi & Giovanni Dosi & Nadia Jacoby & Angelo Secchi & Federico Tamagni, 2010. "Corporate performances and market selection: some comparative evidence," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(6), pages 1953-1996, December.
    18. Azza El-Shinnawy, 2010. "Trends of Total Factor Productivity in Egypt’s Pharmaceutical Industry: Evidence from the Nonparametric Malmquist Index Approach," Working Papers 524, Economic Research Forum, revised 05 Jan 2010.
    19. Li, Chengming & Huo, Peng & Wang, Zeyu & Zhang, Weiguang & Liang, Feiyan & Mardani, Abbas, 2023. "Digitalization generates equality? Enterprises’ digital transformation, financing constraints, and labor share in China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Guyomard, H. & Tavéra, C., 1990. "Technical change and agricultural supply-demand analysis problems of measurement and problems of interpretation," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 26.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:61:y:1985:i:4:p:507-526. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.