IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ersfer/350672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comptes économiques régionaux et disparités dans l'agriculture française

Author

Listed:
  • Brangeon, Jean-Louis

Abstract

Regional economic accounts and disparities in French agriculture - The input-output analysis, on the regional level, sheds light on the mechanisms determining the appearance of interregional disparities, especially as far as income is concerned. This type (of analysis poses problems connected With the absence, at present, of satisfactory accounts. The input not paid for are estimated according to the prices paid for those that are bought. The basic estimations are approximate because of the lack of knowledge concerning interregional flows. The estimations tore made in national average constant prices for 1953-1955 and 1962-1964. The differences in input structure in the productivity of labour and in the productivity of factors have been taken into account. The percentage of labour in the total input (input of the factors + non agricultural input) decreases from 75 % (1953-1955) to 62 % (1962-1964), the percentage of capital increases from 18 % to 31 %. The land factor varies very little. In 1962-1964, the Paris area, Picardie and Champagne were clearly differentiated from the other regions by the importance of the input in capital. A second class includes Haute-Normandie, the 'Centre, the Nord and Lorraine. They make relatively greater use of labour. Finally, it is in Limousin, Aquitaine, Auvergne and Alsace that the percentage of labour is highest and that of capital lowest. For 'labour productivity in 1962-1964, the better-off regions are the Paris area, which is clearly ahead, then Picardie, the Nord, Champagne, and Upper-Normandy. The regions lagging behind are the MidiPyrenes, Limousin, Auvergne and Aquitaine. As to the changes in labour and factor productivity between the two periods, the uncertainty of the data inclines us to be particularly cautious. These changes do not seem to be connected with the relative situation of the regions in 1953-55. Some regions with a low productivity level during the first period, have caught up to a certain extent on the national average. Some of the regions which were already ahead in 1953-55 have strengthened their relative position.

Suggested Citation

  • Brangeon, Jean-Louis, 1971. "Comptes économiques régionaux et disparités dans l'agriculture française," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 87.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ersfer:350672
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.350672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/350672/files/ecoru_0013-0559_1971_num_87_1_2133.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.350672?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Griliches, 1960. "Measuring Inputs in Agriculture: A Critical Survey," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 42(5), pages 1411-1427.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Milenko Popovic, 2006. "Capital Augmenting And Labor Augmenting Approach In Measuring Contribution Of Human Capital And Education To Economic Growth," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 2(4), pages 71-108.
    2. Robert J. Gordon, 2000. "Does the "New Economy" Measure Up to the Great Inventions of the Past?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 49-74, Fall.
    3. Thirtle, Colin G., 1985. "Technological Change And The Productivity Slowdown In Field Crops: United States, 1939-78," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Griliches, Zvi, 1997. "Education, Human Capital, and Growth: A Personal Perspective," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 330-344, January.
    5. Judith K. Hellerstein & David Neumark, 2007. "Production Function and Wage Equation Estimation with Heterogeneous Labor: Evidence from a New Matched Employer-Employee Data Set," NBER Chapters, in: Hard-to-Measure Goods and Services: Essays in Honor of Zvi Griliches, pages 31-71, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. C. Thirtle & P. Bottomley, 1992. "Total Factor Productivity In Uk Agriculture, 1967‐90," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 381-400, September.
    7. Lawrence, Denis & McKay, Lloyd, 1980. "Inputs, Outputs And Productivity Change In The Australian Sheep Industry," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 24(01), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Kirsten, Johann & Pardey, Philip & Thirtle, Colin, 2019. "Recalibrating South African agricultural growth: Frikkie Liebenberg in Memoriam," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 58(01), March.
    9. Chad Turner & Robert Tamura & Sean Mulholland, 2013. "How important are human capital, physical capital and total factor productivity for determining state economic growth in the United States, 1840–2000?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 319-371, December.
    10. Jock R. Anderson, 1982. "Agricultural Economics, Interdependence And Uncertainty," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 26(2), pages 89-97, August.
    11. Zvi Griliches, 1996. "The Discovery of the Residual: A Historical Note," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1324-1330, September.
    12. Raouf Boucekkine & Fernando del Río & Blanca Martínez, 2009. "Technological progress, obsolescence, and depreciation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 440-466, July.
    13. Raouf Boucekkine & Blanca Martínez & Fernando del Río, 2005. "Technological Progress And Depreciation," Working Papers. Serie AD 2005-22, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    14. Qazi, Ahmar Qasim & Zhao, Yulin, 2013. "Indigenous R&D Effectiveness and Technology Transfer on Productivity Growth: Evidence from the Hi-Tech Industry of China," MPRA Paper 46589, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Julien Gosse & Chris CM Forman & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2023. "Adoption of ICT and Environmental Management Practices: Empirical Evidence from European Firms," Working Papers TIMES² 2023-070, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Moss, Charles B., 2006. "Valuing State-Level Funding for Research: Results for Florida," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(01), pages 1-15, April.
    17. Frank Gollop & Dale Jorgenson, 1983. "Sectoral Measures of Labor Cost for the United States, 1948-1978," NBER Chapters, in: The Measurement of Labor Cost, pages 185-236, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Thirtle, C. & Bottomley, P., 1988. "Explaining Total Factor Productivity Change: Returns to R & D in U.K. Agricultural Research," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232809, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.
    19. Parry, Ian W.H., 1997. "Productivity Trends in the Natural Resource Industries," Discussion Papers 10585, Resources for the Future.
    20. Thirtle, Colin, 1986. "Problems in the Definition and Measurement of Technical Change and Productivity Growth in the U.K. Agricultural Sector," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232790, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    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:ags:ersfer:350672. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sferrea.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.