IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qld/uqcepa/107.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multiple Directions for Measuring Biased Technical Change

Author

Listed:
  • Hideyuki Mizobuchi

    (Faculty of Economics, Ryukoku University)

Abstract

Malmquist and Hicks−Moorsteen productivity indexes are the two most widely used indexes for measuring productivity growth. The former, which has been proposed initially, has a nice feature of decomposing productivity growth into two important sources: efficiency change and technical change components. The technical change component is considered measuring the distances between the isoquants along a single direction. When technical change is not Hicks-neutral and is biased towards certain factor inputs or outputs, the distance between the isoquants is dependent on the direction selected. In this case, if we adopt a single direction for measuring the distances, we can only locally capture technical change, which is a global phenomenon by nature. To rectify this problem, we propose a more global index of technical change that measures the distance between the isoquants by utilizing two directions. Along with the existing measure of efficiency change, this allows us to define a corresponding productivity index. This index turns out to be the geometric mean of the Malmquist and the Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indexes under constant returns to scale technology. While there has been a long discussion on which index is more preferable between the two productivity indexes, we give a justification to using the geometric mean of these two indexes.

Suggested Citation

  • Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2015. "Multiple Directions for Measuring Biased Technical Change," CEPA Working Papers Series WP092015, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    • Handle: RePEc:qld:uqcepa:107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.uq.edu.au/files/5094/WP092015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francisco J Buera & Joseph P Kaboski & Richard Rogerson & Juan I Vizcaino, 2022. "Skill-Biased Structural Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(2), pages 592-625.
    2. Po-Chi Chen & Ming-Miin Yu, 2014. "Total factor productivity growth and directions of technical change bias: evidence from 99 OECD and non-OECD countries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 214(1), pages 143-165, March.
    3. repec:bla:scandj:v:98:y:1996:i:2:p:303-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Diewert, Erwin & Fox, Kevin J., 2014. "Decomposing Bjurek Productivity Indexes into Explanatory Factors," Economics working papers erwin_diewert-2014-32, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 30 Jun 2014.
    5. Rainer Klump & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2007. "Factor Substitution and Factor-Augmenting Technical Progress in the United States: A Normalized Supply-Side System Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 183-192, February.
    6. Hulten, Charles R, 1992. "Growth Accounting When Technical Change Is Embodied in Capital," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 964-980, September.
    7. Kerstens, Kristiaan & Van de Woestyne, Ignace, 2014. "Comparing Malmquist and Hicks–Moorsteen productivity indices: Exploring the impact of unbalanced vs. balanced panel data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 749-758.
    8. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2015. "Productivity Indexes under Hicks Neutral Technical Change," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072015, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    9. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1393-1414, November.
    10. Klump, Rainer & McAdam, Peter & Willman, Alpo, 2004. "Factor substitution and factor augmenting technical progress in the US: a normalized supply-side system approach," Working Paper Series 367, European Central Bank.
    11. Charles R. Hulten, 1992. "Growth Accounting When Technical Change is Embodied in Capital," NBER Working Papers 3971, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Adrian Adermon & Magnus Gustavsson, 2015. "Job Polarization and Task-Biased Technological Change: Evidence from Sweden, 1975–2005," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(3), pages 878-917, July.
    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. Qinqin Fan & Tianyuan Mu & Wei Jia, 2021. "Analysis on the Trend and Factors of Total Factor Productivity of Agricultural Export Enterprises in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Karagiannis, Giannis & Knox Lovell, C.A., 2016. "Productivity measurement in radial DEA models with a single constant input," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 323-328.

    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. Julieta Caunedo & David Jaume & Elisa Keller, 2023. "Occupational Exposure to Capital-Embodied Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(6), pages 1642-1685, June.
    2. Guohua Feng & Bin Peng & Xiaohui Zhang, 2017. "Productivity and efficiency at bank holding companies in the U.S.: a time-varying heterogeneity approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 179-192, December.
    3. Squires, Dale & Vestergaard, Niels, 2015. "Productivity growth, catchability, stock assessments, and optimum renewable resource use," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 309-317.
    4. Burda, Michael C. & Severgnini, Battista, 2014. "Solow residuals without capital stocks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 154-171.
    5. Andreas Eder & Wolfgang Koller & Bernhard Mahlberg, 2024. "The contribution of industrial robots to labor productivity growth and economic convergence: a production frontier approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 157-181, April.
    6. Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2018. "Innovation, jobs, skills and tasks: a multifaceted relationship," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0001, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    7. Hamid Falatoon & Mohammad Safarzadeh, 2006. "Technological innovations and economic prosperity: A time series analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 53(2), pages 240-248, June.
    8. Rosés, Joan R., 2008. "Proximate causes of economic growth in Spain, 1850-2000," IFCS - Working Papers in Economic History.WH wp08-12, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Instituto Figuerola.
    9. Meschi, Elena & Taymaz, Erol & Vivarelli, Marco, 2011. "Trade, technology and skills: Evidence from Turkish microdata," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(S1), pages 60-70.
    10. Georges Daw, 2022. "Determinants of Wealth Disparities in the EU: A Multi-scale Development Accounting Investigation," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(2), pages 211-254, June.
    11. Garcia, Angel & Jaumandreu, Jordi & Rodriguez, Cesar, 2004. "Innovation and jobs: evidence from manufacturing firms," MPRA Paper 1204, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Irmen, Andreas, 2018. "A Generalized Steady-State Growth Theorem," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 779-804, June.
    13. Ezra Oberfield & Devesh Raval, 2021. "Micro Data and Macro Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(2), pages 703-732, March.
    14. Keller, Wolfgang, 2001. "The Geography and Channels of Diffusion at the World's Technology Frontier," Discussion Paper Series 26140, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    15. Gittleman, Maury & ten Raa, Thijs & Wolff, Edward N., 2006. "The vintage effect in TFP-growth: An analysis of the age structure of capital," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 306-328, September.
    16. Eaton, Jonathan & Kortum, Samuel, 2001. "Trade in capital goods," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1195-1235.
    17. Daniel J. Wilson, 2002. "Is Embodied Technology the Result of Upstream R&D? Industry-Level Evidence," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 285-317, April.
    18. Hofman, André A., 2000. "Economic growth and performance in Latin America," Series Históricas 7535, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    19. Greenwood, Jeremy & Krusell, Per, 2007. "Growth accounting with investment-specific technological progress: A discussion of two approaches," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 1300-1310, May.
    20. Gary Madden & Harry Bloch & Grant Coble-Neal, 2002. "Labour and capital saving technical change in telecommunications," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(14), pages 1821-1828.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Productivity; Biased technical change; Malmquist productivity index; Hicks– Moorsteen productivity index;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
    • O51 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - U.S.; Canada

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:qld:uqcepa:107. 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: SOE IT (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.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.