Improving The Estimates of the UK Capital Stock

1994 ◽  
Vol 147 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mayes ◽  
Garry Young
Keyword(s):  
Capital Stock ◽  
The Uk

Description of My Model

2019 ◽  
pp. 56-59
Author(s):  
Andrew Smithers
Keyword(s):  
Capital Stock ◽  
Full Employment ◽  
Quality Improvements ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Us ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Civilian Employment ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Employment Quality

The volume of the capital stock is defined as the original cost at constant prices of all tangible capital that has not been scrapped. Due to the poor data available for the UK my calculations and testing have had to be limited to the US. The volume of labour is defined as civilian employment. Quality improvements for both labour and capital are defined as being part of TFP. TFP is under conditions of full employment and must therefore be measured over long time periods. All growth comes from TFP, changes in labour and NTVs. The change in the volume of capital less the change in the volume of labour equals the change in NTVs and the balance is that from changes in technology (TFP). NTV is exogenous in aggregate. The value of the capital stock, but not its volume, is mean-reverting.

THE UK CAPITAL STOCK NEW ESTIMATES OF PREMATURE SCRAPPING

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 44-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSHIL WADHWANI ◽  
MARTIN WALL
Keyword(s):  
Capital Stock ◽  
The Uk

Implications for Growth

2019 ◽  
pp. 88-89
Author(s):  
Andrew Smithers
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Capital Stock ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The Us ◽  
Working Age ◽  
Policy Measures ◽  
Hurdle Rate ◽  
Working Age Population ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Trend Growth

Without policy measures to offset the negative impact of the bonus culture, investment, productivity, and growth are likely to remain depressed. Given the slow growth of the working age population, the UK’s trend growth rate will thus be 1 per cent and that of the US 0.87 per cent, unless productivity improves. An alternative method of estimating US trend growth from the value data for tangible capital stock provides a slightly better rate of 1.1 per cent per annum. The prospects for the UK and US are so poor that policy measures to stimulate growth are vital. All growth is the result of changes in either TFP or NTV, so one or other must improve to avoid stagnation. There is no way to improve the former, but changes in NTV can be brought about through a lower hurdle rate, which requires the damage from the bonus culture to end.

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY AND THE ROLE OF CAPITAL STOCK

2020 ◽  
Vol 253 ◽  
pp. R29-R43
Author(s):  
Ben Gardiner ◽  
Bernard Fingleton ◽  
Ron Martin
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Capital Stock ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Output Growth ◽  
Regional Variations ◽  
Spatial Panel ◽  
Perpetual Inventory Method ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Regional Capital ◽  
The Impact

This paper reports on the availability of regional capital stock data,1 in the form of new/updated regional (NUTS2 level) capital stock estimates,2 building on an approach (Perpetual Inventory Method) which had been previously developed for the European Commission. The particular focus here is on the UK and how these data are used to shed light on regional labour productivity disparities. Using a NUTS2 level dataset constructed for the period 2000–16, we use a dynamic spatial panel approach from Baltagi et al. (2019) to estimate a model relating productivity to output (growth or levels) and augmented by explicit incorporation of capital stock plus various other covariates such as human capital. We find that regional variations in capital stocks per worker make a significant contribution to regional variations in labour productivity, but the geography of human capital is also highly relevant. Moreover, we give evidence to show that as human capital rises, notably as we move from the regions to London, the impact of capital stock per worker is less. The effect of capital stock depends on the level of human capital.

Capital Stock, Unemployment and Wages in the UK and Germany

2000 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 487-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Arestis ◽  
Iris Biefang-Frisancho Mariscal
Keyword(s):  
Capital Stock ◽  
The Uk

The UK Is Similar to the US

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-114
Author(s):  
Andrew Smithers
Keyword(s):  
Capital Stock ◽  
Slow Growth ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Living Standards ◽  
Corporation Tax ◽  
The Us ◽  
Perverse Incentives ◽  
Zero Growth ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

The UK resembles the US, with similar adverse changes in demography and productivity. Sharp falls in investment in both countries started well before 2008 and caused the subsequent slow growth in the net capital stock and labour productivity. The UK has experienced a similar rise in management pay and bonuses, so it is probable that the decline in investment and productivity in the UK is also the result of the perverse incentives of the bonus culture. Poor data means that the relationship between investment corporation tax and RoE cannot be tested for the UK. Like the US, however, large companies have been the main cause of the decline in investment and productivity. Brexit is likely to depress real living standards and amplify the problem of low to zero growth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document