scholarly journals Structural change and productivity growth in Brazil: where do we stand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-263
Author(s):  
ANDRÉ NASSIF ◽  
LUCILENE MORANDI ◽  
ELIANE ARAÚJO ◽  
CARMEM FEIJÓ
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Interest Rates ◽  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Trade Openness ◽  
Labor Productivity Growth ◽  
Catching Up ◽  
Significant Structural Change ◽  
Low Degree

ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to discuss the evolution of the Brazilian labour productivity in the 1990s and 2000s to shed some light on the resilience of the Brazilian economy to recover growth. Labor productivity growth in Brazil, after showing positive annual rates between 1950 and 1979, became stagnant after 1980. Following McMillan and Rodrik’s (2011) methodology, this paper at first decompose labor productivity growth in the period 1950-2011, according to “structural change” (which is considered growth-enhancing) and “within effect” (which is growth-reducing, if not accompanied by significant structural change while the country is still pursuing its catching-up process). Next, an econometric exercised is presented to explain the determinants of the structural change component of the labour productivity since economic opening in the 1990s. The results show that the stagnation of the Brazilian productivity is explained by the overvaluation trend of the Brazilian currency, the reprimarization of the export basket, the low degree of Brazil’s trade openness and the high real interest rates prevailing in the period.

Productivity

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen N. Broadberry ◽  
Claire Giordano ◽  
Francesco Zollino
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
The Other ◽  
Growth Accounting ◽  
Factor Productivity ◽  
International Context ◽  
Labor Productivity Growth ◽  
Catching Up ◽  
Productivity Dynamics

Italy's economic growth over its 150 years of unified history did not occur at a steady pace, nor was it balanced across sectors. Relying on an entirely new input (labor and capital) database, this chapter evaluates the different labor productivity growth trends within the Italian economy's sectors, as well as the contribution of structural change to productivity growth. Italy's performance is then set in an international context: a comparison of sectoral labor productivity growth rates and levels within a selected sample of countries (United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Japan, India) allows us to better time, quantify, and gauge the causes of Italy's catching-up process and subsequent more recent slowdown. Finally, the paper analyzes the proximate sources of Italy's growth, relative to the other countries, in a standard growth accounting framework, in an attempt also to disentangle the contribution of both total factor productivity growth and capital deepening to the country's labor productivity dynamics.

scholarly journals The Role of Structural Change in the Economic Development of Asian Economies

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Foster--McGregor ◽  
Bart Verspagen
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Gdp Per Capita ◽  
Labor Productivity Growth ◽  
Income Levels ◽  
Asian Economies ◽  
Per Capita

In this paper, we combine data on gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and sectoral employment shares to undertake a decomposition of GDP per capita growth for a sample of 43 Asian and non-Asian economies. We decompose income changes into three components: (i) changes in labor productivity within sectors, (ii) employment shifts across sectors (structural change), and (iii) changes in the intensity of employment participation. We then compare the decomposition results for the Asian economies that moved between different income levels of interest with those from a representative typical economy and other comparison economies. The results suggest that in most Asian economies labor productivity growth was the dominant source of gains in GDP per capita, with the observed gains in labor productivity often driven by changing labor productivity within sectors rather than by shifts in employment across sectors. This is not to diminish the role of structural change, which at lower income levels can explain a significant proportion of overall labor productivity growth.

Productivity Growth, Structural Change and Informality: The Case of Russia

2015 ◽  
pp. 30-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Voskoboynikov ◽  
V. Gimpelson
Keyword(s):  
Structural Change ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Industry Effects ◽  
Labour Productivity Growth ◽  
Russian Economy ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Total Labour

This study considers the influence of structural change on aggregate labour productivity growth of the Russian economy. The term "structural change" refers to labour reallocation both between industries and between formal and informal segments within an industry. Using Russia KLEMS and official Rosstat data we decompose aggregate labour productivity growth into intra-industry (within) and between industry effects with four alternative methods of the shift-share analysis. All methods provide consistent results and demonstrate that total labour reallocation has been growth enhancing though the informality expansion has had a negative effect. As our study suggests, it is caused by growing variation in productivity levels across industries.

Opportunities for accelerating labor productivity growth: The role of small and medium enterprises

2020 ◽  
pp. 98-114
Author(s):  
Evguenia V. Bessonova ◽  
Alexander G. Morozov ◽  
Natalia A. Turdyeva ◽  
Anna N. Tsvetkova
Keyword(s):  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Small And Medium Enterprises ◽  
Growth Potential ◽  
Business Climate ◽  
Labor Productivity Growth ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Low Efficiency ◽  
Medium Enterprises ◽  
Medium Firms

The paper considers necessary conditions for acceleration of labor productivity growth in Russia. Based on micro data, as well as aggregate data, the paper quantifies the contribution of small and medium firms to labor productivity growth. It shows that mere increase of the number of small and medium enterprises is not as important for positive effects of these programs, as qualitative improvements: development of favorable environment for growth, which is largely determined by business climate. Accelerating productivity growth involves redistribution of labor and capital from inefficient to efficient enterprises. In particular, it is necessary to create conditions, which allow a firm to grow after it enters the market instead of stagnating as a small firm with low efficiency. At the same time, it is necessary for ineffective firms, which exhausted their growth potential, to have an opportunity to exit the market easily leaving resources including labor to fast-growing companies.

scholarly journals Intangible Assets and Labor Productivity Growth

Economies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Carolina Hintzmann ◽  
Josep Lladós-Masllorens ◽  
Raul Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Manufacturing Sector ◽  
Intangible Asset ◽  
Labor Productivity Growth ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
European Economies ◽  
D Investment

We examine the contribution to labor productivity growth in the manufacturing sector of investment in different intangible asset categories—computerized information, innovative property, and economic competencies—for a set of 18 European countries between 1995 and 2017, as well as whether this contribution varies between different groups of countries. The motivation is to go a step further and identify which single or combination of intangible assets are relevant. The main findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, all the three different categories of intangible assets contribute to labor productivity growth. In particular, intangible assets related to economic competences together with innovative property assets have been identified as the main drivers; specifically, advertising and marketing, organizational capital, research and development (R&D) investment, and design. Secondly, splitting the sample of European Union (EU) member states into three groups—northern, central and southern Europe—allows for the identification of a significant differentiated behavior between and within groups, in terms of the effects of investment in intangible assets on labor productivity growth. We conclude that measures promoting investment in intangibles at EU level should be accompanied by specific measures focusing on each country’s needs, for the purpose of promoting labor productivity growth. The obtained evidence suggests that the solution for the innovation deficit of some European economies consist not only of raising R&D expenditure, but also exploiting complementarities between different types of assets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document