Productivity and Growth of Japanese Prefectures Prepared for the 3 rd World KLEMS Conference, Tokyo, May 19-20, 2014. Joji Tokui (Shinshu University and.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimates of Capital Input Index by Industries of China, Sun Linlin, Beihang University Ren Ruoen Beihang University.
Advertisements

From Productivity Analysis in Asia to Creating Asia KLEMS Database The 1 st World KLEMS Conference August 19-20, 2010 Tsutomu Miyagawa (GakushuinUniversity)
The ABS Industry MFP Database Hui Wei Australian Bureau of Statistics.
INTRODUCTION TO THE WORLD KLEMS CONFERENCE By Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, and Jon D. Samuels Harvard.
Intangible Investment and Economic Growth in Japan Presented at the 3 rd World KLEMS Conference at Tokyo on May 19 th Tsutomu Miyagawa (Gakushuin University.
The North East Economy: A great place to invest. Overview of North East LEP Area.
Presented by Magnus Ebo Duncan On 30 th April 2008 Revised GDP Estimates for 2008.
Spring Update of December 2013 Forecast for 2014 Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing Sectors Compare 2014 Forecasts with 2013 Reported Results Broad Sector.
The Industry Sources of Australia’s Productivity Slowdown Hui Wei Pengfei Zhao Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Productivity Growth in China's Large and Medium Industrial Firms: Patterns, Causes, and Implications Dr. Geng XIAO The University of Hong Kong
Employment, Income and Population Change in Curry County May 6, 2009 Mallory Rahe Extension Community Economist Oregon State University.
The Changing Shape of UK Manufacturing Joe Grice, Director and Chief Economist.
1 “European R&D Benchmarking (2002) “European R&D Benchmarking (2002)” Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Student Presentations Students: Miguel.
[ 1 ] Sweden and Spain: two contrasting growth experiences Matilde Mas University of Valencia and Ivie Productivity Conference at Saltsjöbaden Stockholm.
Industrial policy, Structural Change, and Pattern of Industrial Productivity Growth in Taiwan 1 Tsu-tan Fu Department of Economics & Center for Efficiency.
Chapter Seven: The Structure of the United States Economy.
Tom Harris Professor and Director Department of Resource Economics University of Nevada, Reno.
Intangible Investment and Economic Growth in Japan Kyoji FUKAO (Hitotsubashi University, RIETI, NISTEP) Tsutomu MIYAGAWA (Gakushuin University, RIETI)
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MAINSTREAMING MIGRATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA: SOUTH ASIAN EXPERIENCE Taj Samudra Hotel, Colombo, June 2013.
Employment Level Leeds Population Overview year olds working, studying or unemployed Jobs in Leeds now and in future.
Incomes and Jobs in Global Production of Manufactures Marcel Timmer, Bart Los, Gaaitzen de Vries Groningen Growth and Development Centre University.
Ch 2: Hong Kong’s Economy and Industrial Structure.
11th FIW Workshop, 8th of April 2010, Vienna AUSTRIA 2020 The impact of medium-term global trends on the Austrian economy E. Christie, J.
LABOUR REALLOCATION, INFORMALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN BRIC S * Ilya B. Voskoboynikov, National Research University Higher School of Economics and.
Employment, Income and Population Change in Curry County May 6, 2009 Mallory Rahe Extension Community Economist Oregon State University.
The Farm and Food System Chapter 2. Agriculture’s Role in US Economy What do you consider Agriculture? Agriculture includes: Family Farms Corporate Farms.
Chapter 6: The Economic Contribution of Hospitals.
Production Functions. Students Should Be Able To Use the Cobb-Douglas production function to calculate: 1. Output as a product of inputs 2. marginal and.
Semiannual Forecast Report December 6, 2011 ISM Business Survey Committees.
Semiannual Forecast Report December 11, 2012 ISM Business Survey Committees.
2015/10/ Economic trends & the productive city WELL-GOVERNED CITY Key issue: Is the political & institutional context stable, open and dynamic enough.
Tenth Meeting of Working Groups on Macroeconomic Aspects of Intergenerational Transfer: International Symposium on Demographic Change and Policy Response.
National Accounts Statistics of Nepal 2014/15 (Annual Estimate) Press Release Program 08 June, 2015 Central Bureau of Statistics.
RUSSIA |ECONOMICS. Slide 2 | September 2012 | Economics: Discovering Russia FSU GDP per capita, 1991 and 2011, $ Source: IMF.
Australian National Accounts State Accounts States of Australia.
MONTANA STATE FUND 855 STATE STREET SEPTEMBER 26 TH, 2014 THE ECONOMY IN THE BIG SKY PRESENTATION BY: JOE RAMLER SENIOR ECONOMIST MT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
Mikuláš Luptáčik Martin Lábaj Department of Economic Policy University of Economics in Bratislava June 8, 2012 Bratislava Economic Meeting 2012.
Sustainability Indicators related to Energy and Material Flow Koji Amano, Ritsumeikan University Misato Ebihara, IBM Japan, Ltd. Katsutoshi Tobe, NTT DATA.
1 Inter-industrial Structure in the Asia-Pacific Region: Growth and Integration, by using the 2000 Asian International Input-Output Table Bo Meng, Hajime.
Economic Trends and Forecast Data compiled, analyzed and presented by: Ryan Demien Tyler Jensen Sally Smith Presented 26 April 2006 Sustainable Air Quality.
The State of Manufacturing in Tennessee Prepared by Matthew N. Murray Center for Business and Economic Research The University of Tennessee.
Forecasting Productivity Growth: 2004 to 2024 Productivity Perspectives March 2006 John Revesz.
The South Florida Region According to REMI REMI Southeast Policy Analysis and Users’ Conference January 29 th, 2004 Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The Distribution of Recent Economic Gains: Some early observations Ben Dolman.
Outsourcing and U.S. Economic Growth: The Role of Imported Intermediate Inputs Christopher Kurz, Paul Lengermann Federal Reserve Board of Governors* World.
Florida’s Sensitivity to Monetary Policy Changes Marisela Guillen.
Table 8.1 Value Added by Sectors, 2004, billions of dollars (to be continued) IndustryValue Added Percent of GDP Primary Sector Agriculture, forestry,
Hyunbae Chun (Sogang University) Hak K. Pyo (Seoul National University) Keun Hee Rhee (Korea Productivity Center) Structural Changes and Productivity Growth.
Ajman Macro-economic overview 2012 Presented to the IMF Northern Emirates Experts’ Meeting Ajman Department of Economic Development 1.
MALAYSIA KLEMS: PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE THE 2 ND ASIA KLEMS DATABASE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP 17 OCTOBER 2014 Mazlina Shafi’i Wan Fazlin Nadia Wan Osman Malaysia.
China KLEMS Database —— The 2 nd Asia KLEMS Database Management workshop Ren Ruoen Sun Linlin Fan Maoqing Zheng Haitao Li xiaoqin.
On the Next Revisions of the JIP Database -Toward Harmonization with the JSNA- Presented at the 2 nd Asia KLEMS Database Management Workshop on October.
Preparation of Labor Input Matrices: the case of Cameroon Deffo Achille Carlos National Accounts Division National Institute of Statistics, Cameroon EGM.
Measurement of Deflators and Real Value Added in the Service Sector Kyoji Fukao (Hitotsubashi University) Taisuke Kameda (Economic and Social Research.
Financial sector personnel in Finland June finanssiala.fi Financial sector as an employer Number of employees according to line of business in 2014.
EU membership - Economic implications. Summary - Trade Scotland like the majority of advanced economies has seen a shift from manufacturing to services.
Impacts of Oil Price Changes Korea Development Institute
Hitotsubashi-RIETI International Workshop
Taiwan KLEMS Database Yih-ming Lin Department of Applied Economics
The 3rd Hitotsubashi Summer Institute The Fourth Asia KLEMS Conference
Productivity Growth and Resource Reallocation Effects in Taiwan: Tsu-tan Fu, Soochow University Yih-ming Lin, National Chiayi University.
ASIA KLEMS HSI 2017 July Tokyo, Japan
Hitotsubashi University and RIETI Hitotsubashi University
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Fifth World KLEMS June 4, 2018 Joji Tokui and Takeshi Mizuta
Industry Productivity Growth in China and Prospects for Growth
Urban and Regional Economics
“Post-crisis productivity: Lessons from the UK”
By Mun S. Ho* Based on work with Dale Jorgenson* and Jon Samuels**
Presented at the 5th World KLEMS Conference June 4, 2018
Presentation transcript:

Productivity and Growth of Japanese Prefectures Prepared for the 3 rd World KLEMS Conference, Tokyo, May 19-20, Joji Tokui (Shinshu University and RIETI) Kyoji Fukao (Hitotsubashi University and RIETI) Tsutomu Miyagawa (Gakushuin University and RIETI) Kazuyasu Kawasaki (Toyo University) Tatsuji Makino (Hitotsubashi University)

This presentation is based on our two papers. Joji Tokui, Tatsuji Makino, Kyoji Fukao, Tsutomu Miyagawa, Nobuyuki Arai, Sonoe Arai, Tomohiko Inui, Kazuyasu Kawasaki, Naomi Kodama and Naohiro Noguchi (2013), “Compilation of the Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity Database (R-JIP) and Analysis of Productivity Differences across Prefectures,” The Economic Review, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp (in Japanese). Kazuyasu Kawasaki, Tsutomu Miyagawa and Joji Tokui (2014), “Reallocation of Production Factors in the Regional Economies in Japan: Towards an Application to the Great East-Japan Earthquake.”

Contents 1.Construction of Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity (R-JIP) Database 2.The change in prefectural productivity differences and its causes ( ) 3.Factor reallocation and its efficiency among prefectures and industries

1. Construction of Regional- Level Japan Industrial Productivity (R-JIP) Database

Main Features of R-JIP Database 47 prefectures in Japan 23 industries (13 manufacturing + 10 non- manufacturing) (annual data) Value added, capital input, labor input Input data are constructed taking quality into account. (1) time-series quality change for both capital and labor (2) cross-sectional quality difference for labor 5

Relationship between R-JIP and JIP The control totals of regional-level value added, capital, and labor are 2011 JIP data. The value added deflator for each industry calculated from the 2011 JIP data is used. The investment deflator and capital depreciation rate for each industry calculated from the 2011 JIP data is used. The capital cost and capital quality for each industry calculated from the 2011 JIP data are used. In contrast, we calculate regional-specific working hours, labor costs, and labor quality for each industry. 6

The R-JIP Database is available on RIETI’s website (in Japanese only at the moment) 7 /database/R- JIP2012/index.html

Construction of relative regional labor quality data Each prefecture’s relative labor quality is estimated taking its employment structure into account. The number of employees cross-classified by prefecture, industry, sex, age, and educational background is from the Population Census (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010). The data for 2008 are estimated through linear interpolation between 2000 data and 2010 data. The construction of the prefecture-level labor quality index is based on the cross-sectional index number approach of Caves, Christensen, and Diewert (1982). 8

The difference in labor quality across prefectures in 1970 (Tokyo=1) 9

The difference in labor quality across prefectures in 2008 (Tokyo=1) 10

Differences in regional labor quality have shrunk in the 40 years since But they still remain. Labor quality in the prefecture with the highest level is 1.3 times that of that with the lowest level.

2. The change in prefectural productivity differences and its causes ( )

Some people are commuting across prefectural borders. In that case, the prefecture where they inhabit and where they work are different. Since in our database value added data are compiled in the prefecture where production is taken place and labor input data are compiled in the prefecture where they work, we focus on labor productivity instead of the per capita income of each prefecture.

We decompose prefectural labor productivity into three factors: prefectural TFP differences, the capital-labor ratio, and labor quality. Decomposition of factors underlying regional differences in labor productivity 14 : Labor Productivity : TFP Difference : Capital-Labor Ratio : Labor Quality

Decomposition of differences in regional labor productivity in 1970 (in logarithm) 15

Decomposition of differences in regional labor productivity in 2008 (in logarithm) 16

Results: Differences in prefectural TFP, capital-labor ratios, and labor quality all contribute to the differences in regional labor productivity. The most important reason for the decline in regional labor productivity differences in the past 40 years is the narrowing of differences in the capital-labor ratio across prefectures. In contrast, substantial differences in prefectural TFP levels remain and are now the main cause for differences in labor productivity across prefectures. 17

Which industries contribute to the decline in regional labor productivity differences in the past 40 years? To do this analysis, first we use following decomposition of each prefecture’s relative factor intensity into share effect and within effect.

where the first term on the right-hand side represents the contribution of the fact that a prefecture has, e.g., above-average labor input shares in industries with a capital-labor ratio that is above the national average (share effect), while the second term represents the contribution of differences between the capital-labor ratios of the industries in a particular prefecture and the national average capital-labor ratios for those industries (within effect).

Next, we define each industry’s contribution based on the covariance between factor intensity and labor productivity in the prefecture as follows. Contribution of the share effect for industry i. Contribution of the within effect for industry i. For capital labor ratio and labor quality we can decompose between share effect and within effect. For TFP we can calculate only within effect.

Result of decomposition by industries (1970) (1) 1970 Capital-labor ratioLabor quality TFP Share effectWithin effectShare effectWithin effect Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Mining Food and beverages Textile mill products Pulp and paper Chemicals Petroleum and coal products Ceramics, stone and clay Basic metals Processed metals General machinery Electrical machinery Transport equipment Precision instruments Other manufacturing Construction Electricity, gas and water utilities Wholesale and retail trade Finance and insurance Real estate Transport and communications Service activities (private, not for profit) Service activities (government) Manufacturing subtotal Nonmanufacturing excl. primary industry subtotal Total

Result of decomposition by industries (2008) (3) 2008 Capital-labor ratioLabor quality TFP Share effectWithin effectShare effectWithin effect Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Mining Food and beverages Textile mill products Pulp and paper Chemicals Petroleum and coal products Ceramics, stone and clay Basic metals Processed metals General machinery Electrical machinery Transport equipment Precision instruments Other manufacturing Construction Electricity, gas and water utilities Wholesale and retail trade Finance and insurance Real estate Transport and communications Service activities (private, not for profit) Service activities (government) Manufacturing subtotal Nonmanufacturing excl. primary industry subtotal Total

Summary of the industrial decomposition result Main causes of the remaining differences of prefectural labor productivity occurred in non-manufacturing sector. Notable development from 1970 to 2008 are: (1)For Capital labor ratio, the share effect of non-manufacturing increased greatly over time. Particularly, real estate, and transport and communications. These industries concentrated in high labor productivity prefectures. (2)For labor quality, the within effect of non-manufacturing increased greatly over time. Particularly, wholesales and retail trade and non-government services. In these industries labor quality is high in high labor productivity prefectures. (3)For TFP, the within effect of non-manufacturing increased greatly over time. Particularly, construction, wholesales and retail trade and non- government services.

3. Factor reallocation and its efficiency among prefectures and industries

Calculation formula for factor reallocation effect Our calculation is based on the Sonobe and Otsuka (2001)’s formula, which decompose the prefecture’s growth of labor productivity into four parts. the prefecture’s growth of labor productivity =capital deepening (within effect) + capital deepening (share effect) +capital reallocation effect + labor reallocation effect +TFP (within)

In 1980s capital reallocation effect was negative almost every prefectures in Japan.

In 2000s capital reallocation effect was positive in relatively high labor productivity growth prefectures.

Summary of the factor reallocation effect Labor reallocation effect was positive almost every prefectures in Japan from 1980s through 2000s. But, in 1980s capital reallocation effect was negative almost every prefectures in Japan. In 2000s capital reallocation effect turned to be positive in relatively high labor productivity growth prefectures. But, in relatively low productivity growth prefectures capital reallocation effect still remained negative in 2000s.

Thank you.