Search

This article examines the sources of rapid economic growth in India in the 2000s and explanations for the growth slowdown in more recent years. We use the Indian national accounts and the National Sample Survey (NSS) to perform a growth accounting analysis. We disaggregate the total economy into agriculture, industry and services and separately identify the contributions of labor, capital and improvements in productivity. Services account for the largest share of the acceleration in 2000-10. Industry, on the other hand, is the sector most reflective of the recent slowdown. The high growth of the 2000s can be traced to strong capital accumulation, improvements in labor skills and large productivity gains. A slowing in the pace of economic reform and a general deterioration in fiscal and monetary policies appear to be the major factors responsible for the slower pace of growth since 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses productivity measurement issues in the U.S. services industries. Background on labor productivity in the country; Contributions to labor productivity growth in the services industries; Examination on the sources of labor productivity growth; Summary of labor productivity changes.

This article explores the reasons for the economic growth in East Asia. The growth of per capita gross domestic product averaged over 4 percent in China and the major East Asian economies (Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand) between 1960 and 1994, compared with less than 2 percent in other developing economies and 2.6 percent among the industrial countries. East Asia stands out as the only region where living standards are catching up to those in industrial countries, while other parts of the developing world seem to be struggling to either tread water or fall further and further behind. Researchers implicitly or explicitly highlights productivity growth as the key to East Asian success.

The article focuses on capital formation and economic policy in the U.S. It reflects a general belief that investment has been inadequate during the 1970s and that this shortfall explains a large part of the current economic difficulties. The productivity slowdown, in particular, is often blamed on the failure of investment to keep the capital stock growing as fast as the number of workers. Specific conclusions about the capital scarcity problem in the U.S. and many of the policy measures offered to solve it are often derived from a neoclassical model of an economy operating close to full employment. The economy is also viewed as moving along a competitive equilibrium growth path in the sense that the returns to factors of production measure their contribution to output. At full employment the analysis of capital formation quite properly emphasizes allocative issues, such as the choice between current and future consumption and the distribution of private saving among competing uses. Most important, the model assigns relative prices a primary role in the allocation of resources among industries and over time: resources flow where returns are highest, and the rate of interest determines intertemporal consumption decisions.

This article examines the industrial capacity situation in basic materials industries in the U.S. The ratio of prices to costs, as a measure of expansion incentives, declined through the last half of the 1960s and the first few years of the 1970s. In the 1974-1975 period, the aluminum, paper, and steel industries have experienced an improvement in this measure. This rise is most noticeable in the ratio of price to total costs, but is also evident in operating income. While the rise in prices to costs represents a substantial recovery from the disastrous situation of 1973, it has not meant a full return to the profit position of the mid-1960s.