全要素生产率测度方法比较

Exacta Pub Date : 2021-06-30 DOI:10.5585/exactaep.2021.18140
N. Silveira, Diogo Ferraz, Diego Scarpa de Mello, Eduardo Polloni‐Silva, H. F. Moralles, D. Rebelatto
{"title":"全要素生产率测度方法比较","authors":"N. Silveira, Diogo Ferraz, Diego Scarpa de Mello, Eduardo Polloni‐Silva, H. F. Moralles, D. Rebelatto","doi":"10.5585/exactaep.2021.18140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Productivity measures the level of efficiency, which a particular economy uses its resources to produce goods and consumer services. Increasing productivity is the fastest route to get economic growth and social well-being since such production improvement reflects all effectiveness of the production sector, as well as the degree of development of a company. This article aims to compare four models to estimate the Total Factor Productivity (TFP). The tested models were the Olley and Pakes - OP (1996); Levinsohn and Petrin – LP (2003); Wooldridge - Wool (2009); and Ackerberg, Caves and Frazer - ACF (2015). As an intermediate input, we used the per capita energy consumption. We found that the model ACF (2015) proposes an improvement of the OP and LP models, in addition to present results with statistical meaning, the model Wool (2009) also is about an improved model of previous estimations, beyond it presented results near the same. However, the ACF model presented high dispersion around the models average. For this reason, according to our analysis, the Wool model was preferred than others.","PeriodicalId":30294,"journal":{"name":"Exacta","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPARING METHODS FOR TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT\",\"authors\":\"N. Silveira, Diogo Ferraz, Diego Scarpa de Mello, Eduardo Polloni‐Silva, H. F. Moralles, D. Rebelatto\",\"doi\":\"10.5585/exactaep.2021.18140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Productivity measures the level of efficiency, which a particular economy uses its resources to produce goods and consumer services. Increasing productivity is the fastest route to get economic growth and social well-being since such production improvement reflects all effectiveness of the production sector, as well as the degree of development of a company. This article aims to compare four models to estimate the Total Factor Productivity (TFP). The tested models were the Olley and Pakes - OP (1996); Levinsohn and Petrin – LP (2003); Wooldridge - Wool (2009); and Ackerberg, Caves and Frazer - ACF (2015). As an intermediate input, we used the per capita energy consumption. We found that the model ACF (2015) proposes an improvement of the OP and LP models, in addition to present results with statistical meaning, the model Wool (2009) also is about an improved model of previous estimations, beyond it presented results near the same. However, the ACF model presented high dispersion around the models average. For this reason, according to our analysis, the Wool model was preferred than others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exacta\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exacta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5585/exactaep.2021.18140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exacta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5585/exactaep.2021.18140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

生产力衡量的是一个特定经济体利用其资源生产商品和消费服务的效率水平。提高生产力是实现经济增长和社会福祉的最快途径,因为这种生产改进反映了生产部门的所有效率以及公司的发展程度。本文旨在比较四种模型来估计全要素生产率(TFP)。测试的模型是Olley和Pakes-OP(1996);Levinsohn和Petrin–LP(2003);Wooldridge-羊毛(2009);以及Ackerberg,Caves和Frazer-ACF(2015)。作为中间投入,我们使用了人均能源消耗量。我们发现,模型ACF(2015)提出了对OP和LP模型的改进,除了呈现具有统计意义的结果外,模型Wool(2009)也是关于先前估计的改进模型,除此之外,它呈现的结果几乎相同。然而,ACF模型在模型平均值附近表现出高分散性。因此,根据我们的分析,Wool模型比其他模型更受欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
COMPARING METHODS FOR TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT
Productivity measures the level of efficiency, which a particular economy uses its resources to produce goods and consumer services. Increasing productivity is the fastest route to get economic growth and social well-being since such production improvement reflects all effectiveness of the production sector, as well as the degree of development of a company. This article aims to compare four models to estimate the Total Factor Productivity (TFP). The tested models were the Olley and Pakes - OP (1996); Levinsohn and Petrin – LP (2003); Wooldridge - Wool (2009); and Ackerberg, Caves and Frazer - ACF (2015). As an intermediate input, we used the per capita energy consumption. We found that the model ACF (2015) proposes an improvement of the OP and LP models, in addition to present results with statistical meaning, the model Wool (2009) also is about an improved model of previous estimations, beyond it presented results near the same. However, the ACF model presented high dispersion around the models average. For this reason, according to our analysis, the Wool model was preferred than others.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信