更好地衡量印度的生产力:以化学和化学产品行业为例

IF 0.8 Q4 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Indian Growth and Development Review Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI:10.1108/igdr-08-2022-0092
Vipin Valiyattoor, Anup Kumar Bhandari
{"title":"更好地衡量印度的生产力:以化学和化学产品行业为例","authors":"Vipin Valiyattoor, Anup Kumar Bhandari","doi":"10.1108/igdr-08-2022-0092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nA brief review of earlier studies on the productivity scenario of Indian industry shows that most of the studies analysed are confined to either parametric approach or growth accounting approach of measuring productivity. At the same time, the few studies based on the non-parametric [namely, Malmquist productivity index (MPI)] overlook the returns to scale conditions as well as the bias involved in the estimation of distance functions. Given this backdrop, this study aims to provide a robust measure of productivity, which considers the returns to scale assumptions and correct for the bias involved in the estimation of productivity.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study empirically tests for the returns to scale that exists in the chemical and chemical products industry in India. The test result suggests that Ray and Desli (1997) approach of MPI is the appropriate one for the present context. Initially, the conventional Ray and Desli (1997) estimation and decomposition of MPI for the period 2001 to 2017 is being used. Subsequently, to correct for the bias in the estimation of efficiency scores used for the estimation of MPI, the bootstrapping algorithm of Simar and Wilson (2007) has been extended into the context of MPI estimation.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results from the conventional Malmquist productivity estimates testifies to an improvement of total factor productivity (TFP) in seven out of 16 years under consideration. On the contrary, TFP growth is recorded only in the four years throughout the period after the bias correction. A greater discrepancy between the two measures has been found in the case of scale change factor component of MPI.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe technical change (TC) component positively influences TFP, whereas scale change factor (SCF) deteriorates the TFP condition of this industry. It will be appropriate for these firms to identify and operate under an optimal scale of operation, along with reaping the benefits of technological change. From a methodological perspective, researchers should consider the potential bias that arise in estimation of TFP and use a larger sample whenever possible.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper brings in a new perspective to the existing literature on industrial productivity. As against earlier studies, this study empirically tests the returns to scale of the sector under consideration and uses the most appropriate approach to measure productivity. The effect of sampling bias on TFP and its components is analysed.\n","PeriodicalId":42861,"journal":{"name":"Indian Growth and Development Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a better measure of productivity in India: a case of chemical and chemical products industry\",\"authors\":\"Vipin Valiyattoor, Anup Kumar Bhandari\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/igdr-08-2022-0092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nA brief review of earlier studies on the productivity scenario of Indian industry shows that most of the studies analysed are confined to either parametric approach or growth accounting approach of measuring productivity. At the same time, the few studies based on the non-parametric [namely, Malmquist productivity index (MPI)] overlook the returns to scale conditions as well as the bias involved in the estimation of distance functions. Given this backdrop, this study aims to provide a robust measure of productivity, which considers the returns to scale assumptions and correct for the bias involved in the estimation of productivity.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis study empirically tests for the returns to scale that exists in the chemical and chemical products industry in India. The test result suggests that Ray and Desli (1997) approach of MPI is the appropriate one for the present context. Initially, the conventional Ray and Desli (1997) estimation and decomposition of MPI for the period 2001 to 2017 is being used. Subsequently, to correct for the bias in the estimation of efficiency scores used for the estimation of MPI, the bootstrapping algorithm of Simar and Wilson (2007) has been extended into the context of MPI estimation.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe results from the conventional Malmquist productivity estimates testifies to an improvement of total factor productivity (TFP) in seven out of 16 years under consideration. On the contrary, TFP growth is recorded only in the four years throughout the period after the bias correction. A greater discrepancy between the two measures has been found in the case of scale change factor component of MPI.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe technical change (TC) component positively influences TFP, whereas scale change factor (SCF) deteriorates the TFP condition of this industry. It will be appropriate for these firms to identify and operate under an optimal scale of operation, along with reaping the benefits of technological change. From a methodological perspective, researchers should consider the potential bias that arise in estimation of TFP and use a larger sample whenever possible.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper brings in a new perspective to the existing literature on industrial productivity. As against earlier studies, this study empirically tests the returns to scale of the sector under consideration and uses the most appropriate approach to measure productivity. The effect of sampling bias on TFP and its components is analysed.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":42861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Growth and Development Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Growth and Development Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/igdr-08-2022-0092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Growth and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/igdr-08-2022-0092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的对印度工业生产率情景的早期研究进行简要回顾表明,所分析的大多数研究都局限于衡量生产率的参数法或增长会计法。同时,少数基于非参数[即Malmquist生产率指数(MPI)]的研究忽略了规模回报率条件以及距离函数估计中涉及的偏差。在这种背景下,本研究旨在提供一种稳健的生产力衡量方法,该方法考虑了规模回报率假设,并纠正了生产力估计中涉及的偏差。设计/方法论/方法本研究实证检验了印度化学和化工产品行业的规模回报率。测试结果表明,Ray和Desli(1997)的MPI方法是适合当前环境的方法。最初,使用了2001年至2017年期间MPI的传统Ray和Desli(1997)估计和分解。随后,为了校正用于MPI估计的效率分数估计中的偏差,Simar和Wilson(2007)的自举算法已扩展到MPI估计的上下文中。结果传统Malmquist生产力估计的结果证明,在所考虑的16年中,有7年的全要素生产率(TFP)有所提高。相反,TFP的增长仅记录在偏差校正后的四年内。在MPI的规模变化因子分量的情况下,发现这两个指标之间存在更大的差异。实际意义技术变化(TC)分量对TFP有积极影响,而规模变化因子(SCF)则恶化了该行业的TFP状况。对这些公司来说,确定并在最佳运营规模下运营,同时从技术变革中获益是合适的。从方法论的角度来看,研究人员应该考虑TFP估计中出现的潜在偏差,并尽可能使用更大的样本。原创性/价值本文为现有的工业生产力文献带来了一个新的视角。与早期研究相比,本研究实证检验了所考虑行业的规模回报率,并使用最合适的方法来衡量生产力。分析了采样偏差对TFP及其成分的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards a better measure of productivity in India: a case of chemical and chemical products industry
Purpose A brief review of earlier studies on the productivity scenario of Indian industry shows that most of the studies analysed are confined to either parametric approach or growth accounting approach of measuring productivity. At the same time, the few studies based on the non-parametric [namely, Malmquist productivity index (MPI)] overlook the returns to scale conditions as well as the bias involved in the estimation of distance functions. Given this backdrop, this study aims to provide a robust measure of productivity, which considers the returns to scale assumptions and correct for the bias involved in the estimation of productivity. Design/methodology/approach This study empirically tests for the returns to scale that exists in the chemical and chemical products industry in India. The test result suggests that Ray and Desli (1997) approach of MPI is the appropriate one for the present context. Initially, the conventional Ray and Desli (1997) estimation and decomposition of MPI for the period 2001 to 2017 is being used. Subsequently, to correct for the bias in the estimation of efficiency scores used for the estimation of MPI, the bootstrapping algorithm of Simar and Wilson (2007) has been extended into the context of MPI estimation. Findings The results from the conventional Malmquist productivity estimates testifies to an improvement of total factor productivity (TFP) in seven out of 16 years under consideration. On the contrary, TFP growth is recorded only in the four years throughout the period after the bias correction. A greater discrepancy between the two measures has been found in the case of scale change factor component of MPI. Practical implications The technical change (TC) component positively influences TFP, whereas scale change factor (SCF) deteriorates the TFP condition of this industry. It will be appropriate for these firms to identify and operate under an optimal scale of operation, along with reaping the benefits of technological change. From a methodological perspective, researchers should consider the potential bias that arise in estimation of TFP and use a larger sample whenever possible. Originality/value This paper brings in a new perspective to the existing literature on industrial productivity. As against earlier studies, this study empirically tests the returns to scale of the sector under consideration and uses the most appropriate approach to measure productivity. The effect of sampling bias on TFP and its components is analysed.
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Resilience of the group lending model to a COVID-19 induced shock: evidence from an Indian microfinance fund Sociodemographic and institutional factors as determinants of access to food among rural households during COVID-19 pandemic in India Structural transformation of the Indian states: heterogeneity among them in a ten-sector economy Are we measuring the SDGs progress right? Evidence and insights from a review of India’s SDG index What explains exit in Indian manufacturing industries?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1