Comparing Luenberger and Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicators: How well is total factor productivity approximated?

被引：38
|
作者：
Kerstens, Kristiaan [1 ]
Shen, Zhiyang [2 ,3 ]
Van de Woestyne, Ignace [4 ]
机构：
[1] IESEG Sch Management, CNRS LEM, UMR 9221, 3 Rue Digue, F-59000 Lille, France
[2] China Eximbank, 30 FuXingMenNei St, Beijing 100031, Peoples R China
[3] IESEG Sch Management, 3 Rue Digue, F-59000 Lille, France
[4] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Res Unit MEES, Warmoesberg 26, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
来源：
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS | 2018年 / 195卷
关键词：
Luenberger indicator; Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen indicator; TFP; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; DISTANCE FUNCTION; EMPIRICAL-ANALYSIS; GROWTH; INDEX; INDUSTRY; INPUT; CHINA; DEFINITIONS; MALMQUIST;
D O I：
10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.010
中图分类号：
T [工业技术];
学科分类号：
08 ;
摘要：
We empirically compare both the popular Luenberger indicator with the less popular Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicator on an agricultural panel data set of Chinese provinces over the years 1997-2014. In particular, we test for the differences in distribution when comparing these indicators. These tests are crucial to answer the question to which extent the Luenberger indicator can approximate the Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicator that has a Total Factor Productivity (TFP) interpretation.
引用
收藏
页码：311 / 318
页数：8
相关论文
共 50 条
12345