feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Die angezeigten Daten werden derzeit aktualisiert.
Derzeit steht der Fernleihindex leider nicht zur Verfügung.
Export
Filter
  • UB Potsdam  (2)
  • EUV Frankfurt  (2)
  • Staatliche Museen
  • Topographie des Terrors und DZ
  • KB Oder-Spree
  • Schreyer, Paul  (4)
  • Licensed  (4)
Type of Medium
Language
Region
Library
Years
Access
  • Licensed  (4)
  • 1
    UID:
    gbv_815717172
    Format: Online-Ressource (36 S.) , graph. Darst.
    Series Statement: OECD Economics Department working papers 1154
    Content: This paper presents a productivity growth measure that explicitly accounts for natural capital as an input factor and for undesirable goods, or “bads”, as an output of the production process. The discussion focuses on the extension of productivity measurement for bad outputs and estimates of their shadow prices, while the inclusion of natural capital is discussed in more depth in a companion paper. As bad outputs are the target of environmental policies, a productivity measure that does not take bad outputs into account will underestimate productivity growth, whenever countries devote some inputs to reducing bad outputs, thus improving the environmental impact of their production processes, rather than to increasing the production of goods and services. An adjusted productivity measures is needed in an analysis of the effect of bad outputs on productivity growth as otherwise the effectiveness of environmental policies in promoting production processes that make more efficient use of the environment will be wrongly assessed. Results suggest that the adjustment of the traditional productivity growth measure for bad outputs is small. While this partly hinges on the fact, that due to a lack of more comprehensive data, only a limited set of bad outputs are considered in this paper, namely CO2, SOX and NOX emissions, the relatively small adjustment of the traditional productivity growth measure is good news for two reasons. First, it implies that ignoring the bad outputs considered in this paper results in a relatively small bias of productivity measurement, and thus analysis based on traditional measures should be relatively reliable in this regard. Second, it also implies that the acceleration in productivity growth that would help to substantially reduce the bad outputs considered in this paper, without reducing output growth, should be possible to achieve.
    Note: Zsfassung in franz. Sprache , Systemvoraussetzungen: Acrobat Reader.
    Language: English
    Keywords: Amtsdruckschrift ; Arbeitspapier ; Graue Literatur
    Author information: Brandt, Nicola 1972-
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    UID:
    b3kat_BV047934805
    Format: 1 Online-Ressource (28 Seiten) , 21 x 29.7cm
    Series Statement: OECD Economics Department Working Papers
    Content: Traditional measures of multi-factor productivity (MFP) growth generally do not recognise natural capital as inputs into the production process. Since productivity growth is measured as the residual between output and input growth, it will pick up the growth in unmeasured inputs, which can lead to a bias. The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the role of natural capital for productivity measurement and as a source of economic growth. To this aim, aggregate economy productivity measures mostly from the OECD Productivity Database are extended by incorporating natural capital as an additional input factor into the production function. More specifically, this paper considers oil, gas and various minerals as natural capital inputs, drawing on data from the World Bank. Results suggest that failing to account for natural capital tends to lead to an underestimation of productivity growth in countries where the use of natural capital in production is declining because of a dwindling natural capital stock. In return, productivity growth is sometimes overestimated in times of natural resource booms, if natural capital is not taken into account as an input factor. The direction of the adjustment to productivity growth depends on the rate of change of natural capital extraction relative to the rate of change of other inputs. The extended framework also makes the contribution of natural capital to economic growth explicit. This can be useful for countries relying on nonrenewable resources to better understand the need to develop other sources of growth, for example by investing in human or productive capital, to prepare for times when resources endowments become scarce. While the measurement of natural capital remains very incomplete, leaving out natural forests, water and soil, the measurement framework can readily be applied to more encompassing data on the natural capital stock, once it becomes available
    Language: English
    URL: Volltext  (URL des Erstveröffentlichers)
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    UID:
    b3kat_BV047932707
    Format: 1 Online-Ressource (36 Seiten) , 21 x 29.7cm
    Series Statement: OECD Economics Department Working Papers
    Content: This paper presents a productivity growth measure that explicitly accounts for natural capital as an input factor and for undesirable goods, or "bads", as an output of the production process. The discussion focuses on the extension of productivity measurement for bad outputs and estimates of their shadow prices, while the inclusion of natural capital is discussed in more depth in a companion paper. As bad outputs are the target of environmental policies, a productivity measure that does not take bad outputs into account will underestimate productivity growth, whenever countries devote some inputs to reducing bad outputs, thus improving the environmental impact of their production processes, rather than to increasing the production of goods and services. An adjusted productivity measures is needed in an analysis of the effect of bad outputs on productivity growth as otherwise the effectiveness of environmental policies in promoting production processes that make more efficient use of the environment will be wrongly assessed. Results suggest that the adjustment of the traditional productivity growth measure for bad outputs is small. While this partly hinges on the fact, that due to a lack of more comprehensive data, only a limited set of bad outputs are considered in this paper, namely CO2, SOX and NOX emissions, the relatively small adjustment of the traditional productivity growth measure is good news for two reasons. First, it implies that ignoring the bad outputs considered in this paper results in a relatively small bias of productivity measurement, and thus analysis based on traditional measures should be relatively reliable in this regard. Second, it also implies that the acceleration in productivity growth that would help to substantially reduce the bad outputs considered in this paper, without reducing output growth, should be possible to achieve
    Language: English
    URL: Volltext  (URL des Erstveröffentlichers)
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Paris : OECD, Economics Dep.
    UID:
    gbv_776581023
    Format: Online-Ressource (28 S.) , graph. Darst.
    Series Statement: OECD Economics Department working papers 1092
    Content: Traditional measures of multi-factor productivity (MFP) growth generally do not recognise natural capital as inputs into the production process. Since productivity growth is measured as the residual between output and input growth, it will pick up the growth in unmeasured inputs, which can lead to a bias. The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the role of natural capital for productivity measurement and as a source of economic growth. To this aim, aggregate economy productivity measures mostly from the OECD Productivity Database are extended by incorporating natural capital as an additional input factor into the production function. More specifically, this paper considers oil, gas and various minerals as natural capital inputs, drawing on data from the World Bank. Results suggest that failing to account for natural capital tends to lead to an underestimation of productivity growth in countries where the use of natural capital in production is declining because of a dwindling natural capital stock. In return, productivity growth is sometimes overestimated in times of natural resource booms, if natural capital is not taken into account as an input factor. The direction of the adjustment to productivity growth depends on the rate of change of natural capital extraction relative to the rate of change of other inputs. The extended framework also makes the contribution of natural capital to economic growth explicit. This can be useful for countries relying on nonrenewable resources to better understand the need to develop other sources of growth, for example by investing in human or productive capital, to prepare for times when resources endowments become scarce. While the measurement of natural capital remains very incomplete, leaving out natural forests, water and soil, the measurement framework can readily be applied to more encompassing data on the natural capital stock, once it becomes available.
    Note: Zsfassung in franz. Sprache , Systemvoraussetzungen: Acrobat Reader.
    Language: English
    Keywords: Amtsdruckschrift ; Arbeitspapier ; Graue Literatur
    Author information: Brandt, Nicola 1972-
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages