Accounting for the Industry Origin of China’s Growth and Productivity Performance, 1980–2012

Wu, Harry X.

doi:10.22459/cnseg.07.2016.05

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This issue has been addressed by Bosworth and Collins () and Young () by using alternative price indices. A second way to overcome this bias is to develop a physical output index, as proposed by Wu (). Thus we also report the results using the real output series of Wu () in Appendix .…”

Section: Quantitative Implications Of the Shift‐share Methods Versus Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second way to overcome this bias is to develop a physical output index, as proposed by Wu (). Thus we also report the results using the real output series of Wu () in Appendix .…”

Section: Quantitative Implications Of the Shift‐share Methods Versus Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, we also allow for floating migrants following Bulman and Kraay (). Lastly, we also consider the data set from Wu (), which adds military personnel to non‐productive service employment. Again, these results are given in Appendix .…”

Section: Quantitative Implications Of the Shift‐share Methods Versus Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How Important was Labor Reallocation for China's Growth? A Skeptical Assessment

Robertson

2017

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies report the growth effects from labor reallocation in China to be in the order of 1-2 percentage points per year, which would appear to be a significant fraction of Chinas per capita income growth. We show that the total factor productivity gains are an order of magnitude smaller, at only 0.25 percentage points per year. There are two reasons for this difference. First, the majority of studies have used a decomposition method that effectively assumes linear production functions. This results in values that are much larger than the more appropriate Denison-Kuznets method. Second, we also allow for sectoral differences in human capital. We conclude that the gains from labor reallocation may have been a far less important source of Chinas growth than is conventionally thought.JEL Codes: O4, O41, O1Note: We are grateful for comments and suggestions from the anonymous referees, and from

show abstract

Section: Quantitative Implications Of the Shift‐share Methods Versus Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second way to overcome this bias is to develop a physical output index, as proposed by Wu (). Thus we also report the results using the real output series of Wu () in Appendix .…”

Section: Quantitative Implications Of the Shift‐share Methods Versus Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Important was Labor Reallocation for China's Growth? A Skeptical Assessment

Robertson

2017

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note: For the Russian series, we combine estimates of Russian GDP per capita for the Russian Empire (without Finland), the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation in their historical borders. Sources: Russia, 1860-1884 - Kuboniwa et al (2019); Russia/USSR, 1885-Bolt and van Zanden (2020, originally from Gregory (1982); Markevich and Harrison (2011) and Maddison (2010); Other countries - Bolt and van Zanden (2020), originally from Barro and Ursua (2008); Bassino et al (2018); Broadberry et al (2015a,b); Eloranta et al (2016); Fukao et al (2015); Sutch (2006); Wu (2014); Xu et al (2016) and Maddison (2010).…”

Section: Long-term Trends In Income and Living Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Russian Economic History

Zhuravskaya,

Guriev,

Markevich

2024

Journal of Economic Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey discusses recent developments in the growing literature on the economic history of Russia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Using novel data and modern empirical methods, this research provides important lessons for development and political economy. We address four strands of this literature. First, we present long-term trends in economic development, illustrating that throughout history, Russia significantly underperformed advanced economies, and quantify the human cost of Joseph Stalin’s dictatorship. Second, we discuss studies of imperial Russia focusing on the causes of Russia’s relatively low level of economic development and the 1917 revolution. The third strand of the literature focuses on the Soviet period, explaining its slowdown over time and eventual collapse. The fourth strand documents the long-term economic, social, and political consequences of large-scale historical experiments that took place during both the imperial and Soviet periods. We conclude by discussing the lessons from this research and highlighting open questions. (JEL N10, N30, N40, N60, P20, P30, Z13)

show abstract

“…A large academic literature exists regarding official Chinese statistics, with key findings including manipulation of GDP growth (Clark et al. , 2017, 2020; Hu and Yao, 2021; Rawski, 2001) and other economic data (Wu, 2014), which is echoed by findings in investigative reporting in outlets such as the New York Times (Wee and Yuan, 2018).…”

Section: Review Of Problems and Risks In Studying Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Contentions in the study of China’s political economy: building common ground

Farrell²

2022

IJOEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeA main challenge in studying China is that different views clash. A more serious challenge is that studies that are critical of or dissent from the Chinese government policies are labeled “anti-China” by the Chinese authorities, affecting the free academic exchange of ideas on China. This article discusses this issue and proposes a long-term solution.Design/methodology/approachThis is a perspective study and uses the qualitative approach to develop the authors’ arguments.FindingsThe authors argue that the contention in China-related studies is derived primarily from the different perspectives that scholars use. This study identifies two main perspectives: the China-centric view and the rest of the world’s view. The combination of the clash of perspectives and the interference of the Chinese state hinders the development of our knowledge regarding China. Using Rawls’ theory of justice and the veil of ignorance, the authors propose to build common ground for the China study community based on academic freedom, equality and the rule of law. This study further shows that building the common ground is feasible.Practical implicationsThe authors’ proposed common ground will help create a free environment for meaningful exchange between different perspectives and reduce the risks in China studies.Originality/valueThe authors’ angle to examine the contentiousness and riskiness of China studies is new. It is the first time that different perspectives on China studies are delineated and compared, the costs of the contentiousness and riskiness are assessed, and the long-term consequences of different paths are examined.

show abstract

Accounting for the Industry Origin of China’s Growth and Productivity Performance, 1980–2012

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

How Important was Labor Reallocation for China's Growth? A Skeptical Assessment

How Important was Labor Reallocation for China's Growth? A Skeptical Assessment

New Russian Economic History

Contentions in the study of China’s political economy: building common ground

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About