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

Abstract

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

Hitting the Great Wall: Structural change and China's growth slowdown

“…The properties of other key variables of interest are also shown in Table (2). These values are all within the range of values reported in the literature, particularly in Brandt and Zhu (2010), Bulman and Kraay (2011), and Ye and Robertson (2016).…”

“…In terms of structural change, it predicts a total change in employment share of the nonagricultural sector from 30% of the total labor force in 1978 to 60% in 2008. The baseline calibration also predicts a change in the output share of the non-agricultural sector from 70% of the total output in 1978 to 89% in 2008, which is also in the range of data in Bulman and Kraay (2011), Cao and Birchenall (2013), and Ye and Robertson (2016). The properties of other key variables of interest are also shown in Table (2).…”

“…[Figure (1) about here] Nevertheless there is an alternative view in the literature that the efficiency gains from factor reallocation have been small, despite large apparent sectoral productivity gaps (Cao et al, 2009;Bulman and Kraay, 2011;Ye and Robertson, 2016). Insofar as they find small labor reallocation effects on growth, these studies suggest that the slowing rural-urban migration may not be a big factor in causing a growth slowdown.…”

Automation and inequality in China

“…As to measurement, the use of value rather than volume measures for the capital stock is readily shown to bias estimates of the Solow residuals, under some conditions rendering growth accounting to a mere restatement of production accounting identities. 6 By contrast with the TFP contribution, the majority of studies support a strong role for structural change in overall growth performance, implying the merits of relocating workers from low productivity employment in agriculture to higher productivity work on manufacturing or services, though even this is regarded with scepticism by Ye and Robertson (2017).…”

China's economic growth and convergence

“…There is a considerable body of literature studying the characteristics and prospects of Chinese economic growth and structural transformation. The growth accounting is one of the popular techniques that many empirical papers adopt to identify sources of economic growth based on China's aggregate and industry data (Bosworth & Collins, ; Lee & Hong, ; Wu, ; Ye & Robertson, ; Young, ; Zhu, ). The results of growth accounting suggest that the most of China's growth has been associated with physical capital accumulation, technological progress and labour reallocation, although there is a wide disagreement over the relative contributions of each factor.…”