Hall and Jones hypothesized that greater social infrastructure improves a country’s productive capacity, measures in output per worker. In their 1999 paper, they were able to show evidence that supported their hypothesis that strong institutions and government policy explain output variation across countries.
The implication here for development economics is that stronger institutions are not only more conducive to growth, but are the determining factor when it comes to output in an economy.
The following charts show Output per worker on the x axis and capital per worker on the y axis. The charts show a strong positive relationship between the two, meaning higher capital per worker corresponds with higher output per worker. This makes intuitive sense and confirms the economic theory which the intuition is based upon. Labor is more productive, in terms of output, when it has more capital to work with. Increasing labor when leaving capital unchanged will lead to diminishing marginal productivity of labor. However, when both labor and capital are increased, output is able to expand at higher rates without diminishing.
When running a simple linear regression model explaining output per worker as a function of capital per worker, we find a similar relationship to that explained in the previous charts. Increased capital per worker increases output per worker, and the change in capital per worker is explained by changes in output per worker at an \(R^2\) of 0.896. The coefficient of 0.655 can be interpreted as the percentage change in the output per worker associated with a 1% increase in the capital per worker.
Specifically, for each 1% increase in the independent variable (log capital per worker), the dependent variable (log output per worker) is estimated to increase by approximately 0.655%.
##
## ===============================================
## Dependent variable:
## ---------------------------
## hjlogyl
## -----------------------------------------------
## hjlogkl 0.655***
## (0.020)
##
## Constant 2.705***
## (0.186)
##
## -----------------------------------------------
## Observations 127
## R2 0.897
## Adjusted R2 0.896
## Residual Std. Error 0.347 (df = 125)
## F Statistic 1,091.269*** (df = 1; 125)
## ===============================================
## Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
Total Factor Productivity is shows the growth not attributed to increases in labor or capital factor inputs. In the form of a Cobb-Douglas production function, total output is represented by:
\[ Y = AK^\alpha L^\beta \]
TFP is represents by \(A\), while capital and labor inputs are \(K\) and \(L\), respectively. \(Y\) is the measure of total output in the economy (on a country level).
The equation I will use will be modified for capital and output measures on a per worker level. In addition, since the dataset contains variables in log scale, we can taken the log of the above equation to calculate TFP.
\[ logY = A * \alpha logK * \beta log L \]
Solving for \(A\) :
\[ A = \frac{logY}{\alpha logK * \beta logL} \]
Using this methodology, I come close to reproducing the Hall and Jones TFP calculation seen in the Productivity Calculations (Table 1). The TFP (A) is presented as a ratio to US values. In comparison to the USA, Kenya and India have very low TFP, while Italy has a higher TFP. My calculations are off in some sense as the USSR shows higher TFP despite being a much lower value in the Hall and Jones paper.
## # A tibble: 8 × 2
## country A_scaled
## <chr> <dbl>
## 1 KENYA 0.296
## 2 ZAIRE -0.412
## 3 U.S.A. 1.00
## 4 CHINA 0.499
## 5 INDIA 0.173
## 6 ITALY 1.23
## 7 U.K. 0.783
## 8 U.S.S.R. 1.33