Decomposing Growth in France, Germany and the United Kingdom Using Growth Accounting and Production Function Approaches
-
Published:2007-01-01
Issue:
Volume:199
Page:99-113
-
ISSN:0027-9501
-
Container-title:National Institute Economic Review
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Natl. Inst. econ. rev.
Author:
Barrell Ray,Guillemineau Catherine,Holland Dawn
Abstract
This paper uses Growth Accounting and Production Function Analysis to decompose the factors behind differences in growth between the UK, France and Germany between 1992 and 2005. Most of the growth differential between the United Kingdom, Germany and France since 1993 can be explained by structural factors. The United Kingdom's higher growth has originated essentially in the finance and business sector, which is ICT-intensive. Germany's weak growth reflects in large part the aftermath of the unification shock and a continued fall in the labour input. At the same time there has been a sharp slowdown in knowledge accumulation, which seems to have restrained labour productivity growth. After EMU, the performance of German manufacturing improved relative to both France and the United Kingdom, while capital deepening became less supportive to growth because of lower investment in infrastructures and dwellings. France's higher growth relative to Germany since 1999 comes essentially from the non-tradable sectors and from a higher labour input. This may be partly related to a more significant decline in the volatility of real interest rates.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference15 articles.
1. UNIDO (2005), Capability Building for Catching-up.
2. OECD (2003), ‘The diffusion of ICT and economic growth. Evidence from OECD countries, industries and firms’.
3. Economic Performance in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: 1997–2002
4. Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY;National Institute Economic Review;2009-04