WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 12 | 13 || 15 | 16 |   ...   | 28 |

In the assumption of the constant retutns to scale regarded as a TFP factor and that enterprises are keen to reduce their production costs and, consequently, use costs of various kinds in proportions While the econometric approach allows abandonment the assumption of the equality between marginal factor products and observed costs, thus obtained assessments may prove to be biased. First, the basic factors growth rates cannot always be regarded as exogenous towards changes in TFP; second if factors costs have been measured with errors, the standard methods of assessing coefficients of the equation would lead to inconsistent estimates. Barro, R., X. Sala-iMartin (2004). P. 433457.

that reduce the costs, different factors incomes are proportional to their marginal products. For each year of the period in question by Russia as a whole:

the proportion of the remuneration of employees34 in GDP is regarded as the weight coefficient;

the difference between unit and the weight coefficient of labor inputis regarded as the coefficient of capital input.

The data on GRP formation of of Russian regions by income sources have become available since 200235, but regional computations of the employees remuneration do not suggest considering and reflecting in the account a hidden compensation of employees.

On the federal level, finding volumes of the hidden compensation of employees is conducted according to a methodology that suggests building all the accounts of the Households sector, which is not applicable to regional computations.

That is why while computing weight coefficients of labor input needed to conduct decomposition of regional growth, one suggests that the wages fund of the employed to employees remuneration ratio is equal for all the regions and coincides with the analogous nationwide indicator.

As the table shows, the range of the coefficients is fairly great (from 0.38 to 0.75). This can be associated with quite serious interregional (and inter-okrug) differences in terms of economic structure. However, there can exist yet another reason, that is, the failure to meet preconditions laid down in the methodology, should they are not met to a various extent for different regions, this would also lead to a distortion in the course of the comparison of assessments, because of their bias.

Source: Natsionalnye scheta Rossii, Rosstat RF.

Source: Natsionalnye scheta Rossii v 19962003 gg., Rosstat RF.

Table 3.Weight Coefficients of Labor Input for the Federal Okrugs Federal okrug 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Far-Eastern 0.75 0.74 0.69 0.61 0.66 0.69 0.Volga 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.51 0.North-Western 0.63 0.66 0.57 0.52 0.56 0.63 0.Siberian 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.Ural 0.46 0.49 0.49 0.45 0.44 0.49 0.Central 0.48 0.48 0.45 0.40 0.38 0.44 0.Southern 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.57 0.By RF as a 0.55 0.56 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.whole An alternative method that partly lacks this particular drawback is the employment of interval estimates, or an expert pre-setting of weights, being uniform for all the subjects in question. Weight coefficients K = 0,3 L = 0,7 are most frequently used (see for instance: De Broek, Koen (2000); Dolinskaya (2001); Entov, Lugovoy at al. (2003))36. However, in this particular case inter-regional and inter-okrug differences in terms of services prices of the basic factors would not be taken into account in the course of the TFP assessment, which can dramatically affect interpretation of the respective results.

The growing weight coefficient of labor (the share of employees remunerationin GRP) appeared characteristic of most of the federal okrugs in 19972002. Its average growth rate accounted for 710% of the value as of the beginning of the period, despite a drop in the value in 19981999. The Central and Far-Eastern federal okrugs made an exception in this respect, for in the period in question their weight coefficients of labor input slid by 4.7% and 10.0%, For reference: in Bessonov (2002), the estimates of factor elasticities for the Soviet economy make up EK = 0,45 EL = 0,55.

respectively. As concerns regions, only in 22 of them saw a drop in the coefficient values (see Annex 2, Table A2-5).

3.2.5. Decomposition of Growth The final stage of decomposition comprises integration of growth rates of the basic factors computed on the basis of the earlier built indices by means of weight coefficients and computation of the unexplained remainder. Results of the decomposition are given in Table 3.6 (see also Annex 2, Map 1).

Table 3.Decomposition of Growth in GRP by the Federal Okrugs for the Period between 1997 and Far North South Volga Siberian Ural Central Eastern Western ern GRP 1.37 2.73 3.77 1.33 3.08 5.13 4.I. Factor in0.58 0.33 0.61 0.16 1.13 1.33 0.puts I.1 Labor 0.19 0.20 0.00 0.16 0.11 0.22 0.(Employment) I.2 Capital 0.40 0.13 0.60 0.00 1.01 1.11 0.Fixed assets 0.00 0.23 0.08 0.21 0.44 0.26 0.Loading 0.40 0.10 0.52 0.21 0.57 0.86 0.rate Employment 0.39 0.23 0.04 0.41 0.10 0.27 0.structure II. Remainder 2.34 2.63 3.13 1.90 1.86 4.06 4.The Solow 1.60 2.33 3.73 1.75 2.55 4.66 3.remainder The period between 1997 and 2002 saw positive TFP growth rates for all the federal okrugs. In addition, this remainder forms the most significant factor of growth for all the federal okrugs, the proportion of the output growth rates generated by the growth in the remainder have been over 60%, while in the Far-Eastern, Siberian and Southern federal okrugs, positive growth rates of the remainder have practically compensated for a substantial fall in te basic factor costs.

Results of computations on the sub-periods 199798 and 1999 2002 (see Annex 2, Tables A2-9, A2-10) evidence that the growth rates of the unexplained remainder in the Volga, Central and Southern federal okrugs are positive both at the stage of growth and decline, while in other federal okrugs the TFP growth rates are positive only in 19992002. Given the above, at the stage of decline the fall in output for most federal okrugs (except for the Ural and Central ones) is largely explained by a fall in the basic factor costs, while at the stage of growth, for all the federal okrugs roughly 75% of the output growth rates explain the remainder growth rates.

The percentage of the output growth rates unexplained by changes in the basic factors vary substantially by regions (see Annex 2, Table A2-11). For most of them, the remainder growth rates over the period in question coincide with those of output. Interestingly, the proportion of the output growth rates explained by the basic factors has not exceeded the proportion they have failed to explain.

The diagram of dispersion of the output growth rates and those of different factors (see Annex 2, Fig. A2-7) exposes a fairly loose connection between the GRP growth rates and those of labor and capital. A small percentage of the explained growth manifests itself in the structure of TFP assessments that practically repeats the structure of GRP (see Fig. 3.13). This is explained by fairly approximate estimates of factors, on the one hand, and the selected assessment interval that covers both the output growth and decline trends, on the other.

40 GRP TFP 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 Regional structure of in the initial period (as of end 1996) Fig. 3.13. Sun-Rise Diagram of growth in GDP (19972002) at the Federal Okrug Level As noted above, the regions display the non-homogenous dynamics of output, with the differences being determined both by growth rates and the moment of the change of the trend (Fig. 3.2).

That is why let us consider results of decomposition of the regions growth rates by factors individually for the periods of decline and growth (the regions have been broken down into groups, depending on the limits of the periods). The first group comprises regions whose dynamics of output demonstrated growth over the whole period of 19972002, as well as those whose output volume has never slid below the 1996 level.

For all the regions of the group except Moscow, the unexplained remainder exceeds the contribution of basic factors.

Siberian FO Volga FO Ural FO Ural FO Far-Eastern FO Siberian FO Southern FO_ Volga FO Central FO_ Far-Eastern FO GDP increment=100%) Central FO_ North-Western FO_ North-Western FO_ Increment (fall) in the federal okrugs GRP (the Southern FO_ Table 3.Decomposition of the Regions Output Growth Rates in1997I.1. Employof which I. I.2.

Labor ment II. ReLoadGRP Factor Capiemploy strucFixed mainder ing inputs ment) tal ture assets rate Astrakhan 7.05 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.25 0.30 0.96 7.oblast Belgorod 5.12 1.33 0.37 0.95 0.09 0.86 0.40 4.oblast City of Mos6.69 3.58 0.40 3.18 1.06 2.12 0.09 3.cow Kursk oblast 3.50 0.42 0.72 0.30 0.19 0.11 0.59 3.Moscow 4.79 0.83 0.49 0.34 0.34 0.14 4.oblast Murmansk 1.70 0.68 0.36 0.32 0.12 0.20 0.52 2.oblast Orel oblast 6.07 0.30 0.68 0.38 0.06 0.32 0.41 6.Perm oblast 3.87 0.43 0.36 0.06 0.06 0.04 3.Republic of 4.39 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.17 4.Mordovia Tambov oblast 5.43 1.25 0.20 1.05 0.24 0.81 0.58 7.Table 3.Decomposition of Growth in GRP by the Federal Okrugs in 1997 and 1998I.1. Employof which I. I.2.

Labor ment II. ReLoadGRP Factor Capiemploy strucFixed mainder ing inputs ment) tal ture assets rate Republic of 2.43 5.96 1.49 4.47 0.07 4.40 0.02 3.Kabardino9.02 1.07 1.87 0.80 0.12 0.92 0.56 8.Balkaria 2.94 7.24 5.43 1.80 0.14 1.66 1.17 3.Novgorod oblast 4.88 0.02 0.23 0.20 0.11 0.32 0.07 4.Republic of 5.55 0.44 0.35 0.09 0.09 1.18 3.North Ossetia9.32 1.72 1.73 0.01 0.01 0.71 8.Alania 8.66 0.09 0.83 0.74 0.17 0.91 0.03 8.Tver oblast 3.54 0.50 0.04 0.46 0.09 0.55 0.41 4.Table 3.Decomposition of Growth in the Regions Output in 1997and 1999I.1. Employof which I. I.2. II. ReLabor ment GRP Factor Capiemplo struc- mainFixed Loadinputs y- tal ture der assets ing rate ment) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.52 3.28 1.28 1.90 0.22 1.68 0.00 6.Altay krai 6.10 0.75 0.68 1.45 0.15 1.30 0.64 7.10.27 4.46 2.08 2.44 0.17 2.27 1.33 4.Amur oblast 5.44 0.81 0.33 0.48 0.05 0.52 0.36 5.Ark3.87 3.98 3.18 0.88 0.21 0.67 0.00 0.hangelsk 8.18 1.87 1.22 0.64 0.03 0.61 0.37 6.oblast 2.37 0.76 0.11 0.64 0.12 0.53 0.72 0.Vladimir oblast 5.97 1.60 0.49 1.11 0.04 1.16 0.01 4.5.30 9.43 3.43 5.91 0.15 5.76 0.37 4.Volgograd oblast 6.38 1.24 1.48 0.42 0.07 0.34 1.04 6.2.62 2.49 2.45 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.67 0.Vologda oblast 6.08 2.18 1.61 0.57 0.01 0.56 0.35 4.1.87 3.31 1.38 1.89 0.26 1.64 0.43 1.Voronezh oblast 4.25 1.41 1.28 0.10 0.12 0.22 0.50 3.3.45 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.62 4.City of St.

Petersburg 9.08 2.57 0.31 2.26 0.31 1.96 0.06 6.Jewish 14.45 5.54 4.84 0.74 0.10 0.64 0.07 8.autonomous 6.17 2.50 2.27 0.15 0.13 0.28 1.45 5.oblast 9.44 3.33 2.53 0.71 0.22 0.49 0.22 6.Ivanovo oblast 4.93 0.70 0.10 0.61 0.17 0.78 0.48 4.10.71 2.11 1.13 1.03 0.23 0.79 0.78 7.Irkutsk oblast 2.54 1.60 0.67 0.91 0.17 1.08 0.51 1.7.33 0.34 0.13 0.45 0.16 0.29 0.25 6.Kaliningrad oblast 8.22 1.04 0.42 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.51 7.5.88 2.71 2.12 0.59 0.10 0.50 0.48 3.Kaluga oblast 4.73 1.32 0.29 0.97 0.03 0.94 0.67 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5.43 3.49 2.32 1.16 0.24 0.92 0.02 1.Kamchatka oblast 2.38 1.48 0.06 1.35 0.14 1.21 0.46 0.6.19 3.12 2.27 0.92 0.10 1.03 0.20 2.Kemerovo oblast 5.68 0.70 0.01 0.69 0.05 0.64 0.30 5.1.98 1.74 1.66 0.07 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.Kostroma oblast 3.81 0.26 0.15 0.43 0.07 0.50 0.18 4.5.71 1.48 1.18 0.32 0.06 0.39 0.02 4.Krasnodar krai 7.76 3.35 1.49 1.92 0.71 1.21 0.35 4.Kras3.27 1.06 0.77 0.29 0.06 0.22 0.40 1.noyarsk 4.99 0.55 0.61 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.56 5.krai 2.52 4.15 2.98 1.38 0.20 1.18 0.24 1.Kurgan oblast 3.10 0.41 0.95 0.58 0.16 0.43 1.05 3.4.74 0.85 0.83 0.04 0.04 0.27 4.Leningrad oblast 12.01 1.14 0.66 0.48 0.48 0.17 10.5.03 5.66 1.37 4.30 0.17 4.14 0.03 0.Lipetsk oblast 6.07 1.76 1.25 0.34 0.10 0.44 0.44 4.Nizhny 1.27 2.88 1.30 1.82 0.01 1.82 0.45 1.Novgorod 6.56 1.06 0.42 0.48 0.00 0.48 0.00 5.oblast 5.45 5.26 2.21 3.07 0.16 2.91 0.17 0.Novosibirsk oblast 8.31 1.18 0.88 0.25 0.09 0.34 0.37 7.8.81 3.17 0.41 2.88 0.19 2.69 0.54 5.Omsk oblast 6.92 0.04 0.47 0.43 0.13 0.30 0.58 6.5.14 1.67 0.82 0.89 0.05 0.83 0.37 3.Orenburg oblast 5.89 2.32 1.33 0.99 0.04 0.95 0.41 3.5.76 3.11 1.67 1.47 0.16 1.30 0.13 2.Penza oblast 5.99 0.16 1.12 1.29 0.09 1.20 0.76 6.9.87 3.80 2.15 1.65 0.22 1.42 0.13 6.Pskov oblast 6.62 1.16 1.58 0.43 0.14 0.30 0.81 6.6.60 5.16 2.50 2.63 0.22 2.42 1.83 0.Republic of Adygea 3.17 1.15 0.58 0.55 0.03 0.58 0.31 2.Republic of 4.27 3.66 0.83 2.84 0.09 2.92 0.15 0.Bashkor5.04 1.00 0.62 0.34 0.26 0.08 0.49 4.tostan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.04 8.05 5.30 2.79 0.12 2.67 0.36 6.Republic of Buryatiya 6.19 1.26 0.98 0.23 0.07 0.30 1.04 5.3.89 3.42 2.12 1.27 0.32 0.95 0.58 6.Republic of Dagestan 10.76 1.87 1.59 0.57 0.14 0.72 1.57 10.6.73 5.62 5.46 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.79 0.Republic of Karelia 7.04 2.72 1.48 1.25 0.01 1.26 0.02 4.Republic of 4.93 3.75 3.33 0.45 0.08 0.53 0.10 1.Sakha (Ya4.13 0.26 0.18 0.11 0.36 0.47 0.61 5.kutia) 3.90 3.31 0.81 2.47 0.08 2.55 0.08 0.Republic of Tatarstan 6.94 2.59 0.69 1.88 0.41 1.47 0.14 4.2.41 3.88 3.58 0.29 0.29 0.28 1.Republic of Tyva 6.45 1.12 0.89 0.23 0.23 0.31 7.1.06 5.48 1.75 3.78 0.15 3.63 1.04 5.Rostov oblast 9.62 2.58 1.07 1.52 0.07 1.46 0.41 7.1.80 2.68 1.87 0.89 0.25 0.64 0.16 1.Ryazan oblast 4.60 0.94 0.84 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.38 4.1.48 2.00 0.66 1.26 0.03 1.29 0.41 0.Samara oblast 4.71 2.08 0.82 1.25 0.15 1.10 0.18 2.1.52 1.84 0.60 1.34 0.11 1.23 0.41 0.Saratov oblast 6.60 0.31 0.34 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.60 6.2.56 4.34 2.66 1.68 0.01 1.67 1.37 3.Sakhalin oblast 4.66 0.36 0.86 1.34 0.53 1.87 0.02 5.5.78 1.64 1.06 0.57 0.07 0.64 0.14 4.Sverdlovsk oblast 6.37 1.94 0.73 1.23 0.06 1.17 0.34 4.4.57 5.69 1.51 4.15 0.34 3.81 0.41 1.Smolensk oblast 8.09 2.04 0.99 1.07 0.04 1.03 0.23 6.4.82 3.07 1.25 1.87 0.20 1.67 0.50 1.Stavropol krai 6.54 1.58 0.74 0.70 0.04 0.65 0.37 5.6.63 3.27 2.02 1.28 0.00 1.28 0.10 3.Tomsk oblast 8.12 1.86 0.70 1.16 0.13 1.03 0.01 6.0.89 1.32 1.43 0.13 0.35 0.22 0.60 0.Tyumen oblast 6.36 4.48 0.91 3.51 0.75 2.77 0.11 1.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 12 | 13 || 15 | 16 |   ...   | 28 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .