productivity and growth of japanese prefectures prepared for the 3 rd world klems conference, tokyo,...
TRANSCRIPT
Productivity and Growth of Japanese Prefectures
Prepared for the 3rd World KLEMS Conference, Tokyo, May 19-20, 2014.
Joji Tokui (Shinshu University and RIETI)Kyoji Fukao (Hitotsubashi University and RIETI)
Tsutomu Miyagawa (Gakushuin University and RIETI) Kazuyasu Kawasaki (Toyo University)
Tatsuji Makino (Hitotsubashi University)
This presentation is based on our two papers.Joji Tokui, Tatsuji Makino, Kyoji Fukao, Tsutomu Miyagawa, Nobuyuki Arai, Sonoe Arai, Tomohiko Inui, Kazuyasu Kawasaki, Naomi Kodama and Naohiro Noguchi (2013), “Compilation of the Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity Database (R-JIP) and Analysis of Productivity Differences across Prefectures,” The Economic Review, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp.218-239 (in Japanese).Kazuyasu Kawasaki, Tsutomu Miyagawa and Joji Tokui (2014), “Reallocation of Production Factors in the Regional Economies in Japan: Towards an Application to the Great East-Japan Earthquake.”
Contents
1. Construction of Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity (R-JIP) Database
2. The change in prefectural productivity differences and its causes (1970-2008)
3. Factor reallocation and its efficiency among prefectures and industries
Main Features of R-JIP Database• 47 prefectures in Japan• 23 industries (13 manufacturing + 10 non-
manufacturing)• 1970-2008 (annual data)• Value added, capital input, labor input• Input data are constructed taking quality into account. (1) time-series quality change for both capital and labor (2) cross-sectional quality difference for labor
5
Relationship between R-JIP and JIP
• The control totals of regional-level value added, capital, and labor are 2011 JIP data.• The value added deflator for each industry calculated from the 2011
JIP data is used. • The investment deflator and capital depreciation rate for each
industry calculated from the 2011 JIP data is used.• The capital cost and capital quality for each industry calculated from
the 2011 JIP data are used.• In contrast, we calculate regional-specific working hours, labor costs,
and labor quality for each industry.6
The R-JIP Database is available on RIETI’s website (in Japanese only at the moment)
7
http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/database/R-JIP2012/
index.html
Construction of relative regional labor quality data• Each prefecture’s relative labor quality is estimated taking its
employment structure into account.• The number of employees cross-classified by prefecture, industry, sex,
age, and educational background is from the Population Census (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010).• The data for 2008 are estimated through linear interpolation between
2000 data and 2010 data.• The construction of the prefecture-level labor quality index is based
on the cross-sectional index number approach of Caves, Christensen, and Diewert (1982).
8
The difference in labor quality across prefectures in 1970 (Tokyo=1)
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
Toky
oKa
naga
wa
Osa
kaH
yogo
Kyot
oH
irosh
ima
Fuku
oka
Aich
iYa
mag
uchi
Saita
ma
Shiz
uoka
Chib
aW
akay
ama
Oka
yam
aTo
yam
aKa
gaw
aN
ara
Nag
asak
iN
agan
oM
ieEh
ime
Gum
ma
Hok
kaid
oIs
hika
wa
Fuku
iTo
chig
iYa
man
ashi
Gifu
Miy
agi
Shig
aO
itaTo
ttor
iIb
arak
iTo
kush
ima
Saga
Niig
ata
Fuku
shim
aYa
mag
ata
Kum
amot
oSh
iman
eKo
chi
Miy
azak
iAk
itaIw
ate
Kago
shim
aAo
mor
iO
kina
wa
9
The difference in labor quality across prefectures in 2008 (Tokyo=1)
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
Toky
oKa
naga
wa
Aich
iH
irosh
ima
Osa
kaN
ara
Hyo
goKy
oto
Shig
aTo
yam
aSh
izuo
kaYa
man
ashi
Mie
Yam
aguc
hiKa
gaw
aSa
itam
aO
kaya
ma
Fuku
oka
Gum
ma
Ishi
kaw
aTo
kush
ima
Toch
igi
Fuku
iCh
iba
Ehim
eIb
arak
iG
ifuN
agan
oM
iyag
iO
itaTo
ttor
iW
akay
ama
Shim
ane
Fuku
shim
aSa
gaKu
mam
oto
Yam
agat
aN
iigat
aN
agas
aki
Koch
iH
okka
ido
Akita
Iwat
eM
iyaz
aki
Kago
shim
aO
kina
wa
Aom
ori
10
• Differences in regional labor quality have shrunk in the 40 years since 1970.• But they still remain. Labor quality in the prefecture with the highest
level is 1.3 times that of that with the lowest level.
• Some people are commuting across prefectural borders. In that case, the prefecture where they inhabit and where they work are different.• Since in our database value added data are compiled in the prefecture
where production is taken place and labor input data are compiled in the prefecture where they work, we focus on labor productivity instead of the per capita income of each prefecture.
We decompose prefectural labor productivity into three factors: prefectural TFP differences, the capital-labor ratio, and labor quality.
Decomposition of factors underlying regional differences in labor productivity
14
L
i
LirL
iLir
i
Vi
Vir
i
ir
i
irKi
Kir
i
Vi
Vir
iir
Vi
Vir
i i
irVi
Vir
r
Q
QSSSS
H
H
Z
ZSSSS
RTFPSS
H
HSS
V
V
log2
1
2
1
log- log2
1
2
1
2
1
log2
1log
23
1
23
1
23
1
23
1
: Labor Productivity
: TFP Difference
: Capital-Labor Ratio
: Labor Quality
Decomposition of differences in regional labor productivity in 1970 (in logarithm)
15
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Kana
gaw
aTo
kyo
Osa
kaM
ieCh
iba
Shig
aYa
mag
uchi
Hyo
goW
akay
ama
Nar
aAi
chi
Oka
yam
aSh
izuo
kaH
irosh
ima
Kyot
oTo
chig
iTo
yam
aSa
itam
aIb
arak
iG
ifuIs
hika
wa
Ehim
eFu
kuok
aG
umm
aO
itaKa
gaw
aN
agan
oAk
itaH
okka
ido
Niig
ata
Toku
shim
aM
iyag
iFu
kui
Saga
Fuku
shim
aTo
ttor
iIw
ate
Aom
ori
Yam
agat
aYa
man
ashi
Miy
azak
iKo
chi
Kum
amot
oN
agas
aki
Kago
shim
aSh
iman
eO
kina
wa
TFP Difference
Capital-Labor Ratio
Labor Quality
Labor Productivity
Decomposition of differences in regional labor productivity in 2008 (in logarithm)
16
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Toky
oO
saka
Chib
aAi
chi
Oita Mie
Kyot
oKa
naga
wa
Wak
ayam
aSh
iga
Shiz
uoka
Hiro
shim
aYa
mag
uchi
Hyo
goIb
arak
iTo
chig
iFu
kuok
aTo
yam
aH
okka
ido
Nag
ano
Oka
yam
aG
ifuFu
kush
ima
Saita
ma
Nar
aTo
kush
ima
Kago
shim
aIs
hika
wa
Akita
Gum
ma
Kaga
wa
Fuku
iSa
gaN
iigat
aYa
man
ashi
Miy
agi
Aom
ori
Iwat
eM
iyaz
aki
Yam
agat
aEh
ime
Shim
ane
Tott
ori
Kum
amot
oKo
chi
Oki
naw
aN
agas
aki
TFP Difference
Capital-Labor Ratio
Labor Quality
Labor Productivity
Results:
• Differences in prefectural TFP, capital-labor ratios, and labor quality all contribute to the differences in regional labor productivity. • The most important reason for the decline in regional
labor productivity differences in the past 40 years is the narrowing of differences in the capital-labor ratio across prefectures.• In contrast, substantial differences in prefectural TFP
levels remain and are now the main cause for differences in labor productivity across prefectures.
17
Which industries contribute to the decline in regional labor productivity differences in the past 40 years? To do this analysis, first we use following decomposition of each prefecture’s relative factor intensity into share effect and within effect.The prefecture-level capital-labor ratio (i.e., for all industries together) in prefecture, zr , can be represented as the weighted average of the capital-labor ratio in each industry zir, where the weights are given by industries’ labor input share lir measured in terms of man-hours:
i
irirr zlz
Next, the national average of the capital-labor ratio in industry i, denoted by z_
i, and the national average of
the labor input share in that industry, denoted by l_
i, are obtained by taking the simple average across all prefectures:
r
iri zz47
1、
riri ll
47
1
Further, the capital-labor ratio for Japan as a whole across all industries, denoted by z_
, is obtained as the
weighted average of the national average capital-labor ratio in each industry z_
i using the national average
labor input share in each industry l_
i , as weights:
i
ii zlz
The difference between the capital-labor ratio for each prefecture as a whole and the capital-labor ratio for Japan as a whole can then be decomposed as shown below by regarding the product lirzi as a non-linear
function of lir and zir and linearly approximating in the neighborhood of lir=l_
I and zir=z_
i:
i
iiiri
iiri
iiir
i
iiiri
i
iiri
ii
iirir
lzzzllzzll
lzzzllzlzl
Given that the second term on the right-hand side equals zero, we obtain the following relationship (where we use the fact that the sum total of the labor input shares in each prefecture has to be equal to 1):
i
iiiri
iiiri
ii
iirir lzzzzllzlzl
where the first term on the right-hand side represents the contribution of the fact that a prefecture has, e.g., above-average labor input shares in industries with a capital-labor ratio that is above the national average (share effect), while the second term represents the contribution of differences between the capital-labor ratios of the industries in a particular prefecture and the national average capital-labor ratios for those industries (within effect).
Next, we define each industry’s contribution based on the covariance between factor intensity and labor productivity in the prefecture as follows.Contribution of the share effect for industry i.
Contribution of the within effect for industry i.
For capital labor ratio and labor quality we can decompose between share effect and within effect. For TFP we can calculate only within effect.
Result of decomposition by industries (1970)(1) 1970
Capital-labor ratio Labor quality TFP
Share effect Within effect Share effect Within effect Within effect
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries -0.18 6.60 30.30 26.72 4.33
Mining -0.71 -0.09 -10.22 3.46 2.30
Food and beverages 0.14 3.04 -0.35 4.53 12.91
Textile mill products -1.37 1.87 -1.37 7.22 8.07
Pulp and paper 0.30 -1.27 0.57 1.35 1.25
Chemicals 5.48 2.77 6.81 2.00 13.43
Petroleum and coal products 4.28 0.15 1.07 0.14 9.28
Ceramics, stone and clay 0.18 0.96 0.77 2.04 4.32
Basic metals 6.05 3.92 14.86 1.91 -0.00
Processed metals -0.85 1.09 3.90 1.73 3.74
General machinery 0.67 1.59 9.65 2.07 7.60
Electrical machinery -1.22 1.07 1.04 5.12 6.36
Transport equipment -1.11 1.26 8.55 1.50 5.81
Precision instruments -0.30 0.23 0.22 0.57 0.29
Other manufacturing -2.13 3.61 5.01 8.99 3.55
Construction -0.50 1.91 4.01 13.48 8.81
Electricity, gas and water utilities 1.01 5.00 -2.19 -4.05 2.39
Wholesale and retail trade -1.01 3.25 -2.93 23.23 19.86
Finance and insurance 0.23 2.31 1.08 -4.37 0.80
Real estate 2.73 1.61 2.71 -1.84 -5.73
Transport and communications 2.29 33.69 -4.70 -0.65 -10.08
Service activities (private, not for profit) -0.31 9.94 -16.62 17.25 3.38
Service activities (government) -1.89 3.70 -73.92 9.37 -2.69
Manufacturing subtotal 10.12 20.30 50.72 39.16 76.61
Nonmanufacturing excl. primary industry subtotal 2.54 61.42 -92.57 52.42 16.76
Total 11.77 88.23 -21.76 121.76 100.00
Result of decomposition by industries (2008)(3) 2008
Capital-labor ratio Labor quality TFP
Share effect Within effect Share effect Within effect Within effect
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries -30.47 13.10 7.07 4.92 -7.18
Mining -1.05 1.37 -0.27 0.73 -0.07
Food and beverages 2.95 5.30 -0.19 5.09 7.01
Textile mill products 0.39 3.35 0.13 2.07 0.00
Pulp and paper 0.28 -2.62 0.22 0.87 0.57
Chemicals 11.85 6.32 5.28 1.93 1.25
Petroleum and coal products 5.67 2.99 0.78 0.20 13.43
Ceramics, stone and clay -0.01 1.29 0.15 1.33 2.59
Basic metals 6.19 7.13 3.89 2.47 1.81
Processed metals -3.82 0.62 1.67 2.05 0.97
General machinery -1.93 3.72 6.06 5.31 3.77
Electrical machinery -2.26 -10.52 -1.02 10.90 -0.95
Transport equipment -1.09 5.52 6.64 4.69 6.84
Precision instruments -0.00 0.45 0.03 0.96 -0.30
Other manufacturing -4.00 7.42 3.75 6.55 1.95
Construction 9.28 1.10 -5.43 7.10 11.72
Electricity, gas and water utilities -8.78 24.96 -3.24 -1.42 -2.57
Wholesale and retail trade -1.69 8.43 0.77 13.63 25.27
Finance and insurance -1.71 1.07 0.96 0.91 8.12
Real estate 54.77 -15.92 3.39 -1.81 -0.64
Transport and communications 11.82 21.76 4.72 2.97 0.87
Service activities (private, not for profit) -5.72 -2.31 -5.23 36.71 25.09
Service activities (government) -13.27 -11.96 -62.59 24.28 0.44
Manufacturing subtotal 14.23 30.99 27.40 44.43 38.95
Nonmanufacturing excl. primary industry subtotal 44.70 27.13 -66.65 82.37 68.29
Total 27.41 72.59 -32.45 132.45 100.00
Summary of the industrial decomposition result• Main causes of the remaining differences of prefectural labor productivity
occurred in non-manufacturing sector.• Notable development from 1970 to 2008 are:(1)For Capital labor ratio, the share effect of non-manufacturing increased greatly over time. Particularly, real estate, and transport and communications. These industries concentrated in high labor productivity prefectures.(2)For labor quality, the within effect of non-manufacturing increased greatly over time. Particularly, wholesales and retail trade and non-government services. In these industries labor quality is high in high labor productivity prefectures.(3)For TFP, the within effect of non-manufacturing increased greatly over time. Particularly, construction, wholesales and retail trade and non-government services.
Calculation formula for factor reallocation effect• Our calculation is based on the Sonobe and Otsuka (2001)’s formula, which
decompose the prefecture’s growth of labor productivity into four parts.
the prefecture’s growth of labor productivity=capital deepening (within effect) + capital deepening (share effect) +capital reallocation effect + labor reallocation effect +TFP (within)
ri rr r Kri ri r ri
i r
ri r ri r ri rr Kri ri Lri ri
i ir r r
Yri rii
k kG y s G k G L
k
R R y y k ks G k s G L
R y k
s G TFP
In 1980s capital reallocation effect was negative almost every prefectures in Japan.
Shiga
Tochigi
Tokyo
Shizuoka
Yamanashi
Fukui
Mie
Saitama
Ibaraki
Toyama
Kagoshim
aAich
i
Niigata
Miyagi
GunmaNara
Nagano
Fukush
ima
Nagasaki
YamaguchiKyo
toGifu
Tottori
Miyaza
ki
Hyogo
Chiba
Kanagawa
Ishika
wa
Yamagata
Okaya
ma
Kumamoto
Hirosh
ima
Saga
Shimane
Akita
Iwate
Kochi
Tokush
ima
Aomori
Osaka
Ehime
Okinawa
Oita
Hokkaido
Kagawa
Fukuoka
Waka
yama
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Effect of Factor Reallocation on the Prefectural Labor Productivity (1980-1990)
Capital Deepening: Within (%) Capital Deepening: Share (%) Capital Reallocation (%) Labor Reallocation (%) TFP (%)
In 2000s capital reallocation effect was positive in relatively high labor productivity growth prefectures.
Yamanashi
Akita
Saga
Kagoshim
a
TottoriMie
Ibaraki
NaganoOsa
ka
Tokush
ima
Gifu
Fukush
ima
Kyoto
Yamagata
Shizuoka
Hyogo
Tokyo Fukui
Shimane
Saitama
ShigaAich
i
Fukuoka
Niigata
Okinawa
Iwate
Miyaza
kiOita
Aomori
Tochigi
Kagawa
Kumamoto
Toyama
Chiba
Nagasaki
Waka
yama
Nara
Hirosh
ima
Hokkaido
Yamaguchi
Okaya
ma
Ishika
wa
Miyagi
Gunma
KanagawaKoch
i
Ehime
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Effect of Factor Reallocation on Prefectural Labor Productivity (2000-2008)
Capital Deepening: Within (%) Capital Deepening: Share (%) Capital Reallocation (%) Labor Reallocation (%) TFP (%)
Summary of the factor reallocation effect• Labor reallocation effect was positive almost every prefectures in
Japan from 1980s through 2000s.• But, in 1980s capital reallocation effect was negative almost every
prefectures in Japan.• In 2000s capital reallocation effect turned to be positive in relatively
high labor productivity growth prefectures.• But, in relatively low productivity growth prefectures capital
reallocation effect still remained negative in 2000s.