The Experts below are selected from a list of 22008 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Pablo Selaya - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does foreign aid increase foreign direct investment
World Development, 2012Co-Authors: Pablo Selaya, Eva Rytter SunesenAbstract:We examine the idea that aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) are complementary sources of foreign capital. We argue that the relationship between aid and FDI is theoretically ambiguous: aid raises the Marginal Productivity of capital when used to finance complementary inputs (like public infrastructure and human capital investments), but aid may crowd out private investments when it comes in the shape of pure physical capital transfers. Empirically, we find that aid invested in complementary inputs draws in FDI, while aid invested in physical capital crowds it out. The paper shows that the composition of aid matters for its overall level of efficiency.
-
does foreign aid increase foreign direct investment
World Development, 2012Co-Authors: Pablo Selaya, Eva Rytter SunesenAbstract:We examine the idea that aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) are complementary sources of foreign capital. We argue that the relationship between aid and FDI is theoretically ambiguous: aid raises the Marginal Productivity of capital when used to finance complementary inputs (like public infrastructure and human capital investments), but aid may crowd out private investments when it comes in the shape of pure physical capital transfers. Empirically, we find that aid invested in complementary inputs draws in FDI, while aid invested in physical capital crowds it out. The paper shows that the composition of aid matters for its overall level of efficiency.
Eva Rytter Sunesen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does foreign aid increase foreign direct investment
World Development, 2012Co-Authors: Pablo Selaya, Eva Rytter SunesenAbstract:We examine the idea that aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) are complementary sources of foreign capital. We argue that the relationship between aid and FDI is theoretically ambiguous: aid raises the Marginal Productivity of capital when used to finance complementary inputs (like public infrastructure and human capital investments), but aid may crowd out private investments when it comes in the shape of pure physical capital transfers. Empirically, we find that aid invested in complementary inputs draws in FDI, while aid invested in physical capital crowds it out. The paper shows that the composition of aid matters for its overall level of efficiency.
-
does foreign aid increase foreign direct investment
World Development, 2012Co-Authors: Pablo Selaya, Eva Rytter SunesenAbstract:We examine the idea that aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) are complementary sources of foreign capital. We argue that the relationship between aid and FDI is theoretically ambiguous: aid raises the Marginal Productivity of capital when used to finance complementary inputs (like public infrastructure and human capital investments), but aid may crowd out private investments when it comes in the shape of pure physical capital transfers. Empirically, we find that aid invested in complementary inputs draws in FDI, while aid invested in physical capital crowds it out. The paper shows that the composition of aid matters for its overall level of efficiency.
G. C. Harcourt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution
Review of Radical Political Economics, 2015Co-Authors: G. C. HarcourtAbstract:The Cambridge critique of the Marginal Productivity theory of distribution is entwined with the critics’ theories of value, price, distribution, capital, growth, and methodology that occurred alongside it. The article first discusses these dimensions, then the inescapable need to explain the origin and size and rate of profits in any approach to the theory of distribution. The need in the neoclassical approach to have a unit in which to measure capital that is independent of distribution and prices is examined. The alternative classical/Marxian alternative and the relationship of pricing and market structures to systemic relationships in Post-Keynesian theory are analysed. Unresolved debates among the critics of the mainstream are outlined including those between Garegnani and Hahn. Ways forward are suggested in the concluding section.
-
on the cambridge england critique of the Marginal Productivity theory of distribution
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: G. C. HarcourtAbstract:The Cambridge, England, critique of the Marginal Productivity theory of distribution is hard to disentangle from the related theories and developments that occurred alongside it. These include value theory, price theory, capital theory, growth theory and methodology. Indeed, in the event, I found it impossible to disentangle them and I argue in the concluding section that not being able to do so is no bad thing anyway. The economists associated with the critique – Krishna Bharadwaj, Pierangelo Garegnani, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor, Luigi Pasinetti, Joan Robinson, Piero Sraffa – were simultaneously developing their own theories of distribution to replace Marginal Productivity. Their theories were embodied in theories of growth and reflected the methodology associated with the critique and their own developments.
-
on the cambridge england critique of the Marginal Productivity theory of distribution
Research Papers in Economics, 2014Co-Authors: G. C. HarcourtAbstract:The Cambridge critique of the Marginal Productivity theory of distribution is entwined with the critics’ theories of value, price, distribution, capital, growth, and methodology that occurred alongside it. The article first discusses these dimensions, then the inescapable need to explain the origin and size and rate of profits in any approach to the theory of distribution. The need in the neoclassical approach to have a unit in which to measure capital that is independent of distribution and prices is examined. The alternative classical/Marxian alternative and the relationship of pricing and market structures to systemic relationships in Post-Keynesian theory are analysed. Unresolved debates among the critics of the mainstream are outlined including those between Garegnani and Hahn. Ways forward are suggested in the concluding section. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Jacques Mairesse - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intangible capital and Productivity at the firm level a panel data assessment
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2015Co-Authors: Maria Elena Bontempi, Jacques MairesseAbstract:The econometric literature on measuring returns on intangible capital is vast, but we still know little about the effects on Productivity of different types of intellectual capital (R&D and patents) and customer capital (trademarks and advertising). The aim of this paper is to estimate the Marginal Productivity of different types of intangibles by relying on the theoretical framework of the production function, which we apply to a large panel of Italian companies. To this end, the European accounting system makes it possible to compare the impact on Productivity of intangibles measured from expenditures (as usual in Anglo-American studies) with the impact of intangible assets reported by companies in their balance sheets (a measure which is available in the Italian context, for example, but less common in the literature). Our results contribute two main findings to the literature. First, among the intangible components, the highest Marginal Productivity is that of intellectual capital, customer capital an...
-
intangible capital and Productivity at the firm level a panel data assessment
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2015Co-Authors: Maria Elena Bontempi, Jacques MairesseAbstract:The econometric literature on measuring returns on intangible capital is vast, but we still know little about the effects on Productivity of different types of intellectual capital (R&D and patents) and customer capital (trademarks and advertising). The aim of this paper is to estimate the Marginal Productivity of different types of intangibles by relying on the theoretical framework of the production function, which we apply to a large panel of Italian companies. To this end, the European accounting system makes it possible to compare the impact on Productivity of intangibles measured from expenditures (as usual in Anglo-American studies) with the impact of intangible assets reported by companies in their balance sheets (a measure which is available in the Italian context, for example, but less common in the literature). Our results contribute two main findings to the literature. First, among the intangible components, the highest Marginal Productivity is that of intellectual capital, customer capital and intangible assets. Second, the use of accounting information on intangible investments is crucial to find high effects of intangible assets on Productivity, while intangibles measured from expenses seem to play a more limited role. Preliminary results obtained from sub-samples mimicking the presence of spillovers deliver higher effects of intellectual capital on Productivity, suggesting that intangibles' social value is larger than the part we can estimate with individual firm data.
Wei Li - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the impact of economic reform on the performance of chinese state enterprises 1980 1989
Journal of Political Economy, 1997Co-Authors: Wei LiAbstract:The effectiveness of China's incremental industrial reform between 1980 and 1989 is investigated using a panel data set of 272 state enterprises. This paper applies a method that measures Marginal products of factors and changes in total factor Productivity (TFP) by comparing actual changes in output to actual changes in inputs and in the institutional environment. This paper finds that there were marked improvements in the Marginal Productivity of factors and in TFP between 1980 and 1989. More important, the evidence shows that over 87 percent of the TFP growth was attributable to improved incentives, intensified product market competition, and improved factor allocation. Copyright 1997 by the University of Chicago.
-
the impact of economic reform on the performance of chinese state enterprises 1980 1989
Development and Comp Systems, 1997Co-Authors: Wei LiAbstract:The effectiveness of China's incremental industrial reform between 1980--89 is empirically investigated using a panel data set of 769 state enterprises from 36 2--digit industries. I derive and apply a method that measures Marginal products of factors, changes in total factor Productivity (TFP), and improvements in factor allocation between enterprises by comparing actual changes in output to actual changes in inputs. Under this approach, the production functions can differ arbitrarily across firms. Market power in product markets and deviations from efficient allocation of factors are also permitted. This study finds that there were marked improvements in Marginal Productivity of factors and in TFP between 1980--89, and that over 73 percent of output growth was attributable to TFP growth, and over 87 percent of TFP growth was attributable to improved incentives, intensified product market competition, and improvements in factor allocation.
