The Experts below are selected from a list of 102720 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Akos Valentinyi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sectoral Technology and Structural Transformation
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2015Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Christopher Herrington, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:We assess how the properties of technology affect Structural Transformation, i.e., the reallocation of production factors across the broad sectors of agriculture, manufacturing, and services. To this end, we estimate sectoral constant elasticity of substitution (CES) and Cobb-Douglas production functions on postwar US data. We find that differences in technical progress across the three sectors are the dominant force behind Structural Transformation whereas other differences across sectoral technology are of second order importance. Our findings imply that Cobb-Douglas sectoral production functions that differ only in technical progress capture the main technological forces behind the postwar US Structural Transformation.
-
Growth and Structural Transformation
Handbook of Economic Growth, 2014Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:Abstract Structural Transformation refers to the reallocation of economic activity across the broad sectors agriculture, manufacturing, and services. This review article synthesizes and evaluates recent advances in the research on Structural Transformation. We begin by presenting the stylized facts of Structural Transformation across time and space. We then develop a multi-sector extension of the one-sector growth model that encompasses the main existing theories of Structural Transformation. We argue that this multi-sector model serves as a natural benchmark to study Structural Transformation and that it is able to account for many salient features of Structural Transformation. We also argue that this multi-sector model delivers new and sharper insights for understanding economic development, regional income convergence, aggregate productivity trends, hours worked, business cycles, wage inequality, and greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude by suggesting several directions for future research on Structural Transformation.
-
Two perspectives on preferences and Structural Transformation
American Economic Review, 2013Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:We assess the empirical importance of changes in income and relative prices for Structural Transformation in the postwar United States. We explain two natural approaches to the data: sectors may be categories of final expenditure or value added; e.g., the service sector may be the final expenditure on services or the value added from service industries. We estimate preferences for each approach and find that with final expenditure income effects are the dominant force behind Structural Transformation, whereas with value-added categories price effects are more important. We show how the inputoutput structure of the United States can reconcile these findings. (JEL E21, L16)
-
Growth and Structural Transformation
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:Structural Transformation refers to the reallocation of economic activity across the broad sectors agriculture, manufacturing and services. This review article synthesizes and evaluates recent advances in the research on Structural Transformation. We begin by presenting the stylized facts of Structural Transformation across time and space. We then develop a multi-sector extension of the one-sector growth model that encompasses the main existing theories of Structural Transformation. We argue that this multi-sector model serves as a natural benchmark to study Structural Transformation and that it is able to account for many salient features of Structural Transformation. We also argue that this multi-sector model delivers new and sharper insights for understanding economic development, regional income convergence, aggregate productivity trends, hours worked, business cycles, and wage inequality. We conclude by suggesting several directions for future research on Structural Transformation.
-
Sectoral Technology and Structural Transformation
Research Papers in Economics, 2013Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Christopher Herrington, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:This paper assesses how Structural Transformation is affected by sectoral differences in labor-augmenting technological progress, capital intensity, and substitutability between capital and labor. We estimate CES production functions for agriculture, manufacturing, and services on postwar US data and compare them with Cobb--Douglas production functions with different and with equal capital shares. We find that sectoral differences in labor-augmenting technological progress are the dominant force behind changes in sectoral labor and in relative prices. As a result, Cobb--Douglas production functions with equal capital shares (which by construction abstract from differences in capital intensity and the elasticity of substitution) capture the main economic forces on the technology side behind postwar US Structural Transformation.
Berthold Herrendorf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Structural Transformation of Occupation Employment
2017Co-Authors: Georg Duernecker, Berthold HerrendorfAbstract:We provide evidence on Structural Transformation from censuses covering three quarters of the world population. As countries develop, the standard patterns of labor reallocation hold for broad categories of both industries ("sectors") and occupations while the employment shares of the service occupations rise in all sectors. We propose a model of Structural Transformation with sectors and occupations that is consistent with these patterns. The key ingredient of our model is uneven, occupation-specific technological progress. We show that our model is useful for predicting changes in the occupation composition and for understanding why sectoral labor productivity growth has slowed.
-
Sectoral Technology and Structural Transformation
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2015Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Christopher Herrington, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:We assess how the properties of technology affect Structural Transformation, i.e., the reallocation of production factors across the broad sectors of agriculture, manufacturing, and services. To this end, we estimate sectoral constant elasticity of substitution (CES) and Cobb-Douglas production functions on postwar US data. We find that differences in technical progress across the three sectors are the dominant force behind Structural Transformation whereas other differences across sectoral technology are of second order importance. Our findings imply that Cobb-Douglas sectoral production functions that differ only in technical progress capture the main technological forces behind the postwar US Structural Transformation.
-
Structural Transformation of Occupation and Industry Employment
2015Co-Authors: Georg Duernecker, Berthold HerrendorfAbstract:We provide new evidence on Structural Transformation from 164 censuses of rich and poor countries covering more than 2/3 of world GDP and 3/4 of the world population. We establish that the standard patterns of Structural Transformation hold not only for broad industry categories, but also for broad occupation categories. We also establish that in all sectors the employment share of the service‐producing occupations rises with GDP per capita. We build a model of Structural Transformation that can account for these facts. We show that our model can speak to the implications of Structural Transformation for important labor‐market outcomes.
-
Growth and Structural Transformation
Handbook of Economic Growth, 2014Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:Abstract Structural Transformation refers to the reallocation of economic activity across the broad sectors agriculture, manufacturing, and services. This review article synthesizes and evaluates recent advances in the research on Structural Transformation. We begin by presenting the stylized facts of Structural Transformation across time and space. We then develop a multi-sector extension of the one-sector growth model that encompasses the main existing theories of Structural Transformation. We argue that this multi-sector model serves as a natural benchmark to study Structural Transformation and that it is able to account for many salient features of Structural Transformation. We also argue that this multi-sector model delivers new and sharper insights for understanding economic development, regional income convergence, aggregate productivity trends, hours worked, business cycles, wage inequality, and greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude by suggesting several directions for future research on Structural Transformation.
-
Two perspectives on preferences and Structural Transformation
American Economic Review, 2013Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:We assess the empirical importance of changes in income and relative prices for Structural Transformation in the postwar United States. We explain two natural approaches to the data: sectors may be categories of final expenditure or value added; e.g., the service sector may be the final expenditure on services or the value added from service industries. We estimate preferences for each approach and find that with final expenditure income effects are the dominant force behind Structural Transformation, whereas with value-added categories price effects are more important. We show how the inputoutput structure of the United States can reconcile these findings. (JEL E21, L16)
Peter C Timmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
food security Structural Transformation markets and government policy
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Peter C TimmerAbstract:Food prices are a key signal about what is happening to food security, and two dimensions are important: their average level (and whether this is rising or falling in the long run) and their volatility. Food price instability slows down economic growth and the Structural Transformation that is the pathway out of rural poverty. The best approaches to improving food security depend on which global food price regime is likely to drive policy formation between now and 2050. The historical path of Structural Transformation with falling food prices, leading to a ‘world without agriculture’, is an obvious possibility. But continued financial instability, coupled with the impact of climate change, could lead to a new and uncertain path of rising real costs for food, with a reversal of Structural Transformation. Management of food policy, and the outlook for sustained poverty reduction, will be radically different depending on which of these global price regimes plays out.
-
a world without agriculture the Structural Transformation in historical perspective
Books, 2009Co-Authors: Peter C TimmerAbstract:Establishing efficient policy mechanisms to guide developing economies through the Structural Transformation should be a priority of world governments in the 21st century.
-
the Structural Transformation as a pathway out of poverty analytics empirics and politics
2008Co-Authors: Peter C Timmer, Selvin AkkusAbstract:A powerful historical pathway of Structural Transformation is experienced by all successful developing countries, and this Working Paper presents the results of new empirical analysis of the process. Making sure the poor are connected to both the Structural Transformation and to the policy initiatives designed to ameliorate the distributional consequences of rapid Transformation has turned out to be a major challenge for policy makers over the past half century. There are successes and failures, and the historical record illuminates what works and what does not. Trying to stop the Structural Transformation does not work, at least for the poor, and in fact can lead to prolonged immiseration. Investing in the capacity of the poor to cope with change and to participate in its benefits through better education and health does seem to work. Such investments typically require significant public sector resources and policy support, and thus depend on political processes that are themselves conditioned by the pressures generated by the Structural Transformation itself.
Chris Papageorgiou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rethinking development policy: What remains of Structural Transformation?
World Development, 2020Co-Authors: Manoj Atolia, Prakash Loungani, Milton H Marquis, Chris PapageorgiouAbstract:Abstract This paper takes a fresh look at the current theories of Structural Transformation and the role of private and public fundamentals in the process. It summarizes some representative past and current experiences of various countries vis-a-vis Structural Transformation with a focus on the roles of manufacturing, policy, and the changing nature of global production in shaping the trajectory of Structural Transformation. The salient aspects of the current debate on premature deindustrialization and its relation to a middle-income trap are described as they relate to the path of Structural Transformation. Conclusions are drawn regarding prospective future paths for Structural Transformation and development policies as well as for the need for further empirical analysis to inform our current understanding of the process of economic development.
-
rethinking development policy deindustrialization servicification and Structural Transformation
IMF Working Papers, 2018Co-Authors: Manoj Atolia, Prakash Loungani, Milton H Marquis, Chris PapageorgiouAbstract:This paper takes a fresh look at the current theories of Structural Transformation and the role of private and public fundamentals in the process. It summarizes some representative past and current experiences of various countries vis-a-vis Structural Transformation with a focus on the roles of manufacturing, policy, and the international environment in shaping the trajectory of Structural Transformation. The salient aspects of the current debate on premature deindustrialization and its relation to a middle-income trap are described as they relate to the path of Structural Transformation. Conclusions are drawn regarding prospective future paths for Structural Transformation and development policies.
Richard Rogerson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Structural Transformation and Growth
The Oxford Handbook of Structural Transformation, 2019Co-Authors: Richard RogersonAbstract:This chapter illustrates how Structural Transformation and outcomes resembling balanced growth at the aggregate level can be generated simultaneously using a growth model. It begins with a discussion of the three key economic mechanisms that drive Structural Transformation: the first emphasizes income effects while the other two both emphasize relative price effects. These mechanisms are then incorporated into a standard version of the growth model to test whether it is possible to obtain balanced growth and Structural Transformation at the same time. By extending the model to include multiple consumption sectors, a new model that generates balanced growth and Structural Transformation is achieved. The chapter also explains how three basic mechanisms described can drive sectoral reallocation of labour in the face of development associated with increases in productivity and capital.
-
Growth and Structural Transformation
Handbook of Economic Growth, 2014Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:Abstract Structural Transformation refers to the reallocation of economic activity across the broad sectors agriculture, manufacturing, and services. This review article synthesizes and evaluates recent advances in the research on Structural Transformation. We begin by presenting the stylized facts of Structural Transformation across time and space. We then develop a multi-sector extension of the one-sector growth model that encompasses the main existing theories of Structural Transformation. We argue that this multi-sector model serves as a natural benchmark to study Structural Transformation and that it is able to account for many salient features of Structural Transformation. We also argue that this multi-sector model delivers new and sharper insights for understanding economic development, regional income convergence, aggregate productivity trends, hours worked, business cycles, wage inequality, and greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude by suggesting several directions for future research on Structural Transformation.
-
Two perspectives on preferences and Structural Transformation
American Economic Review, 2013Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:We assess the empirical importance of changes in income and relative prices for Structural Transformation in the postwar United States. We explain two natural approaches to the data: sectors may be categories of final expenditure or value added; e.g., the service sector may be the final expenditure on services or the value added from service industries. We estimate preferences for each approach and find that with final expenditure income effects are the dominant force behind Structural Transformation, whereas with value-added categories price effects are more important. We show how the inputoutput structure of the United States can reconcile these findings. (JEL E21, L16)
-
Growth and Structural Transformation
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:Structural Transformation refers to the reallocation of economic activity across the broad sectors agriculture, manufacturing and services. This review article synthesizes and evaluates recent advances in the research on Structural Transformation. We begin by presenting the stylized facts of Structural Transformation across time and space. We then develop a multi-sector extension of the one-sector growth model that encompasses the main existing theories of Structural Transformation. We argue that this multi-sector model serves as a natural benchmark to study Structural Transformation and that it is able to account for many salient features of Structural Transformation. We also argue that this multi-sector model delivers new and sharper insights for understanding economic development, regional income convergence, aggregate productivity trends, hours worked, business cycles, and wage inequality. We conclude by suggesting several directions for future research on Structural Transformation.
-
Two Perspectives on Preferences and Structural Transformation
Research Papers in Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Berthold Herrendorf, Richard Rogerson, Akos ValentinyiAbstract:We assess the empirical importance of income and price effects for Structural Transformation in the postwar US. We explain two natural approaches to the data: sectors may be categories of final expenditure or value added; e.g., the service sector may be the final expenditure on services or the value added from service industries. We estimate preferences for each approach and find that with final expenditure income effects are the dominant forces behind Structural Transformation whereas with value added categories price effects are dominant. We show how the input-output structure of the US economy can reconcile these findings.
