MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Returns to scale: concept, estimation and analysis of Japan's turbulent 1964-88 economy

2011· article· en· W1947795745 on OpenAlexaffvenue
W. Erwin Diewert, Takanobu Nakajima, Alice Nakamura, Emi Nakamura, Masao Nakamura

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimationScale (ratio)EconomicsTurbulenceEconometricsEconomyGeographyManagementMeteorologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is policy interest in factoring productivity growth into technical progress and returns to scale components. Our approach uses exact index number methods to reduce the parameters that must be estimated, and allows us to exploit the cross-sectional dimension of plant-level panel data. We show that the same equation can also be used to estimate ‘Harberger’ scale economies and technical progress indicators that require fewer assumptions. Estimates of the elasticity of scale for Japanese establishments in three major industries over 1964–88 are presented. Our study spans the high growth era of the 1960s, two oil shocks, and other exogenous shocks. Il y a intérêt en politique publique à identifier les composantes de la croissance de la productivité attribuables au progrès technique et aux rendements à l’échelle. L’approche utilise les méthodes des nombres indices exacts pour réduire les paramètres qui doivent êtres estimés, et pouvoir exploiter la dimension transversale des données de panel au niveau de l’établissement. On montre que la même équation peut être utilisée pour estimer les indicateurs d’économies d’échelle et de progrès technique à la Harberger (lesquels nécessitent un plus petit nombre de postulats). On présente des évaluations de l’élasticité d’échelle pour des établissements japonais dans trois industries importantes entre 1964 et 1988.L’étude couvre la période de forte croissance des années 1960, celle des deux chocs pétroliers et d’autres chocs exogènes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.064 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207