Infrastructure, Productivity and Urban Dynamic in Cote D'Ivoire

Bogetić, Željko; Sanogo, Issa

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1811162

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 Of course, innovation is unlikely to be determined by a single dimension such as R&D activity, however that is conceived. The empirical and theoretical literature has identified a range of other relevant conditioning variables, 16 including industrial bargaining characteristics, 17 product market characteristics (essentially industry concentration), 18 labor quality and human capital, 19 trade, international competition or openness of the economy, 20 foreign direct investment, 21 financial liberalization, and exchange rate overvaluation. 22 Here we consider the possibility that infrastructure may similarly affect growth in TFP.…”

Section: Infrastructure and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 See Nickell (1996), Haskel (1991) and Haskel and Slaughter (2001), Baily, Hulten and Campbell (1992), Lichtenberg (1992), McGuckin and Sang (1995), and Jovanovic (1982). 19 See, for example, the findings in Doms, Dunne and Troske (1997), and Entorff and Kramarz (1998). In a somewhat different tradition, see Nelson and Wright (1992) and Fagerberg (1994).…”

Section: The Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Infrastructure And Growth In South Africa : Direct And Indirect Productivity Impacts Of 19 Infrastructure Measures

Bogetić¹,

Fedderke²

2006

Policy Research Working Papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical explorations of the growth and productivity impacts of infrastructure have been characterized by ambiguous (countervailing signs) results with little robustness. A number of explanations of the contradictory findings have been proposed. These range from the crowd-out of private by public sector investment, non-linearities generating the possibility of infrastructure overprovision, simultaneity between infrastructure provision and growth, and the possibility of multiple (hence indirect) channels of influence between infrastructure and productivity improvements. This paper explores these possibilities utilizing panel data for South Africa over the 1970-2000 period, and a range of 19 infrastructure measures. Utilizing a number of alternative measures of productivity, the prevalence of ambiguous (countervailing signs) results, with little systematic pattern is also shown to hold for our data set in estimations that include the infrastructure measures in simple growth frameworks. We demonstrate that controlling for potential endogeneity of infrastructure in estimation robustly eliminates virtually all evidence of ambiguous impacts of infrastructure, due for example to possible overinvestment in infrastructure. Indeed, controlling for the possibility of endogeneity in the infrastructure measures renders the impact of infrastructure capital not only positive, but of economically meaningful magnitudes. These findings are invariant between the direct impact of infrastructure on labor productivity, and the indirect impact of infrastructure on total factor productivity.

show abstract

Section: Infrastructure and Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Infrastructure And Growth In South Africa : Direct And Indirect Productivity Impacts Of 19 Infrastructure Measures

Bogetić¹,

Fedderke²

2006

Policy Research Working Papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In its turn, the sectoral structure of a region's economy also has its own "delta"the effect of the concentration of economic industries in a region, which has been studied just in few number of publications of Latvian economic researchers (Boronenko, Zeibote, 2010;Zeibote, 2018), without "going out" to the specialization of regions, based on the increased concentration of one or another industry (or some industries) in a particular region (Bogetic, Sanogo, 2005). (See Figure 1).…”

Section: What Is the Subject Of Productivity And Efficiency?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical interpretation and measurement of the productivity and efficiency of regions: the case of Latvia

Korshenkov¹,

Ignatyev²

2020

IRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main concepts of this study are productivity and efficiency, which are very relevant for Latvia and are reflected both in the latest scientific publications, dissertation researches and analytical reviews of the Latvian ministries and representatives of the European Commission in Latvia, as well as in expert reports published in the press. The objective of this article is empirical interpretation and search of the most corresponding to the terminological background method of measuring of the productivity and efficiency of regions, based on a specific example of the regions of Latvia. The results of the previous authors' research showed that the productivity of region is defined as it`s ability to create as many as possible goods or services per unit of time, while the efficiency is the pure economical term that takes into account the amount of the factors of production utilizied in the production process. Productivity / efficiency of a region is not only the sum of the productivity / efficiency of economical units functioning in this region, as contains a certain "delta"synergy effect (for factors of production), agglomeration effect (for enterprises) or concentration effect (for industries). Always economically backward Latvia's region (Latgale region) is not with the lowest productivity calculated by the GDP per 1 km 2 of a region's territoryby this indicator less successful in Latvia is Vidzeme region. But by the earnings index, calculated taking into account the sectoral structure of employment in a region, exactly the Latgale region as usually occupies the last place in Latvia, and the Riga regionthe first one. To calculate the efficiency of Latvia's regions, the authors relied on neoclassical growth models, which take into account the main classical factors of production -labor, land, capital. By the efficiency in Latvia the Riga region leads expectantly, almost 2 times exceeding the efficiency of Pieriga region, and more than 3 times,the efficiency of Latgale region. But lowest efficiency in Latvia is not in the Latgale region, but once more in Vidzeme region.

show abstract

“…Эффект агломерации является причиной того, что производительность и продуктивность регионов не является только простой суммой производительности и продуктивности экономических субъектов, функционирующих в том или ином регионе, а содержит в себе ещё и определённую «дельту» -производную от степени агломерации экономических субъектов в регионе (Ullman 1958;Fujita et al 1999;Nechet et al 2012). 11 В свою очередь, со стороны отраслевой структуры экономики региона также существует своя «дельта» -эффект концентрации экономической активности в регионе, который в латвийской экономической науке изучался довольно мало (Boronenko, Zeibote 2010;Zeibote 2018), без «выхода» на специализацию региона, основанную на повышенной концентрации той или иной экономической активности (или нескольких видов экономической активности) в этом регионе (Bogetic, Sanogo 2005).…”

Section: производительность продуктивность и эффективность экономики на кривой производственных возможностейunclassified

“…Авторы считают, что все теоретические подходы к объяснению предпосылок роста производительности и продуктивности регионов, представленные в Таблице 8, могут быть использованы для проведения эмпирического анализа производительности и продуктивности регионов Латвии, но особый интерес для современных исследователей (Bogetic, Sanogo 2005;Néchet et al 2012) По мнению авторов, для изучения производительности и продуктивности регионов может быть использован также так назывемый ресурсный подход или подход ресурсов-активов-капитала (Тихонова 2006), который основан на следующей методологической предпосылке: ресурсы, имеющиеся в распоряжении региона, в результате их задействования могут быть превращены в его активы или -в терминологии классическкой теории производства -в факторы производства, которые, в свою очередь, могут принести региону экономическую прибыль, т.е. стать его капиталом.…”

Section: теории объясняющие производительность и продуктивность регионовunclassified

Теоретическое И Методологическое Обоснованиеизучения Производительности И Продуктивности Врегиональной Экономике

Коршенков¹,

Игнатьев²,

Дембовский³

2019

SZV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructure, Productivity and Urban Dynamic in Cote D'Ivoire

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Infrastructure And Growth In South Africa : Direct And Indirect Productivity Impacts Of 19 Infrastructure Measures

Infrastructure And Growth In South Africa : Direct And Indirect Productivity Impacts Of 19 Infrastructure Measures

Empirical interpretation and measurement of the productivity and efficiency of regions: the case of Latvia

Теоретическое И Методологическое Обоснованиеизучения Производительности И Продуктивности Врегиональной Экономике

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About