Decomposing Growth in France,Germany and The United Kingdom Using Growth Accounting and Production Function Approaches

Abstract

This paper uses Growth Accounting and Production Function Analysis to decompose the factors behind differences in growth between the UK, France and Germany between 1992 and 2005. Most of the growth differential between the United Kingdom, Germany and France since 1993 can be explained by structural factors. The United Kingdom's higher growth has originated essentially in the finance and business sector, which is ICT-intensive. Germany's weak growth reflects in large part the aftermath of the unification shock and a continued fall in the labour input. At the same time there has been a sharp slowdown in knowledge accumulation, which seems to have restrained labour productivity growth. After EMU, the performance of German manufacturing improved relative to both France and the United Kingdom, while capital deepening became less supportive to growth because of lower investment in infrastructures and dwellings. France's higher growth relative to Germany since 1999 comes essentially from the non-tradable sectors and from a higher labour input. This may be partly related to a more significant decline in the volatility of real interest rates.

Keywords

Growth accounting Production function estimation JEL classifications: 040 057 E23

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barrell, R. and teVelde, D. (2000), `Catching-up of East German labour productivity in the 1990s', German Economic Review, 1(3), pp. 271-297.

Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1997), `Foreign direct investment, technological change, and economic growth within Europe', Economic Journal, 107, pp. 1770-1776.

Bean, C. R. (1981), `An econometric-model of manufacturing investment in the UK', Economic Journal, 91, pp. 106-106.

Böwer, U. and Guillemineau, C (2006), `Determinants of business cycle synchronisation across euro area countries', European Central Bank Working Paper Series., No 587, February.

Ellis and Price (2004), `UK business investment and the user cost of capital', The Manchester School. 72 (s I), pp 72-93.

Fisher, F. M. , Solow, R. M. and Kearl, J. M. (1977), `Aggregate production functions: Some CES experiments', The Review of Economic Studies, 44(2), pp 305-320.

Frankel, J. and Rose, A. (1996), Economic structure and the decision to adopt a common currency. University of California at Berkley, CIDER working paper C96-073.

Hamermesh, D. S. (1986), `The demand for labor in the long run', in Ashenfelter, O. and Layard, R. (eds). Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume I, Oxford, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 429-471.

Hendry, D. F. and Juselius, K. (2000), `Explaining cointegration Part 11', mimeo.

10.

Hughes Hallett, A. and Richter, C. (2004), `A time frequency analysis of the coherences of the US business cycle and the European business cycle', CEPR Discussion Paper Series. No 4751, November.

11.

Johansen, S. (1988), `Statistical-analysis of cointegration vectors'. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, pp. 231-231.

12.

Jones, H. (1974), Modern Theories of Economic Growth, London, Nelson.

13.

Metz, R. , Riley, R. and Weale, M. (2004), `Economic performance in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: 1997-2002', National Institute Economic Review, 188, pp. 83-99.

14.

OECD (2003), `The diffusion of ICT and economic growth. Evidence from OECD countries, industries and firms'.

15.

UNIDO (2005), Capability Building for Catching-up.