تحول ساختاری بین تولید و خدمات و کاهش در نوسانات تولید ناخالص داخلی ایالات متحده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|12261||2012||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9710 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Review of Economic Dynamics, Volume 15, Issue 3, July 2012, Pages 402–415
I construct a two-sector growth model to study the effect of the structural transformation between manufacturing and services on the decline in GDP volatility in the US. In the model, a change in the relative size of the two sectors affects the transmission mechanism that relates sectoral TFP shocks to endogenous variables. I calibrate the model to the US and show that, for given stochastic sectoral TFP processes in manufacturing and services, structural change generates a decline in the volatility of both aggregate TFP and GDP, in the volatility of each broad component of GDP (manufacturing consumption, services consumption and investment) and in the volatility of labor. Numerical results suggest that the structural transformation can account for 28% of the reduction in the US GDP volatility between the periods 1960–1983 and 1984–2005.
The decline in GDP volatility that occurred in the US during the second part of the last century is a well documented fact. During the same period, the US also experienced a dramatic process of structural transformation, i.e. an increase in the size of the services sector relative to manufacturing. In this paper, I study the relationship between the structural transformation and the decline in GDP volatility in the US in the context of a two-sector growth model. The main finding is that structural change in the calibrated model can account for 28% of the decline in GDP volatility observed in the US between the periods 1960–1983 and 1984–2005.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The structural transformation between manufacturing and services in modern economies is a well established fact. At the same time, the reduction in GDP volatility appears to be a common process across industrialized countries. This paper shows that the structural transformation can account for 28% of the difference observed in GDP volatility between the 1960–1983 and the 1984–2005 periods in the US in the context of a two-sector growth model.