سرمایه انسانی و بهره وری برای رشد اقتصاد پایدار کره
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|18505||2005||25 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10070 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Asian Economics, Volume 16, Issue 4, August 2005, Pages 663–687
This paper assesses Korea's growth experience and its prospects based on methods of ‘level accounting’ and ‘growth accounting’. The level accounting method shows that the gap of output per worker between Korea and the US has rapidly decreased over the past three decades. However, this swift ‘catch-up’ process is attributed to physical and human capital accumulation for the most part, rather than to the total factor productivity (TFP) growth. Growth accounting shows that the productivity growth of the Korean economy, particularly the manufacturing industry, has accelerated in recent years. But, poor productivity performance in the service industries, including finance, insurance, and real estate, construction, and wholesale and retail trade sectors, hampers overall productivity growth. For sustained productivity growth, Korea needs to stimulate technological investment, and upgrade the quality of human capital.
South Korea has shown a remarkable economic performance during the past four decades. The GDP grew extremely rapidly at an average of 7.0% a year between 1960 and 2000, and the per capita income has increased almost 11 times over the past four decades (see Table 1). Although the economy was devastated suddenly by the financial crisis in 1997–1998, by 2000 it had managed to recover quickly. Table 1. Economic growth in selected countries, 1960–2000 GDP per capita Average annual GDP growth per capita 1960 2000 2000/1960 1960–1970 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 1960–2000 1970–2000 Korea 1495 15881 10.62 5.97 5.68 7.32 4.67 5.91 5.89 Japan 4545 24672 5.43 9.27 3.09 3.53 1.05 4.23 2.55 USA 12273 33308 2.71 2.87 2.66 2.16 2.30 2.50 2.37 Canada 10384 26905 2.59 3.06 2.97 1.63 1.85 2.38 2.15 Finland 7491 23792 3.18 4.21 3.09 2.65 1.60 2.89 2.45 France 7825 22358 2.86 4.55 2.74 2.11 1.10 2.62 1.98 Ireland 5136 26381 5.14 3.46 3.16 3.51 6.22 4.09 4.30 Australia 10699 25559 2.39 3.26 1.44 1.59 2.42 2.18 1.82 China 682 3747 5.50 1.79 2.72 5.14 7.41 4.26 5.09 Hong Kong 3090 26703 8.64 7.45 6.59 5.04 2.48 5.39 4.70 Malaysia 2119 9937 4.69 3.08 5.26 2.92 4.19 3.86 4.12 Philippines 2015 3424 1.70 1.73 3.17 −0.89 1.30 1.33 1.19 Singapore 2161 27186 12.58 8.93 7.76 4.48 4.16 6.33 5.47 Taiwan 1430 18718 13.09 6.68 7.44 6.27 5.36 6.44 6.35 Argentina 7371 10995 1.49 2.29 1.38 −3.87 4.22 1.00 0.57 Brazil 2371 7185 3.03 4.23 5.67 −0.26 1.46 2.77 2.29 Chile 3853 9920 2.57 2.19 1.22 1.28 4.79 2.37 2.43 Note: The per capita GDP levels and growth rates are based on the international (purchasing power parity adjusted) prices of 1996, which are based on the Penn-World Tables 6.1. Source: Heston, Summers, and Aten (2002). Table options The crisis has passed now in Korea but the economy's recent growth performance has been rather disappointing when compared with its historical record. From 2001 to 2004, the GDP growth averaged 4.6%. The startling performance of the Korean economy and its subsequent setback leads to challenging questions of what the fundamental factors that explain Korea's growth performance are. It is also questionable as to whether the current depression is merely a cyclical phenomenon, or an indication of a permanent drop in Korea's growth potentials. Some argue that Korea's recession will be further aggravated, eventually leading to a state comparable to Japan's ‘lost decade’. Others say that the dynamic forces that have enabled Korea's fast growth still remain intact, and thus with the appropriate development strategies can resume the pre-crisis growth rates. The purpose of this paper is to assess Korea's growth experience, as well as its prospects. Empirical methods called ‘level accounting’ and ‘growth accounting’ will be used in order to analyze the sources of output growth in the Korean economy over the last three decades. First to be examined is the evolution of the gap in output per worker between Korea and the United States over time, as well as a comparison of Korea's experience and that of other countries. The ‘level accounting’ results show that although Korea has experienced a very rapid catch-up in output per worker over time, the gap reduction of relative output per worker has been largely attributed to physical and human capital accumulation, rather than productivity growth. Korea needs to expedite its productivity growth in order to sustain its catch-up to higher-income countries. The ‘growth accounting’ results show that Korea's total factor productivity (TFP) growth has accelerated in the manufacturing sector since the 1990s. However, service industries, such as finance, insurance, real estate, construction, and wholesale and retail trade sectors, have performed poorly consistently. The lower productivity performance of the service sectors drags the productivity growth in the aggregate economy. For the sustained productivity growth, Korea must rationalize the service industries. The paper follows in four sections Section 2 assesses Korea's growth performance over the past thirty years by using the ‘level accounting’ method. This section focuses on Korea's catch-up process to the US in output and productivity. In Section 3 the growth accounting approach is applied, explaining the sources of output growth, both at aggregate and sectoral levels. The role of factor accumulation and productivity in output growth by sector is addressed. Section 4 discusses the role of human capital and technological investment for sustaining productivity growth in Korea. Finally, Section 5 concludes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Korea now faces a much smaller gap in physical and human capital as well as technical efficiency in the long-run potential levels than it had in previous decades. Consequently, the catch-up process, through capital accumulation as well as adoption of already invented technologies, is expected to slow down over time. Korea will inevitably become adjusted to a lower growth path. The reductions in investment ratios as well as GDP growth rates in recent years seem to indicate that Korea's catch-up would decelerate. Unless Korea expedites its productivity growth, the economy is unlikely to reattain the high growth rates that it has achieved in previous decades. Evidence shows that Korea now seeks to switch itself from an old, accumulation-type to a new, technology-driven economy. Korea's technology progress, however, still depends more heavily on the mere imitation or adaptation of already invented technologies. For a sustained productivity growth, the Korean economy needs to promote the innovation of its own technologies. Efforts to increase the R&D investment and to enhance the quality of education are crucial for technological innovations. One bright sign for the Korean economy is that total factor productivity growth in the manufacturing sector has been consistently high and has accelerated over time. However, poor performances in the service industries hinder the productivity growth of the overall economy. Enhancing productivity in the service sector, particularly in the finance and construction industries, is an immediate challenge for the Korean economy. In Korea, innovative activities concentrate heavily on large conglomerates. The government pursues various reforms in the corporate sector, which reduces the concentration of economic power in chaebols while improving corporate governance. Thus, how to reconcile chaebol reform while stimulating technological efforts at the same time is a complicated issue. This must be an important topic for future research. In order to ensure a competitive environment that promotes technological innovation, the Korean economy will need to foster efficient small and medium sized enterprises and attract innovative foreign firms more aggressively into the domestic market.