Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framework of Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Productivity, Separability and Deprivation

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Economics ((BRIEFSECONOMICS))

  • 454 Accesses

Abstract

In order to assess male female differential across different types of enterprises, we consider a simple production function of the type.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is the model that is studied by Jacoby (1992, 1993), Skoufias (1994), Abdulai and Regmi (2000). Henceforth we will term it as the Jacoby-Skoufias (JS) model.

  2. 2.

    This model is studied by Deolalikar and Vijverberg (1987), Ghosh and Neogi (1996), Chattapadhyay and Sharma (2001). We can term it as Deolalikar-Vijverberg (DV) model.

  3. 3.

    Deolalikar and Vijverberg (1987) assumed the function to be of additive type. The model was also used by Ghosh and Neogi (1996). This specification allows direct estimation of the labour productivity in the partial separability case. Chattopadhyay and Sharma (2001) however assume the function to be a CES type. Such a functional form allows us to measure the degree of substitutability between male and female labour. However since the function is non-linear, the estimates become unreliable without proper identification restrictions. This prompted us to use the additive form.

  4. 4.

    The Cobb-Douglas form has a number of limitations. However use of more flexible functional forms (such as translog) yielded results that were inconclusive. Moreover Jacoby’s (1993) study show that though the quantitative results become sensitive to functional specifications, qualitative results are, more or less, unaffected.

  5. 5.

    The model is useful in comparing the OAE and Establishment units under informal service sector. OAEs are mostly family enterprises making the analysis appropriate. Arguing that family labour is used even in the Establishment units, the model can capture sufficient amount of reality.

  6. 6.

    This is the standard assumption made by all the authors (Jacoby 1992, 1993; Skoufias 1994; Abdulai and Regmi 2000). The unit is assumed to have no preference for home produced goods.

  7. 7.

    They are already defined in Eqs. (4.4a) and (4.4b).

  8. 8.

    Since the inputs themselves are likely to be endogenously determined (Abdulai and Regmi 2000), we have used instrumental variable method rather than simple OLS to estimate the production function. OLS method may give biased estimates.

  9. 9.

    For example Sen (1964) argued that if we value the family labour according to their market wage, most of the firms would become unremunerative. He suggested the use of shadow price that could appropriately capture such situation.

  10. 10.

    There has been a considerable debate in this regard. Skoufias (1994) has found a backward bending labour supply curve for Indian females while Rosenweig (1980) found such a relationship for Indian males. In contrast, Jacoby (1993) found a positive labour supply curve for Peru. Abdulai and Regmi (2000) found a similar relationship in rural Nepal.

References

  • Abdulai A, Regmi PP (2000) Estimating labor supply of farm households under non-separability: empirical evidence from Nepal. Agr Econ 22(3):309–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia IJ (1991) Productivity and growth in Indian manufacturing. Oxford University Press, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee AV, Duflo E (2011) Poor economics: a radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. Random House, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Barua A, Leech D (1987) Factor substitution and returns to scale in Indian manufacturing: a cross-section analysis. Discussion paper, international trade and development division, school of international studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Cainelli G (2008) Spatial agglomeration, technological innovations, and firm productivity: evidence from Italian industrial districts. Growth Change 39(3):414–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chattapadhyay M, Sharma CS (2001) Is labor homogeneous quantity in Indian agriculture. Mimeo, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb CW, Douglas PH (1928) A theory of production. Am Econ Rev 18(1):139–165 March

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison EF (1962) The sources of economic growth in the United States and the alternatives before Us. Committee Econ Dev, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Deolalikar AB, Vijverberg WPM (1987) A Test of heterogeneity of family and hired labor in Asian agriculture. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 49(3):291–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitriu MC, Savu BM (2010) Econometric analysis of efficiency in the Indian manufacturing sector. Rom J Econ Forecast 1:182–197

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Moaty KA, El-Shawadfy M (2007) An Estimation of Cobb-Douglas production function in Egyptian Tourism Sector, Zagazig University. Source: interstat.statjournals.net/Year/2007/articles/0705003.pdf

  • Ghosh B, Neogi C (1996) Liberalisation in India: quality differentials between public and private employees. Dev Econ 34(1):61–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldar BN (1997) Econometrics of Indian industry. In: Krishna KL (ed) Econometric applications in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks JR (1956) A revision of demand theory. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby HG (1992) Productivity of men and women and the sexual division of labor in peasant agriculture of the Peruvian Sierra. J Dev Econ 37:265–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby HG (1993) Shadow wages and peasant family labor supply; an econometric application to the Peruvian Sierra. Rev Econ Stud 60:903–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson DW (1963) Capital theory and investment behavior. Am Econ Rev 53(2):247–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathuria V, Natarajan RRS, Sen K (2010) Fluctuating productivity performance of unorganised manufacturing in the post 1990s. Indian J Labour Econ 53(2):285–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Park H, Sanidas E (2011) Korean augmented production function: the role of services and other factors in Korea’s economic growth of industries. J Econ Dev 36(1):59–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenweig MR (1980) Neoclassical theory and the optimizing peasant: an econometric analysis of market family labour supply in a developing country. Q J Econ 94(1):31–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudra A (1982) Indian agricultural economics: myths and realities. Allied, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen AK (1964) Size of holdings and productivity. The Economic Weekly 16 (5-7) Annual number, February: 323–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoufias E (1994) Using shadow wages to estimate labor supply of agricultural households. Am J Agric Econ 76(2):215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320 August

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregate bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57(298):348–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Burdwan University, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

    Atanu Sengupta, Soumyendra Kishore Datta & Susanta Mondal

Authors
  1. Atanu Sengupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soumyendra Kishore Datta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanta Mondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atanu Sengupta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sengupta, A., Datta, S.K., Mondal, S. (2013). Framework of Study. In: Productivity, Separability and Deprivation. SpringerBriefs in Economics. Springer, India. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1056-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation