Publicação
Comparing Paths of Economic Growth: East Asia versus Peripheral Europe
| Resumo: | This study uses the growth accounting technique to examine the growth path of some East Asian economies - Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan - and compare it with the growth path of three “Peripheral European” economies - Portugal, Spain and Ireland. The comparison is put in the terms of the “accumulation” versus “assimilation” debate. The results, somewhat surprisingly, point to the Asian Tigers being more on the “assimilationist” side, and the European countries more on the “accumulationist” one. They also point to labour’s contribution as being the main difference between the two groups of countries. The amount of hours worked and the percentage of employment have been major sources of growth in the Asian group, when compared to the Peripheral European economies. This could have been a problem for East Asia if labour was of the unqualified kind. However, investment in education was also a feature of these countries, and the result is a large contribution of TFP growth. This suggests that the high intervention level of East Asia governments may be less harmful to efficiency than is sometimes suggested by some of the literature. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Guerreiro, Diana |
| Assunto: | Economic growth Peripheral Europe East Asia Growth accounting Labour |
| Ano: | 2008 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | dissertação de mestrado |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso embargado |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade Nova de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório Institucional da UNL |
| Resumo: | This study uses the growth accounting technique to examine the growth path of some East Asian economies - Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan - and compare it with the growth path of three “Peripheral European” economies - Portugal, Spain and Ireland. The comparison is put in the terms of the “accumulation” versus “assimilation” debate. The results, somewhat surprisingly, point to the Asian Tigers being more on the “assimilationist” side, and the European countries more on the “accumulationist” one. They also point to labour’s contribution as being the main difference between the two groups of countries. The amount of hours worked and the percentage of employment have been major sources of growth in the Asian group, when compared to the Peripheral European economies. This could have been a problem for East Asia if labour was of the unqualified kind. However, investment in education was also a feature of these countries, and the result is a large contribution of TFP growth. This suggests that the high intervention level of East Asia governments may be less harmful to efficiency than is sometimes suggested by some of the literature. |
|---|
Atividades financiadas
Não foram encontrados projetos financiados.