Jeremy Greenwood and Per Krusell, "Growth accounting with investment-specific  technological progress: a discussion of two approaches"
Subtitle: a rejoinder
By: Nicholas Oulton
Contributors: London School of Economics and Political Science. Centre for Economic Performance
Series: CEP discussion paper -- no. 802
Publisher: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science
Published: 2007
Place of publication: London
Language: eng
Format: [electronic resource] :
Description: The May 2007 issue of the Journal of Monetary Economics published a paper of mine entitled 'Investment-Specific Technological Progress and Growth Accounting' which critiqued the work of Greenwood, Hercowitz and Krusell. I argued that the Greenwood-Hercowitz-Krusell (GHK) model is a special case of a two-sector, neoclassical growth model with differing rates of technical progress in the two sectors; that a version of Jorgensonian growth accounting can be constructed for this two-sector model and hence for the GHK model; and that there is therefore a mapping between the growth accounting concepts of total factor productivity (TFP) growth in each of the two sectors, and GHK's concepts of investment specific and neutral technological progress. The same issue of the JME published a response by Greenwood and Krusell ('Growth Accounting with Investment-Specific Technological Progress: a Discussion of Two Approaches'). This paper is a rejoinder to theirs. It attempts to delineate both the common ground and the remaining areas of disagreement.
Notes: Title from publisher's abstract page (viewed on July 6, 2007).

"June 2007."

Includes bibliographical references.

Also available in print.

System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Mode of access: World Wide Web.