Chinas Economic Growth: 19522010

Authors(s): GregoryC. Chow and KuiWai Li

Source: Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 51, No. 1 (October 2002), pp. 247256
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/344158
Accessed: 26-03-2016 18:00 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic Development and Cultural Change

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Chinas Economic Growth: 19522010*

Gregory C. Chow
Princeton University
Kui-Wai Li
City University of Hong Kong
I. Introduction
This article attempts to account for Chinas economic growth in terms of
labor, capital, and total factor productivity by estimating a Cobb-Douglas
production function using official Chinese data. It is an extension of Gregory
C. Chows earlier work in 1993 and has two purposes: to find out whether
the parameters of the production function have changed and to use the production function to forecast GDP growth up to 2010.1 Official data on labor
force and national output are readily available, although there was a change
in the national income accounting system in 1994 from using an old and
narrower definition of national income to using a measure of GDP that conforms to the standard definition of national income accounting. The estimation
of a capital stock series is discussed in Section II. Section III provides estimates
of the parameters of a Cobb-Douglas production function. Section IV presents
the decomposition of growth of aggregate output into its three components
and provides projections of GDP up to 2010. Section V contains some concluding remarks.
II. Data on Capital Stock and Output
The construction of our capital stock series is based on Chows 1993 study
(tables 6 and 7), in which several capital stock series were used to estimate
aggregate production functions, and very similar results were obtained.2 We
have chosen the series with an initial capital stock of 2,213 (all such numbers
in 100 million yuan, and hereafter) at the end of 1952 because, as with the
construction of that series, we continue to use aggregate net investment in
this study to construct a capital stock series for the entire economy. That series
provides a value of capital stock of 14,112 at the end of 1978.
If net investment (called accumulation in official statistics) data in
2002 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-0079/2003/5101-0012$10.00

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

248

Economic Development and Cultural Change

constant prices were available, we could construct a capital stock series from
1978 onward simply by adding them to the initial capital of 14,112 at the
end of 1978. There are two problems, however. First, published accumulation data are in current prices, not constant prices. From 1952 to 1978, prices
of investment goods remained almost constant, and accumulation in current
prices can be treated as accumulation in constant prices, as in Chow.3 After
1978, when economic reform started, prices of investment goods began to
change, but an appropriate price index is not readily available. Second, after
1994, official Chinese national income statistics were changed from national
income available, which equals consumption plus accumulation, to the
new GDP, which equals final consumption expenditure plus gross capital
formation plus net export of goods and services. The coverage of the new
GDP and GNP is broader than the former national income statistic by the
inclusion of some service items that were previously excluded.
For the period 197892, we tentatively use a rate of depreciation equal
to 4% (to be revised below) and apply the equation
K t p 0.96K t1 RGI t ,

(1)

where real gross investment RGIt at period t is obtained by using the following
national income accounting identity in real terms based on GDP data in the
Statistical Yearbook of China (hereafter SYC ):4
GDP p Consumption Gross Investment
Net Export of Goods and Services.

(2)

Real consumption can be obtained by deflating nominal consumption by the

consumption price index.5 To obtain the real value of net exports, we deflate
the net export of goods and services by the implicit GDP deflator.6 Real gross
investment (RGI) is obtained by subtracting real consumption and real net
export of goods and services from the official real GDP figures in 1978 prices.
For the estimation of capital stock after 1993, we try to improve on the
assumption of a constant rate of depreciation.7 We sum the depreciation values
from all the provinces for 1993, 1994, and 199698 and estimate a depreciation
value for 1995 by averaging the 1994 and 1996 figures. The capital stock
equation for period 199398 is
K t p K t1 RNI t

(3)

where real net investment (RNI) is obtained by

RNI p RGI # (NI/GI).
8

(4)

Gross investment (GI) is found in SYC. Net investment (NI) equals GI less
total provincial depreciation (Dep), as estimated above.
We first estimated the implied depreciation rates for 199398 by solving
equation (1) for the coefficient of K t1 given the initial estimates of capital
stock and RGI. This yields 0.9549, 0.9520, 0.9492, 0.9450, 0.9394, and

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Gregory C. Chow and Kui-Wai Li

249

0.9358, respectively, with a mean of 0.946. Although the implied rates of

depreciation might appear to increase slightly through the years 199398,
there is no sufficient economic reason to abandon the simple assumption of
a constant rate of depreciation. We therefore apply the mean 0.946 to replace
the coefficient 0.96 in equation (1) to revise our estimates of capital stock
from 1978 to 1992, and, accordingly, we revise our estimates for 1993-98
using equations (3) and (4).
Nominal GDP and labor force are found in SYC.9 Real GDP is proportional to the index of real GDP converted to 1978 prices using the 1978
nominal GDP.10 The nominal-to-real GDP ratio gives the annual implicit price
deflator used for deflating net export. Table 1 exhibits the economic data used.
III. Chinas Aggregate Production Function
A Cobb-Douglas production function is estimated for the Chinese economy
in the period 195298, excluding the years 195869. The reasons for excluding
these abnormal and off-production frontier years were given in Chow.11 Similar
to Chow, we examine the extent of technical progress in the Chinese economy
during the reform years beginning with 1978 by introducing a trend variable
t, which equals zero from 1952 to 1977, equals one in 1978, and increases
by one each year thereafter.12 Taking the log of both sides of the Cobb-Douglas
production function, including an exponential trend, gives
ln GDPt p a 0 a1 ln K t a 2 ln L t a 3 t,

(5)

and under the assumption of constant returns,

ln (GDP/L) t p a 0 a1 ln (K/L) t a 3 t.

(6)

Table 2 summarizes the least squares estimates of equations (5) and (6).
The estimates of the capital and labor coefficients in Chow based on the
sample period 195280, excluding 195869, are 0.6353 and 0.3584, respectively, showing a constant return to scale as they sum to 0.9937.13 For this
period, China did not have technological progress, as can be detected by
adding a trend variable.14 Using equation (6) and after having detected no
trend in the above sample period, Chow found a capital coefficient of 0.6317
with a standard error of 0.0219, which is very similar to our coefficient of
0.6284 in table 2.15 The regressions in table 2 suggest that there is an average
increase in total factor productivity of about 2.6% per year from 1978 to 1998.
This is a new result to be added to Chows conclusion that technological
progress was absent in 195280, as the estimate of the trend coefficient is
0.0065 with a standard error of 0.0187.16 Residuals of equation (6) are shown
in the last column of table 1.
The sum of the point estimates of the coefficients of ln K and ln L is very
close to one, supporting the assumption that their parameter values actually sum
to one. The F(1, 31) statistic for testing this assumption is only 0.0458, strongly
supporting this assumption and, thus, the use of equation (6). It can also be
seen from table 2 that the trend coefficients of 0.0262 and 0.0263 estimated

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

TABLE 1
Economic Data
Year

RGDP

1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

799.32
911.22
963.98
1,025.52
1,170.20
1,222.95
1,492.32
1,614.62
1,591.44
1,119.04
1,046.31
1,158.21
1,349.25
1,577.85
1,846.42
1,712.93
1,601.03
1,910.37
2,354.79
2,520.24
2,592.18
2,807.20
2,839.17
3,074.97
2,993.44
3,226.84
3,624.10
3,899.53
4,203.96
4,425.03
4,823.68
5,349.17
6,160.97
6,990.89
7,610.61
8,491.27
9,448.03
9,832.18
10,209.09
11,147.73
12,735.09
14,452.91
16,283.08
17,993.66
19,718.73
21,454.67
23,129.01

2.0729
2.1364
2.1832
2.2328
2.3018
2.3771
2.6600
2.6173
2.5880
2.5590
2.5910
2.6640
2.7736
2.8670
2.9805
3.0814
3.1915
3.3225
3.4432
3.5620
3.5854
3.6652
3.7369
3.8168
3.8834
3.9377
4.0152
4.1024
4.2361
4.3725
4.5295
4.6436
4.8197
4.9873
5.1282
5.2783
5.4334
5.5329
6.3909
6.4799
6.5554
6.6373
6.7199
6.7947
6.8850
6.9600
6.9957

Dep

3,989.12
5,406.88
7,094.10
8,781.32
10,486.41
11,981.24

IPD

Residual
.088602
.014768
.016008
.006048
.0670675
.0518618

100.00
103.56
107.47
109.88
109.76
110.94
116.39
128.23
134.05
140.88
158.00
171.98
181.68
193.92
209.17
239.64
287.17
324.99
344.26
347.07
343.27

2,212.993
2,380.993
2,575.993
2,760.993
2,977.993
3,210.993
3,589.993
4,147.993
4,648.993
4,843.993
4,942.993
5,125.993
5,388.993
5,753.993
6,223.993
6,527.993
6,825.993
7,182.993
7,800.993
8,484.993
9,132.993
9,873.993
10,614.993
11,444.993
12,192.993
13,024.993
14,111.993
14,882.124
15,735.359
16,569.286
17,653.459
18,991.843
20,627.591
22,598.034
24,876.884
27,413.644
30,524.741
33,773.284
36,805.533
40,115.037
44,131.925
50,105.391
56,732.505
64,013.641
71,700.806
79,542.496
87,764.476

.0115272
.0140107
.006527
.0159559
.025393
.000783
.073868
.045429
.013125
.007434
.0054
.024562
.017425
.0046278
.0539845
.0841383
.0721603
.0837293
.0859975
.0293702
.066794
.06427
.021606
.005646
.004742
.001545
.012354
.023415
.038171

Note.RGDP p GDP (100 million, 1978 yuan); L p labor force (100 million); Dep p
depreciation (100 million, current yuan); IPD p implicit price deflator; K p capital stock (100
million, 1978 yuan).

250

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Gregory C. Chow and Kui-Wai Li

251

TABLE 2
Chinas Aggregate Production Function: 195298
Intercept
1.7451
(.4580)
1.6612
(.1960)

ln K

ln L

.6136
(.0772)

.4118
(.1996)

ln (K/L)

Trend

R 2/s
.9979/.0465

.6284
(.0258)

.0263
(.0025)
.0262
(.0024)

.9946/.0459

Note.Figures in parentheses are standard errors of the estimate, K p capital stock (100
million, 1978 yuan), L p labor force (100 million), s is the standard error of the regression,
and R2 is the adjusted R square.

with and without making this assumption are almost identical. The estimate of
the trend coefficient is thus robust against the assumption of constant returns
to scale in aggregate production. We also test whether the exponent of capital
(and of labor under constant returns) remains unchanged after 1978 in the context
of equation (6). The null hypothesis is that, except for the trend term that starts
in 1979, the production function remains unchanged after 1978. We find the
sum of squares A of residuals from equation (6) using all observations 195298,
excluding 195869, with 32 degrees of freedom (df) to be 0.06727. The prereform regression with 12 df has a sum B of squared residuals that is equal to
0.02283. The sum C of squared residuals for the 197898 period with 18 df is
0.03924. The F(2, 30) statistic for testing the stability of both the intercept and
the first coefficient of equation (6) equals 1.2566.17 Thus, the null hypothesis
that the parameters of the Cobb-Douglas production function remained the same
for the two subperiods cannot be rejected even at the 20% level (the critical
value at the 20% level is 1.70). Such parameter stability increases our confidence
in using the equation for forecasting GDP growth for another decade.
By examining the Durbin-Watson (D-W) statistic of the residuals of
equation (6), which equals 0.638 (shown in the last column of table 1), we
have found a significant positive serial correlation. Estimating a first-order
autoregression for the residuals yields a coefficient of 0.6234 with a standard
error of 0.1263. The D-W statistic of the residuals of this autoregression is
1.633, indicating no remaining positive correlation. The Cochrane-Orcutt procedure is applied to estimate equation (6), yielding a coefficient of 0.5577
(0.0468) for ln (K/L) and a trend coefficient of 0.03028 (0.0040), with standard
errors in parentheses. This regression will be used to account for past output
growth and to predict future output growth in the next section.
IV. Accounting for Chinas Economic Growth
In table 1, we find that real GDP in China grew from 799.32 (100 million,
1978 yuan) in 1952 to 23,129.01 in 1998, implying an average annual exponential rate of growth of 0.07315, or 7.6%, per year. Before economic
reform began in 1978, there was no increase in total factor productivity, and
the average annual exponential rate of growth from 1952 to 1978 (with real

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

252

Economic Development and Cultural Change

GDP equal to 3,624.10) was only 0.05814, or 6.0%, per year. From 1978 to
1998, the exponential rate of growth was 0.09267, or 9.7%, per year. The
exponential rate of 0.09267 is decomposed into the exponential rate of growth
of capital of 0.09138 times its coefficient 0.5577 (or 0.05096) plus the exponential rate of growth of labor of 0.02776 times its coefficient 0.4423 (or
0.01228) plus the exponential rate of growth of productivity of 0.0303. The
three components add up to 0.09352, which is slightly different from the
observed increase of 0.09267 because the regression representing the CobbDouglas production function does not explain real GDP in the beginning and
terminal years (1978 and 1998) exactly. According to the estimated production
function of the 0.09352 exponential rate of growth explained, 0.051 results
from the increase in capital, 0.012 results from the increase in labor, and
0.0303 results from the increase in total factor productivity. The importance
of capital accumulation and increase in productivity in accounting for Chinas
economic growth in the postreform period of 197898 is a major conclusion
of this article. While capital accumulation is very important, accounting for
0.051/0.09352, or 54%, of the growth, productivity increase is also important,
accounting for 0.03/0.09352, or 32%, of the growth, leaving only 13% to
labor. (The sum of the three differs from 100% because of rounding.)
This study has implications for Chinas future growth. Let us consider
what the growth in the decade following 1999 would be if growth in total
factor productivity were to remain constant at 0.0303, to be reduced by half
to 0.0151, and to be reduced to zero. We can simulate the path of Chinas
real GDP by using the estimated production function (eq. [6]) corrected for
autoregressive residuals and the capital formation equation (eq. [3]); the labor
and investment functions can be constructed as follows:
L t p (L t1 ) # (1 0.0281),

(7)

It p 0.3373RGDPt1.

(8)

The labor growth rate in the 197898 period is 0.0281. In equation (8) the
coefficient 0.3373 is the ratio of the sum of net investments to the sum of
real GDP in 197898. Note that the coefficient 0.0281 in equation (7) tends
to be an overestimate because of the tight birth-control policy introduced in
1980 and that the coefficient 0.3373 in equation (8) may be an underestimate,
as suggested by the higher investment rates in later years. The effect of the
former on the future growth rate is small because labor accounts for only
0.012 of the exponential growth rate of GDPreducing it to half only means
an effect of 0.006 on the exponential growth rate. If we were to adjust the
rate of investment upward to, for example, 0.036, the stock of capital would
be increased only slightly in the next decade since investment is a small
fraction of capital, and proportional increase in GDP would be about 0.6 as
much as the increase in capital stock. We will use equations (3), (6), (7), and
(8) for the simulation exercise.

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Gregory C. Chow and Kui-Wai Li

253

TABLE 3
Simulated Real GDP: 19992010
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Exponential growth
Annual growth

TFP p .03028

TFP p .01514

TFP p .0

25,307.96
27,698.33
30,320.99
33,198.89
36,357.27
39,823.88
43,629.25
47,806.94
52,393.89
57,430.70
62,962.05
69,037.09
.0836
.0872

24,927.69
26,853.72
28,915.72
31,122.82
33,484.79
36,012.00
38,715.53
41,607.18
44,699.52
48,005.94
51,540.71
55,319.04
.0664
.0687

24,553.12
26,035.12
27,576.83
29,180.15
30,847.00
32,579.40
34,379.41
36,249.16
38,190.85
40,206.75
42,299.20
44,470.60
.0495
.0507

Note.TFP p Total factor productivity.

Table 3 reports the results of three simulations. The first is obtained by

simulating the model forward from 1999 to 2010 using historical values of
real GDP, labor, and capital in 1998 as initial values, while the intercept is
adjusted to 2.5732 to make the estimated real GDP from the production
function equal to the actual real GDP in 1998. The time trend takes the value
one for 1999, two for 2000, and so on. In the second and third simulations,
we repeat the same exercise except for the trend coefficient, which is reduced
to 0.0151 and 0.0, respectively.
Table 3 shows that under the assumption of total factor productivity
growing at the past exponential rate of 0.0303, real GDP in 2010 would be
69,037 (100 million, 1978 yuan), implying an exponential rate of 0.0836 or
an average annual growth rate of 8.72% from 1998. When total factor productivity growth is reduced by half, the exponential rate of GDP growth up
to 2010 would be reduced to 0.0664. With zero productivity growth, this
exponential growth rate would be further reduced to 0.0495. Since there is
no reason to expect sizable reduction in productivity growth, one can expect
annual growth in real output to be in the neighborhood of 7% or higher. This
conclusion is based on a stable relation between output and inputs and on a
high investment rate, which also both applied in the past.
V. Concluding Remarks
Before concluding, we would like to address briefly three possible limitations
of this study. The first is the accuracy of Chinese official data. This possible
limitation was addressed in Chow.18 Here we wish to point out, first, that this
study is concerned with past trends of the important variables, and its result
is not seriously affected by biases in levels of the variables as long as the
biases are persistent. Second, the independent variables have changed by

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

254

Economic Development and Cultural Change

factors of 3.5 (labor) to 40 (capital), as seen in table 1, making the effects of

errors of measurement small because the downward bias of a regression coefficient depends on the ratio of the variance of the explanatory variable to
the sum of this variance and the variance of the error of measurement. Third,
a study using official data is valuable in providing an analysis of what these
frequently used data imply concerning Chinas economic growth process. It
has been suggested that recent figures of Chinese output have been inflated
partly because of political pressure. Although the State Statistical Bureau has
made attempts to adjust the possibly inflated data reported from provincial
sources to meet output growth targets, the adjustments might not eliminate
all upward biases. On the other hand, income data may be biased downward
because some township and village enterprises may have underestimated their
output and because output from the underground economy is missing from
official data. These biases in opposite directions cancel out to some extent.
Given the first two observations stated above, a skeptic has to explain in what
way possible inaccuracies in Chinese official data can affect our study of the
decomposition of aggregate output trends.
The second limitation of this study concerns econometrics issues. One
such issue is the possible endogeneity of the explanatory variables, but this
problem may not be serious because both capital stock and labor supply appear
to be exogenous and not influenced by output. Output and investment may
be simultaneously determined, but investment is only a very small fraction
of capital stock, which is mostly predetermined. A second econometric issue
is whether, in view of the possibility that some variables may be integrated
of order one, the production function should be estimated using the levels of
the variables rather than first differences or some other transformations. In
this case, using the levels of the variables is appropriate in order to estimate
a cointegrating vector that represents the long-run stable relationship between
output and inputs as desired.
The third limitation of this study is the lack of explanation for the change
in total factor productivity. This study only isolates the Solow residual after
explaining the growth of output by the growths in physical capital and number
of laborers. We recognize that there have been important institutional changes
leading to an increase in productivity and that technology has also been
improved partly through foreign investment. How these changes have contributed to the Solow residual is a topic beyond the scope of this study and
remains an important topic for further research.
By using such a simple model we are not able to isolate the contributions
of human capital, technological change, and improvement in allocation efficiencies to output growth as do other studies, including those by Gary Jefferson, Thomas Rawski, and Y. Zhang; Shantong Li and Fan Zhai; and Xiaolu
Wang.19 Neither does our model decompose the sources of growth by industrial
sectors, as does the study by Shanggen Fan, Xiaobo Zhang, and Sherman
Robinson.20 There is a trade-off between the number of parameters and the
accuracy of their estimates because of possible misspecification, additional

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Gregory C. Chow and Kui-Wai Li

255

measurement errors, and the loss of degrees of freedom when more parameters
are used. For the purpose of forecasting, we do not need to forecast variables
that determine changes in human capital, technology, allocation efficiency,
and sectorial composition.
Under the assumption of constant returns to scale, which is strongly
supported by the data, we need only two parameters, the elasticity of output
with respect to capital and the coefficient of trend, which are estimated to be
about 0.6 and 0.03, respectively. The 0.6 figure is well supported empirically,
as it was found in works by Chow and also by N. Gregory Mankiw, David
Romer, and David N. Weil, who estimated the classic Solow growth model
with a Cobb-Douglas production function using data for approximately 70
countries.21 If the 0.6 figure is correct, by regressing log(output/labor) minus
0.6 times log(capital/labor) on time, one finds total factor productivity to have
zero growth from 1952 to 1978 and to grow at an average exponential rate
of approximately 0.03 from 1978 to 1998. Hence, the estimate of the second
parameter is also well supported. Using these two parameters alone, we have
been able to obtain a reasonably accurate decomposition of output growth in
China. For forecasting the near future, the 0.6 figure for the coefficient of
capital is unlikely to change, and one may allow for a slightly different trend
in the growth of total factor productivity. Since China still has plenty of
opportunity to adopt new technology from abroad and to carry out additional
institutional reforms, it is unlikely that the 0.03 figure will be reduced substantially from its past trend by as much as a half in the period ending 2010.
Thus, the TFP p 0.01514 column in table 3 can serve as a very conservative
estimate of Chinas output growth even after allowing for the limited effect
of a possible reduction in the growth of the labor force (labors contribution
to the exponential growth rate was only 0.012, historically).
There has been a debate on whether substantial growth in total factor
productivity occurred in selected East Asian countries (see, e.g., Alwyn Young
and Paul Krugman) and whether the lack of such would inhibit future growth
in these countries.22 As far as China is concerned, this article has reached the
following conclusions. There was a substantial total factor productivity growth
at the annual rate of about 0.03 in China during the period 197898. Even
if total factor productivity growth is to be reduced somewhat, however, in the
next decade the Chinese economy would still manage to grow at a substantial
rate of at least 7% because of the expected high rate of capital formation of
over 30% of GDP and the high capital elasticity of about 0.6.
Notes
* The authors are indebted to the excellent assistance of Queenie Y. P. Wu of
the APEC Study Center, City University of Hong Kong; the valuable comments from
an anonymous referee; participants in a seminar at Yale University, May 2000; Jin
Zhang; and Anloh Lin. Financial support from the Center for Economic Policy Study
at Princeton University to Gregory Chow and from the University Grants Committee
of the City University of Hong Kong to Kui-Wai Li is gratefully acknowledged.

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

256

Economic Development and Cultural Change

1. See Gregory C. Chow, Capital Formation and Economic Growth in China,

Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (August 1993): 80942.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Chinese State Statistics Bureau, Statistical Yearbook of China (hereafter SYC;
Beijing: Chinese State Statistics Bureau, 1999), p. 67.
5. Ibid., pp. 67, 72.
6. Ibid., p. 67.
7. This is possible because nominal depreciation values of individual provinces
are available for 1993 (SYC, 1995, p. 41), 1994 (SYC, 1996, p. 51), 1996 (SYC, 1997,
p. 51), 1997 (SYC, 1998, p. 66), and 1998 (SYC, 1999, p. 66).
8. SYC, 1999, p. 67.
9. Ibid., p. 55. There is a big jump in the reported labor force between 1989 and
1990. It was stated in SYC (1997, p. 93) that the data on employed persons since 1990
have been adjusted in accordance with a new survey on population. We have estimated
eq. (6) using the old labor data up to 1995 (SYC, 1996), and an adjusted labor series
by eliminating the jump from the new series (SYC, 199799), and found regression
results very similar to the one reported in table 1 using the official series without
adjustment.
10. SYC, 1999, p. 58.
11. See Chow, Capital Formation (n. 1 above).
12. Ibid., table 7.
13. Ibid., p. 822.
14. Ibid., table 7.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., p. 824.
17. F p [(A B C)/2]/[(B C)/30].
18. Chow, Capital Formation.
19. Gary Jefferson, Thomas Rawski, and Y. Zhang, Chinese Industrial Productivity: Trends, Measurement Issues, and Recent Developments, Journal of Comparative Economics 23 (1996): 14680; Shantong Li and Fan Zhai, An Analysis of the
Chinese Economy in the Next Twenty Years; and Xiaolu Wang, Sources of Chinas
Economic Growth in the Past Twenty Years (both papers presented at the Workshop
on Economic Growth in China, Beijing, January 1516, 2000).
20. Shanggen Fan, Xiaobo Zhang, and Sherman Robinson, Past and Future
Sources of Growth for China, EPTD Discussion Paper no. 53 (International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., October 1999).
21. Gregory C. Chow, The Chinese Economy (New York: Harper & Row, 1985),
eq. 4.16, and Capital Formation (n. 1 above), table 7; N. Gregory Mankiw, David
Romer, and David N. Weil, A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth,
Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (1992): 40738.
22. Alwyn Young, A Tale of Two Cities: Capital Factor Accumulation and
Technical Change in Hong Kong and Singapore, in NBER Macroeconomic Annual
1992, ed. Olivier J. Blanchard and Stanley Fisher (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1992), pp. 1353, and The Tyranny of Number: Confronting the Statistical Realities
of the East Asian Growth Experience, Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (August
1995): 64180; Paul Krugman, The Myth of Asias Miracle, Foreign Affairs 73
(NovemberDecember 1994): 6278.

This content downloaded from 39.57.1.42 on Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:00:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms