• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Of all publications in the section: 4
Sort:
by name
by year
Article
Prados de la Escosura L., Vonyó T., Voskoboynikov I. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2021. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 655-669.

The contributions to this Special Issue present the state of the art of growth accounting in economic history, exhibiting its strengths and weaknesses. Three set of articles compose the issue: comparative papers that discuss the challenges ahead, long-run perspectives on Britain since the Industrial Revolution, Japan, Italy and Spain from the late-19th century, and Latin America during the 200 years since independence, and post-WorldWar II episodes under Soviet and Fabian socialism and the transition to market economies in Eastern Europe and India. The papers reveal how sensitive the interpretation of results is to the quality of output and inputs and the growth accounting procedure employed and the new developments in growth accounting to improve economic history narrative.

Added: Feb 28, 2021
Article
Voskoboynikov I. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2021. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 870-894.

Why did the Soviet economy slowdown in last decades before its collapse? How did the proximate sources of economic growth of Russia change after the transition from a planned to a market economy? Previous research has suggested inputs‐driven growth before the transition and total factor productivity (TFP) as its main driver afterwards. This paper presents a new growth accounting exercise for Russia and Russian industry, using new historical statistics and Russia KLEMS data for capital, the historical series of Russian gross domestic product (GDP) from the Hitotsubashi Asian Historical Statistics Project, and alternative measures of capital inputs. In contrast with previous studies, this paper shows that in Russia TFP was the main determinant of labor productivity performance before and after the transition. The contribution of capital intensity was relatively stable in both periods. For Russian industry, the difference between the planned and market economy periods appears in the impact of capital quality. Before the transition, growth structures overbore machinery, deteriorating capital quality and labor productivity growth, while in 1999–2008, the dominating contribution of machinery fueled growth. Finally, the paper shows that the transformational recession of 1990s can be partially explained by the fall of capital services.

Added: May 17, 2021
Article
Maiti M. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2020. Vol. 34. No. 1. P. 175-184.

The purpose of this work is to critically evaluate the evolution of risk factors and factor models. A systematic and structured literature review is carried out to observe and understand the past trends and extant patterns/themes in the present research area, evaluate contributions and summarize knowledge, thereby identifying limitations, implications and potential directions of further research. The main message from the study is that evolution of risk factors and factor models are continuous and endless development. Still today over 300 risk factors are identified by the researchers and many other yet to be discovered but out of them all only few are significantly responsible in explaining the stock markets risk return relationship. Study classifies risk factors into two groups: global and specific risk factors. Study answer the question ‘whether evolution of risk factors and factor models are endless development’. Finally, the present study gives an appropriate direction to the future studies to be taken in terms of risk factors and factor models. Due to continuous evolution and changing of nature of the risk factor it seems quite impossible to have a stable efficient factor models that can explain stock market risk return relationship globally in long run.

Added: Dec 6, 2019
Article
Pontual Ribeiro E., Golovanova S. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2020. Vol. 34. No. 3. P. 548-571.

The goal of this paper is to present quantitative tools to manage competition policy analysis in two‐sided platforms, based on a common framework for transaction and non‐transaction platforms. We explore tools for relevant market definition [Critical Loss Analysis and a small but significant non‐transitory increase in price (SSNIP) test], unilateral effects indicators [Upward Pricing Pressure (UPP) and Gross Upward Pricing Pressure Index (GUPPI)] and tests for exclusionary practices. We review dispersed results in the literature and fill the gaps where appropriate. We highlight the required changes from the usual one‐sided market framework and tools. While discussions of antitrust tools can be found in specialized forums devoted to advances in competition policy analysis, we organize the material in an integrated framework.

Added: Jun 19, 2020