000			02009nab|a22003137a|4500
999			_c62264 _d62256
001			62264
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20211006080841.0
008			200712s2015||||xxu|||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022			_a0012-1533
022			_a1746-1049 (Online)
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1111/deve.12071
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	0		_aHehe Liu _914672
245	1	0	_aExplaining the productivity growth gap between China and India : _bthe role of structural transformation
260			_aUSA : _bWiley, _c2015.
500			_aPeer review
520			_aC hinese and I ndian aggregate productivity growth has been significantly different over the last 30 years. This paper studies the role of structural transformation in accounting for the aggregate productivity growth gap between two economies. We calibrate a neoclassical model of structural transformation for C hina and I ndia. The model implies that higher productivity growth in C hina's manufacturing and agriculture accounts for most of the aggregate productivity growth gap between the two countries. According to the development strategy of C hina's government, C hina would start a new phase of structural transformation whereby employment is moving from manufacturing to services. Since the productivity growth gap in services is pretty small between C hina and I ndia, if C hina wants to remain superior in relative productivity, it should improve the productivity growth rate of services. In contrast, the relative performance in I ndia hinges on closing its productivity gap in agriculture and manufacturing relative to C hina.
546			_aText in English
650		0	_aProductivity _gAGROVOC _91756
650		7	_2AGROVOC _96448 _aEconomic growth
650		7	_2AGROVOC _98738 _aStructural Change
651		7	_2AGROVOC _93990 _aChina
651		7	_2AGROVOC _93726 _aIndia
700	0		_aTianyu Yang _914673
773	0		_dUSA : Wiley, 2015. _gv. 53, no. 2, p. 100-121 _tDeveloping Economies _x1746-1049
942			_cJA _n0 _2ddc