Talk:Total factor productivity

merge with Solow residual

This Page should ABSOLUTELY be merged into Solow residual, the terms are practically equivalent

There seems to be three different ways to approach TFP.

http://www.csls.ca/ipm/1/lipsey-e.pdf - A study paper describes the three ways. According to my readings on Data Envelopement Analysis and other papers, TFP seems to measure technical efficiency - Ray (2004) "Two of the popular measures of total factor productivity (TFP) are the Tornqvist and the Fisher productivity indexes. Both use price information along with quantity data to construct quantity indexes of output and input. The ratio of the output and input quantity indexes it the TFP index." Merging this article is not recommended.

Source: Ray, Subhash C. (2004). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory and Techniques for Economics and Operations Research. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.

TFP precentage

"Productivity may account for up to 60% of growth within economies" -- Where is the source for this? Shouldn't be in here without proper citation, this is a bold conjecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.47.206 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've qualified this statement as the finding of a report, also I've expressed it in a way better reflects the source. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in lede

The lede definition somehow was changed to an incorrect definition, which has now been restored. TFP captures such things as new or improved technology, increases in energy efficiency or increases in organizational efficiency.Phmoreno (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the restored lede makes more sense. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation citation required?

Why? This follows from the laws of mathematics. It would be equally true if Y is the amount of hot air, A the number of politicians, K the number of armchair philosophers and L the number of drunks. Or am I missing something?Mrwhoohoo (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a citation is appropriate for why we should expect productivity to take this particular form, but that seems like it's already covered by Cobb-Douglas production function. I'm willing to second removal of the "citation-needed" tag, perhaps with some light reworking of the preceding sentences... I'm going to go ahead and do this.SMesser (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Critique

Under "Critiques", there's a note that "TFP is open to the Cambridge Critique", but the corresponding page references a fairly wide-ranging discussion and multiple competing arguments. Is there a more specific section on the Cambridge capital controversy page which is relevant? perhaps Cambridge capital controversy#Simple mathematical presentation?SMesser (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should cut that. The reference is not clear, and that controversy, which I have heard of but never understood, is old. I believe the substance of it relates to the idea that capital is hard to measure, which is true, but there are 50 years of experience, practice, and theory since then. -- econterms (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]