日本語タイトル:都道府県別の要素投入と経済収束:マクロレベルの分析、1955-2008

Regional Factor Inputs and Convergence in Japan: A macro-level analysis, 1955-2008

執筆者 深尾 京司  (ファカルティフェロー) /牧野 達治  (一橋大学) /徳井 丞次  (ファカルティフェロー)
発行日/NO. 2015年10月  15-E-123
研究プロジェクト 地域別・産業別データベースの拡充と分析
ダウンロード/関連リンク

概要

この論文では、1955-2008年を対象として、都道府県別にマクロレベル(全産業計)の生産要素投入(資本(公共財的な性格が強い一般道路、堤防など狭義の社会資本を除く)、総労働時間、労働の質)年次データを作成し、クロスセクションの生産性比較分析(レベル会計)および成長会計の手法を使って、戦後の都道府県間労働生産性格差収束の原因を探った。その結果以下のことが分かった。全期間一貫して、労働生産性が高い都道府県ほど、TFP(全要素生産性)、資本(狭義の社会資本を除く)・労働比率、労働の質、全てが高い傾向があり、3要因共に労働生産性格差を生み出すことに寄与していた。1955年においては労働生産性格差の原因としては、TFP格差の寄与が一番大きく、次が資本・労働比率格差、最後が労働の質格差の寄与であった。1955-70年にかけてTFP格差が大幅に縮小し、また1970年以降は資本・労働比率格差が大幅に縮小した。これらの変化により、都道府県間労働生産性格差は大幅に縮小した。一方、労働の質の格差は1970年まではほとんど変わらず、それ以降は格差がやや拡大した。

我々はまた、資本・労働比率とTFPの地域間格差縮小の原因についても調べた。その結果、労働生産性が高い地域では貯蓄率が高かったものの、政府による貧しい地域への資本移転や資本流出により労働生産性が高い地域での貯蓄が資本蓄積に直接結びつかなかったこと、労働生産性の低い地域から高い地域に労働が移動したことが、資本・労働比率格差を縮小させたことが分かった。また政府が狭義の社会資本蓄積を労働生産性が低い地域に集中させたことがTFP格差縮小に寄与した可能性が高いことも分かった。



概要(英語)

Using the Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity (R-JIP) Database, which provides data on aggregate industry value added and production factor inputs by prefecture for 1955-2008, we examined the reasons for the decline in prefectural economic inequality from the supply side. In addition, we focused on the role of capital accumulation and changes in total factor productivity (TFP) in economic convergence. We examined how the relatively rapid capital accumulation in low-income prefectures was financed and what brought about the decline in differences in TFP. The main findings of the analysis are as follows.

1) In 1955, the most important reason for prefectural labor productivity differences was differences in TFP, followed by differences in capital-labor ratios and then by differences in labor quality. Differences in capital-labor ratios and TFP declined substantially between 1955 and 2008, leading to a dramatic reduction in prefectural labor productivity differences. On the other hand, depending on the period, prefectural differences in labor quality either did not contribute to the contraction in labor productivity differences or in fact worked in the direction of increasing such differences.

2) During the high-speed growth era from 1955-1970, the main factor underlying the decline in prefectural labor productivity differences was the decline in TFP differences. On the other hand, from 1970 onward, Japan experienced a strong decline in regional differences in inputs, so that the contribution of variation in inputs to variation in output steadily dropped after 1970.

3) Migration from poorer to richer prefectures and the decline in prefectural TFP differences from 1955 to 2008 consistently contributed to the decline in per capita gross prefectural product (GPP) differences, although the contribution of the decline in prefectural TFP differences to β-convergence—for the period as a whole—was more than twice as large as the contribution of migration. On the other hand, capital accumulation actually worked in the direction of increasing prefectural inequality in the period 1955-1970, but from 1970 onward, it consistently operated in the direction of reducing inequality.

4) The accumulation of social capital, measured in relation to working hours, in post-war Japan, was concentrated in prefectures with lower per capita GPP. Given that the accumulation of social capital likely raises the efficiency of economic activity and hence has a positive effect on TFP, the emphasis on improving social infrastructure in poorer rural areas very likely contributed to the decline in prefectural TFP differences. Meanwhile, the expansion of firms with high labor productivity into rural areas and technology transfers to technologically lagging prefectures through intra-firm technology diffusion, as well as the growing agglomeration of industry in rural areas through the expansion of manufacturing in rural areas, also likely contributed greatly to the decrease in prefectural TFP differences.