Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Inception Report
INCEPTION REPORT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic on determinants of productivity growth..............................................6
Figure 2: Project Organizational Chart..............................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimates of TFP growth for selected Asian countries, last two decades (%).......1
Table 2: Program of Work..................................................................................................12
Table 3: Sources of funds, in millions of pesos.................................................................13
Table 4: Project budget, in millions of pesos.....................................................................13
LIST OF ACRONYMS
1. INTRODUCTION
Philippine agriculture performed relatively well in the 1960’s and 70’s, but faltered in the
following decades. Several trends portended its stagnation: production increases in
almost all crops decelerated, expansion in cultivated area began to decline, real
commodity prices dropped, and gains from the Green Revolution approached exhaustion.
Policy-related factors may have also played a role, such as the sharp decline in public
investments for agriculture. Cross-country studies suggest that total factor productivity
(TFP) growth in the Philippine agriculture has been negligible to negative from the
1980s, in contrast with the good to impressive performance of other countries in the
region (Table 1).
Table 1: Estimates of TFP growth for selected Asian countries, last two decades (%)
• What explains the past performance and how do these influence the future sources of
agricultural growth?
• What are the key policy and investment levers needed to spur and sustain growth
across commodities and geographic areas?
• How can agricultural growth be made more broadly based so that its impact on
poverty reduction is enhanced?
The project meets two major challenges: the first is to quantify the determinants of
productivity growth in such a way as to be instrumental for policy and investment choice.
For example, while a standard productivity growth analysis may underscore the
importance of total factor productivity, what is really useful for policymakers is the
impact of an investment lever – say, funding for public agricultural research – on
productivity growth. The second challenge, which is common to empirical work on
Philippine agriculture, is unavailability and inadequacy of data. Addressing this requires a
two-pronged approach: one is to devise data collection systems to address the remediable
gaps; the other is to innovate analytical methods to maximize the information that could
be generated from official surveys and administrative data.
Meeting these challenges divides the project into three stages. The first stage involves
extensive preparatory work, which entails the following: evaluation of the statistical
system and identification of critical data gaps; a review of the literature to synthesize the
state-of-the-art in productivity analysis; and analytical work to formulate new empirical
methods. The second stage involves application, which entails: piloting new data systems
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 3
Inception Report
to test its value and feasibility for integration in regular systems; implementation of
empirical techniques for in-depth study of the agricultural sector, major agricultural
commodities, and cross-cutting themes. By the end of the second stage, substantive
results and recommendations are already available for formulating policies and strategies.
Lastly, the third stage covers the scientific and policy review process, in which the
research is finalized for national and international publication and dissemination. The
entire project is programmed for three years, with each stage running for one year.
The rest of this Inception Report discusses in detail the objectives (Section 2), the
framework (Section 3), the components and activities (Section 4), and finally the
institutional arrangements and funding (Section 5).
2. OBJECTIVES
As the title indicates, the project aims to determine the nature, sources and causes of
productivity growth in Philippine agriculture. More specifically, the objectives of the
project are:
The first objective is the straightforward starting point of the analysis. However,
productivity estimation is constrained by availability of data, especially of the type and
form that is uniform over long period of time. This problem has long hindered the
application of existing models or tools. This leads to the second objective; the systems
and techniques developed would lay the groundwork for a sustained and institutionalized
system of gathering information and performing analysis that would establish and track
the performance of Philippine agriculture over time.
Apart from measuring productivity change, the project also aims to examine the
determinants of productivity change over time, both for the aggregate and sub-
sector/commodity levels, accounting for Objective iii). Note that the measurement and
estimation techniques should also account for the endogeneity of some parameters that
explain technical change.
Analysis of these determinants leads to the fourth objective, which are specific policy and
investment levers required to lift and sustain the productivity growth path of Philippine
agriculture and its major sub-sectors. It focuses not only on proximate factors of
productivity growth (such as R&D investment), but also to deeper determinants,
including: policies, e.g. in trade and marketing; institutional change, e.g. agrarian and
property rights reform; infrastructure development; changes in the environment, e.g.
resource degradation in farmlands, uplands, and coastal areas; and finally, economic and
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 4
Inception Report
technological trends, e.g. globalization, and the rise of information and communications
technologies.
3. FRAMEWORK
Despite its conceptual appeal, productivity growth has posed major challenges to
empirical measurement. The literature has addressed these challenges in various ways
(see Annex 1 for details). One comprehensive approach is the estimation of production
functions. However it requires strong assumptions on modeling and availability of data.
Another, more parsimonious approach is “growth accounting”, which makes even
stronger assumptions about market structure and technology. The choice of utilizing one
particular approach is guided by the availability of data, area of analysis, dimension of
the study, or simply analytical convenience.
For Philippine agriculture, productivity growth studies date as far back as Hooley, which
covered the prewar period. Lawas (1965), Paris (1971), David and Barker (1979), David,
Barker and Palacpac (1985) and Evenson and Sardido (1986) analyzed postwar
agricultural data to identify subsequent changes in agricultural productivity growth. More
recent evaluation of productivity performance include that of Patalinhug (2001) that
reviewed the program components of the Medium term National Action Agenda for
Productivity (MNAAP) which was formulated to promote globally competitive
agriculture, industrial and services sectors. Teruel and Kuroda (2004) meanwhile used
agricultural data set up to 2000 to empirically investigate the nature of Philippine
agricultural productivity growth.
are factor of production outside the immediate control of the producer (i.e. quasi-fixed
factors). The former may include factors such as infrastructure, environmental or natural
resource services, human capital, and so on. Transformation of inputs into outputs, and
then into economic values through markets, allows one to measure productivity growth.
There are various sources of productivity growth. First and most straightforward is an
increase in quasi-fixed factors, leading to an increase in physical output given fixed
conventional inputs. Second, with respect to aggregative analysis of agriculture as a
whole, a structural change that alters sectoral composition can change the level of
productivity. For instance, a shift in resources from low-productivity to high-productivity
sectors, can raise aggregate productivity, even in absence of productivity growth in the
sub-sectors. Third, lagged prices affect the choice of production technology, which could
therefore affect productivity growth. Fourth, the translation of products to economic
values is strongly affected by transaction costs. The latter can denote a tangible
“friction”, such as transportation cost and spoilage. These costs drive a wedge between
farm and market prices, both in the output and factor markets, hence affecting the
translation of factors into value added. Fifth, the coordination of output and input
decisions within the production process is strongly affected by uncertainty, risk,
asymmetric information, and strategic behavior. Hence underlying the market process are
institutional factors, including asset endowments (which affect investments in new
technologies), as risk instruments (such as insurance), legal systems (for contract
enforcement), and trust networks. The latter mitigate risk and reduce intangible forms of
transaction cost.
Ultimately we wish to relate policy and investment levers on productivity growth. First,
policies can more directly affect productivity growth through market channels. For
instance, trade liberalization exposes domestic agriculture to competitive pressures to
increase productivity; it also allows reduces the cost of inputs embodying the latest
technologies (i.e. chemicals, seeds, machinery). Other, indirect channels is through the
quasi-fixed factors and transaction costs discussed above.
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 6
Inception Report
POLICY AND
PRODUCTIVIT INVESTMENT
Y GROWTH LEVERS
DIRECT
CHANNEL
MARKETS OTHER
CHANNELS
- supply chain
- composition TRANSACTION
COST
QUASI-FIXED
PRODUCTION FACTORS
The research would measure indicators along the transmission chain, as well as estimate
the quantitative links between these indicators. Hence it would transcend traditional
analysis that would identify the TFP as a component of growth, without attributing TFP
to policy handles such as R & D investments. The estimation process should cover both
productivity growth in agriculture as a whole, and productivity growth disaggregated by
major commodity, with consistency imposed throughout. Some more technical issues that
need to be resolved in the course of implementation are: the use of simultaneous equation
systems or commodity-specific single equations; choice of functional form; reduced form
versus structural estimation; possible imposition of a parsimonious parameter and
functional structure; and other issues related to the estimation procedure.
4.1. Components
Achieving the study objectives requires the following activities, which structure the study
into four components: 1) Development of empirical methods; 2) Case studies; 3)
Commodity studies; 4) Cross-cutting issues.
• A review of statistical system in the Philippines, its strengths and weaknesses, and
recommendations for improving data collection, processing, and presentation.
• Special topics for bridging gaps in the data, such as but not limited to:
- Interpolation for missing years in time-series data;
- Small area estimation for increasing the resolution of geo-referenced data
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 8
Inception Report
Each study would consist of: i) a commodity profile covering both production and the
supply chain; ii) a complete set of commodity-specific data and indicators for conducting
productivity growth analysis; iii) qualitative analysis of growth determinants; and
possibly, iv) estimation of links between policies and productivity growth.
Themes 1 to 6 are factors derived from the framework (Section 3.2). Each of these are to
elaborate the following: i) components, profile, and trends; ii) transmission channels to
productivity growth; iii) measurement issues; iv) indices for productivity analysis; v)
evaluation and recommendations. Themes 7 to 9 examine agriculture as a whole: Theme
7 is the technical estimation, Theme 8 looks forward to future sources of growth, and
Theme 9 summarizes the findings and recommendations of the project.
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 9
Inception Report
The project aims to inform policy and investment decisions; hence, its findings would be
would be disseminated to policymakers and other stakeholders through non-technical
communication materials, such as policy briefs; these briefs will be disseminated at the
conclusion of each Phase of the project (see Section 4.3). In sum the expected output of
the projects are as follows:
5. IMPLEMENTATION
5.2. Funding
Project cost is estimated at PhP 18.0 M for the three-year study period, from core
contributions of BAR, PHILRICE and SEARCA (Table 2). Based on Table 1 and 2, the
milestones are:
The budget for the project, by activity and phase, is shown in Table 3. The travel and
honorarium of the Project Adviser would be mobilized from external sources.
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 11
Inception Report
Steering Committee
Project Coordinator
SEARCA Director
Project Adviser
The production function became the basis of more general, nonparametric approaches
represented by growth accounting, the third approach to measuring productivity growth.
Consider a production function of the following form:
Yi Ti Fi ( Xi ; Zi ) . (1)
Hence, TFP growth can be measured as a residual after subtracting the weighted average
of factor growth. However this residual is admittedly a “measure of ignorance” rather
than a true productivity measure. It could include measurement error, omitted variables,
and a stochastic disturbance term. Jorgenson and Grilliches (1967) and Denison (1972)
implemented various techniques to adjust inputs for quality changes, to better isolate the
productivity component of the residual.
When growth accounting is applied to aggregate output or sectors, one can analyze
structural change (Jorgenson, 1988). Growth in measured productivity may be due in part
to a change in composition from products with low TFP to those with high TFP. One way
to formalize this is to define total agricultural output as Y i Yi (Warr, 2006):
y i s yi ti i s yi f i (5)
Productivity Growth in Philippine Agriculture Project 15
Inception Report
That is, aggregate sectoral growth can be decomposed into a weighted average of TFP
growth by commodity, plus a weighted average of production growth (sans the TFP
component).
A more general formalization follows Mundlak, Larsen, and Butzer (1997). This time let
i denote production technique, such that we write i (xi ; z i ) ; let pi the output price for the
ith technique; let the technique, output and factor price vectors be F , p and w, where T is
a set of feasible techniques. The Lagrangian equation for the optimization problem is:
L p F (x; z ) w x z z 0 ) (6)
References
Aigner, D. J., Knox Lovell, C. A. and Schmidt, P. 1977, “Formation and estimation of
stochastic frontier production function models, ” Journal of Econometrics 6:21—37.
Avila, D.A. and R. Evenson. 2004. Total Factor Productivity Growth in Agriculture: The
Role of Technological Capital. Economic Growth Center paper, Yale University, New
Haven.
Christensen, Laurits R., Dale W. Jorgenson and Lawrence J. Lau, 1973, "Transcendental
Logarithmic Production Frontiers," Review Economics and Statistics 55: 28-45.
Cororaton, C.B. and M.T. Caparas. 1999. Total Factor Productivity: Estimates for the
Philippine Economy. Discussion Paper 99-06. Philippine Institute for Development
Studies, Manila.
David, C.C. and R. Barker, 1979. “Agricultural Growth in the Philippines, 1948-1971,”
in Y. Hayami, V.W. Ruttan and H.M. Southworth (eds.) Agricultural Growth in Japan,
Taiwan, Korea, and the Philippines. University Press, Hawaii.
David, C.C., R. Barker, and A. Palacpac. 1985. “The Nature of Productivity Growth in
Philippine Agriculture, 1948-1982.” Paper presented at the Symposium of Agricultural
Productivity Measurement and Analysis, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan,
October 1-8, 1985.
Denison, E., 1972. "Some Major Issues in Productivity Analysis: an Examination of the
Estimates by Jorgenson and Griliches," Survey of Current Business, 49 (5, Part II): 1-27.
Evenson, R.E. and M.L. Sardido, 1986. “Regional Total Factor Productivity Change in
Philippine Agriculture.” Journal of Philippine Development. 23(13): 40-61.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2004. State of Food and Agriculture 2004.
FAO, Rome.
Jorgenson, Dale W. and Zvi Griliches, 19767. "The Explanation of Productivity Change,"
Review of Economic Studies 34:349-83.
Lau, Lawrence J. & Yotopoulos, Pan A., 1989. "The meta-production function approach
to technological change in world agriculture," Journal of Development Economics 31(2):
241-269.
Solow, R., 1957. "Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function." Review of
Economics and Statistics 39(3):312-320.
Patalinhug, E. 2001. A Review of the Components of the Medium Term National Action
Agenda for Productivity (MNAAP) 2000-2004. PIDS Research Paper Series No. 2001-
02, Makati City, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Teruel, R., and Y. Kuroda, 2005. “Public infrastructure and productivity growth in
Philippine agriculture, 1974-2000.” Journal of Asian Economics 16: 555-576.