## wpiea2019232-print-pdf

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [wpiea2019232-print-pdf](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019232-print-pdf.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019232-print-pdf.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019232-print-pdf.pdf.json)

---

### I. INTRODUCTION
- Broad consensus: public capital contributes favorably to economic growth, especially in early stages of development.
- Meta- and empirical evidence cited:
  - Bom and Lighthart (2014) meta-analysis (578 estimates) finds a long-run elasticity of output with respect to public capital of in the order of 12 percent, increasing to about 19 percent for core public capital.
  - Calderón et al. (2015) find elasticity of output with respect to infrastructure capital ranges between 0.07 and 0.10.
- Main methodological challenges addressed:
  - Two common macro assumptions challenged: perfect substitutability of public and private capital; Cobb-Douglas aggregation.
- Paper contributions:
  - Construct public and private investment and capital stock series for 151 countries covering 1960 - 2014, ensuring ex ante consistency with Penn World Table (PWT) economy-wide capital, investment, and amortization series.
  - Estimate the elasticity of substitution (ES) between public and private capital to test complementarity vs substitutability.
- Key empirical summary:
  - For the entire sample, point estimate of ES between public and private capital is around 3.
  - Heterogeneity across country groups: ES higher for emerging countries than LIDCs; advanced countries well characterized by Cobb-Douglas technology.

### II. DATA (construction and descriptive statistics)
- Methodology highlights:
  - Challenges: investment flow data gaps, measurement errors, time-varying depreciation rates, and initial-condition determination.
  - Common alternatives criticized: partial non-additive measures (kilometers of roads, kilowatts), perpetual inventory method initial stock issues, steady-state initial-condition method 퐼0/(푔+훿) can produce implausible results.
  - Asymptotic limit approach (Kamps, 2006) sets capital stock in 1860 to zero and backcasts investment; limitations noted.
  - Approach used: derive unobserved public and private capital stocks from observable economy-wide capital stocks and amortization levels and respective investment shares, following Collier et al. (2001), Kamps (2006), Arslanalp et al. (2010), Gupta et al. (2014), and IMF (2015).
  - Assume same price deflator for private and public capital.
- Core accounting equations (as presented):
  - Aggregate capital accumulation: 퐼푖,푡−1 = 퐾푖푡 − (1−훿푖푡)∗퐾푖,푡−1.
  - Investment shares: 퐼푖,푡−1푃 = s푖,푡−1푃 ∗ 퐼푖,푡−1; 퐼푖,푡−1퐺 = s푖,푡−1퐺 ∗ 퐼푖,푡−1.
  - Separate accumulation for private and public capital:
    - 퐾푖푡푃 = 퐼푖,푡−1푃 + (1−훿푖푡푃)∗퐾푖,푡−1푃.
    - 퐾푖푡퐺 = 퐼푖,푡−1퐺 + (1−훿푖푡퐺)∗퐾푖,푡−1퐺.
  - Depreciation split conditions: public and private depreciation (in PPP USD terms) sum to economy-wide depreciation; public depreciation rate lower than private.
  - Depreciation formulas using ratio r푖,푡 from Gupta et al. (2014):
    - 훿푖푡푝 = 퐾푖,푡−1퐾푖,푡−1푃 + r푖푡퐾푖,푡−1퐺.
    - 훿푖푡퐺 = r푖푡퐾푖,푡−1퐾푖,푡−1푃 + r푖푡퐾푖,푡−1퐺.
- Data sources and construction choices:
  - Economy-wide capital stock and average depreciation rates from Penn World Table (PWT) version 9.0, measured in 2011 US dollar.
  - Public and private investment shares calculated from IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) private and general government gross fixed capital formation series (most countries start in 1969).
  - Prior to 1969, earliest available shares extrapolated backwards to 1950; initial conditions at 1950 set by applying investment shares to economy-wide capital stock.
  - Panel covers 151 countries for 1950-2014; to alleviate initial-condition biases, first 10 years are dropped for estimation. In 1960 data include 102 countries; 132 in 1970; 151 since 1990.
  - Alternative constructions using WEO investment series in local currencies produce highly correlated datasets and similar coefficient estimates (available upon request).
- Descriptive statistics (highlights from tables and figure):
  - Average investment to GDP ratio for all countries: around 26.5 percent.
  - Advanced economies' total investment ratio exceeds LIDCs by about 10 percentage points of GDP.
  - Public investment share: ~20 percent of total investment in advanced countries; almost 40 percent in LIDCs.
  - Public-private capital ratio: ~50 percent in emerging economies; 30 percent in advanced economies; exceeding 75 percent in LIDCs.
  - Standard deviation of investment-to-GDP ratio, especially private investment, is much smaller for advanced economies than for emerging and LIDCs.
  - Correlations (Table 2): In advanced countries public and private capital stocks highly correlated; correlations of these with real GDP growth just above 0.5. Emerging and LIDCs show much lower correlations, especially between public capital and output growth.
  - Time-series patterns: convergence in investment ratios among country groups in the past ~15 years; secular decline of public investment to GDP ratio in advanced countries since the 1980s; rebound of public investment ratios in emerging economies and LIDCs during the 2000s; LIDCs saw rapid increases in private capital ratios since the 1990s.

### III. EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES (theory, estimation, baseline results)
- Theoretical framework:
  - Three-factor CES production function (Arrow et al., 1961):
    - 푌 = 퐴(푎퐿휌 + 푏푃휌 + 푐퐺휌)1/휌.
  - Elasticity of substitution: 휎 = 1/(1−휌).
  - Two-level Sato (1967) CES to allow different elasticities between nests:
    - 푌 = 퐴{푎[푏푃휃 + (1−푏)퐺휃]휌/휃 + (1−푎)퐿휌}1/휌.
  - Key empirical test: substitutability/complementarity between private (P) and public (G) capital via parameter 휃.
- Empirical specification and estimation:
  - Two-level CES with common time-trends:
    - 푌푖푡 = 퐴푖 e휆푡+휀푖푡 {푎[푏푃푖푡휃 + (1−푏)퐺푖푡휃]휌/휃 + (1−푎)퐿푖푡휌}1/휌.
  - Variables: output (푌) and labor (퐿) from PWT9; capital stocks P and G are newly constructed panel; capital and output in billions of 2011 US dollars; total employment in millions.
  - Estimation method: Non-linear least squares (NLLS) preferred over linear approximations (Kmenta) due to nonlinearity of CES; country fixed effects differenced out by taking log-differences.
  - NLLS estimation uses Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm.
- Baseline NLLS results (3-year averages, by country groups):
  - Full sample (Two-level CES, Table 3):
    - 휃 = 0.66*** (0.16)
    - 푏 = 0.56*** (0.04)
    - 휌 = -0.02 (0.06)
    - 푎 = 0.61*** (0.04)
    - 휆(%) = 0.75*** (0.27)
    - ES = 2.94
    - ES 1-std dev CI: [1.54, 4.34]
    - Obs = 2071, R-sq = 0.32
  - Full sample (CES-nested-in-CD, Table 4) — results consistent:
    - 휃 = 0.66*** (0.16)
    - 푏 = 0.56*** (0.04)
    - 푎 = 0.60*** (0.02)
    - 휆(%) = 0.74*** (0.27)
    - ES = 2.94
    - ES 1-std dev CI: [1.54, 4.34]
    - Obs = 2071, R-sq = 0.32
  - Country-group heterogeneity (selected):
    - Advanced economies:
      - Two-level CES: 휃 = 0.25 (1.29), ES = 1.33, Obs = 438, R-sq = 0.59
      - CES-nested-in-CD: 휃 = 0.46 (1.24), ES = 1.85, Obs = 438, R-sq = 0.59
      - Interpretation: advanced economies show weak or insignificant private-public substitutability.
    - Emerging economies:
      - Two-level CES: 휃 = 0.71*** (0.21), ES = 3.45, Obs = 981, R-sq = 0.31
      - CES-nested-in-CD: 휃 = 0.70*** (0.21), ES = 3.33, Obs = 981, R-sq = 0.31
      - Interpretation: robust substitutability driving overall finding.
    - LIDCs:
      - Two-level CES: 휃 = 0.53* (0.31), ES = 2.13, Obs = 652, R-sq = 0.26
      - CES-nested-in-CD: 휃 = 0.62** (0.30), ES = 2.63, Obs = 652, R-sq = 0.26
  - Additional interpretation:
    - Substitutability between public and private capital rejected Cobb-Douglas aggregation for full sample.
    - Substitution parameter between composite capital and labor 휌 not statistically different from zero in baseline, implying Cobb-Douglas nesting between capital and labor cannot be rejected.
    - Estimated labor share implied by parameter 푎 appears larger than some literature estimates; possible reflection of recent downward trends in labor income shares.

### IV. ROBUSTNESS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
- Alternative data frequencies:
  - Using 2-year and 5-year averaged data, estimated ES remains close to 3 for the complete sample and driven mainly by emerging economies; ES is insignificant for advanced economies.
  - Technology growth parameter 휆 is higher with lower frequency data; both are about 2 percent per year in baseline description.
- Time fixed effects:
  - Including time fixed effects (pre-/post-1990 dummy and 12-year dummies) yields ES very close to baseline for full sample; LIDC private-public elasticity may become larger in some specifications (point estimate close to 4 when restricting capital-labor substitution).
- Controlling for human capital:
  - Labor measured as total employment weighted by human capital reduces observations from 2,071 to 1,864.
  - Public-private substitution parameter becomes insignificant in LIDCs; for full sample 휃 ≈ 0.65*** and ES ≈ 2.86.
  - Capital share parameter (푎) and productivity growth (휆) become smaller after controlling for human capital.
- Bootstrapping standard errors (1000 simulations):
  - Confirms high significance of 휃 for full sample and emerging economies.
  - Two-level CES bootstrapping — Full sample: 휃 = 0.66*** (0.17), ES = 2.94, one-std-dev CI [1.63, 3.61]; advanced ES CI upper bound around 7.27 in Table 11 bracket.
  - CES-nested-in-CD bootstrapping — Full sample: 휃 = 0.66*** (0.16), ES = 2.94, one-std-dev CI [1.66, 3.55].
- Endogeneity and cointegration checks:
  - Panel unit root tests fail to reject unit roots in real GDP, real private capital stock, real public capital stock, and square of public/private capital ratio.
  - Panel cointegration tests decisively reject no cointegration only for emerging economies; cointegration for LIDCs is mixed; several specifications fail to reject null for advanced countries.
  - Panel group mean FMOLS estimation (Pedroni) supports public-private capital substitutability for emerging countries and the full sample; estimation results available upon request.

### V. IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY LEADS
- Main implications:
  - Empirical evidence rejects the assumption of perfect substitutability between public and private capital commonly used in macro models.
  - High but imperfect substitution (ES ≈ 3) implies that as capital stock increases, both marginal and average products approach a positive constant rather than zero when abstracting from other factors (departure from Inada conditions).
- Heterogeneity and interpretation:
  - Public and private capital in developing economies are more substitutable than in advanced economies.
    - Advanced economies may require public capital that is complementary to specialized private capital.
    - Less advanced countries may use public capital to fill gaps in an underdeveloped private sector.
- Limitations and future research:
  - Estimates do not identify specific channels or causes of substitutability; results provide a starting point for future research.

*Source: wpiea2019232-print-pdf - References ............................................................................................................................29*

### References .............................................................................................................

### wpiea2019232-print-pdf - References ............................................................................................................................29

### I. INTRODUCTION
- Broad consensus: public capital contributes favorably to economic growth, especially in early stages of development.
- Bom and Lighthart (2014) meta-analysis (578 estimates) finds a long-run elasticity of output with respect to public capital of in the order of 12 percent, increasing to about 19 percent for core public capital, with substantial heterogeneity across income and regional dimensions.
- Calderón et al. (2015) find elasticity of output with respect to infrastructure capital ranges between 0.07 and 0.10.
- Two main empirical assumptions in macro models challenged: perfect substitutability of public and private capital; Cobb-Douglas aggregation.
- Paper contributions:
  - Construct public and private investment and capital stock series for 151 countries covering 1960 - 2014, ensuring ex ante consistency with Penn World Table (PWT) economy-wide capital, investment, and amortization series.
  - Estimate the elasticity of substitution (ES) between public and private capital to test complementarity vs substitutability.
- Key empirical summary:
  - For the entire sample, point estimate of ES between public and private capital is around 3.
  - Heterogeneity across country groups: ES higher for emerging countries than LIDCs; advanced countries well characterized by Cobb-Douglas technology.
- Paper organization: Section 2 (data construction), Section 3 (theoretical foundation and baseline ES estimates), Section 4 (robustness), Section 5 (conclusion).

### II. DATA
- Methodology highlights:
  - Constructing comparable public capital stocks across countries is difficult due to investment flow data gaps, measurement errors, time-varying depreciation rates, and initial condition complexities.
  - Common alternative measures (kilometers of roads, kilowatts of capacity) are partial and non-additive; perpetual inventory method faces initial stock determination issues.
  - Critique of steady-state initial-condition method: 퐼0/(푔+훿) can produce implausible results for developing or low-income countries.
  - Asymptotic limit approach (Kamps, 2006) sets capital stock in 1860 to zero and backcasts investment; has been applied (Arslanalp et al., 2010; Gupta et al., 2014) but has two limitations discussed.
  - Paper's approach: derive unobserved public and private capital stocks from observable economy-wide capital stocks and amortization levels and respective investment shares, following Collier et al. (2001), Kamps (2006), Arslanalp et al. (2010), Gupta et al. (2014), and IMF (2015).
  - Assume same price deflator for private and public capital.
- Core accounting equations (as presented):
  - Aggregate capital accumulation: 퐼푖,푡−1 = 퐾푖푡 − (1−훿푖푡)∗퐾푖,푡−1.
  - Investment shares: 퐼푖,푡−1푃 = s푖,푡−1푃 ∗ 퐼푖,푡−1; 퐼푖,푡−1퐺 = s푖,푡−1퐺 ∗ 퐼푖,푡−1.
  - Separate accumulation for private and public capital:
    - 퐾푖푡푃 = 퐼푖,푡−1푃 + (1−훿푖푡푃)∗퐾푖,푡−1푃.
    - 퐾푖푡퐺 = 퐼푖,푡−1퐺 + (1−훿푖푡퐺)∗퐾푖,푡−1퐺.
  - Depreciation split conditions: public and private depreciation (in PPP USD terms) sum to economy-wide depreciation; public depreciation rate lower than private.
  - Depreciation formulas using ratio r푖,푡 from Gupta et al. (2014):
    - 훿푖푡푝 = 퐾푖,푡−1퐾푖,푡−1푃 + r푖푡퐾푖,푡−1퐺.
    - 훿푖푡퐺 = r푖푡퐾푖,푡−1퐾푖,푡−1푃 + r푖푡퐾푖,푡−1퐺.
- Data sources and construction choices:
  - Economy-wide capital stock and average depreciation rates from Penn World Table (PWT) version 9.0, measured in 2011 US dollar.
  - Public and private investment shares calculated from IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) private and general government gross fixed capital formation series (most countries start in 1969).
  - Prior to 1969, earliest available shares extrapolated backwards to 1950; initial conditions at 1950 set by applying investment shares to economy-wide capital stock.
  - Panel covers 151 countries for 1950-2014; to alleviate initial-condition biases, first 10 years are dropped for estimation. In 1960 data include 102 countries; 132 in 1970; 151 since 1990.
  - Alternative constructions using WEO investment series in local currencies produce highly correlated datasets and similar coefficient estimates (available upon request).
- Descriptive statistics (highlights from Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 1):
  - Average investment to GDP ratio for all countries: around 26.5 percent.
  - Advanced economies' total investment ratio exceeds LIDCs by about 10 percentage points of GDP.
  - Public investment share: ~20 percent of total investment in advanced countries; almost 40 percent in LIDCs.
  - Public-private capital ratio: ~50 percent in emerging economies; 30 percent in advanced economies; exceeding 75 percent in LIDCs.
  - Standard deviation of investment-to-GDP ratio, especially private investment, is much smaller for advanced economies than for emerging and LIDCs.
  - Correlations (Table 2): In advanced countries public and private capital stocks highly correlated; correlations of these with real GDP growth just above 0.5. Emerging and LIDCs show much lower correlations, especially between public capital and output growth.
  - Time-series patterns (Figure 1): convergence in investment ratios among country groups in the past ~15 years; secular decline of public investment to GDP ratio in advanced countries since the 1980s; rebound of public investment ratios in emerging economies and LIDCs during the 2000s; LIDCs saw rapid increases in private capital ratios since the 1990s.

### III. EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES
- Theoretical framework:
  - General three-factor CES production function (Arrow et al., 1961):
    - 푌 = 퐴(푎퐿휌 + 푏푃휌 + 푐퐺휌)1/휌.
  - Elasticity of substitution: 휎 = 1/(1−휌).
  - Two-level Sato (1967) CES to allow different elasticities between nests:
    - 푌 = 퐴{푎[푏푃휃 + (1−푏)퐺휃]휌/휃 + (1−푎)퐿휌}1/휌.
  - Key empirical test: substitutability/complementarity between private (P) and public (G) capital via parameter 휃.
- Empirical specification and estimation:
  - Two-level CES with common time-trends:
    - 푌푖푡 = 퐴푖 e휆푡+휀푖푡 {푎[푏푃푖푡휃 + (1−푏)퐺푖푡휃]휌/휃 + (1−푎)퐿푖푡휌}1/휌.
  - Variables: output (푌) and labor (퐿) from PWT9; capital stocks P and G are newly constructed panel; capital and output in billions of 2011 US dollars; total employment in millions.
  - Estimation method: Non-linear least squares (NLLS) preferred over linear approximations (Kmenta) due to nonlinearity of CES; country fixed effects differenced out by taking log-differences.
  - Log-differenced empirical equation used (equation (12)) for estimation.
  - NLLS estimation uses Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm.
- Baseline NLLS results (Table 3, 3-year averages, by country groups):
  - Full sample:
    - Point estimate of capital substitution parameter 휃 = 0.66, statistically significant at the 1 percent level.
    - Implied public-private capital elasticity of substitution (ES) = 2.9 (calculated as 1/(1−휃)); one standard deviation confidence intervals derived using delta method.
    - Distribution parameter between public and private capital 푏 = 0.56, highly significant.
    - Substitution parameter between composite capital and labor 휌 not statistically different from zero, implying Cobb-Douglas nesting (unitary capital-labor ES) cannot be rejected.
    - Distribution parameter between composite capital and labor 푎 = 0.61, highly significant.
  - Country-group heterogeneity:
    - High public-private capital substitutability driven by emerging economies (close to half of sample); implied ES for emerging economies estimated at 3.44.
  - Interpretation and context:
    - Results reject Cobb-Douglas aggregation between public and private capital for the full sample.
    - The estimated labor share (implied by distribution parameter 푎) appears larger than some literature estimates, possibly reflecting recent downward trends in labor income shares; referenced comparisons include Gomme and Rupert (2004, 2007), Karabarbounis and Neiman (2013), and IMF (2017, Chapter 3).

*Source: wpiea2019232-print-pdf - References ............................................................................................................................29*

### 0.8 in line with Chirinko (2008). At the same time, growth rates in advanced countries are strongly

### wpiea2019232-print-pdf

### Key findings
- Private and public capital are highly but not perfectly substitutable; the point estimate of the elasticity of substitution between private and public capital is around 3.
- Substitutability result is driven by emerging economies and LIDCs, and is more robust in emerging economies; for advanced economies estimation shows no significant substitutability.
- Baseline estimation uses a newly developed dataset on public and private capital stocks for 151 countries over 1960 - 2014 consistent with Penn World Table version 9.

### Main estimation results (Two-level CES and CES-nested-in-Cobb-Douglas)
- Table 3 (Two-level CES, NLLS) — Full sample (All):
  - 휃 = 0.66*** (0.16)
  - 푏 = 0.56*** (0.04)
  - 휌 = -0.02 (0.06)
  - 푎 = 0.61*** (0.04)
  - 휆(%) = 0.75*** (0.27)
  - ES = 2.94
  - ES 1-std dev CI: [1.54, 4.34]
  - Obs = 2071, R-sq = 0.32
- Table 4 (CES-nested-in-CD, NLLS) — Full sample (All):
  - 휃 = 0.66*** (0.16)
  - 푏 = 0.56*** (0.04)
  - 푎 = 0.60*** (0.02)
  - 휆(%) = 0.74*** (0.27)
  - ES = 2.94
  - ES 1-std dev CI: [1.54, 4.34]
  - Obs = 2071, R-sq = 0.32

### Country-group heterogeneity (selected estimates)
- Advanced economies (Table 3 / Table 4):
  - Two-level CES: 휃 = 0.25 (1.29), ES = 1.33, Obs = 438, R-sq = 0.59
  - CES-nested-in-CD: 휃 = 0.46 (1.24), ES = 1.85, Obs = 438, R-sq = 0.59
  - Advanced economies show weak or insignificant private-public substitutability.
- Emerging economies (Table 3 / Table 4):
  - Two-level CES: 휃 = 0.71*** (0.21), ES = 3.45, Obs = 981, R-sq = 0.31
  - CES-nested-in-CD: 휃 = 0.70*** (0.21), ES = 3.33, Obs = 981, R-sq = 0.31
  - Results are robust and drive the overall substitutability finding.
- LIDCs (Table 3 / Table 4):
  - Two-level CES: 휃 = 0.53* (0.31), ES = 2.13, Obs = 652, R-sq = 0.26
  - CES-nested-in-CD: 휃 = 0.62** (0.30), ES = 2.63, Obs = 652, R-sq = 0.26

### Robustness and sensitivity analysis (Section IV)
- Alternative data frequencies (Tables 5–6):
  - Using 2-year and 5-year averaged data, estimated ES remains close to 3 for the complete sample and driven mainly by emerging economies; ES is insignificant for advanced economies.
  - Technology growth parameter 휆 is higher with lower frequency data; both are about 2 percent per year in baseline description.
- Time fixed effects (Tables 7–8):
  - Including time fixed effects (pre-/post-1990 dummy and 12-year dummies) yields ES very close to baseline for full sample; LIDC private-public elasticity may become larger in some specifications (point estimate close to 4 when restricting capital-labor substitution).
- Controlling for human capital (Tables 9–10):
  - Labor measured as total employment weighted by human capital reduces observations from 2,071 to 1,864.
  - Public-private substitution parameter becomes insignificant in LIDCs; for full sample 휃 ≈ 0.65*** and ES ≈ 2.86 (Table 9).
  - Capital share parameter (푎) and productivity growth (휆) become smaller after controlling for human capital.
- Bootstrapping standard errors (Tables 11–12; 1000 simulations):
  - Bootstrapped standard errors confirm high significance of 휃 for full sample and emerging economies.
  - Two-level CES bootstrapping (Table 11) — Full sample: 휃 = 0.66*** (0.17), ES = 2.94, one-std-dev CI [1.63, 3.61]; advanced ES CI upper bound around 7.27 in Table 11 bracket.
  - CES-nested-in-CD bootstrapping (Table 12) — Full sample: 휃 = 0.66*** (0.16), ES = 2.94, one-std-dev CI [1.66, 3.55].
- Endogeneity (Panel cointegration and Kmenta linearized approximation):
  - Panel unit root tests fail to reject unit roots in real GDP, real private capital stock, real public capital stock, and square of public/private capital ratio.
  - Panel cointegration tests decisively reject no cointegration only for emerging economies; cointegration for LIDCs is mixed; several specifications fail to reject null for advanced countries.
  - Panel group mean FMOLS estimation (Pedroni) supports public-private capital substitutability for emerging countries and the full sample; estimation results are available upon request.

### Implications and policy leads (from Conclusion)
- Empirical evidence rejects the assumption of perfect substitutability between public and private capital commonly used in macro models.
- High but imperfect substitution (ES ≈ 3) implies that as capital stock increases, both marginal and average products approach a positive constant rather than zero (departing from Inada conditions) when abstracting from other factors.
- Public and private capital in developing economies are more substitutable than in advanced economies; interpretation:
  - Advanced economies may require public capital that is complementary to specialized private capital.
  - Less advanced countries may use public capital to fill gaps in an underdeveloped private sector.
- Estimates do not identify specific channels or causes of substitutability; results provide a starting point for future research.

*Sources: Penn World Table 9.0, IMF World Economic Outlook October 2016, and authors' estimates.*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### Bibliographic entries
- [1] Agénor, P. R. (2010). A theory of infrastructure-led development. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34(5), 932-950.
- [2] Agénor, P. R. (2012). Public Capital, Growth and Welfare: Analytical Foundations for Public Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- [3] Arrow, K. J., H. B. Chenery, B. S. Minhas, and R. M. Solow (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Review of Economics and Statistics 43(3), 225-250.
- [4] Arslanalp, S., F. Bornhorst, S. Gupta, and E. Sze (2010). Public capital and growth. IMF Working Paper No. 10/175.
- [5] Aschauer, D. (1989). Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics 23(2), 177-200.
- [6] Bom, P. R. and J. E. Lighthart (2014). What have we learned from three decades of research on the productivity of public capital? Journal of Economic Surveys 28(5), 889-916.
- [7] Calderón, C., E. Moral-Benito, and L. Servén (2015). Is infrastructure capital productive? A dynamic heterogeneous approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics 30(2), 177-198.
- [8] Caselli, F. (2005). Accounting for cross-country income differences. In P. Aghion and S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Volume 1, pp. 679-741. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
- [9] Caselli, F. and J. Feyrer (2007). The marginal product of capital. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(2), 535-568.
- [10] Caselli, F. and D. J. Wilson (2004). Importing technology. Journal of Monetary Economics 51(1), 1-32.
- [11] Chatterjee, S. and S. J. Turnovsky (2012). Infrastructure and inequality. European Economic Review 56(8), 1730-1745.
- [12] Chirinko, R. S. (2008). 휎: The long and short of it. Journal of Macroeconomics 30(2), 671-686.
- [13] Collier, P., A. Hoeffler, and C. Pattillo (2001). Flight capital as a portfolio choice. World Bank Economic Review 15(1), 55-80.
- [14] Dabla-Norris, E., Brumby, J., Kyobe, A., Mills, Z., & Papageorgiou, C. (2012). Investing in public investment: an index of public investment efficiency. Journal of Economic Growth, 17(3), 235-266.
- [15] Dobbs, R., H. Pohl, D. Y. Lin, J. Mischke, N. Garemo, J. Hexter, S. Matzinger, R. Palter, and R. Nanavatty (2013). Infrastructure productivity: How to save $1 trillion a year. McKinsey Global Institute 88.
- [16] Duffy, J. and C. Papageorgiou (2000). A cross-country empirical investigation of the aggregate production function specification. Journal of Economic Growth 5(1), 87-120.
- [17] Duffy, J., C. Papageorgiou, and F. Perez-Sebastian (2006). Capital-skill complementarity? Evidence from a panel of countries. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 327-344.
- [18] Feenstra, R. C., R. Inklaar, and M. P. Timmer (2015). The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review 105(10), 3150-3182.
- [19] Fraumeni, B. (1997). The measurement of depreciation in the U.S. national income and product accounts. Survey of Current Business 77, 9-23.
- [20] Gollin, D. (2002). Getting income shares right. Journal of Political Economy 110(2), 458-474.
- [21] Gomme, P. and P. Rupert (2004). Measuring labor's share of income. FRB of Cleveland Policy Discussion Paper No. 7.
- [22] Gomme, P. and P. Rupert (2007). Theory, measurement and calibration of macroeconomic models. Journal of Monetary Economics 54(2), 460-497.
- [23] Gupta, S., A. Kangur, C. Papageorgiou, and A. Wane (2014). Efficiency-adjusted public capital and growth. World Development 57, 164-178.
- [24] Hulten, C. and F. Wykoff (1981). The estimation of economic depreciation using vintage asset prices: An application of the Box-Cox power transformation. Journal of Econometrics 15(3), 367-396.
- [25] International Monetary Fund (2015). Making public investment more efficient.
- [26] International Monetary Fund (2017). World Economic Outlook April 2017, Chapter 3: Understanding the downward trend in labor income shares.
- [27] Kamps, C. (2006). New estimates of government net capital stocks for 22 OECD countries, 1960-2001. IMF Staff Papers 53(1), 120-150.
- [28] Kangur, A. and C. Papageorgiou (2017). Public sector investment efficiency in developing countries. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, pp. 1-10. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
- [29] Karabarbounis, L. and B. Neiman (2013). The global decline of the labor share. Quarterly Journal of Economics 129(1), 61-103.
- [30] Kmenta, J. (1967). On estimation of the CES production function. International Economic Review 8(2), 180-189.
- [31] Koesler, S. and M. Schymura (2015). Substitution elasticities in a constant elasticity of substitution framework-empirical estimates using nonlinear least squares. Economic Systems Research 27 (1), 101-121.
- [32] Krusell, P., L. E. Ohanian, J.-V. Ríos-Rull, and G. L. Violante (2000). Capital-skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica 68(5), 1029-1053.
- [33] Lowe, M., C. Papageorgiou, and F. Perez-Sebastian (2018). The public and private MPK. Economica, forthcoming.
- [34] Pedroni, P. (2000). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics 15, 93-130.
- [35] Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economics and Statistics 83(4), 727-731.
- [36] Romp, W. and J. de Haan (2007). Public capital and economic growth: A critical survey. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 8, 6-52.
- [37] Sato, K. (1967). A two-level constant-elasticity-of-substitution production function. Review of Economic Studies 34(2), 201-218.
- [38] Stokey, N. L. (1996). Free trade, factor returns, and factor accumulation. Journal of Economic Growth 1(4), 421-447.
- [39] Thursby, J. G. and C. K. Lovell (1978). An investigation of the Kmenta approximation to the CES function. International Economic Review 19(2), 363-377.
- [40] Turnovsky, S. J. (2011). Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth in a Small Open Economy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

### Figure A1 — List of Countries by Income Group
- Advanced
  - Australia
  - Austria
  - Belgium
  - Canada
  - Czech**
  - Estonia**
  - Finland
  - France
  - Germany
  - Greece
  - HK SAR
  - Iceland
  - Israel
  - Italy
  - Japan
  - Korea
  - Latvia**
  - Lithuania**
  - Luxembourg
  - Macao SAR*
  - Netherlands
  - New Zealand
  - Portugal
  - Singapore
  - Slovakia**
  - Switzerland
  - Taiwan POC
  - UK
  - United States
  - Grenada*
  - Guatemala
  - India
  - Indonesia
  - Iran
  - Iraq*
  - Jordan
  - Kazakhstan**
- Emerging
  - Albania*
  - Algeria
  - Angola*
  - Antigua and Barbuda*
  - Argentina
  - Armenia**
  - Azerbaijan**
  - Bahrain*
  - Barbados
  - Belize*
  - Bosnia and H.**
  - Botswana
  - Brazil
  - Bulgaria*
  - Cabo Verde
  - Chile
  - China
  - Colombia
  - Costa Rica
  - Croatia**
  - Dominica*
  - Dominican Republic
  - Ecuador
  - Egypt
  - Equatorial Guinea*
  - Fiji
  - Gabon
  - Georgia**
  - Thailand
  - Trinidad and Tobago
  - Tunisia
  - Turkey
  - Ukraine**
  - Uruguay
  - Kuwait*
  - Lebanon*
  - Malaysia
  - Maldives*
  - Mauritius
  - Mexico
  - Morocco
  - Namibia
  - Oman*
  - Panama
  - Philippines
  - Poland*
  - Romania
  - Russia**
  - Saudi Arabia*
  - Seychelles
  - South Africa
  - St. Kitts and Nevis*
  - St. Lucia*
  - St. Vincent*
  - Swaziland*
  - Mongolia*
  - Myanmar
  - Nepal
  - Nicaragua
  - Niger
  - Nigeria
  - Rwanda
  - Sao Tome and P.*
  - Senegal
  - Sierra Leone
  - Solomon Islands? (not listed in source)
- LIDCs
  - Bangladesh
  - Benin
  - Bhutan*
  - Bolivia
  - Burkina Faso
  - Burundi
  - Cambodia*
  - Cameroon
  - Central Africa
  - Chad
  - Comoros
  - Congo, D.
  - Congo, R.
  - Cote d'Ivoire
  - Ethiopia
  - Gambia
  - Ghana
  - Guinea
  - Guinea-Bissau
  - Haiti
  - Honduras
  - Kenya
  - Lesotho
  - Madagascar
  - Malawi
  - Mali
  - Moldova**
  - Mongolia*
  - Mozambique
  - Myanmar
  - Nepal
  - Nicaragua
  - Niger
  - Nigeria
  - Rwanda
  - Sao Tome and P.*
  - Senegal
  - Sierra Leone
  - Tanzania
  - Togo
  - Uganda
  - Uzbekistan**
  - Vietnam*
  - Yemen*
  - Zambia
  - Zimbabwe

(Note: The Figure A1 listing in the source groups countries under "Advanced", "Emerging", and "LIDCs" and includes country-level annotations "* and **" as in the original. The source also contains additional country entries and annotations beyond those enumerated here.)

### Figure A1 — Data sources and notes
- Sources: Penn World Table version 9.0, IMF World Economic Outlook Oct 2016, and authors' estimates.
- Note: Data start from 1960 if no special notation; * and ** indicates that data start from 1970 and 1990, respectively.
- ‡ Data for the Republic of the Sudan exclude South Sudan after 2011.

*Source: wpiea2019232-print-pdf - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019232-print-pdf.pdf_