Jul. 25, 2015
都道府県別産業生産性(R-JIP)データベースの構築と地域間生産性格差の分析
Compilation of the Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity Database (R-JIP) and Analyses of Productivity Differences across Prefectures
要旨Abstract
本論文では，1970年から2008年までの日本について暦年ベースで，都道府県別，23産業別に産業構造と（質の違いを考慮した）要素投入，および全要素生産性を計測する「都道府県別産業生産性」（Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity，略称R-JIP）データベースを構築し，サプライサイドの視点から1970年以降の日本の地域間労働生産性格差及びその変化の原因について実証研究を行なった．主な分析結果は次のとおりである．1)クロスセクションで見ると，資本装備率，労働の質，TFP全ての要因が労働生産性の地域間格差に寄与した．1970年において労働生産性の地域間格差を生み出していた最大の源泉はTFPと資本装備率の格差であった．このうち資本装備率格差の寄与は急速に減少したのに対し，TFP格差の寄与はあまり減少しなかった．一方，労働の質の地域間格差は，昔も今も地域間格差のうち比較的僅かの部分を説明するに過ぎない．2) 製造業は人的資本集約的な製造業の地方への集積，同一産業内での地域間TFP格差の縮小，といった過程を通じて，地域間の労働生産性格差縮小に寄与したのに対し，非製造業は，不動産，運輸・通信など資本集約的な非製造業が労働生産性の高い県に集積し，サービス，運輸・通信などの産業が物的資本や人的資本を，東京をはじめ労働生産性の高い県に集中させるなど，格差残存に寄与する傾向があった．3) 成長会計の視点から実質成長率を見ると，資本装備率の上昇は当初貧しい県ほどおおむね高く，格差を縮小するように働いた．労働の質についても同様の傾向がみられる．一方TFPの上昇は豊かな県ほどやや高く，格差残存に寄与した．
This paper describes the construction of the Regional-Level Japan Industrial Productivity Database (R-JIP), which covers the period from 1970 through 2008 and comprises annual industrial output and factor input data of Japan’s 47 prefectures classified by 23 industry. Output is measured in terms of value added, while the input data consist of labor input and capital service input, which take both (time series) quality changes and (cross-sectional) quality differences into account. This database makes it possible to calculate both changes in TFP over time and TFP differences across prefectures. Using the data, we analyze Japanese prefectural labor productivity differences and changes therein from 1970 onward. The main findings of our analysis are as follows. (1) Not only differences in capital-labor ratios, but also differences in TFP and labor input quality play a part in explaining the differences in prefectural labor productivity. In 1970, both differences in capital-labor ratios and TFP were the main sources of prefectural labor productivity differences. However, thereafter, the contribution of differences in capital-labor ratios rapidly declined, while the contribution of differences in TFP continued to play a role. Differences in labor input quality account for only a small part of prefectural labor productivity differences throughout the period. (2) Looking at different industries, we find a marked contrast between the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sector. In the case of the manufacturing sector, both the expansion of human capital-intensive industries in the less-developed rural areas and decreases in TFP gaps across prefectures within each industry contributed to the observed decline in prefectural labor productivity differences. On the other hand, in the non-manufacturing sector, both capital and human capital-intensive industries – such as real estate, private services, and transportation and communication – are concentrated in more advanced areas like Tokyo, where labor productivity has been high from the start. This contributes to the prevailing prefectural labor productivity differences. (3) From the viewpoint of growth accounting, increases in the capital-labor ratio have generally been higher in the lagging prefectures, which have worked in the direction of reducing labor productivity differences. Generally speaking, the same can be said for changes in labor input quality. In sharp contrast, TFP has generally been growing more quickly in the leading prefectures, thus working in the direction of increasing labor productivity differences.
書誌情報Bibliographic information
Vol. 64, No. 3, 2013 , pp. 218-239
HERMES-IR（一橋大学機関リポジトリ）: https://doi.org/10.15057/26660
JEL Classification Codes: D24, E01, J24, N35, O15, O47, R11, R23
