Centre for Productivity Studies

Publications

• Book

  Kuznetsov B., Gimpelson V. E., Yakovlev A. A. et al.

  Structural Changes and Industrial Development in BRICS

  This book provides a unique and timely analysis of the role of structural change in the economic development of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) with a consideration for the role of industry, and in particular manufacturing. The emergence of BRICS reflects an ongoing change in the international economic order. BRICS now account for very substantial part of global GDP, global manufactured value added and global manufactured exports. The book examines their economic experiences and structural change in BRICS over the past three decades, identifying both differences and commonalities, and deriving lessons for other industrializing countries. Section I contains comparative studies focusing on the commonalities and differences of the experiences of BRICS. Section II includes six country studies providing a more detailed analysis of the long-run experiences of each of the countries. Section III consists of a set of seven thematic studies focusing on specific topics such as global value chains, the role of transnational corporations in the food chain, the role of foreign versus domestic investment, the role of domestic versus foreign demand in economic growth the diffusion of environmental energy technology and the similarities, and the differences in industrial policies pursued in the five countries. The book contains a summary chapter that provides an integrated perspective of the various contributions from the point of view of poverty reduction and development. It asks, whether the patterns of structural change and industrial development that BRICS experienced, had an impact on poverty outcomes, and if so, what where the channels and the consequences?

  NY: Oxford University Press, 2015.

• Article

  Voskoboynikov I.

  Sources of productivity growth in Eastern Europe and Russia before the global financial crisis

  This paper shows that the industrial origins of productivity growth in Czechia, Hungary, and Slovenia (CEE-3) and Russia before 2008 were similar and driven by manufacturing industries. The contribution of manufacturing industries to multifactor productivity (MFP) growth is substantial. In CEE-3, it exceeded market services. The contribution of labor reallocation to labor productivity growth was modest and did not surpass one quarter of the aggregate labor productivity growth. Finally, industries demonstrate a strong beta-convergence of MFP. The speed of convergence is higher in manufacturing industries than in market services.

  Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2023. Vol. 59. No. 3. P. 225-241.

• Book chapter

  Voskoboynikov I.

  The Living Standards in the USSR During the Interwar Period

  How was life in the~Soviet Union in the interwar period? The two interwar decades fall into the years of relative prosperity of the mid-1920s; the years of tumult and disaster (1929-1938) with the famines of 1932-1933, mass exiles, and repressions; and the initial years of the~Second World War. These decades fall into the~middle of a~demographic transition and the~formation of internal administrative borders between the~Union republics. 
          
          Despite some ongoing debates on data quality, there is a general understanding, that per capita GDP growth was outstanding in the mid~-~1920s and in the~second half of the 1930s. The literature is divided, however, on the conversion of this growth into improved living standards. A number of studies have postulated that after 1928 real consumption never achieved this level. Recent revisions show that the second half of the 1930s was relatively prosperous, so that the living standards of the urban population improved. 
          
  An~alternative approach is looking at biological indicators, such as life expectancy at birth, child mortality, and child and adult stature as they do not have the biases peculiar to economic indices. In the case of the Soviet Union, they are of special interest because of the non-uniform quality of official statistics and, specifically, the fact, that non-market prices did not reflect product scarcity. In terms of life expectancy, child mortality, and stature, the~second half of the 1930s was accompanied by growing living standards and remarkable progress was achieved in public education and healthcare. However, the mass terror of 1937-1938 with one million excess deaths was also part of the “high living standards” of the late 1930s.
          
  The conventional view on living standards mostly considers the~Soviet Union as a~whole, neglecting differences across the~Union republics. This chapter attempts to also highlight what the literature says about differences across the Union republics. 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  In bk.: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. Oxford University Press, 2024.

• Working paper

  Voskoboynikov I.

  Living Standards in the USSR during the Interwar Period

  How was life in the Soviet Union in the interwar period? The two interwar decades fall into the years of relative prosperity of the mid-1920s; the years of tumult and disaster (1929 – 1938) with the famines of 1932-22, mass exiles, and repressions; and the initial years of the Second World War. These decades fall into the middle of a demographic transition and the formation of internal administrative borders between the Union republics. Despite some ongoing debates on data quality, there is a general understanding, that per capita GNP growth was outstanding in the mid-1920s and in the second half of the 1930s. The literature is divided, however, on the conversion of this growth into improved living standards. A number of studies have postulated that after 1928 real consumption never achieved this level. Recent revisions show that the second half of the 1930s was relatively prosperous, so that the living standards of the urban population improved. An alternative approach is looking at biological indicators, such as life expectancy at birth, child mortality, and child and adult stature as they do not have the biases peculiar to economic indices. In the case of the Soviet Union, they are of special interest because of the non-uniform quality of official statistics and, specifically, the fact, that non-market prices did not reflect product scarcity. In terms of life expectancy, child mortality, and stature, the second half of the 1930s was accompanied by growing living standards and remarkable progress was achieved in public education and healthcare. However, the mass terror of 1937‑38 with one million excess deaths was also part of the “high living standards” of the late 1930s. The conventional view on living standards mostly considers the Soviet Union as a whole, neglecting differences across the Union republics. This chapter attempts to also highlight what the literature says about differences across the Union republics.

  Economics/EC. WP BRP. Высшая школа экономики, 2023. No. 264.