International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsrk ISSN: 2322-4541; 2013 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsrk-2013-p263-275

Full Length Research Paper An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company
Mehdi Basirat1, Mehrafarin Latif2*, Ali Asghar Esfandiari3
1

Assistant Professor and Head of Economics Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran 2 MA Student, Department of Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran 3 Assistant professor, Department of Economics, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran *Corresponding Author: mehrafarin.latif@gmail.com
Received 10 June 2013; Accepted 15 July 2013

Abstract. Due to the limitation of production factors, our world today is in a vital need for enhanced productivity, in both developed and developing countries. Hence, productivity and provision of proper approaches will lead to the improvement of economic situation. This study investigates productivity of production factors in Karoun agriculture and industry in the period between 1981 and 2010. The results obtained from the fitting of the model indicate that variables have the condition for the convergence test and there is a long-term balance correlation between the variables. In order to investigate the short-term dynamics and its correlation with long-term relationships, error correction model (ECM) was used. Results obtained from this model indicate that, as expected, ECM sign is negative and its value is 0.61. In order to calculate productivity, detailed productivity method (mean and final productivity) was used. The results obtained from this study demonstrate that the main variables, such as labour and capital, affect productivity. Tensions obtained from fitting of the model demonstrate the share of each factor. The tension of capital and labour is respectively 0.013 and 0.373 in a way that productivity of capital was increased in some years and decreased in some others, showing a fluctuant decreasing trend on the whole. On the other hand, productivity of labour increased in some years and decreased in some years, but it showed a fluctuant increasing trend on the whole. Key words: productivity, production function, Karoun Agriculture and Industry Co., Total factor productivity (TFP), Regressive distributed Lags (ARDL)

1. INTRODUCTION Productivity is regarded as one of the important concepts of economics as it shows the relationship between the use of production factors and the produce. On the whole, productivity could be considered a combination of efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers to conducting a task accurately and is related to beneficial use of the resources. Effectiveness means accurate task, meaning that it is possible to produce more outputs by a lesser use of inputs although the output might not have the quality desired by the consumer. In terms of productivity, the first important issue is that the task needs to be accurate and beneficial and then this tasks needs to be performed in the best possible way. If these two conditions are met, it could be ensured that productivity has been realized. The increase in productivity of production process will be translated into usage of a certain level of inputs to have more production (Abtahi and Kazemi, 2006). The significant production inputs are the labour and capital factors. Therefore, the two concepts of productivity of labour and productivity of capital are

in fact the efficient use of the labour and capital factors. In addition, total factor productivity (TFP) shows the efficient use of the combination of the mentioned factors. Growth of TFP not only effects of quantitative growth of production inputs, but is also one of the important factors that lead to economic growth. It is in fact a type of management in the use of production resources. Nowadays, sugar is regarded as an important and strategic good and the ability is producing this produce is both economically and politically significant. However, the recent efforts of the government in producing sugarcane and its secondary produces are of great importance. Karoun Sugarcane Agriculture and Industry is among the centres for producing sugarcane and refining it into sugar and the related produce in Iran (Khoozestan province) (Saeedi, 2001). This article aims to answer the following questions: Is there is a strong and direct correlation between capital and productivity in Karoun agriculture and industry? Has productivity of capital and labour increased in the period under study?

263

Basirat et al. An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company

1.1. Theoretical Foundation Productivity is one of the new criteria for measuring progress in production. This concept adopts an economic perspective to investigate the application of production factors as well as the access to predetermined goals. There is a difference here between the concepts of production and productivity. Production does not necessarily mean higher productivity, but it is the produced output. On the other hand, productivity is the ratio of produced outputs to consumed inputs. Therefore, it is possible that in a given year, production is increased but productivity is decreased. For instance, the total annual sugarcane harvest or sugar production of an agency might be satisfactory without any satisfaction with regard to improvement of productivity of the inputs. In other words, the increase in production is the result of the higher use of materials and inputs. Meanwhile, if the ratio of the increase in production to the increase in used materials shows a decrease in the ratio of output to input, it indicates productivity of the agency has decreased. In other words, productivity decreases when the input illogically increases in comparison to the output (Rahmati Andami, 2007). When analysing the performance of an agency, productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness are usually considered to be the same and are used alternatively. However, it should be noted that these words are different from one another. Efficiency is the ratio of actual output to the standard or required output, or it is the ratio of the work that is done to the work that needed to be done. Effectiveness refers to the degree of achieving the goals and productivity refers to the ratio of outputs to inputs. A significant issue is that according to physical laws in machines, efficiency, which is the result of face capacity to present capacity, is never 1 and it is always lower than 1. However, when it comes to human beings, proper motivation and leadership could help to make this quotient higher than 1. Effectiveness is the degree of achieving the set goals. In other words, effectiveness shows to what extent efforts have been translated into the intended results. However, the usage and productivity of resources for achieving the goals is related to efficiency. In fact, effectiveness is related to performance and human satisfaction of performed efforts. Efficiency is related to proper exploitation of resources; in other words, productivity is the combination of efficiency and effectiveness. It could be seen that efficiency has a quantitative aspect but effectiveness has a qualitative aspect. In addition, efficiency and effectiveness are not necessarily in the same direction and their changes are not the same. This is due to the fact that efficiency includes the results and outputs that are not

necessarily all desirable and ideal. Therefore, proper attention should be paid when using such terms as efficiency, effectiveness and productivity. Based on the above explanations, it could be said that productivity has three criteria: 1. Efficiency (doing a task successfully); 2. Effectiveness (performing the right task); 3. Consistent application of production factors; in other words, it means consistently performing a task without wasting time or resources or without wasting labour and machines. Therefore, productivity is consistent performance of the right task and it indicates efficiency, effectiveness and the consistency of performance. The increase in productivity as the result of better application of the inputs used in the production process of an agency is usually translated into an increase in production and a decrease in the costs of production, thus benefiting the agency. However, the opposite of this trend is not necessarily right. In other words, the increase in profits could not always be regarded as the increase of productivity. This is because profits of an agency could be the result of the increase in demands or the increase in the products prices, thus not being related to the better use of resources by an agency. Even when productivity is low, an agencys profits might increase. The increase in profits could be the result of better application of production resources (Varzeshi and Esfandiari, 2009). 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES Tavakoli et al. (2000) measured and analysed productivity of production factors in large industry groups in Iran in the period between 1972 and 1993. They investigated the indices of productivity in the two groups of detailed and total productivity of production factors. In terms of detailed indices, productivity of labour and capital was considered as the ratio of production to the related input and in terms of total productivity indices, productivity growth was measured and analysed with regard to the a series of production factors using basic solo and divisia indices. Moreover, they used an exponential function to estimate capital inventory. The results obtained from calculation of productivity indices indicated that detailed labour productivity had a 48.9 percentage growth and capital productivity had a 13 precent negative growth in the period under study. Study of detailed productivity as per industrial activities indicated that labour productivity had an increasing trend except for paper and carton industries. However, capital productivity showed a growing trend only in the resources belonging to nonmetal mineral products, fundamental metals, and other various industries and demonstrated a decreasing trend in other industries.

264

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013

Amini (2002) measured and analysed the factors affecting productivity in non-oil sectors of the Iranian economy and economic prospect in the third development plan. He first explained the factors affecting labour and capital productivity and then investigated the total performance of non-oil sector and the performance of each sub-sector in the period between 1956 and 1999. He then provided a prospect for them in the third development plan and calculated the share of productivity of total factors of growth in the period between 1956 and 1999. In this study, agriculture sector demonstrated the best performance and other services sector (including services other than transport, warehousing, and communications) had the worst performance with regard to efficiency of using production factors. On the whole, production sectors enjoyed a high degree of productivity in the use of resources. In contrast, service sectors were either not successful or only slightly successful in terms of efficient use of production factors. Share of productivity in production growth in the whole nonoil sector was 13.8 precent and it was predicted to increase to 20.6 precent in the Third Development Plan. Ghalambaz et al. (2008) estimated the production factor and productivity models in Karoun Gas and Oil Exploitation Co. productivity and its production factors was estimated for the period between 1986 and 2008. In order to conduct this study, first the reliability of variables was tested using the augmented DickeyFuller test (DFT). Then, the error correction model was estimated using Engle and Granger cointegration approach. The results demonstrated that in the period under study, the function is CobbDouglas and the mean of productivity growth in Karoun Gas and Oil Exploitation Co. is 8.3 precent. The tension is 0.64 for the labour, 0.15 for the capital and 0.55 for energy. The result obtained by Wald test indicates that in comparison to the scale, the return in increasing is 1.34. Ernesto (2002) conducted a study on the productivity of industries in Mexico and found out that the increasing competition in import and accesses to US markets have a positive and significant effect on the total productivity of production. In addition, foreign investments too have a positive effect on the productivity of factors in industries in this country, although the overflow resulting from this capital to the countrys industries is slight. Krueger and Tuncer (2006) studied productivity growth in manufacturing industries in Turkey based on public and private sectors and claimed slower productivity growth coincided with periods of a more stringent trade regime their study also showed that despite the fact that the rate of growth of TFP was about the same in

the public and private sectors, levels of inputs and production factors in the public sector enterprises were much higher than in their private sector counterparts. Dirk Pilat (2009) compared productivity of industries in South Korea with the productivity of similar functions in the US and Europe. Although in this study, productivity of some industries like leather, metals and machineries was to a similar level as European industries, the TFP of Korean industries was 26 precent of the productivity in the American industries. According to Pilat, such factors as capital intensity, savings as the result of production scales in industries, and levels of education of the labour force were among the most influential factors in the difference between productivity of industries in South Korea and the US. and Reddy (2010), studied the productivity trend in Andhra Pradesh products in India. In order to calculate the productivity of the four industries of cotton, tobacco and coke, food products and paper, Trans log production function and divisia index were used. Their explanatory variables in functions included capital inventory, labour force, and consumed fuel. The variable of time was added to the production functions as an input to study the technical progress and the GDP was also used as a dependent variable. After calculating TFP using divisia index, they concluded that TFP in all industries except for cotton products industry had a decreasing trend. TFP index of cotton products industry was increased during this period despite having some slight fluctuations. Desini et al. (2010) used econometric methods to study and test the role of internal restructuring (such as using modern technology and structural changes) and external restructuring (such as entering and exiting the market and changes in market share) on productivity growth in industries in England. They concluded that external restructuring affects 50% of changes in labour productivity and 90% of changes in the TFP. Thirtle and Bottomley (2012) measured productivity of total production factors in agriculture. This paper analyses the relationship between production functions and TFP index. The results showed that intensive growth in agricultural productivity was proportional to other economic sectors. Rosegrant and Evenson (2012) investigated changes of efficiency in a paper whose title was Agricultural productivity and Growth resources in south Asia. The results showed that a high rate of efficiency was estimated to invest in public researches, which is indicative of profitability and need for continuity of this investment. Efficiency is the origin of wealth and growth possibility is prepared in long-term based on new theories of economic growth of efficiency.

265

Basirat et al. An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company Table 1: Summary of series Unit-Root test

Table 2: Summary of series Unit-Root test

Table 3: Autoregressive Distributed Lag Estimation ARD(1,2,0,1,1,2,0,0)

3. METHODOLOGY The methodology used in this study is descriptiveanalytic. Te data used in this study was collected using the library method from Karoun Agriculture and Industry Co. in the period between 1981 and 2010. 3.1. Calculation of Productivity In order to calculate productivity, two methods have been recommended by economists: econometric and non-parametric methods. In the econometric method,

calculation of productivity is performed through estimating a production function or a cost function. In the non-parametric method, productivity is determined by using mathematical planning or by calculating the index value (Abtahi and Kazemi, 2006). This study used the first method. Therefore, if the production functions is assumed to be as follows: y= (x1 , x2 , , xn) (1) It is possible to calculate average productivity APxi and final productivity MPxi of each production factor, assuming that the following conditions are fixed:

266

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013

(2) (3) By estimating one production function, MPxi could easily be calculated. With regard to Cobb Douglas function, MPxi is as follows: (4) Where Y refers to the product, Xi the input, and ei the elasticity of each input. 3.2. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) After the Second World War, many economists focused their studies on TFP. TFP (labour and capital simultaneously) in fact indicates the average production for each unit of the whole production resources. This index indicates the balance of the changes in productivity of labour and capital. GDP growth or added value in each economic sector is performed in two resources (Valizadeh Zonooz, 2005). 1. Input Increase (Labour and Capital); 2. Structural Improvement (machineries, equipment for improving the quality of labour and management) Detailed productivity, including labour and capital productivity, might not be able to explain the increase in the efficiency of production factors and thus the current conditions of the industry. Meanwhile, TFP could explain how production factors could be used properly and productively as it takes into account the changes in those factors that leave the biggest role in the production process, and thus it could be used to have proper economic policies by industrial-economic policy-makers. TFP growth rate could be calculated using the following equation: (5) where TFP is the total factor production growth, APL is labour productivity growth, APK capital productivity growth, nL is the productive tension of labour input, nK is the productive tension of capital input. 3.3. Regressive distributed Lags (ARDL) Unreliability of the variables might lead to artificial regression, and thus damage the confidence about estimated coefficients. Therefore, based on the cointegration theory in modern econometrics, when using time series in estimation of the models, it is necessary to use the approaches that take into account both reliability and co-integration.

Using the models that have short-term dynamics will help to have more exact estimated coefficients. On the whole, a dynamic model is one in which variables lags could be considered as in equation 6 (Tashkini, 2005).

(6) In order to decrease biased estimators in smaller samples, it is recommended to enter a large number of lags for variables in the model. (7) The above model is called ARDL, in which: (8)

(9) L is the operator of the lag, Lnxt=xt-n is a vector of fixed variables like intercept and the virtual variables of time trend. Microfit software estimated the equation times (m+1)k+ times. M is the maximum number of lags that is set by the researcher and k is the number of explanatory variables. Then, one Schwartz-Bison, Akaike, Hannan Quinn criterion is used to choose one of the questions: 3.4. Error Correction Model (ECM) Co-integration between a series of economic variables is the basis for using ECM. ECM is in to fact related short-term fluctuations (short-term imbalance) of variables to their long-term values. According to Engle and Granger, each long-term correlation has a short-term ECM that guarantees the balance and vice versa. These models are in fact a type of detailed balance models in which forces affecting short-term conditions and the speed of getting close to long-term balance value are measured by entering the stable error terms of a long-term correlation (Tashkini, 2005). 3.5. Research Model The model used in this model is linear and Cobb Douglas (Debertin, 1997; Darisavi, 2001). Ln SHT = Ln A+1Ln Szk +2Ln MAM+ 3 Ln N+4Ln I+5Ln IM+6Ln KF+ 7Ln MSIB where SHT is produced sugar, SZK is the area under cultivation; MAM is consumed water; N is the labour, I is the Capital (equipment), IM is the agricultural machinery asset, KF is the phosphorous fertilizer, and MSIB is total frost time.

TFP L APL k APK

267

Basirat et al. An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company

4. RESULTS 4.1. Reliability Use of traditional econometric approaches for experimental studies is based on the assumption that variables are reliable. Therefore, augmented unit root DFT is used. Based on the conducted tests, it could be concluded that in Table 1, SHT, IM, N, MSIB, KF, SZK variables are reliable and I and MAM variables become reliable after one difference(Table 2). Using the dynamic models coefficient, the longterm correlation between the variables is tested. To do this, the following equation is used to calculate the required statistic.

0 / 38 1 -5/84 0 / 106

The statistic is -5.84. Therefore, comparing the calculated value of -5.84 and the critical value presented by Banerjee, Dolado and Master at the level of 99%, (-5.04), the null hypothesis of the model is rejected and the existence of a balance long-term correlation between the models variables is confirmed. The results obtained from estimating the dynamic model indicate that capital, machinery assets, labour, area under cultivation, and amount of consumed water leave positive and significant effects on production. In addition, phosphorous fertilizer and the total frost hours have negative and significant effect on production. Determining coefficient of the model is 97% and the value of statistics of DurbinWatson test (2.76) and f=37.7620, show the high explanatory feature of the model and lack of cointegration and significant between general coefficients in the estimated model (Table 3). The following results could be gained by observing the pathological tests: a). F statistic to determine the presence or absence of co-integration is 3.08 and the minimum level of significance of the value in parenthesis is 0.10. Taking into account the error level of 0.05 and comparing it with the minimum level of significance in the null hypothesis, which indicates there is no co-integration, the hypothesis with regard to existence of cointegration is rejected(Table 4). b). F statistic to determine the right or wrong function shape is 0.0017. Taking into account the error level of 0.05 and comparing it with the minimum level of significance of 0.96, the null hypothesis,

which indicates there is an accurate function shape, is confirmed(Table 4). c). F statistic for determining the similarity variance is 0.33. Taking into account the error level of 0.05 and comparing it with the minimum level of significance of 0.56, the null hypothesis, which indicates there is no different variance, is confirmed(Table 4). The long-term correlation between the models variables is estimated using the following equation: LnSHT=0/013LI+0/059LIM+0/373LN+0/167LSZ K-0/073LKF+2/02LMAM-0/112LMSIB-16/39C (2/08) (2/10)(2/92)(3/03)(-2/21)(2/46)(3/17)(-1/78) Values in the parenthesis are the t-statistic relayed to the coefficients. The results obtained from estimating the long-term dynamic model indicate that production is positively and directly correlated with labour, capital, machinery assets, area under cultivation, and amount of consumed water. In other words, each 1% increase in labour, capital, machineries assets, area under cultivation, and the amount of consumed water increase production as much as 0.37, 0.013, 0.059, 0.16, and 2.02 precent respectively. Production has a negative correlation with the total number of frost hours and phosphorous fertilizer, meaning that for each 1% increase in the total number of frost hours and phosphorous fertilizer, production decreases as much as 0.11 and 0.073 precent respectively(Table 5). The Coefficient for the error correction term is significant and its expected sign is negative. The value of this coefficient is 0.61, meaning that about 61 precent of the deviations in the variable of production from the long-term balance value is balanced after one period (Table 6). 4.2. Stability Test The stability of the coefficients is studied using the CUSUM test, showing that the coefficients of the estimated model in the period under study are stable (Figure 1). 4.3. Reaction Function Reaction functions show the reaction of endogenous variables to shocks imposed on the models variables (Figure 2).

268

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013

Table 4: Diagnostic Tests

Table 5: Long-Run Estimation ARDL

Table 6: Error Correction Representation for the Selected ARDL Model

Table 7: Variance Decomposition

269

Basirat et al. An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company

Fig. 1: CUSUM and CUSUMQ tests for coefficients stability of ARDL model

Fig. 2: Reaction Function

4.4. Variance Analysis Test If a shock is imposed on the dependent variable, it will show what the percentage of the fluctuations is the result of the variable itself and which percentage is the result of the fluctuations in the other variables. The results obtained from this test indicate that on average 55% of the fluctuations in the first five years

was the result of production logarithm, 4% was the result of machineries assets logarithm, 2% was the result of the logarithm of the area under cultivation, 18% was the result of the logarithm of the amount of consumed water, 15% was the result of the logarithm of the phosphorous fertilizer, and 2% was the result of the logarithm of the total frost hours (Table 7).

Fig. 3: Variance Decomposition

4.5. Calculation of Productivity The results obtained from calculating the detailed productivity (final productivity and average productivity) and TFP are provided in Table 8 and 9 based on the following equations: (10) (11) where Y is the product, Xi is the input, and ei is the tension of each of the inputs.

270

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013

5. CONCLUSION Enhancement of productivity is production factors translated into a decrease in prices. The decrease in the level of prices, including production factors, leads to the decrease of average costs of production of goods and services in the market and the increase of profitability of products of manufacturing enterprises. From the perspective of micro-economics, capital and labour are two important factors in the function of production and they play a significant role in increasing production. Based on the type of production function, which is linear and Cobb Douglas, it directly and increasingly affects production. Agricultural section is one of important economic sections in the country. Much attention is payed to this section for its important role to supply the peoples food and to provide the primary materials of many industries. Low productivity is one of the serious problems in Iran. This problem is observable in all pre- and post-productivity steps. Efficiency growth is a necessary factor for continued economic growth in each country. In order to increase of efficiency in Irans economy, we must pay special attention to agricultural section which is one of the important sections and the main economic activities in the country. Because increasing of efficiency growth according to special economic structure of the country in this section can help us achieve economic goals. Realizing direction of efficiency growth in Iran agricultural section, either for having poor economic infrastructures or for competition on the international scene to reach better economic success, help us to lead our productivity equipments and resources, according to which we can reach our proper place in international relations. So, doing productive projects and their appropriation in different agricultural subsections are necessary. The main variables like labour and capital impact productivity. Productivity of the labour was increased in some years and decreased in some others, but it shows a fluctuating decreasing trend on the whole. On the other hand, the results obtained in this study demonstrate that capital increased over the period of the study. On the other hand, productivity of capital was increased in some years and decreased in some years, but it showed the highest amount of decrease in 2000. On the whole, capital productivity has a fluctuant decreasing trend. Therefore, labour and capital productivity was not increased over the course of the study. Therefore, since two types of capital is used, the productivity trend of both types of capital is studied. Since the TFP was increased in some years and decreased in some others but had a fluctuant-increasing trend on the whole and since capital and machinery asset was increased over the course of the study, it could be said

that there is not a strong and direct correlation between capital and productivity (Table 9). Based on the estimation of the long-term coefficients of the model, it could be claimed that all variables of the model, except for phosphorous fertilizer and total frost hours, are positively and significantly correlated with production. In better words, each 1% increase in labour, capital, machineries assets, area under cultivation, and amount of consumed water increase production as much as 0.37, 0.013, 0.059, 0.16, and 2.02 precent respectively. On the other hand, each 1% increases in the total number of frost hours and phosphorous fertilizer decreases production as much as 0.11 and 0.073 precent respectively (Table 5). Policy Recommendations: 1. Increasing labour productivity through increasing the share of educated labour force in the total labour force due to the high capability of the skilled workforce in using modern technologies in production 2. More attention to the problems in the sugar production machinery lines, and particularly with regard to the sources of producing sugar wastage at factories; 3. More beneficial use of dry days during the period of harvest and doing harvest in the cooler months in order to prevent the reduction of harvested sugarcane at the end of the period, which usually coincides with the hot days of the year; 4. More attention to destroying the weed and particularly resistant weeds like cockspur grass, which have become the main target of chemicals in recent years. REFERENCES Amini A, Neshat (2000). Measurement and analysis of the factors affecting productivity if non-oil sectors in the Iranian economy and the prospect of the Third Development Plan. Budget and Planning Journal, 54-55: Abtahi H, Kazemi B (2006). Productivity.Edition 1. Tehran: Institute of commercial research and studies. March. Tavakoli A, Azarbayejani K, Shahriarpoor A (2000). Measurement and analysis of TFP in industry groups in Iran. Budget and Planning Journal, 52-53: Tashkini (2005). Applied econometrics using Micro fit. Edition 1, Tehran cultural and Artistic Dibagaran Institute. Darisavi H (2001). Estimation of the production function of sugar and sugarcane production in Haft Tapeh Sugarcane Agriculture and Industry.

271

Basirat et al. An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company

MA thesis, Economics, Ahvaz Science and Research University, pp. 100-110. Debertin D (1997). Agricultural manufacturing economy.Translated by Dr. Mohammad GholiMoosanezhad and Dr. Reza Najarzadeh. Publisher: TarbiatModares University Economics Research Institute. Rahmati Andami P (2007). Investigation of the factors affecting labour productivity in industry sector of Khoozestan province (1981 to 2006).MA thesis, Economics, Ahvaz Science and Research University, pp. 24-30. Saeedi N (2001). investigation of employment status in Khoozestan province and the effect of sugarcane development projects and alternative industries on employment in the provinces, MA thesis, Economics, Ahvaz Science and Research University, pp. 14-21. Ghalambaz F, Esfandiari A, Delavari M (2007). Estimation of the TFP model and productivity of Karoun oil and gas exploitation company. Economic Modelling Quarterly, Year 2, No 2, pp. 151-156. Valizadehzonooz P (2005). Investigation of productivity in the Iranian economy. Economic researches of the Iranian Central Bank. No. 24. pp. 1-10. Varzeshi M, Esfandiari A (2009). Measurement and analysis of productivity in the countrys major industries in the period between 1983 and 2006. Economy Publishing, 2009 Spring and Summer, no. 17-18. Disnay R, Haskel J, Heden Y (2010). Restructuring and Productivity grow thin uk, manu Facturing. The Economic Journal, 113: 666-624.

Erneest o,1,J,2002,NAFTA and mexicosmanuFacturing productivity, An Empirical investigation usin Micro Leve Data, ifo, world bank, org/ elools/ does/ Voddocs/ 209/408/ Mexicao- nafta. Ghalambaz F, Esfandiary A, Ghalambaz F (2008). Estimate Factors of production Elasticity Karoon Oli & GAS Production Company, Former M.A. student of Department of Economy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University Khozestan, Iran, Assistance Professor of Department of Economy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University Khozestan, Iran, Ph.D. student of Department of Agricultural Economy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University Theran, Iran, Texas Journal of Science (TJS).23(3):436-441. Krueger AO, Tancer Barn (2006). Growth of Factor productivity in Turkish manufacturing industries. Journal Of Development Economics, Vo 1.11(3): December, pp.307-325. 16- Pilat Drik (2009). Comparative productivity of Korea manufacturing. Journal of Development Economic, 1:16. Seshaiah S, Venkata, Reddy VK (2010). Productivity Trends in some industries of Anthra Pradesh manufacturing Sector. the In Diana Economic Journal 41(2): Thirtle C, Bottomley P (2012). Total factor productivity in agricultural, journal of agricultural economics,43 Rosegrant M, Evenson R (2012). agicultural productivity and sources of growth in sourth Asia. American journal of agricultural economics, 74
Elasticity of Capital Machine 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 Elasticity of Labor 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696

Average productivity of Capital 0631 0630 0633 0636 0639 0634 0633 0639 3/1900 E-36 E -33 9/6943 E -33 0/0040 E -39 9/9169 E -39 9/6693 E -34 0/1913 E -39 9/0663 0/0919 E-60

Table 8: Total Factor Productivity and partial productivity Average Average Average Elasticity labor productivity productivity of of productivity of Capital the Acreage Capital Machinery 1/9003990 E -19 9/044949004 1/106994 0/49309 3/10330999 E -13 3/966999699 1/106994 6/30069 0/19613199 E -13 9/394360309 1/106994 0/33013 1/30996636 E -13 9/393439630 1/106994 0/99939 1/96939160 E -19 9/139149090 1/106994 9/03016 3/00969999 E -14 9/919934490 1/106994 3/91660 1/31366109 E -14 3/931109009 1/106994 3/99694 1/04069949 E -14 6/163409069 1/106994 3/04409

272

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013

0639 0630 0691 0690 0693 0696 0699 0694 0693 0699 0699 0690 0691 0690 0693 0696 0699 0694 0693 0699 0699 0690

E -64 9/3033 3/334 E-69 0/3166 E-63 6/9999 E-64 E -63 0/9963 E -69 6/9943 E -60 3/1314 0/4603E-93 0/9199 E-96 3/6666 E-96 E -93 0/9014 E -36 6/3409 0/1939 E-93 3/3369 E-93 0/0960 E-99 E -99 9/9330 E -93 9/3990 E -99 3/3404 0/303 E -93 E -93 6/0949 E -94 3/9990 E -41 3/9693

0/39100043 1/3309106 1/9393109 0/94099499 3/09603639 1/39963090 0/6399939 6/0010314 1/9134303 1/39091990 1/39363669 0/9939340 1/39069019 0/1119919 3/39990399 1/33610103 0/91016139 1/40413949 1/60490993 3/09430619 3/06399099 1/99309093

E -13 6/33333 E -19 9/66900 E -10 0/94434 E -14 3/93964 E -13 3/49130 E -13 0/33306 E -19 3/91169 0/60303E -13 E -19 6/30094 0/9446 E -19 E -19 0/36369 3/0433 E -19 E -19 3/99309 E -13 0/10399 E -13 0/93036 E -19 6/30694 E -13 0/90990 E -13 0/99660 E -13 3/09036 E -19 3/99969 9/130 E -13 3/1003 E -19

9/104933903 9/963933049 9/96004936 6/033990944 4/649499404 3/60494904 3/940963393 4/443419900 4/300434363 9/940399439 30/61619994 9/399990004 9/933064493 9/941069006 9/143119609 3/303930963 9/199936630 6/999309934 4/199341130 4/309090046 3/406139090 0/303643969

1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994 1/106994

1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119 1/140119

1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696 1/696

Elasticity of Acreage 0631 0630 0633 0636 0639 0634 0633 0639 0639 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939

Table 9: Total Factor Productivity and partial productivity Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Productivity Productivity Productivity productivity Capital of Capital of labor Acreage Machinery 3/99349E-34 0/66499E-10 1/043600160 1/939000309 3/13909E-39 0/4639E-39 3/14614E-30 4/04963E-30 0/99109E-39 3/99000E-33 3/93334E-66 3/99009E-69 3/0649E-19 0/99946E-19 0/16033E-19 9/39919E-19 0/90904E-13 6/91360E-13 0/3933E-13 0/03900E-19 1/941913306 1/690130444 1/330304909 1/394636339 1/999333099 1/193030044 1/649943390 1/333040404 0/033930343 0/399909699 0/399063099 0/093699369 1/963993603 1/990960030 1/419390933 1/390939903

Total Factor productivity 1/09460 0/999039 0/339043 0/406963 0/949919 0/434969 1/499309 1/933066 0/309900

273

Basirat et al. An Investigation into Factors Affecting Productivity of Produces by Karoun Agriculture and Industry Company 0630 0691 0690 0693 0696 0699 0694 0693 0699 0699 0690 0691 0690 0693 0696 0699 0694 0693 0699 0699 0690 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 1/03939 6/33614E-63 0/34600E-69 9/99109E-69 0/09639E-69 4/39493E-91 3/96306E-90 3/00339E-99 3/99339E-94 9/91403E-94 3/64019E-99 4/16136E-34 0/96609E-99 9/31043E-99 0/33939E-90 3/06934E-90 0/03309E-99 0/04690E-90 0/66390E-99 4/9393E-99 6/03096E-99 0/33163E-43 3/44909E-19 4/90433E-01 0/33904E-13 0/43399E-19 9/99009E-19 0/34394E-19 9/93300E-19 0/90009E-19 9/49993E-10 9/30469E-01 6/36334E-10 0/36904E-10 3/99993E-19 0/01300E-19 0/90369E-19 9/9639E-19 4/99309E-19 0/39403E-19 0/39999E-19 9/03344E-19 0/36930E-19 1/19330949 1/390333014 1/346910310 0/003900013 1/019094009 1/909130303 0/001339339 1/041091449 1/019036999 1/343396463 1/916993130 1/349049690 1/696639469 1/943330194 1/399613900 1/43443999 1/003000199 1/009903969 1/904336414 1/90390399 1/390404330 1/903694300 1/900939303 1/333993394 1/904906019 0/130960919 0/190336369 1/039936394 1/091169399 0/904063139 6/436491363 0/699990309 0/309496933 0/936933493 0/091639903 0/031343693 0/099043343 1/339110633 1/990633603 1/043340339 0/013999999 0/490196140 1/994196 0/13614 0/603394 3/119969 0/099109 0/496306 3/000143 0/101094 0/4310 6/904939 3/199393 0/443969 0/969140 3/163449 0/639444 0/910930 1/900030 1/039004 0/939004 0/900990 0/961440

274

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(8), pp. 263-275, 2013

Mahdi Basirat holds a Ph.D. in economics and Assistant Professor and Head of Economics Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran. His areas of interest include econometrics and macroeconomics.

Mehrafarin Latif is a graduated student of M.A economics, Department of Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khouzestan, Iran in 2013.

Ali Asghar Esfandiari holds a Ph.D. in economics. His areas of interest include econometrics and microeconomics.

275