ISSN 0034-7140

DOI 10.5935/0034-7140.20170005
Revista Brasileira de Economia, 71(1), 93–109

Development Accounting, the Elasticity of

Substitution, and Non-neutral
Technological Change
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello*,†
André de Souza Rodrigues‡

Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Related Literature; 3. Methodology; 4. Data; 5. Estimates ; 6. Robustness

Check; 7. Conclusion; Appendix. Lists and Tables.
Keywords: Development Accounting, Elasticity of Substitution, Non-Neutral Technological Change, CES
Technology.
JEL Code: O40, O47.

We apply the tools of development accounting to a broad panel over the period
1970–2014. However, we depart from the traditional Cobb–Douglas hypoth-
esis with Hicks-neutral technological change, and assume a CES technology,
which allows for a constant but non-unitary elasticity of substitution, and for
non-neutral technological change. For different values of the elasticity of sub-
stitution, and different representations of technological change, we find that
the cross-country variation in GDP per worker accounted for by factor inputs
is decreasing over time until the mid-2000s, when it reverses its trend. In ad-
dition, we find that in the recent period technology accounts for up to 80% of
the cross-country variation in GDP per worker.

Nós aplicamos as técnicas de contabilidade do desenvolvimento em um amplo pai-

nel de países no período 1970–2014. Entretanto, nós desviamos da tradicional hipó-
tese da Cobb–Douglas com progresso tecnológico Hicks-neutro, e assumimos uma
tecnologia CES, que permite elasticidade de substituição constante, porém diferente
da unidade, e progresso tecnológico não-neutro. Para diferentes valores da elastici-
dade de substituição, e diferentes representações do progresso tecnológico, nossas
estimativas sugerem que a variação no PIB por trabalhador entre países que pode
ser explicada pela variação nos fatores de produção é decrescente ao longo do tempo
até a metade dos anos 2000s, quando essa tendência é revertida. Adicionalmente,
nossas estimativas sugerem que no período recente diferenças na tecnologia entre
os países explicam cerca de 80% da variação do PIB per capita entre os países.

* Departamento de Economia, Ibmec/RJ and Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Av. Presidente Wilson 118/1,115, Rio
de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. CEP 20030-020. Tel +55 21 4503-4161. Fax +55 21 4503-4168. Email: mmello2@ibmec.edu.br
†I would like to thank Christiano Arrigoni, Rodrigo Novinski, Per Axelson, and seminar participants at Ibmec/RJ for helpful
comments. Finally, all errors are ours.
‡ Department of Economics, Ibmec/RJ. Email: andre_capufrj@hotmail.com

Received on Oct 9th, 2016

Final Acceptance on Feb 3rd, 2017 RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017
93
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

1. INTRODUCTION
The current consensus in the Development Accounting literature establishes that the breakdown tech-
nology vs. inputs is “50-50”, (see Caselli, 2005, for instance). That is, 50% of the cross-country variance
in GDP per worker can be accounted for by cross-country differences in technology, and the remainder
50% can be accounted for by cross-country differences in factor inputs. However, this consensus rests
largely on cross-section exercises with the Cobb–Douglas assumption.
In fact, the Cobb–Douglas (CD) production function is the number one choice to represent the
aggregate technology in development accounting exercises. In general, one justifies the CD assumption
on grounds that its property of constant factor shares matches the data. However, the evidence in
Bernanke & Gurkaynak (2001) suggests that labor shares vary substantially across countries. If indeed
factor shares vary across countries, then the CD assumption may not be the best representation for the
aggregate technology.
In addition to its property of constant factor shares, the CD production function restricts the elas-
ticity of substitution between capital and labor, henceforth denoted by σ , to be constant and equal to
one. Whether or not σ is unitary is an empirical question. And, the empirical evidence does not support
an unitary σ . For instance, for a panel of 82 countries over the period 1960–1987, Duffy & Papageorgiou
(2000) find evidence that σ is well above unity, whereas Mello (2015), for a panel of 100 countries over
the period 1970–2008, finds estimates of σ that are below unity. The value of the elasticity of substitu-
tion matters for development accounting exercises and, therefore, getting the appropriate value for σ
is important.
Another restriction of the CD production function is that differences in technology arise in a neu-
tral, or bias-free, form. This restriction derives from the property of the CD, which is the only pro-
duction function in which the three forms of technological change—Hicks neutral, Solow neutral, and
Harrod neutral—are equivalent. This can be shown as follows. Take a CD with Harrod-neutral (labor-
( )
augmenting) technological change: Y = K α AhL 1−α . It is easy to see that this CD is equivalent to a CD
( )
with Hicks-neutral technological change, such as this Y = A1−α K α hL 1−α , which is also equivalent to
( 1−α ) ( )
a CD with Solow neutral (capital-augmenting) technological change, Y = A α K α hL 1−α . That is, in
the three cases above, technology enters equivalently in a multiplicative form.
One of the implications of this restriction is that if one country is technologically more advanced
than another is, then it must use all its factor inputs more efficiently than the other country does. There-
fore, a situation in which one country uses capital more efficiently than the other does, while it uses
human capital less efficiently, cannot be identified when one assumes a CD production function.
The problem with this is that the evidence suggests that the efficiency with which factor inputs
are used varies across countries. According to the evidence in Caselli & Coleman II (2006), rich countries
use skilled labor more efficiently than poor countries do, whereas poor countries use unskilled labor
more efficiently. Similarly, Caselli (2005) presents evidence that rich countries use human capital more
efficiently than poor countries do. In order to identify these differences we need to depart from the CD
world.
If indeed the elasticity of substitution differs from unity and factor-efficiency is non-neutral, as the
empirical evidence suggests, then performing development accounting exercises relaxing these two con-
straints may change the consensus view, and, consequently, may change any policy implications derived
from the exercise. These two restrictions—unitary elasticity of substitution and factor neutrality—can
be relaxed by assuming a Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production function as representative
of the aggregate technology. The CES is the simplest production function that allows for a constant but
non-unitary elasticity of substitution and non-neutral technological progress.
In this article, we perform a series of development accounting exercises for a broad panel of coun-
tries assuming a CES aggregate technology that allows for different values of the elasticity of substi-
tution and factor non-neutrality in technological progress. Additionally, we explore the time variation

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

94
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

in the data by applying the tools of development accounting on the time series for GDP per worker
from 1970 to 2014, instead of focusing on a specific year as in traditional cross-section studies in the
literature.
We construct a panel with data on 84 countries over the period 1970–2014 from the latest version
of the PWT, version 9.0. Our estimates suggest that the proportion of the cross-country variability in
GDP per worker that can be accounted for by the cross-country variability in factor inputs exhibits a
persistent decreasing trend. However, from 2005 towards the end of the sample period, it exhibits a
soft increasing trend. In the more recent period, the technology-input breakdown is about “80-20” in
favor of technology as the key factor behind the huge observed international variation in GDP per worker.
This is a big departure from the “50-50” consensus. Moreover, this finding is robust to different values
of the elasticity of substitution, and different representations of technological progress.
Additionally, as a robustness check, we construct two panels with data from PWT 8.1 and PWT 7.0
and apply the same development accounting tools to these panels. Our initial findings are corroborated
when we use data from PWT 8.1, and corroborated to a lesser extent when we use data from PWT 7.0.
Interestingly, the explanatory power of factors of production as a key determinant of the cross-country
variance in GDP per worker is greater when we use data from PWT 9.0 and PWT 8.1.
We contribute to the debate by shedding light on the proximate causes of economic growth. In
particular, our study relates to Caselli (2005), Aiyar & Dalgaard (2009), Mello (2009), Ferreira, Pessoa,
& Veloso (2008), and Arezki & Cherif (2010). We use the traditional tools of development accounting
exercises applied to cross-sectional data, as in Caselli (2005), and apply them on a panel data setting,
exploring the time variation in the data as in Mello (2009), Ferreira et al. (2008), and Arezki & Cherif
(2010). Moreover, we study the sensitivity of development accounting exercises with respect to the
value of the elasticity of substitution in the representative aggregate technology as in Aiyar & Dalgaard
(2009), and the effects of non-neutral technological change as in Caselli & Coleman II (2006), and Arezki
& Cherif (2010). Additionally, we explore the latest version of Penn World Tables dataset (version 9.0), as
well as earlier versions of this dataset (versions 8.1 and 7.0).
We structure this article as follows. In section 2, we briefly review the literature. In section 3, we
present our methodology, describing how we can decompose a CES production function into a factor-
only component, and a technology component. In section 4, we present our data. In section 5, we
present our estimates of the successes measures of the factor-only model for the PWT version 9.0. On
section 6, we present estimates of the measures of success of the factor-only model for data from PWT
versions 8.1 and 7.0, as a robustness check. Finally, section 7 concludes.

2. RELATED LITERATURE
The debate about the determinants of the huge observed cross-country income differences, whether it
is the technology or factor inputs, goes back to the late 1960s (Caselli, 2008). However, it was not until
the publication of Klenow & Rodríguez-Clare (1997) that the tools and tricks of development accounting
were popularized.
Development accounting is to cross-section data, what growth accounting is to time series data.
In a growth accounting exercise one computes, over a period of time, the growth rate of output and
factor inputs, and estimate the growth in total factor productivity (TFP) as a residual. The exercise is
helpful to identify the sources of growth, whether it comes from inputs or TFP. If growth in output comes
from inputs, then it is likely to be temporary, whereas if it comes from TFP then it can be long lasting.
In a development accounting exercise, one has a cross-section of countries, and performs the
decomposition of the level of GDP per worker into factor inputs and technology (TFP). Then one examines
to what extent the cross-country variability in factor inputs vis-à-vis variability in TFP can explain the
cross-country variability in GDP per worker.

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

95
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

The decomposition exercise can give insight into the proximate causes of growth. By identify-
ing the sources of cross-country variability in GDP per worker one can think about policies aimed at
reducing inequality among nations. For instance, if one finds that the quantity of factor inputs can ac-
count for a large portion of the cross-country variability in output per worker, then, instead of focusing
on technology, policy makers should look into the causes of low accumulation of factor inputs across
countries.
Caselli (2005), the most cited survey in the literature, performs a series of development account-
ing exercises for a cross-section of 94 countries in the year 1996 with data from Penn World Tables
version 6.1. His estimates suggest the breakdown factor inputs versus technology is about “50-50”.
According to Hsieh & Klenow (2010), another recent survey, the current consensus establishes that tech-
nology accounts for 50-70% of the cross-country differences in GDP per worker.
In our decomposition exercise, we break down GDP per worker in terms of the capital-output
ratio, as in Klenow & Rodríguez-Clare (1997), among others. Moreover, to assess the role of factor in-
puts vis-à-vis technology in accounting for cross-country output differences, we use the methodology
in Caselli (2005). Furthermore, we follow Mello (2009), Ferreira et al. (2008), and Arezki & Cherif (2010)
in constructing a panel and exploring the time variation in the data, instead of looking at a single point
in time as in much of the literature.

3. METHODOLOGY
We represent the aggregate technology by a CES production function as follows:
( σ −1 σ −1 )
σ
Y = αK σ + (1 − α )(AhL) σ σ −1 , (1)

where Y is output, K is physical capital, A is Harrod-neutral (labor-augmenting) technological progress,

h is human capital per worker, and L is the number of workers. The elasticity of substitution given
by the parameter σ . If σ = 1 we are back to the Cobb–Douglas world, in which output is given by
Y = K α (AhL) 1−α . Aiyar & Dalgaard (2009) also adopt the above functional form.
Based on the production function in (1), we can break down output per worker into two compo-
nents, a factor-only component, and a technology component:
σ
σ −1
Y * 1−α + Ah.
= (2)
L , 1 − α (K/Y ) σσ−1 -

In this case, the factor-only model is given by

σ
σ −1
1−α
yKH = * ( ) σσ−1
+ . (3)
, 1 − α K/Y -
In the CD case, i.e., if σ = 1, the factor-only model is given by
( ) 1−α
α
K
yKH = h. (4)
Y
Equation (4) is the well-known Klenow & Rodríguez-Clare (1997) break-down.
The specification in (1) assumes that technological change is Harrod-neutral or labor augment-
ing. However, we can extend this specification to include non-neutral technological change. Following
Aiyar & Dalgaard (2009), we assume a CES that allows for Harrod (labor) and Solow (capital) neutral
technological change:
( σ −1 σ −1 )
σ
Y = α (BK ) σ + (1 − α )(AhL) σ σ −1 , (5)

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

96
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

where B denotes the Solow neutral (capital augmenting) technological change, and A denotes the
Harrod-neutral (labor augmenting) technological change. We can rearrange equation (5) and break it
down into two components, just like we did with equation (1). We obtain the following expression:
σ
σ −1
Y * 1−α + Ah.
= [ ] σ −1
(6)
L , 1 − α B(K/Y ) σ -

The problem with the above decomposition is that the capital augmenting parameter B is included in
the factor-only component. That is, in practice, we have not separated the technology component from
the factor-only component. In order to obtain a feasible decomposition based on equation (6), we need
to find a way to estimate or “fix” the capital augmenting parameter B .
We follow the strategy in Caselli & Coleman II (2006), which is also adopted by Aiyar & Dalgaard
(2009). The idea is, first, to fix the parameter B at the “technological frontier”, which is taken to be the
U.S. level. Second, given competitive markets and the production function in equation (5), we can write
the capital share as follows:
σ −1 ( ) σ −1
Sk = αB σ K/Y σ , (7)
where Sk denotes the capital share. The trick here is to assume that all countries have access to the tech-
nological frontier. That is, all countries have access to the same (U.S.) parameter B . From equation (7),
we can estimate the parameter B as follows:
( ) σσ−1
σ −1 Y US
αB σ = SK US
, (8)
K US
where the variables with the superscript denote their U.S. levels. Implementing this strategy, when
AB
technological change is both Harrod and Solow neutral, the factor-only model, denoted by yKH , is given
by:
σ
σ −1
* 1−α +/
AB
yKH = .. ) σσ−1 ( ) σσ−1 / h.
( (9)
US
, 1 − S US Y
K K US
K
Y -
With the exception of the non-observable parameter B , which we estimate with equation (8), all
other variables in equation (9) can be directly obtained from PWT dataset, or can be constructed from
the variables therein.
The first measure of success of the factor-only model we look at is the ratio of the variance of the
log of the factor-only model to the variance of the log of GDP per worker. We denote this measure of
success by S1: ( ( ))
Var Log yKH
S1 = ( ) . (10)
Var Log(y)
As correctly pointed out in Caselli (2005), the S1 measure is sensitive to extreme values, which
may contaminate the analysis. In this sense, Caselli (2005) also considers a second measure of success,
denoted by S2, which takes the ratio of the 90th to 10th percentile ratio of the factor-only model to the
90th to 10th percentile of the observed GDP per worker. The S2 measure is given by
90th
yKH /yKH
10th
S2 = , (11)
Y 90th /Y 10th
90th 10th
where yKH and yKH denote, respectively, the level of GDP per worker of the factor-only model at the
90 and the 10 percentile, and Y 90th and Y 10th denote the observed level of GDP per worker at the 90th
th th

and 10th percentile, respectively.

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

97
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

4. DATA
We construct our main panel with data from the latest version of Penn World Tables (PWT) dataset
version 9.0. Our panel includes 84 countries for which population is equal to or greater than 1 million
in 1985, and the time series for the variables we use are complete over the period 1970–2014.
Our measure of output is the variable RGDPO (output-side real GDP at chained PPP in millions of
2005 USD), the measure for the aggregate stock of capital is the variable CK (capital stock at PPP in
millions of 2005 USD), and the measure of workers is the variable EMP (number of individuals engaged
in production). GDP per worker is calculated as the ratio of RGDPO/EMP , and the capital-output ratio is
computed as CK /RGDPO .
Our measure of human capital is the variable hc in PWT 9.0, which is an index of human capital
per person, based on years of schooling, from Barro & Lee (2010) dataset, and returns to education, from
Psacharopoulos (1994). This measure of human capital is also used in the PWT 8.1.
In addition to the PWT version 9.0, as a robustness check, we work with two other versions of
PWT, versions 8.1 and 7.0. For the PWT 8.1, our panel includes 77 countries for which population is
greater than or equal to 1 million in 1985, and the time series for the variables is complete over the
period 1970–2011.
For the PWT 7.0, we construct a panel with 85 countries for the period 1970–2008. For this panel,
we compute the number of workers as RGDPCH *POP/RGDPWOK , where we denote the variables by their
PWT 7.0 codes. Real GDP (Y ) is constructed by multiplying the series RGDPWOK2 by the number of
workers. The series RGDPWOK2 is given by RGDPL2WOK = RGDPL2*POP/Workers, where RGDPL2 is an
updated version of RGDPL which is real GDP (Laspeyre index).
In order to construct the time series for the physical capital stock, we follow Mello (2009) and
use the perpetual inventory method. The initial value of aggregate capital is set at I 0 /(д + δ ) , where
I 0 is initial investment (measured as the investment in the first year for which data is available), д is
the average growth rate in investment for the first year for which data is available until 1970, and δ is
the depreciation rate which we set at 6%. Given K 0 , Kt evolves according to the capital accumulation
equation, namely, Kt = (1 − δ )Kt −1 + It . To ensure the quality of capital stock estimates, we initiate the
series on the first year for which data is available and discard all observations until 1969. By discarding
the initial years, we guard ourselves against a bad initial guess. See Mello (2009) for more details.
Our measure of human capital for the PWT 7.0, uses the average years of schooling for the popula-
tion 25 years old or older obtained from Barro & Lee (2010) dataset. Specifically, we assume that human
capital H is given by H = e 0.1∗u L, where u is the average years of schooling and L is the number of
workers. That is, we assume that the Mincerian coefficient of returns to education is 0.1 for all countries.
In the Appendix, we provide the complete list of countries in the three panels that we use, PWT 9.0,
PWT 8.1, and PWT 7.0, as well as the list of countries considered rich/poor, as defined in the next section.
Our dataset is available upon request.

5. ESTIMATES
We initially analyze estimates of the S1 measure for the case in which technological change is Harrod
neutral only. We assume different values for the elasticity of substitution according to the empirical
evidence. The exercises are performed for σ = 1.5 , according to the evidence in Duffy & Papageorgiou
(2000), for σ = 0.8 according to the evidence in Mello (2015), and Aiyar & Dalgaard (2009), for σ = 0.5
according to Antràs (2004), and as a benchmark for σ = 1, which is the Cobb–Douglas case.1
Figure 1 displays the S1 measure for a CES with Harrod neutral technological change for data
from PWT 9.0. It contains at least four salient features. First, we observe that the higher the elasticity

1 Antràs’s (2004) estimate is for the U.S. economy only.

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

98
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

of substitution the higher the explanatory power of the factor-only model. In particular, the explanatory
power of the factor-only model with σ = 1.5 is about twenty percentage points higher than with σ =
0.5 . Second, for values of the elasticity of substitution equal to or less than one, the factor-only model
explains a much lower percentage than the 50% consensus. For instance, for σ = 0.80 , the factor-only
model explains about 30% of the cross-country variation in GDP per worker in the mid-1970s, and it
decreases to about 10% in the mid-1990s. Only if we assume that σ = 1.5 , that the S1 measure comes
close to the 50% consensus, but it still trails below the 50% for most of the sample period.
Third, the explanatory power of the factor-only model decreases over time. For instance, in 1970,
for σ ≤1, the factor-only model explains about 35% of the cross-country variation in GDP per worker.
Moreover, in 2000, for σ ≤1, its explanatory power drops to less than 20%. For σ = 1.5 , the explanatory
power of the factor-only model drops by about 20 percentage points over the period 1970–2005. This
finding is consistent with the estimates in Ferreira et al. (2008), and Arezki & Cherif (2010), who also find
that the explanatory power of the factor-only is decreasing over time. Fourth, in the last eight years
of the sample period, 2006–2014, the explanatory power of the factor-only model increases somewhat.
For example, in the case of σ = 1.5 , it increases by more than 10 percentage points, while for σ = 1 it
increases by a few percentage points.
The observations above are confirmed by examining the S2 measure of success. As can be seen in
Figure 2, the pattern of S2 mimics that of S1, so that the four observations we made about S1 in Figure 1
also apply to S2 in Figure 2. One noticeable difference is that, for the entire sample period, according to

Figure 1. Sucess 1 – PWT 9.0.

Sucess 1 - PWT 9.0
0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014

‡ A ìUñ ‡ A ìUô ‡ A íUñ ‡ A íUì

Figure 2. Sucess 2 – PWT 9.0.

Sucess 2 - PWT 9.0
0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014

‡ A ìUñ ‡ A ìUô ‡ A íUñ ‡ A íUì

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

99
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

the S2 measure, the explanatory power of the factor-only model is, on average, five percentage points
greater than compared to the S1 measure.
In order to learn more about the cross-country variability in GDP per worker, we segment the
sample in three parts: rich, middle-income, and poor countries. We consider rich the 21 countries
(top 25%) in our panel with the highest level of GDP per worker in the year 2000. The list of rich countries
can be found in Table A-1 in the Appendix. Figure 3 displays the S1 for measure for the sub-sample of
rich countries.
We only report the S1 measure for rich countries for σ ≤1, because S1 estimates for σ = 1.5
generate too much variability, well above the observed variability in the data. For instance, in the year
1991, the variability generated by the S1 measure for σ = 1.5 is a factor of 12 of the observed variability
in observed GDP per worker. In order to avoid any distortion in the figure with such large realizations
we omit the S1 estimates for σ = 1.5 . These estimates are available upon request.
The S1 measure for σ = 0.8 and σ = 1, as shown in Figure 3, generates more variability than what
is observed in the data for most of the sample period. In particular, for σ = 0.8 the factor-only model
fully accounts for the variability in the data until 2002, and for σ = 1, until 2003. For σ = 0.5 , the S1
measure practically explains all of the variability in the data from 1978 to 2000. Interestingly, starting
in the early 2000s, the S1 measure for rich countries for any value of σ loses explanatory power fast,
reaching 2014 in the range 10%–24%.
The finding that the factor-only model has a higher explanatory power for rich countries is in-
tuitive. After all, for rich countries the observed cross-sectional variance of GDP per worker must be
smaller than for the panel as a whole. Additionally, it is plausible to assume that rich countries have
access to same technology, and, if so, then cross-sectional differences in GDP per worker must come
from cross-sectional differences in factor inputs.
If indeed the source of the cross-sectional differences in GDP per worker are cross-sectional differ-
ences in factor inputs, then it is easier for the policy maker to design policies to reduce income inequality.
The reason being is that differences in technology can come from many sources, such as credit market
imperfections or judicial uncertainty, while differences in factor inputs can be reduced via accumulation
of capital, with a high investment rate.
Figure 4 displays the S2 measure for rich countries, including S2 estimates for σ = 1.5 . The
explanatory power of the factor-only model is greater for σ = 1.5 . The range of S2 estimates for σ = 1.5
goes from 1.04 to 2.75, while the range of S1 for rich countries, for σ = 1.5 , goes from 1.47 to 13.2,
which suggests that the S1 measure is in fact contaminated with extreme values and a higher elasticity
of substitution magnifies the effects of outliers. Other than that, the general pattern exhibited by the
S2 measure in Figure 4 for σ ≤1 mimics the pattern we observe for the S1 measure in Figure 3.
As in the case for the panel as a whole, the explanatory power of S2 decreases over time. However,
until 2001 it generates enough variability to match the data. Interestingly, the loss in explanatory power
is small and it only occurs for σ ≤1. In general, we can say that the factor-only model accounts well for
the cross-sectional variability in GDP per worker for rich countries.
Figures 5 and 6 display the S1 and S2 measures for poor countries, respectively. We classify as
poor countries the bottom 21 countries (25% of the panel) ranked according to their GDP per worker in
year 2000. The list of countries classified as poor is in the Appendix.
Figure 5 displays the S1 measure for poor countries. Again, we omit from the S1 estimates for
σ = 1.5 due to extreme values. The estimates in Figure 5 show a hump-shaped form, with the hump
formed between 1985 and 2000. For the years 1970–1984, the S1 estimates fall in the range 35%–60%,
and increase over time. In the second period, 1985–2000, for σ = 1, S1 increases and even goes above 1;
for σ = 0.8 , S1 estimates hover around 60%; and for σ = 0.5 , S1 estimates decreases below 40%. For
the end of the sample period, 2001–2014, S1 estimates decrease fast, reaching low 10s% and 20s%, just
to increase slightly in the final three years of the sample period.

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

100
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

Figure 3. Sucess 1 – Rich, PWT 9.0.

6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
‡ A ìUñ ‡ A ìUô ‡ A íUì

Figure 4. Sucess 2 – Rich, PWT 9.0.

Sucess 2 - Rich, PWT 9.0
1,8
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014

‡ A ìUñ ‡ A ìUô ‡ A íUì

Figure 6 displays the estimates of S2 for poor countries, excluding estimates for σ = 1.5 . Again,
S2 estimates for σ = 1.5 exhibit a lot of variability, being above one for most of the sample period, 1981–
2005. For other values of the elasticity of substitution, the pattern we observe in Figure 6 is consistent
with the one in Figure 5. That is, for σ ≤1, we observe a hump-shaped form, with the hump between
the years 1985–2000. Additionally, the range of estimates is similar to the range of estimates in Figure 5,
with the explanatory power of the factor-only model oscillating around 50% in the beginning of the
sample period, reaching 100% for σ = 1 around 1990, and settling at 35%–45% at the end of the sample
period.
Based on figures 5 and 6, we conclude that the factor-only model, for σ ≤1, accounts for 35%–45%
for the cross-country variation in GDP per worker, and for σ = 1.5 , it accounts for 50%–70%. That is,
the elasticity of substitution does affect the explanatory power of the factor-only model. However, it
does not lead it too far off from the “50-50” consensus.
Figure 7 displays S1 estimates for the case in which technological progress is non-neutral, that is,
it is Harrod and Solow neutral. Estimates of S1 for σ = 0.5 and σ = 0.8 , in Figure 7, exhibit a decreasing
trend, starting in the low 40s% and falling in the range of 10s% and 20s% towards the end of the sample
period. Estimates of S1, for σ = 1.5 , also exhibit a decreasing trend. However, it starts in the low 20s%
and reach the 10% around year 2000, when it starts to increase towards 15%. Additionally, for most
of the sample period the explanatory power of the factor-only model is greater when σ = 0.8 . This is

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

101
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

Figure 5. Sucess 1 – Poor, PWT 9.0.

Sucess 1 - Poor, PWT 9.0
1,1
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
‡ A ìUñ ‡ A ìUô ‡ A íUì

Figure 6. Sucess 2 – Poor, PWT 9.0.

1,1
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014

‡ A ìUñ ‡ A ìUô ‡ A íUì

in sharp contrast with the Harrod neutral only case, in which the explanatory power of the factor-only
model is greater with σ = 1.5 . Moreover, the S1 estimates intersect at several points, suggesting that
S1 is not monotonic with respect to the elasticity of substitution.
The S2 measure for the Harrod and Solow neutral case, shown in Figure 8, mimics the pattern
seen in Figure 7. As before, the explanatory power of the factor-only model is decreasing over time, and
it is greatest when σ = 0.8 . More specifically, the explanatory power of the factor-only model starts in
the range 30%–50%, and decreases over time to the range 10%–20%. The fall in the explanatory power
of the factor-only model starts in the mid-1980s and it continues until the year 2000, just to increase
slightly until 2014 and finish it around 15%.
Recall that to compute the S1 measure for the case of Harrod and Solow neutral technological
change, we assume that all countries have access to the U.S. capital augmenting technology. Note,
however, that countries still differ in their labor augmenting technological change. Therefore, all the
cross-country variability in technology comes from the cross-sectional variability in labor-augmenting
technology. Thus, the decreasing explanatory power of the factor-only model is exactly matched by a
larger role of cross-country differences in labor augmenting technology in accounting for cross-country
income differences.
The picture that emerges from the above estimates is that the “50-50” consensus seems to be
valid until the late 1980s or early 1990s. However, currently, the estimates suggest that the bulk of

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

102
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

Figure 7. Sucess 1 – non-neutral Tech. Progress, PWT 9.0.

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
e = 0,5 e = 0,8 e = 1,5

Figure 8. Sucess 2 – non-neutral Tech. Progress, PWT 9.0.

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014

e = 0,5 e = 0,8 e = 1,5

cross-country differences in GDP per worker are due to cross-country differences in the efficiency with
which inputs are used. In particular, our estimates suggest that the current breakdown is “80-20” in favor
of technology. These findings seem to be robust with respect to the different values of the elasticity of
substitution and the form of technological change.
Any policy prescription aimed at reducing cross-country income differences should focus on the
ability to convert inputs into output, that is, on efficiency, rather than on fostering the accumulation of
inputs.

6. ROBUSTNESS CHECK
In this section, we check for robustness of our estimates by computing the S1 and S2 measures for
previous versions of the PWT dataset, namely, versions 8.1 and 7.0. We omit some of the figures here to
economize on space (they are available upon request). We construct the panels using the same criteria
as in section 4, that is, by selecting countries for which the population in 1985 is above 1 million, and
data was available for the entire sample period, 1970–2011 for PWT 8.1, and 1970–2008 for PWT 7.0.
Figure 9 displays the S1 measure for the PWT 8.1. First, the higher the elasticity of substitution
the higher the explanatory power of the factor-only model. In particular, the explanatory power of the
factor-only model with σ = 1.5 is about 20 percentage points higher than with σ = 0.5 . Second, for
values of the elasticity of substitution equal or less than one, the factor-only model explains a much
lower percentage than the 50% consensus. For instance, for σ = 0.80 , the factor-only model explains

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

103
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

Figure 9. Sucess 1 – PWT 8.1.

Sucess 1 - PWT 8.1
0,45
0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
1 A ìUñ 1 A ìUô 1 A íUñ 1 A íUì

Figure 10. Sucess 2 – PWT 8.1.

Sucess 2 - PWT 8.1
0,45
0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
1 A ìUñ 1 A ìUô 1 A íUñ 1 A íUì

about 30% of the cross-country variation in income per worker in the mid-1970s and it decreases to
about 10% in the mid-1990s. Only if we assume that σ = 1.5 , that the S1 measure comes closer to
the 50% consensus, but it still trails below the 50% for most of the sample period. Lastly, estimates in
Figure 9 are consistent with the ones we obtain with data from PWT 9.0.
We confirm the above observations by examining the S2 measure of success for PWT 8.1, as shown
in Figure 10. The pattern of S2 over time mimics that of S1. Therefore, the same observations we made
for Figure 9 are also valid for Figure 10. One noticeable difference is that according to the S2 measure, the
explanatory power of the factor-only model averages about five percentage points higher than compared
with the S1 measure.
Figures 11 and 12 display, respectively, S1 and S2 estimates assuming a CES with non-neutral
technological change, and using data from PWT 8.1. The overall pattern of S1 in Figure 11 is consistent
with the one in Figure 7. However, the explanatory power of the factor-only model is substantially
reduced when compared to Figure 7, which was constructed using data from PWT 9.0.
Probably the most interesting aspects in figures 11 and 12 are the decreasing trend in S1 and the
end of period kick back. These two aspects that are also present in estimates from PWT 9.0.
As mentioned above, we do not present all the corresponding figures for S1 and S2 constructed
with data from PWT 7.0. Below, we present some of the estimates from PWT 7.0, comparing them with
estimates from the more recent versions of the PWT.
Assuming Harrod neutral technological change only, Figure 13 displays S2 estimates for σ = 0.8
for three versions of the PWT we work with. As can be seen in Figure 13, in all cases the explanatory
power of the factor-only model decreases over time until 2005, when it shows a soft tendency to in-

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

104
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

Figure 11. Sucess 1 – non-neutral Tech. Progress, PWT 8.1.

Sucess 1 - non-neutral Tech. Progress, PWT 8.1
0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
e = 0,5 e = 0,8 e = 1,5

Figure 12. Sucess 2 – non-neutral Tech. Progress, PWT 8.1.

Sucess 2 - non-neutral Tech. Progress, PWT 8.1
0,4

0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010

e = 0,5 e = 0,8 e = 1,5

crease. Interestingly, the explanatory power of the factor-only model is quite low when we use data
from PWT 7.0. The explanatory power of the factor-only model is greater with data from PWT 9.0, al-
though from the mid-1990s towards the end of the sample period the S2 measure has more or less the
same value whether computed with data from PWT 9.0 or PWT 8.1. These observations are also true for
S2 estimates for σ = 1.5 assuming Harrod neutral technological change as shown in Figure 14.
We also compute the S2 measure, constructed assuming Harrod and Solow neutral technological
change, using data from the three versions of the PWT we work with. Figure 15 displays S2 estimates
for σ = 0.8 . The decreasing trend in S2 is present in all cases, less pronounced when we use data from
PWT 7.0, but very strong when we use data from PWT 9.0 and 8.1. Again, the explanatory power of the
factor-only model is greater when we use data from PWT 9.0. Interestingly, around 1995 we observe
a convergence in S2 for data from PWT 9.0 and 8.1, with the explanatory power of the factor-only
oscillating between 10% and 15%. Furthermore, we observe the increase in the explanatory power of
the factor-only from 2005. These observations are also valid for Figure 16, which displays estimates of
S2 assuming Harrod and Solow neutral technological change and σ = 1.5 . We should only add that
for σ = 1.5 , the explanatory power of the factor-only model is some 20 percentage points lower than
when σ = 0.8 .

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

105
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

Figure 13. Comparing S2 Broad panel ES = 0.8 .

Comparing S2 Broad panel ES=0.8
0,5
0,45
0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
S2 PWT 9.0 S2 PWT 8.1 S2 PWT 7.0

Figure 14. Comparing S2 Broad panel ES = 1.5 .

Comparing S2 Broad panel ES=1.5
0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

S2 PWT 9.0 S2 PWT 8.1 S2 PWT 7.0

7. CONCLUSION
We construct a broad panel with 84 countries over the period 1970–2014 with data from the latest
version of PWT 9.0, and apply the tools of development accounting. We depart from two traditional
assumptions commonly employed in the literature, namely, the Cobb–Douglas assumption and neutral
technological change.
We adopt a CES production function that allows for a constant but non-unitary elasticity of sub-
stitution and non-neutral technological change. Our estimates suggest that the explanatory power of
the factor-only model exhibits a decreasing trend, with a soft kick back from 2005 to 2014. Additionally,
when technological change is Harrod neutral the explanatory power of the factor-only model is greater
for σ = 1.5 , whereas when technological change is non-neutral the factor-only model explains more for
σ = 0.8 for PWT 9.0 data, and for σ = 0.5 for PWT 8.1 data.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we find that in the more recent period, the 2000s, cross-
country differences in technology can account for up to 80% of the cross-country variation in GDP
per worker. This suggests that countries should be primarily concerned with the efficiency in which
their factor inputs are used, rather than the accumulation of factor inputs.

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

106
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

Figure 15. Comparing S2 ES = 0.8 Non-neutral T.Ch. – PWT 9.0, 8.1, 7.0.
Comparing S2 ES=0.8 Non-neutral T.Ch. - PWT 9.0, 8.1, 7.0
0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

S2 AB PWT 9 S2 AB PWT 8.1 S2 AB PWT 7.0

Figure 16. Comparing S2 ES = 1.5 Non-neutral T.Ch. – PWT 9.0, 8.1, 7.0.
0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

S2 AB PWT 9 S2 AB PWT 8.1 S2 AB PWT 7.0

REFERENCES
Aiyar, S., & Dalgaard, C.-J. (2009). Accounting for productivity: Is it OK to assume that the world is Cobb–Douglas?
Journal of Macroeconomics, 31, 290–303. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2008.09.007
Antràs, P. (2004). Is the U.S. aggregate production function Cobb–Douglas? New estimates of the elasticity of
substitution. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 4(1). doi: 10.2202/1534-6005.1161
Arezki, R., & Cherif, R. (2010, April). Development accounting and the rise of TFP (IMF Working Paper No.
WP/10/101). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/
Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Development-Accounting-and-the-Rise-of-TFP-23798
Barro, R. J., & Lee, J.-W. (2010, April). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010 (Working
Paper No. 15902). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). doi: 10.3386/w15902
Bernanke, B. S., & Gurkaynak, R. S. (2001). Is growth exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil seriously. In
B. S. Bernanke & K. Rogoff (Eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual (pp. 11–57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caselli, F. (2005). Accounting for cross-country income differences. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook
of economic growth (Vol. 1A, pp. 679–741). Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01009-9
Caselli, F. (2008). Level accounting. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Caselli, F., & Coleman II, W. J. (2006). The world technology frontier. American Economic Review, 96(3), 499–522.
doi: 10.1257/aer.96.3.499

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

107
Marcelo de Albuquerque e Mello and André de Souza Rodrigues

Duffy, J., & Papageorgiou, C. (2000). A cross-country empirical investigation of the aggregate production function
specification. Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 87–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1009830421147
Ferreira, P. C., Pessoa, S. A., & Veloso, F. A. (2008). The evolution of international output differences (1970–2000):
From factors to productivity. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 8(1). doi: 10.2202/1935-1690.1578
Hsieh, C.-T., & Klenow, P. J. (2010). Development accounting. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1),
207–223. doi: 10.1257/mac.2.1.207
Klenow, P. J., & Rodríguez-Clare, A. (1997). The neoclassical revival in growth economics: Has it gone too far? In
B. S. Bernanke & J. J. Rotemberg (Eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, volume 12 (pp. 73–114). MIT
Press. Retrieved from http://papers.nber.org/books/bern97-1
Mello, M. (2009). Estimates of the marginal product of capital, 1970-2000. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics,
9(1). doi: 10.2202/1935-1690.1723
Mello, M. (2015). Another look at panel estimates of the elasticity of substitution.
Psacharopoulos, G. (1994). Returns to investment in education: A global update. World Development, 22(9),
1325–1343. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(94)90007-8

APPENDIX. LISTS AND TABLES

Country List (All countries, n = 84 , PWT 9.0)
Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Demo-
cratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Domenica Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany,
Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, South Korea,
Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria,
Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, Tanzania, United States, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zambia.

Table A-1. List of Rich and Poor countries, PWT 9.0.

GDP GDP
Rich Poor
per Worker per Worker
Countries Countries
in 2000 in 2000
Norway 85,071.2 Syria 5,942.20
United States 81,328.2 Angola 5,827.61
Italy 73,951.2 Haiti 5,497.27
Ireland 73,301.9 Ivory Coast 5,475.58
Australia 68,239.6 Kenya 5,332.06
Canada 68,049.7 India 5,315.27
France 67,944.4 Bangladesh 4,635.60
Austria 67,281.7 Vietnam 4,402.62
Belgium 67,119.2 Zambia 4,216.97
Sweden 66,848.6 Mali 3,281.81
Taiwan 66,290.8 Uganda 3,108.49
U. Kingdom 64,883.0 Nigeria 3,047.78
Finland 64,453.3 Burkina Faso 3,033.20
Netherlands 64,227.3 Tanzania 2,846.06
Switzerland 63,233.0 Cambodia 2,677.09
Israel 63,046.6 Madagascar 2,459.04
Singapore 62,459.8 Malawi 2,351.26
Hong Kong 61,449.7 Niger 2,007.71
Denmark 60,409.8 D. R. of Congo 1,554.43
Japan 59,349.3 Mozambique 1,493.13
Germany 59,240.8 Ethiopia 1,322.92

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

108
 Development Accounting, the Elasticity of Substitution, and Non-neutral Technological Change

Country List (All countries, n = 77 , PWT 8.1)

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Came-
roon, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark,
Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, South
Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland,
Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Tanzania, United States, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zambia.

Table A-2. List of Rich and Poor countries, PWT 8.1.

GDP GDP
Rich Poor
per Worker per Worker
Countries Countries
in 2000 in 2000
Norway 85,071.2 Syria 5,115.6
United States 81,328.2 India 5,090.2
Ireland 73,951.2 Ghana 5,027.7
Italy 73,301.9 Cameroon 4,972.0
Hong Kong 68,239.6 Ivory Coast 4,582.3
Belgium 68,049.7 Senegal 4,503.1
Canada 67,944.4 Bangladesh 4,322.0
Australia 67,281.7 Kenya 4,035.53
Austria 67,119.2 Vietnam 4,026.9
France 66,848.6 Mali 2,992.0
Taiwan 66,290.8 Cambodia 2,688.7
Finland 64,883.0 Zambia 2,420.0
Israel 64,453.3 Uganda 2,281.8
Sweden 64,227.3 Niger 1,986.9
Netherlands 63,233.0 Malawi 1,622.6
U. Kingdom 63,046.6 Tanzania 1,605.0
Switzerland 62,459.8 Mozambique 1,002.9
Singapore 61,449.7 D. R. of Congo 782.4
Denmark 60,409.8
Germany 59,349.3
Japan 59,240.8
Spain 57,689.3
New Zealand 48,735.8
South Korea 43,848.7

Country List (All countries, n = 86 , PWT 7.0)

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon,
Canada, Central Africa Republic, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic
of Congo, Dominican Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana,
Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Sierra Leone,
South Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzer-
land, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Tanzania, United States,
Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

RBE Rio de Janeiro v. 71 n. 1 / p. 93–109 Jan-Mar 2017

109