Applied Economics, 1992, 24, 1233-1240

Growth effects of recent structural changes in the Canadian economy: some empirical evidence
M. L ANSARI Faculty of Arts, Athabasca University, Box 10,000, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada TOG 2R0

A structural change marked by deindustrialization/servicization in most western economies and the nature and extent of its influence on economic growth continues to be a major topic of interest. The paper rests heavily upon the presumption of the deindustrialization/servicization hypothesis and focuses on the growth implications of such structural changes. Using Canadian data, the paper first explores a causal relationship between goods and service sectors by running Granger-causality tests. It then tests an econometric model to quantify the growth effects of changes in both shares and growth rates of the industrial and the manufacturing sectors. The findings, based on empirical testing of the model over the period 1961-89, suggest that recent structural changes in Canada have had significant negative growth implications.

I. INTRODUCTION Structural changes in most western industrialized economies in recent years have resulted in a relative decline of the goods sector.^ In expanding economies, it has meant a rapidly growing service sector, commonly referred to as 'servicization'. But perhaps more importantly, this has been accompanied by a relative decline of the manufacturing sector, or 'deindustrialization'.^ What is noteworthy is that in recent years these economies have also witnessed a slowdown in aggregate economic growth. As Table 1 suggests, economic growth in real terms for the 21 industrial countries averaged only 2.86% over the period 1973-88 compared to 4.59% over the period 1961-72. Even if one omits the five worst

years of performance following the two oil shocks, economic growth still averaged around 3.90% over the period 1973-88. Similarly, Canadian economic growth averaged only 3.68% over the period 1973-88 compared to 5.28% over 1961-72. Omitting the three worst years of performance brings this number up to 4.47%. Since the focus is on the growth implications, it is important to highlight the nature and extent of structural changes in the Canadian economy in recent years. According to the latest available national accounts data, output share of the goods sector in 1981 prices declined by 5.26 percentage points, from 43.73% in the first quarter of 1961 to 38.47% in the fourth quarter of 1989. The share of the service sector, on the other hand, has risen by a similar

'Following the UN International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), the goods sector includes agriculture, fishing and trapping, forestry, mining, manufacturing, construction and utilities. The service sector includes finance, real estate ^and insurance, trade, transportation and communication, community business and personal services, and public administration and defence. The goods and the service sectors together exhaust the economy. ^Despite the controversy over the nature and extent of deindustrialization/servicization in western industrialized economies, there appears to be a broad consensus on the validity of the deindustrialization hypothesis in terms of employment, at least in a relative sense. Although the evidence in terms of output is somewhat weak and scanty, there has been some decline in the relative position of the industrial sector since the early 1970s. For an excellent discussion of this and other related issues, see Blackby (1979), Petit (1986), Rowthorn and Wells (1987), Singh (1977) and Forsyth and Kay (1980).
0003-6846 1992 Chapman & Hail 1233

1234
Table 1. Growth rates and sectoral shares for Canada and the industrial countries, 1961-88

M. I. Ansari

Canada 1961-72 1973-88 Real growth rate" Industry share*" Manufacturing share Share of services 5.28 41.02 21.10 55.41 3.68 36.64 19.43 59.79

Industrial countries 1961-72 4.59 1973-88 2.86

'Figures represent annual growth rates based on GDP at constant prices. ''Industry includes mining, manufacturing, construction and utilities. Source: Data on growth rates are from International Financial Statistics, IMF Yearbook, 1989. Data on sectoral shares are from Cansim matrix 4665. Statscan, Cat. no. 15-001 is the original source.

amount.-* Over the same period, the share of industry fell from 40.65% to 35.27% and that of manufacturing from 19.37% to 18.93%. As Table 1 shows, the average share of industry fell from 41.02% in the first subperiod to 36.64% in the second subperiod. Likewise, the manufacturing share fell from 21.10% to 19.43% over the same two periods. The question that is being asked is: Has the relative shift of resources from manufacturing to the service sector contributed to the slowdown in economic growth? There are two strands of thought on this issue. First, the more traditional view led by Kaldor and most of the development economists is that industrialization promotes growth and, therefore, any amount of deindustrialization has to be growth-retarding. The second view led by Grubel, Gershuny and others is that servicization is growth-augmenting and, therefore, recent deindustrialization which has been accompanied by servicization may not be growth-retarding. While the first view emphasizes linkages and the dynamic efficiencies of the manufacturing sector, the second view emphasizes linkages and the dynamic efficiencies of the producer services - a major component of the service sector. Both views are welldocumented but most of the arguments, especially those concerning the latter view, are either conjectural or are based on insufficient evidence. Discussing the growth-augmenting role of the producer services, Grubel and Walker (1989b, p. 259) aptly put it as: 'In the framework of the service sector project, it was not possible to quantify the effects which increased service sector inputs and innovation have had on the goods producing sector in Canada. The difficult task of doing so should be a top-ranking item on an agenda for further research'. To a lesser degree, the same point can be made with regard to the view that deindustrialization is growth-retarding. There, too, not enough empirical work has been done to measure the effects of deindustrialization on economic growth.

The intent here is not to get involved in the debate or to provide additional convincing arguments to settle the issue one way or another. Rather, there is a need for looking at the issue from an empirical point of view. The present paper, therefore, is an attempt to initiate such a process. To be more specific, the paper first runs causality tests to establish causal relationship between goods and the service sectors. It then tests an econometric model, using both the G D P shares and growth rates of the industrial and the manufacturing sectors, in order to measure their contributions to growth. Finally, for determining their long-run impacts, the model is estimated using the Almon method of distributed lag. All tests are based on Canadian data over the period 1961-89. All empirical results seem to reject the null hypothesis that the recent structural changes have had no adverse growth effects.

IL EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL CHANGE: A SYNOPSIS OF VIEWS Deindustrialization - growth-retarding Industrialization is generally considered as the core of any development strategy (Singer, 1950; Perroux, 1971; Prebisch, 1950; Hirschman, 1958; Myrdal, 1957; Lewis, 1977). Even in advanced western economies, industrialization has long been regarded as the 'engine of growth' (Kaldor, 1966, 1967; Cornwall, 1977; Rowthorn and Wells, 1987; Singh, 1977; Thirl wall, 1982). In the context of economic development, the demand for services is generally considered as a derived demand. And, therefore, it is the industrial sector, and particularly the manufacturing sector, which is believed to generate the linkages, economies of scale, and the dynamic

'The difficulty with the concept and measurement of service sector output has been widely acknowledged in the literature. However, Fuchs (1968) has shown that over the period 1929-^5, the average rate of growth of productivity in US industries was 2.2% compared to only 1.1% in services. The difference, in his view, is too large to be explained by the usual problem of measurement.

Growth effects of structural changes in the Canadian economy efficiencies."^ Furthermore, it is believed that these benefits ultimately permeate the whole economy, and thus make industrialization growth-augmenting. One finds two major elements in this Kaldorian logic. First, manufacturing displays a stronger link between forces of demand and productivity growth than do other sectors. Second, an improvement in labour productivity in manufacturing is followed by improvements in output design and marketing strategy, leading to further increases in demand. There is, therefore, a circular causation in which improvements in demand cause productivity to rise, which in turn increases competitiveness, which in turn induces demand. As a corollary, deindustrialization would simply reverse the chain of events.* The benefits of dynamic efficiencies are eventually felt in the service sector as well. As the manufacturing sector expands, the demand for services by firms and households increases. But this is not all that happens. Large productivity gains in the manufacturing sector cause either wages to rise, profits to rise, prices to fall, or any combination of the above. To maintain the historical relationship, the same must happen in the service sector. If, for example, wages in the service sector rise, then the productivity must also rise in order to control the cost. However, even if the entire increase in cost is not countered by productivity gains, and some rise in prices are unavoidable, the service sector can still expand on the strength of its high income elasticity. Servicization - growth-augmenting However, unlike the Kaldorian view, the Grubel-Gershuny view considers a rapidly growing service sector as having favourable growth effects (Gershuny and Miles, 1983; Grubel and Walker, 1989a,b). This view does not reject the premise that the demand for service sector output is a derived demand. However, Grubel and Walker have pion*To quote Singh (1977, p. 123)

1235

eered a statistical method to divide the service sector into three components, namely, consumer, government, and producer services. The consumer services are mainly demanded by the households for final consumption. The government services are supplied by the government free of charge or at a minimal charge. These are also demanded largely for consumption with some exceptions. But producer services are of input nature entailing provision of innovative services to other firms in the economy. Grubel and Walker have shown that G D P share of producer services is not only larger than that of the first two, but it has also been growing rapidly, accounting for an increasingly larger proportion of national income. It is often said that because of its low rate of productivity growth, the service sector cannot act as an engine of growth.* They maintain that even if one accepts that this sector suffers from a low rate of productivity growth, producer services are instrumental in raising productivity in the rest of economy, because these services contain a high level of human knowledge and capital. And, therefore, their use as inputs imparts important cost-reducing effects to the goods sector. The resulting large productivity gains in the goods sector, in turn, contribute to a high rate of economic growth. Moreover, these large productivity gains enhance comparative advantage which in turn helps achieve higher growth rate through better expdrt performance.^ I I I . P R O D U C E R S E R V I C E S IN C A N A D A : TRENDS AND RELATIONSHIPS For the purpose of this section and the remainder of the paper, the service sector has been decomposed, using the techniques pioneered by Grubel and Walker (1989a) into government, consumer and producer services. The results are similar to those of Grubel and Walker. First, consumer

. . . there is a great deal more solidly based relevant evidence concerning the dynamic role of the manufacturing sector in economic growth. For instance, Cripps and Tarling (1973), in their analysis of growth process in advanced industrial countries during 1950-70, have confirmed Kaldor's hypothesis that there is a close relationship between the rate of growth of a country's GDP and the growth of its manufacturing sector. This relationship is much closer than would be expected (since manufacturing is quite a large component of GDP) on purely statistical grounds; it is also closer than that observed between the growth of GDP and of other sectors of the economy. Therefore, a shrinkage in its manufacturing sector is clearly a cause for legitimate concern. Similarly, Thirlwall (1982, p. 27) says Manufacturing growth has often been described as 'engine of growth' and with good reason. There is a strong association across countries between the importance of manufacturing in the total economy and the level of per capita income, and between the growth of manufacturing output and the growth of gross domestic product. 'However, the Kaldorian view which draws heavily from the Verdoon's Law has not been immune from criticisms (see Kaldor, 1975; Rowthorn, 1975a, b for an interesting discourse on the subject). ^Evidence suggests that there have been significant productivity gains in the service sector in recent years. Barras (1986), for instance, tested the vintage model of capital and found that productivity in private service sector in the UK has increased significantly primarily due to capital deepening but also due to embodied technical progress. ^There are two other studies which deserve mention in this regard. Using a small macrosimulation model of the Canadian economy, Curtis and Murthy (1990) found that policies aimed at encouraging demand and productivity in commercial services produced larger impact on aggregate employment and productivity gains than those aimed at the goods sector. In another study Harris and Cox (1990) simulated a model using an input-output approach and found that a shift in demand conditions in the exports sector would have a negative resource movement effect and a positive spending effect on the service sector. On balance, the latter seems to dominate the former.

1236
70-1

M. /. Ansari
the aggregate. Second, and in the spirit of the growthaugmenting arguments of servicization, the same test was repeated between goods and producer services. Although, validity of such tests depends largely on the validity of the underlying theoretical relationships and on the choice of a particular technique, it is hoped that these results would be helpful in interpreting the empirical results. From among many variations of causality tests, the simple version of the Granger-causality model, as represented by the following unrestricted equations, is chosen:

60-

c o

.-fUi,,
i-^M2.,
20-

(la) (lb)
(2a)

(2b) where S r and G J a r e the quarterly growth rates of service and the goods sector G D P in real terms and the error terms are uncorrelated white-noise series. If aj, in Equation l(a) and Fz, in Equation 2(a) are not significantly different from zero for all i (i= 1,2, . . ., n), then it is generally inferred that neither GT Granger causes ST nor ST Granger causes GT. However, we add two restricted Equations l(b) and 2(b), to obtain a straightforward F-test with K and n 2K degrees of freedom as shown by the following expression:

61626 J6<65666768697O7172737< 75767778798081828384858687888990

Period

Fig. 1. Shares of various service sector components in real GDP, 1961-89 ( ) total services; ( ; production services; ( ) government services; ( ) construction services. Source: OECD Quarterly National Accounts.

and government services, each with a share in the range 13-15%, represent only about half the share of producer services. Second, shares of both consumer and government services have been constant over time, with the latter showing some cyclicality. Third, producer services have been growing quite rapidly with their share rising from about 26% to over 32% over the period 1961-89. The time-series behaviour of all three components is shown in Fig. 1. To shed light on the growth effect of structural changes, two sets of causality tests were conducted. First, it was conducted between goods and the service sector output in

All equations were estimated by ordinary least-squares (OLS) procedures using an arbitrarily selected four-period lag structure and an explicitly included constant term. Identical procedures were used to test the causation between goods and producer services. The results of these tests are presented in Table 2. As is clear from the test results, none of these estimations encountered any serious autocorrelation problem. The results clearly show that output growth in the goods sector Granger causes output growth in the total

Table 2. Results of Granger-causality tests between goods and services, 1961-89 Total services G to S No. of observations Unrestricted SSE DW(O) Restricted SSE DW(O) F-statistic 111 68.997 1.85 79.340 1.90 3.825" StoG 111 185.373 1.97 189.750 1.97 0.602 Producer services G to S 111 339.972 1.76 408.009 1.87 5.103* S to G 111 185.180 1.97 189.750 1.97 0.630

G = goods, S = services. Both G and S are quarterly growth rates of sectoral GDP in real terms. *Significant at the 1% level.

Growth effects of structural changes in the Canadian economy

service sector as indicated by statistically significant Fvalues. Also, these results hold more strongly when producer services were used than when total services were used, implying that perhaps the linkages originating in producer services are not as strong as they are believed to be. It is also consistent with the idea of producer services being of input nature.

1237

which infiuence economic growth. In the extreme, we may not even have the knowledge about all other factors which may influence economic growth, much less be able to incorporate them all. In this sense, we always have an incomplete model. Data and variables The following is a brief description of the variables and the sources of data used here.

IV. E C O N O M E T R I C M O D E L O F S O U R C E S AND DETERMINANTS OF GROWTH Theoretical framework The basic approach in deriving the model is a combination of Denison's (1962) sources of growth and Kaldor's (1966) determinants of growth. There is, therefore, nothing novel about the theoretical framework used here, as similar models have been used extensively in many empirical studies (Balassa, 1978; Tyler, 1981; Kavoussi, 1984; Feder, 1982; Ram, 1985). We begin with a Cobb-Douglas production function Y=e''K''L Taking a natural log of both sides, we get. (4) Differentiating Equation 4 with respect to time dlny , dK 1 ^dZ. 1 (5) (3)

The three terms in Equation 5 represent growth rates of income, capital and labour. Since the equation is in doublelog form, the coefficients a and j? are elasticities of output with respect to capital and labour. It implies constant returns to scale if they add up to one, increasing returns if greater than one, and decreasing returns to scale if less than one. The constant h is expected to capture possible productivity effects of Hicks-neutral technological change. For estimation purposes, we add an error term and rewrite Equation 5 as follows:

QT = annualized quarterly growth rates of seasonally adjusted GDP at factor cost in 1981 prices. Cansim matrix 4665. Also available in Statscan. Cat. no. 15-001. KT = annualized quarterly growth rates of gross fixedcapital formation, seasonally adjusted in 1971 prices. OECD-Quarterly National Accounts. LT = annualized quarterly growth rates of labour force obtained from seasonally adjusted monthly labour force (both sexes 15 years and over). Statscan. Cat. no. 71-201. XT = annualized quarterly growth rates of seasonally adjusted total domestic exports in 1971 prices. OECD-Quarterly National Accounts. IT = annualized quarterly growth rates of seasonally adjusted industrial sector G D P in 1981 prices. Cansim matrix 4665. MT = annualized quarterly growth rates of seasonally adjusted manufacturing sector G D P in 1981 prices. Cansim matrix 4665. PI = percentage share of industrial sector in seasonally adjusted GDP in 1981 prices. Cansim matrix 4665. PM = Percentage share of manufacturing sector in seasonally adjusted G D P in 1981 prices. Cansim matrix 4665. Empirical results In all, six different versions of Equation 6 were estimated. The basic estimation procedures employed were those of OLS. However, in each case the generalized least squares (GLS) procedure was used in order to correct for the presence of first-order serial correlation in the error terms. Several specifications were tried but a double-log form seems to have produced the best results. The results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. As expected, both capital and labour in Equation 6.1 produced expected signs and statistically significant coefficients. Also, as expected, capital and labour alone explained only 35% of the variations in the overall growth rate. Similarly, Equation 6.2 with the addition of the exports variable, produced expected signs and statistically significant coefficients. However, the improvement in the overall fit of the equation was only marginal.

Equation 6 is estimated in three stages. First, we estimate it as it is. Second, we estimate it by adding an argument for exports.* And third, in order to capture the growth effects of structural change, we estimate it by including an argument for structural change, namely, share and rate of growth of the manufacturing and industrial sectors. It should be pointed out here that this model, like most econometric models, is a partial one in the sense that it ignores many other factors such as monetary and fiscal policy, exogenous shocks like the energy crisis, and other non-economic factors

'Exports as a determinant of economic growth has been analysed in many studies (e.g. Balassa, 1978; Feder, 1982; Ram, 1985).

1238

M. /. Ansari

Table 3. Regression results of Equation 6, estimated using shares of manufacturing and industrial output over the period 1961-89 Equation 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 a 0.63 (2.24)** 0.47 (1.63)*** -6.69 (-2.62)* -11.08 (-4.86)* KT 0.39 (6.96)* 0.40 (7.27)* 0.35 (6.41)* 0.28 (5.29)* LT 0.30 (2.42)* 0.27 (2.16)** 0.26 (2.13)** 0.24 (2.12)** XT PI PM F 9.99 0.07 (2.23)* 0.05 (1.88)* 0.05 (1.77)* 2.02 (2.83)* 4.01 (5.12)* 11.99 131.30 62.56 R^ 0.35 0.38 0.41 0.48 DW 1.76 1.83 1.83 1.90

*Significant at the 1 % level using one-tailed test. **Significant at the 5% level using one-tailed test. ***Significant at the 10% level using one-tailed test. The i-values are in parentheses.

Table 4. Regression results of Equation 6, estimated using growth rates of manufacturing and industrial output over the period 1961-89 Equation 6.5 6.6 0.74 (3.73)* 0.27 (1.45)*** KT 0.10 (1.94)** 0.34 (8.59)* LT 0.23 (2.65)* 0.12 (1.47)*** XT 0.02 (1.13) 0.04 (1.72)** IT 0.33 (10.59)* MT 0.28 (10.78)* 18.71 27.48 0.71 0.76 DW 1.97 2.25

*Significant at the 1% level using one-tailed test. **Significant at the 5% level using one-tailed test. ***Significant at the 10% level using one-tailed test. The t-values are in parentheses.

This is consistent with some empirical findings suggesting that exports account for only a small variation in the growth of advanced economies. Results of Equations 6.3 and 6.4, however, are of special significance here. Both equations performed very well, when the share of industry and the manufacturing sectors were included as the fourth variable. All four variables produced the expected signs and statistically significant coefficients. But what is especially important is the size of the coefficients of the fourth variable. Since the estimations are in double-log form, these coefficients are elasticities with respect to each variable and can be directly compared. The industrial share produced a coefficient of 2.02 meaning that a one percentage point rise in the share of industrial output would add over two percentage points to the overall growth rate. Similarly, all variables in Equation 6.4 yielded the expected signs and significant coefficients, with the manufacturing share producing a coefficient which is twice as big as that of the industrial share in Equation 6.3. The difference in the size of the fourth coefficient in the two equations signifies that mining and construction, the two segments in the industrial sector, are generally prone to large cyclical swings. It should be pointed out here that when Equation 6 was estimated using the share of producer services, the coefficient turned out to be negative and statistically insignificant.

Next, Equation 6 was reestimated using rates of growth of the industrial and the manufacturing sector output. The results are summarized in Table 4. Both Equations 6.5 and 6.6 performed extremely well. F o r instance, in Equation 6.5 both capital and labour yielded statistically significant coefficients. Although the exports variable produced the expected sign, its coefficient was not statistically significant. The industrial sector growth rate, however, produced the largest coefficient with a very large t-value. A 1% rise in growth rate of the industrial sector would lead to exactly a third of a percentage point increase in overall growth rate. A large F-value and a corrected R^ of 0.71 indicated a good fit of the equation. Equation 6.6 produced even stronger results, with all coefficients being statistically significant, including that of the exports variable.

Long-run growth impact All the results from empirical testing of the model, both using sectoral shares and growth rates of the manufacturing and industrial sectors, seem to suggest that there are some adverse growth implications of deindustrialization. However, all these tests were aimed at determining the short-run effects. To explore the long-run effects, we estimated the

Growth effects of structural changes in the Canadian economy following equations: u, (7.1) ,.+r, (7.2) In these equations, all variables are the same as defined earlier, but we employ the Almon method of distributed lags on the variables representing GDP shares of industrial and the manufacturing sectors. The results of the regression analyses are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. The basic estimation procedures employed were the OLS. However, GLS procedures were applied in order to correct for the presence of first-order autocorrelation. Various specifications were tried. But in the end, a double-log form and a second-degree polynomial with a five-period lag structure yielded the best results. One endpoint restriction, namely, the tail, was imposed on the parameters. The results are similar to those of Equations 6.3 and 6.4 in many ways. Both labour and capital produced statistically significant coefficients in Equation 7.1. However, although the coefficient of exports variable had the right sign, it did not produce a large enough f-value. However, in Equation 7.2 coefficients of all three variables had the right signs and were statistically significant. Also, there were marked improvements in the corrected R^. The time profile of industrial and the manufacturing sector shares in these equations is of special interest. In Equation 7.1, the first two short-run coefficients had the expected signs and were significant at the 1 % level. The last three had the opposite signs but only two had a large t-value. However, the long-run coefficient had the expected sign and was found to be significant at the 10% level. Similarly, in Equation 7.2, the first two short-run coefficients had the expected signs and were significant at the 1% level. The
Table 5. Regression results of Equation 7.1, estimated over the period 1961-89 T 0 1 2 3 4 KT 0.304 (5.74)* LT 0.311 (2.67)* XT 0.036 (1.26) PI 4.372 (4.46)* 1.506 (3.16)* -0.610 (-0.85) -1.975 (-4.09)* -2.591 (-2.72)* 0.702 (1.42)** Constant = -1.79, Rhol = 0.70 R 2 = 0.57, F =23.63, DW = 1.89,

1239

Table 6. Regression results of Equation 7.2, estimated over the period 1961-89

r
0 1 2 3 4

KT 0.280 (6.91)*

LT
0.209 (2.21)**

XT
0.045 (1.89)**

PM 4.213 (7.12)* 1.643 (5.75)* -0.391 (-0.83) -1.888 (-6.84)* -2.850 (-4.88)* 0.726 (2.17)**

Constant = -1.189, F t^ = 0.79, Rhol = 0.52

F = 67.80,

DW = 2.05,

*Significant at the 1 % level using one-tailed test. **Significant at the 5% level using one-tailed test. ***Significant at the 10% level using one-tailed test. The t-values are in parentheses.

remaining three coefficients had the opposite signs but only two had large f-values. Once again, the long-run coefficient had the expected sign and was also statistically significant at the 5% level. V. CONCLUDING REMARKS The main objective was to test an econometric model for determining the growth effects of deindustrialization/servicization. First, Granger causality tests were run between the goods and the service sectors and then an econometric model was estimated to quantify the growth effects of recent structural changes in Canada. Both shares and the growth rates of industrial and the manufacturing sectors were used as an argument in the model. The results of both tests were consistent and were in favour of rejecting the null hypothesis that such structural changes have had no adverse growth effects. When the Almon method of distributed lags was applied, the long-run effects also rejected the null hypothesis. Although the results reported here are exploratory rather than definitive, they do shed important light on the issue. As such, a policy of deliberate industrialization, or, at least, continuing the current policy tilt in favour of the goods sector, seems to make sense. However, a lot more work is needed before any definitive pronouncements can be made.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most of the research reported here was financed by a grant from Athabasca University. This is the revised version of a

*Significant at the 1 % level using one-tailed test. **Significant at the 10% level using one-tailed test. The t-values are in parentheses.

1240 paper presented at the Canadian Economics Association Conference, Kingston, 2-4 June 1991. I am grateful to the participants of the conference and to M. S. Shedd and F. J. Atkins for their comments and suggestions. Several valuable suggestions by the referee of this journal are acknowledged with gratitude. The author alone is responsible for any remaining errors.

M. /. Ansari
Grubel, H. G. and Walker, M. A. (1989b) Service industry growth: causes and effects, Fraser Institute, Vancouver. Harris, R. G. and Cox, D. (1990) The service sector and trade in the Canadian economy: an input-output analysis. Working Paper, Fraser Institute, Vancouver. Hirschman, A. O. (1958) The Strategy of Economic Development, Yale University Press, New Haven. Hirschman, A. O. (1965) Obstacles to development: A classification and a quasi-vanishing act. Economic Development and Cultural change, 13, 385-93. Kaldor, N. (1966) Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, London. Kaldor, N. (1967) Strategic Factors in Economic Development, Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Kaldor, N. (1975) Economic Growth and the Verdoon Law: A Comment on Mr. Rowthorn's Article, Economic Journal. Kavoussi, R. M. (1984) Export expansion and economic growth: further empirical evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 14, 241-50. Lewis, W. A. (1977) The Theory of Economic Growth, George Allen & Unwin, London. Myrdal, G. (1957) Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, Gerald Duckworth, London. Perroux, F. (1971) Notes on the concept of growth poles, in Economic Policyfor Development, Livingstone, I. (ed.) Penguin, Middlesex, England. Petit, P. (1986) Slow Growth and the Service Economy, Frances Pinter, London. Prebisch, R. (1950) The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems, United Nations. Ram, R. (1985) Exports and economic growth: some additional evidence. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33, 415-25. Ram, R. (1987) Exports and economic growth in developing countries: evidence from time-series and cross-section data. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36, 51-72. Rowthorn, R. E. (1975a) What remains of Kaldor's Law, Economic Journal, 85, 10-19. Rowthorn, R. E. (1975b) A reply to Lord Kaldor's comment. Economic Journal, 85, 897-901. Rowthorn, R. E. and Wells, J. R. (1987) De-industrialization and Foreign Trade, Cambridge University Press, New York. Singer, H. (1975) The distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 50, 473-94. Singh, A. (1977) U.K. industry and the World economy: a case of de-industrialization?, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1, 113-37. Stanback, T. M., Bearse, P. J., Noyelle, T. J. and Karasek, R. A. (1981) Services: The New Economy, Allanheld & Osmun, New York. Thirlwall, A. P. (1978) The UK's economic problems: a balance of payments constraint? National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, February: 24-32. Thirlwall, A. P. (1982) Deindustrialization in the United Kingdom, Lloyds Bank Review, 144, 22-37. Tyler, W. G. (1981) Growth and export expansion in developing countries: some empirical evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 9, 121-30.

REFERENCES
Almon, S. (1965) The distributed lag between capital appropriation and expenditures, Econometrica, 33, 178-96. Ansari, M. I. (1989) The Dutch-disease: the Canadian evidence, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 125; 804-13. Ansari, M. I. (1991) An econometric model of structural change: a case study of Canada, Applied Economics, 23B, 791-8. Bacon, R. and Eltis, W. (1978) Britain's Economic Problems: Too Few Producers, 2nd edn, Macmillan, London. Balassa, B. (1978) Exports and economic growth: further evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 5, 181-9. Barras, R. (1986) A comparison of embodied technical change in services and manufacturing industry. Applied Economics, 18, 941-58. Blackby, F. (Ed.) (1979) Deindustrialization, Heinemann, London. Chenery, H. B. (1961) Comparative advantage and development policy, American Economic Review, 51, 18-51. Corden, M. W. and Neary, J. P. (1982) Booming sector and deindustrialization in a small open economy. The Economic Journal, 92, 825^8. Cornwall, J. (1977) Modern Capitalism: Its Growth and Transformation, Martin Robertson, London. Cripps, T. F. and Tarling, R. J. (1973) Growth in Advanced Capitalist Economies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Curtis, D. C. A. and Murthy, K. S. (1990) Growth and structural change in the Canadian economy: 1967 to 1986, Working Paper 90-06. Trent University Department of Economics. Denison, E. F. (1962) The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us, Committee for Economic Development, New York. Feder, G. (1982) On exports and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 12, 59-73. Forsyth, P. and Kay, J. (1980) The Economic Implications of North Sea Oil Revenues, Fiscal Studies, 1, 1-28. Fuchs, V. R. (1968) The Service Economy, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York. Gershuny, J. I. and Miles, I. D. (1983) The New Service Economy: The Transformation of Employment in Industrial Societies, Frances Pinter, London. Granger, C. W. J. (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods, Econometrica, 37, 424-38. Grubel, H. G. and Walker, M. A. (1989a) Modern Service Sector Growth: Causes and Effects, in Giersch, H. (ed.). Services in World Economic Growth: Symposium 1988. Tubingen, Mohr.