Keyword search

View results
Sort Help
entries

Results

All (2)

All (2) ((2 results))

  • 1. Capital Intensity in Canada and the United States, 1987 to 2003 Archived
    Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2008018
    Description:

    Official data from statistical agencies are not always ideal for cross-country comparisons because of differences in data sources and methodology. Analysts who engage in cross-country comparisons need to carefully choose among alternatives and sometimes adapt data especially for their purposes. This paper develops comparable capital stock estimates to examine the relative capital intensity of Canada and the United States.

    To do so, the paper applies common depreciation rates to Canadian and U.S. assets to come up with comparable capital stock estimates by assets and by industry between the two countries. Based on common depreciation rates, it finds that capital intensity is higher in the Canadian business sector than in the U.S. business sector. This is the net result of quite different ratios at the individual asset level. Canada has as higher intensity of engineering infrastructure assets per dollar of gross domestic product produced. Canada has a lower intensity of information and communications technology (ICT) machinery and equipment (M&E). Non-ICT M&E and building assets intensities are more alike in the two countries.

    However, these results do not control for the fact that different asset-specific capital intensities between Canada and the United States may be the result of a different industrial structure. When both assets and industry structure are taken into account, the overall picture changes somewhat. Canada's business sector continues to have a higher intensity of engineering infrastructure and about the same intensity of building assets; however, it has a deficit in M&E that goes beyond ICT assets.

    Release date: 2008-07-10
  • 2. Depreciation Rates for the Productivity Accounts Archived
    Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2007005
    Description:

    This paper generates depreciation profiles for a diverse set of assets based on patterns of resale prices and retirements. In doing so, it explores the sensitivity of estimates of the growth in capital stock and capital services to alternate estimates of depreciation.

    In the first instance, survival analysis techniques are used to estimate changes in valuation of assets over the course of their service life. In the second instance, a two-step procedure is utilized that first estimates the discard function for used assets (assets discarded at zero prices) and then uses the resulting estimates to correct for selection bias that arises when just positive used-asset prices are employed to estimate age-price profiles to produce depreciation rates. For the third method, a discard function and an asset efficiency function are jointly specified and estimated.

    These three different methods produce depreciation profiles that follow convex patterns. Accelerated profiles are apparent for many individual assets in the machinery and equipment and structures classes.

    We also compare the ex post estimates of length of life that are based on outcomes to ex ante expected lives and find they are much the same. We therefore choose ex ante lives along with information from the ex post rates on the rate of decline in an asset's value to generate a set of depreciation rates for use in the productivity accounts.

    We then use our depreciation model to produce estimates of the growth in capital stock and capital services over the 1961 to 1996 period. We find that the resulting estimates of capital stock and capital services are quite similar to those previously produced.

    Release date: 2007-02-12
Data (0)

Data (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Analysis (0)

Analysis (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Reference (2)

Reference (2) ((2 results))

  • 1. Capital Intensity in Canada and the United States, 1987 to 2003 Archived
    Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2008018
    Description:

    Official data from statistical agencies are not always ideal for cross-country comparisons because of differences in data sources and methodology. Analysts who engage in cross-country comparisons need to carefully choose among alternatives and sometimes adapt data especially for their purposes. This paper develops comparable capital stock estimates to examine the relative capital intensity of Canada and the United States.

    To do so, the paper applies common depreciation rates to Canadian and U.S. assets to come up with comparable capital stock estimates by assets and by industry between the two countries. Based on common depreciation rates, it finds that capital intensity is higher in the Canadian business sector than in the U.S. business sector. This is the net result of quite different ratios at the individual asset level. Canada has as higher intensity of engineering infrastructure assets per dollar of gross domestic product produced. Canada has a lower intensity of information and communications technology (ICT) machinery and equipment (M&E). Non-ICT M&E and building assets intensities are more alike in the two countries.

    However, these results do not control for the fact that different asset-specific capital intensities between Canada and the United States may be the result of a different industrial structure. When both assets and industry structure are taken into account, the overall picture changes somewhat. Canada's business sector continues to have a higher intensity of engineering infrastructure and about the same intensity of building assets; however, it has a deficit in M&E that goes beyond ICT assets.

    Release date: 2008-07-10
  • 2. Depreciation Rates for the Productivity Accounts Archived
    Surveys and statistical programs – Documentation: 15-206-X2007005
    Description:

    This paper generates depreciation profiles for a diverse set of assets based on patterns of resale prices and retirements. In doing so, it explores the sensitivity of estimates of the growth in capital stock and capital services to alternate estimates of depreciation.

    In the first instance, survival analysis techniques are used to estimate changes in valuation of assets over the course of their service life. In the second instance, a two-step procedure is utilized that first estimates the discard function for used assets (assets discarded at zero prices) and then uses the resulting estimates to correct for selection bias that arises when just positive used-asset prices are employed to estimate age-price profiles to produce depreciation rates. For the third method, a discard function and an asset efficiency function are jointly specified and estimated.

    These three different methods produce depreciation profiles that follow convex patterns. Accelerated profiles are apparent for many individual assets in the machinery and equipment and structures classes.

    We also compare the ex post estimates of length of life that are based on outcomes to ex ante expected lives and find they are much the same. We therefore choose ex ante lives along with information from the ex post rates on the rate of decline in an asset's value to generate a set of depreciation rates for use in the productivity accounts.

    We then use our depreciation model to produce estimates of the growth in capital stock and capital services over the 1961 to 1996 period. We find that the resulting estimates of capital stock and capital services are quite similar to those previously produced.

    Release date: 2007-02-12
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Date modified:

Search help

How do I use the filters and the search box?

  • You can initiate a search by entering keywords or selecting filters (e.g., under Subject, Geography, etc.) on the left side of the page.

  • Filters can be used together or in any combination. Each time you select a filter, the results on the page are updated.

  • To start a new search, click on the Clear all button above the search box or deselect each filter.

  • Specified keywords and filters appear above the search box. You can deselect any or all the tags to refine or clear your search.

How do I refine my search?

  • You can enter keywords in the search box. It is not necessary to use “+” or “, “ or “AND”.

  • You can delete some or all of the keywords from your search string.

  • Quotes around keywords limit the search to a specific phrase.

    • For example, “labour force survey” will limit results to products containing this phrase.

  • Use “or” between keywords to obtain results that contain one or more search terms.

    • For example, labour or­ force or survey will limit results to products containing any or all of these words.

How does the search work?

  • This search looks for results that have your query term in the title, description, subject, geography, product number or other information about the product.

    • For example, when searching the term ‘Diseases’, all results with the word ‘Diseases’ in the title, description or tagged the subject appear.

  • The text within an article or publication are not searched. For full text searching of articles, use the site search.

Sort help

How are the results ordered?

The Sort by feature provides three options:

  • By date – sorts results by product release date starting with the most recent.
  • By relevance is only needed or beneficial when you use the search box and submit a search query. Results are ordered by a combination of where the search term appears in the content, e.g., if it appears in the title, it likely means the product is more relevant to your search; how up to date or new the content in the product is; how popular the product is; and other factors.
  • By title – sorts results alphabetically.

Sort help

How are the results ordered?

The Sort by feature provides four options:

  • By date – sorts results by product release date starting with the most recent.
  • By most popular – gives priority to results that are most frequently selected by users, followed by the most recent.
  • By relevance is only needed or beneficial when you use the search box and submit a search query. Results are ordered by a combination of where the search term appears in the content, e.g., if it appears in the title, it likely means the product is more relevant to your search; how up to date or new the content in the product is; how popular the product is; and other factors.
  • By title – sorts results alphabetically.