0000053870Jurnal Produktiviti - [Joumal].

JURNALPRODUKTIVITI

2005

JURNAL

PRODUKTIVITI

2005

SIDANG REDAKSI PENERBITANJURNAL PRODUKTIVITI 2005

KETUA PENGARANGMustapha Sufa'at

TIMBALAN KETUA PENGARANGSamauddin Radiman

KETUA SEKRETARIAT PENERBITANDr. Hj. Mustafa Hashim

SIDANG PENGARANGDr. Rahmat Hj. Md IsmailNor Aini Mohd. Amdzah

Zulaifah OmarRoslina Md Isa

Abdul Majid Ibrahim

Kami mengalu-alukan sumbangan rencana untuk dimuatkan di dalam jurnal ini.'Jurnal Produktiviti' diterbitkan enam bulan sekali, meliputi semua aspek ekonomi

dan pengurusan serta lain-lain bidang yang ada hubungannya dengan konsepproduktiviti. Rencana-rencana yang tersiar tidak semestinya merupakan pendapat NPC.

http-J/www. npc.org. my

PERBADANAN PRODUKTIVI NEGARA'Jurnal Produktiviti' diterbitkan oleh

Perbadanan Produktiviti Negara{Kementerian Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri)

Peti Surat 64, Jalan Sultan,46904 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.

Tel: 03-7955 7266 (15 Talian) Fax : 03-7957 8068http://www.npc.org.my

CONTENTS

THE STUDY OF ATTITUDINAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATEDOUT COMES OF QUALITY CIRCLE PARTICIPATIONBy Zainal Abidin Ahmad and Mustafa Hashim..........................................

PERUBAHAN PRODUKTIVITI DAN TEKNIK DALAM SEKTORPEMBUATANICT DI MALAYSIAOleh Zulridah Mohd Noor, Hasmiah Kasimin dan Liew Chei Siang.................. 11

SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY SECTOR: AN OVERVIEWBy Mohhidin Othman and Nor Fazila Hasftim...................................................... 33

TFP AS ASIAN ECONOMIES' SOURCE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH:PAST EVIDENCES, MEASUREMENT CONTROVERSIESAND RECENT FINDINGSBy Naziruddin Abdullah, Abdul Wahab Muhamad, Samaudin Radiman,Eamizan Hashim and Noraoni Mohd. Shariff.......................................................... 59

HOW THOUGHT PROCESSES IMPACT TECHNOLOGYFOR PRODUCTIVITYBy Erf^ar/.RfrfZei/...................................................................................................... 75

PRODUKTIVITI SEKTOR PERTANIAN MALAYSIAOleh Fatimah Said, SaadMohd Said,dan Azmah Haji Otftmfln......................................................................................... 87

THE STUDY OF ATTITUDINAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED OUT COMESOF QUALITY CIRCLE PARTICIPATION*

By

ZAINAL ABIDIN AHMADSchool Of Management

University Science Malaysia

MUSTAFA HASHIMNational Productivity Corporation

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Abstract

The study explores thepossible attitudinal outcomes and performance-related out comes of qualitycircle (QC) participation, and it was done among the operators from the five manufacturingcompanies in Penang, Malaysia. Attention focused on the three major variables: (1) the roleconflict and ambiguity of QC participants and those of comparable non-participants to the worksituation; (2) the organizational commitment ofQC participants and those of comparable non-participants to work situation; and (3) the effectiveness and awareness ofTQM practices ofQCparticipants and those of comparable non-participants. The encouraging finding was found fromthis study especially in the contexts of human values out comes. This study found that thoseworkers participated in the QC activities had a higher commitment, lower role conflict and lessrole ambiguity compared to those who are not involved with QC activities. It shows that QCactivities have an impact to the human values in term of their identification, involvement andloyalties to their organization. At the same time workers that involved in QCC activities havingless conflict and more clarity in their work. On the other hand, involvement in the QC activitiesalso have a significant impact on the performance-related outcomes that based on the some ofTQM practices performance indicators such as awareness of leader vision, effectiveness ofcustomer focus, TQM training, task control and involvement policy. From these empiricalevidence this study conclude that QC activities and TQM initiatives were the solution for theattitudinal problems of the workers and perhaps it is as a means of helping the management tofocus on the continuous improvement process more effectively.

INTRODUCTION

In Malaysia, National Productivity Corporation (NPC) introduced Quality Control Circle(QCC) since 1983. It was started with different names and practiced by some companiesand according to the Total Quality Control (TQC) Secretariat of NPC, 124 circles with1,619 members have registered in 1983 and as December 2001,6,851 circles with 51,937

'The Paper presented at an mtfrnatonal conference in Quality Control Circle (ICQCC'03) October 7-10, Tokyo, Japan

members have registered. This shows that the tremendous participation of workers inthe incremental process of quality and productivity improvement. As we know themost popular definition of QCC was by Ishikawa (1985). He said that QCC is a smallgroup of workers from the same work place, who meet together on a regular, voluntarybasis to perform quality control activities and engage in self and mutual development.In these cases they are going to identify, solve and implement solution to work-relatedproblems. On that conjunction QCC has been operating as a "mini-company" in theorganization that spearhead for total customer satisfaction and continuous improvementbut they are operating at lower rank of management (Leede & Looise, 1999).

Researches pertaining to the QCC intervention are become relevant in the form ofsustainability of the program. This study will explores the possible attitudinal outcomesand performance-related out comes of quality circle {QC) participation. Attention ofthis study will focus on the three major variables: (1) the role conflict and ambiguity ofQC participants and those of comparable non-participants to the work situation; (2) theorganizational commitment of QC participants and those of comparable non-participantsto work situation; and (3) the effectiveness and awareness of TQM practices of QCparticipants and those of comparable non-participants

The present study seeks to find answers to these two question:

1. Do involvements in QCC activities have an impact on attitudinal outcome such asrole conflicts, role ambiguity and organizational commitment of the workers?

2. Do involvements in QCC activities have an impact on the level of awareness andeffectiveness of TQM practices among the workers?

The present study is significant value for TQM practitioners and academics alike. ForTQM practitioners, this will be the evidence to sustain the QCC activities in theirorganization and willing to promote it, and this study also is expected to yield additionalinsight into this relationship, which should contribute to the future development ofthis line of research, particularly in a TQM environment. Thus, it will contribute to thebody of knowledge in this area.ch, particularly in a TQM environment.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

According to the British Standard Institute (1991), TQM is a management philosophyand company practices that aim to harness the human and material resources of anorganization in the most effective way to achieve the objectives of the organization(BS7850). Furthermore the primary TQM principles are focusing on satisfying the needsand expectation of customers and to constantly improve the quality of all organizationalactivities and processes, three strategies employed are customers, processes andemployees (Saraph et al. 1989; Flynn et al. 1994, and Ahire et al. 1996). This is the processof employee involvement that portrays as an integral feature of quality programs (Juran,

1979; Magjuka, 1993; Matthes, 1993; and Reimer, 1992) and both empowerment andinvolvement of workers are significantly impact on total effectiveness of an organization(Brickenell, 1996; Jason 1990; Nurick, 1982; and Sconberger, 1994). Consequently TQMhas placed significant importance on involving employee - their experience andcreativity - in the organizational wide improvement process in order to archive strategicobjectives and develop employee involvement by increase in team structures (Crosby,1979; Dahlgaard, 1999; Gyani, 1995; Ishikawa, 1985; Master, 1996; and Volker, 1998).

In the TQM structure, QCC is the one of the several types of quality improvementteams, and according to Ishikawa (1984), QCC is a small group of people from it orsimilar work units who regularly meet to identify and analyze problems and recommendsolutions regarding their work related problems to management. These are themechanisms of total involvement concepts that spearhead for total customer satisfactionand continuous improvement (Gill & White, 1992; Lawler, 1994; Leed & Looise, 1999;Lindelof, 1999; and Schonberger, 1994).

On these conjunction involvements in QCC activities has been proven having an impacton work attitude, personal competence, better perception of work setting and moreeducated (Buch & Raban, 1990; Norris & Cox, 1987; Steel & Llyod, 1988). When refers towork attitudes, organizational commitment, role conflict and role ambiguity are thefactors that has to be considered in addressing this issues. Furthermore organizationalcommitment has become very important in past research due to its significant impacton job satisfaction, performance, absenteeism, and turnover intentions (Chelte & Tausky,1986; Larson & Fukami, 1984; and Meyer & Schoorman, 1992). The relationship betweenOrganizational commitment and TQM are found in the research of Lawler (1986); Alien& Brady (1997) Zeitz (1996); Brook & Zeitz (1999); and according to the most of "QualityGurus", organizational commitment is the most important factor that enhance the TQMperformance {e.g. Crosby. 1979; Deming, 1986; Fegeimbaum, 1986; Ishikawa, 1972; andJuran, 1979). Group cohesiveness that portrays the involvement in the QCC activitieshas an impact on organizational commitment (Wech et al. 1998) and the role conflictand role ambiguity are the barrier to the higher performance. The relationship betweenrole conflict and role ambiguity with performance also received a great of attention inpast research. Role conflict and role ambiguity have been shown to have significanteffects on personal and organizational outcomes {Orphen & Bernath, 1987; Deluga &Winter, 1990; Travis & Judith, 2000). Especially in this contact both role conflict androle ambiguity have significant impact on organizational commitment (Glisson & Durick,1988). As the conclusion this study is only concern on the level of role conflict, roleambiguity, organizational commitment and TQM performance between the QCC andnon-QCC members.

From the above literature review and discussed, the theoretical framework can beestablished as Figure 1 and there are four main hypotheses developed for the research.They are as follow:

HI: Organizational commitments of the QCC members are higher than n o n - Q C Cmembers.

H2: Role conflicts of the QCC members are higher than non-QCC members.H3: Role ambiguities of the QCC members are higher than non-QCC members.H4: TQM performances of the QCC members are higher than non-QCC members.

INVOLVEMENT IN QCC

ROLE CONFLICT

ROLE AMBIGUITY

ROLE AMBIGUITY

TOM PERFORMANCE

Figure 1 Theoretical Model

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The subjects of this study were QCC and non-QCC's members that participated in NPCRegional Convention in the year 1999 and 2000. A random sample of QCC membersfrom three main categories, namely manufacturing, electrical/electronic and servicewere then selected. It is approximately around 200 members of QCC (20 teams) and200 from non-QCC, and total of 400 sample workers were being identified. For non-QCC members they were being identified through members of the QCC andquestionnaires were being distributed through drop-off and pick-up methods. The TQMSteering Committees for each organization were also involved in assisting theseprocesses.

MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity measure by Rizzo & Litzman (1970) questionnaire isused. Nine items measure the degree to which employee role expectation is incompatible.Respondents were asked to rate on five-point Likert scale ranking from l(very false) to5(very true). The reported Cronbach's alpha of the nine items of role conflict (see Table2) of 0.70 and six items of role ambiguity (see Table 2) of 0.79 was considered asacceptable.

Affective commitments were measured by using Alien & Meyer (1990). Eight itemsmeasure the level of identification, loyalties and involvement of workers toward theirorganization. Respondents were asked to rate on five-point Likert ranking from l(veryfalse) to 5(very True). The reported Croncbach's alpha of the eight items of affectivecommitment (see Table 2) of 0.74 was considered as acceptable.

A modification TQM performances measured by Brook & Zeitz (1999) were used.Twenty-four items measure perception of the employee toward six constructs of TQMperformance. Respondents were rate on five-point Likert scale ranking from l(not atall) to 5 (to a very great extant). The reported Croncbach's alpha of the twenty-twoitems of TQM performance (see Table 2) of 0.86 was considered as acceptable.

SAMPLING, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The sample comprises of workers from manufacturing and service companies that beingdivided into two categories QCC and non-QCC members. The questionnaires weredistributed to them, which is administrated by the researcher. Two hundred and sixtytwo questionnaires were obtained from the data collection. The summary of respondentssuch as gender, race, level of education, industries, management level, year of experiencein the organization, age and involvement in QCC is in Table 1. The respondentscomprises of 53.8 percent of QCC and 46.2 percent of non-QCC. Descriptive statisticalanalysis, which includes frequencies and percentages, are used to present the maincharacteristic of the sample. Means and standard deviations are also used. TheHypotheses will be tested using the t-test methods in the SPSS 11.0.

ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The discussion of the results will be based on the t-test result in Table 3. Table 1 showsthe summary of respondents in this study. The reliability of the measurement in thisstudy is in Table 2.

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC

The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. The main sector of manufacturingcompanies involved is 60% of electronic and electrical industry and the rest is from theothers type of industries. 80% of the total sample is consisting of the operators that 40%of them are having less than 5 years of experience. The reliability of the measurementof the variables was considered acceptable that ranged from Croncbach's alpha of 0.70to 0.86. According to Nunally (1978) an alpha above than 0.70 is consider as acceptablemeasurement. Table 2 shows that reliability of the measures.

FINDINGS

The findings shown in Table 4 reports that affective commitment ((=2.09, p<0.01}/ roleconflict (£=-2.02, p<0.01), role ambiguity (£=-2,68, p<0.01) and TQM performance (f=3.62,p<0.01) have are significant difference between QCC and non-QCC members. Thisfinding suggests that the QCC members are more committed compared to non-QCCmembers. In term of role conflict and role ambiguity, the QCC members are having lessrole conflict and less role ambiguity compared to non-QCC members. Further moreQCC members are more aware and more effective in term of implementing the TQMprocess compared to the non-QCC members, From the above finding both Hypothesis1, 2, 3 and 4 are supported the arguments.

CONCLUSION

The study explores the possible attitudinal outcomes and performance-related out comesof quality circle (QC) participation, and it was done among the operators from the fivemanufacturing companies in Penang, Malaysia. Attention focused on the three majorvariables: (1) the role conflict and ambiguity of QC participants and those of comparablenon-participants to the work situation; (2) the organizational commitment of QCparticipants and those of comparable non-participants to work situation; and (3) theeffectiveness and awareness of TQM practices of QC participants and those ofcomparable non-participants. The encouraging finding was found from this studyespecially in the contexts of human values out comes. This study found that thoseworkers participated in the QC activities had a higher commitment, lower role conflictand less role ambiguity compared to those who are not involved with QC activities. Itshows that QC activities have an impact to the human values in term of theiridentification, involvement and loyalties to their organization. At the same time workersthat involved in QCC activities having less conflict and more clarity in their work. Onthe other hand, involvement in the QC activities also have a significant impact on theperformance-related outcomes that based on the some of TQM practices performanceindicators such as awareness of leader vision, effectiveness of customer focus, TQMtraining, task control and involvement policy. From these empirical evidence this studyconclude that QC activities and TQM initiatives were the solution for the attitudinalproblems of the workers and perhaps it is as a means of helping the management tofocus on the continuous improvement process more effectively.

TABLE 1Sample CharacteristicsCharacteristicsGenderFemaleMale

RaceMalaysChinesIndianOthers

Level ofEducationPrimary SchoolDiploma

IndustryElectronic andElectricalOthers

Frequency

19270

19445203

21616

159103

%

73.326.7

74.017.27.71.1

82.517.5

60.739.3

CharacteristicsManagement LevelSupervisorOperators

Year of Experiencein the OrganizationLess than 5 years6-15 years16 - 20 yearsMore than 20 years

AgeLess than 30 years31 - 45 years46 and above

Involvement inQCCNon-QCC

Frequency

40222

109903726

12211624

141121

%

15.384.7

41.634.414.19.9

46.244.69.2

53.846.2

TABLE 2Reliability of Measures

Variables

Affective CommitmentRole ConflictRole AmbiguityTQM Performance

Alpha

0.740.700.790.86

Mean (Standard Deviation)QCC

3.67 (0.57)2.64 (0.65)2.00 (0.52)3.73 (0.52)

Non-QCC3.52 (0.53)2.76 (0.59)2.17 (0.53)3.50 (0.49)

TABLE 3The Result oft-testfor Equality of Means

AffectiveCommitmentRole ConflictRole AmbiguityTQM Performance

t-test for Equality of Meanst

2.09

-2.02-2.683.62

df259

259259259

Sig. (2 -tailed)

.03

.04

.00

.00

MeanDifference

.14

-.13-.17

.22

REFERENCES:

Alien, N. J. and Meyer, J. P., (1990). The measurement and antecedents of effective,continuance, and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 63,1-18.

Alien, M.W., & Brady, R.M., (1997). Total quality Management, organizationalcommitment, perceived organizational support, and intraorganizationalcommunication, Management Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 316 -331

Ahire. S. L. Golhar, D. Y. and Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation ofTQM implementation constructs, Decision Sciences, 27 (1) 23-56.

Bricknell, Graham, (1996). Total quality revisited, Management Services, Vol.40, Iss. 1,pp. 18 -20.

British Standards Institute, (1991). BS 4778-2, Quality Vocabulary - Quality Concepts andRelated Definitions, British Standards Institute, London.

Brooks, Andrea and Zeitz, Gerald, (1999). The effect of Total Quality Management andperceived justice on organizational commitment of hospital nursing staff, Journalof Quality Management, 4(1), 69-94.

Buch, Kimberly, and Raban, Amiram, (1990). Quality circle: How effective are they inimproving employee performance and attitudes, Journal of human Behavior, 27(1),11-17.

Chelte, A. F. and Tausky, C. (1986). A note on organizational commitment: Antecedentsand consequences among managers, professional, and blue-collor workers, Workand Occupation, 13, 553-561.

Crosby, P.B., (1979). Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality, McGraw-Hill Book. Co.New York.

Dahlgaard, Su Mi Park, (1999). The evolution patterns of quality management: Somereflection on quality movement, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10, Iss 4/5, pp. 473-480.

Deming. W.E. (1986). Out of Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge,MA.

Deluga, R. J., & Winter, J. J. (1990). The impact of role ambiguity and conflict on residentassistant. Journal of college student Development, 1(3), 230-236

Feigenbaum, A.V., (986). Total Quality Control, 3rd. ed. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.Flynn, B.B. Schroeder, R. G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for TQM research

and an associated measurement instrument, Journal of Operations Management, 11(4),339-73.

Gill, J. and Whittle, S. (1992), Management by panacea: accounting for transience, Journalof Management Studies, March, pp.281-95.

Glisson, Charles, and Durick, Mark. (1988). Predictor of Job Satisfaction andOrganizational Commitment in Human Service Organizations, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 33, Iss. 1, pp. 61-81.

Gyani, Girdhar J, (1995). Small groups bring big results, Quality Progress, Vol. 28, Iss. 12,pp. 73-75.

Ishikawa, K., (1972). Guide to Quality Control, Asian Productivity Organization: Tokyo.Ishikawa, K., (1984). Quality Control Circle at Work - Cases from Japan's Manufacturing

and Service Sector, Asian Productivity Organization: Tokyo.Ishikawa, K., (1985). What is Total Quality Control: The Japanese Way. Prentice Hall.Jason, R., & Gunderson, R.L., (1990). The team approach to company wide change,

National Productivity Review, Winter, pp. 35.Juran, J. M., (1979). Quality Control Handbook, 3rd. McGraw: New York.Lindelof, William C. (1999). Total Success, Credit Union Management, Vol. 22, Iss. 10 pp,

11 -14.Larson, E. W., and Fukami, C. V., (1984). Relationship between workers behavior and

commitment to organization and union, Proceedings of the Academy of Management,222-226.

Lawler, Edward E, (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: Arethey compatible? Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, pp. 68-76.

Leede, Jan de, and Looise, Jan Kees (1999). Continuous improvement and the mini-company concept, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, Vol.19, No. 11, pp. 1188 - 1202.

Magjuka, R. J., (1993). The 10 dimensions of employee involvement. Training &Development, Vol. 47, Iss. 4, PP. 61-67.

Masters, Robert, J, (1996). Overcoming the barriers to TQM's success, Quality Progress,Vol. 29, Iss.5, pp. 53-55.

Matthes, Karen, (1993). A look ahead for '93. HR Focus, Vol. 70, Iss. 1, pp. 1-4.Mayer, R.C., and Schoorman, F.D., (1992). Predicting participation and production

outcomes through a two dimensional model of organizational commitment,Academy of Managerial Journal, 35(3), 671-684.

Nurick, A. J., (1982). Participation in organizational change: A longitudinal field study,Human Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 413 -430.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd. Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 85-94,191-287.

Norris, Dwight R., and Cox, James F., (1987). Quality circle programmers: Volunteeringfor participation, Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8(3), 209-217.

Orpen, C. & Bernath, J. (1987). The effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on employeesatisfaction and performance, Psychological Studies, Jan 32(3), 25-28.

Reimer, R. A, (1992). The effect of Productivity Gain Sharing, and Employee Involvement inthe Innovation Process on Job Performance, and Organizational Commitment, CaliforniaSchool of Professional Psychology - San Diego, PhD Dissertation.

Rizzo, J., House, R. J. and Lirtzman, S. J. (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity incomplex organization, Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 15, pp. 150-63.

Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G. and Schroeder, R. G., (1989). An instrument for measuringthe critical factors of TQM, Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810-29.

Schonberger, Ricard J (1994). Human recourse management lessons from a decade ofTotal quality management and reengineering, California Management Review, Vol.36, Iss. 4, pp. 109-123.

Steel, Robert P., and Lloyd, Russell F., (1988), Cognitive, affective, and behavioraloutcomes of participation in quality circles: Conceptual; and empirical finding,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1), 1-17.

Travis C. T., & Judith M. C. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A Meta-Analysisof the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance,Journal of Management, 26(1), 155.

Volker Kruger, (1998). Total quality management and its humanistic orientation towardorganizational analysis, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 293 - 301.

Wech, Barbara A.; Mossholder, and Kevin W. (1998). Does work group cohesivenessaffect individual' performance and organizational commitment? Small GroupResearch, 29(4), 472-494.

Zeitz, G., (1996). Employee attitudes toward total quality management in an EPAregional Administration & Society, 28(1), 120-143.

10

PERUBAHAN PRODUKTIVITI DAN TEKNIK DALAM SEKTOR PEMBUATANICT DI MALAYSIA

Oleh

ZULRIDAH MOHD NOORHASMIAH KASIMIN

LIEWCHEISIANGPusat Pengajian Ekonomi

Fakulti Ekonomi dan PerniagaanUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Abstrak

Pengeluaran sektor pembuatan ICT meliputi 32.8 peratus daripada Keluaran Dalam NegaraKasar (KDNK) dalam tahun 2001. Eksport elektronik dan ekktrik yang merupakan salah satukomponen pembuatan ICT mewakili 70 peratus daripada eksport Malaysia. Walaupun Malaysiatelah membangunkan ekonomi berorientasikan eksportyangkukuh dalam pembuatan ICTnamunpergantungan yang sangat kuat kepada elektronik dan persaingan yang hebat daripada negaralain serta kehilangan yang ketara dalam syer komponen tertentu pembuatan ICT seperti peralatantelekomunikasi dan perakaman telah mencabar daya saing sektor pembuatan ICT negara.Memandangkan jumlah produktivitifaktor (TFP) sering dikaitkan dengan pembangunan negara,TFP bukan sahaja telah menjadifokus dasar pembangunan dan strategi negara malahan terdapatkeperluan yang meningkat untuk mengukur dan memantau TFP sektor pembuatan ICT secaraberterusan untuk membaiki produktiviti dan daya saing. Kertas ini bertujuan menghitungpelbagai jenis ukuran kecekapan dan menganalisis pertumbuhan TFP dalam enam industripembuatan ICT di Malaysia bagi tempoh 1988-1999. Pendekatan analisis data envelopmenttak berparameter telah digunakan untuk menghitung indeks-indeks produktiviti Malmquistberdasarkan data panel yang diperoleh. Indeks-indeks ini telah dihuraikan kepada perubahankecekapan dan perubahan teknik. Keputusan empirik menunjukkan yang TFP industripembuatan ICT meningkat pada kadar 7.0 peratus setahun. Pembaikan dalam pertumbuhanTFP hampir semuanya dijelaskan oleh perubahan teknik (6.9 peratus) manakala hanya 0.1 peratussahaja yang disebabkan oleh pembaikan kecekapan.

Kata kunci: Sektor pembuatan ICT, analisis data envelopment (DEA), jumlah produktivitifaktor (TFP), kecekapan.Production of ICT manufacturing sector contributed 32.8 percent to Gross Domestic Product(GDP) in 2001. One of the ICT manufacturing components, namely, electronics and electriccontributed 70 percent to Malaysian export. Even though Malaysia has developed a very strongexport-oriented economy in ICT manufacturing but is still highly reliant on electronics. Stiffcompetition from other countries and significant share losses in certain components of ICTmanufacturing such as in telecom and recording apparatus have challenged competitiveness of

11

Malaysian ICT manufacturing sector. Recognizing the importance of total factor productivity(TFP) in sustaining economic development, it is increasingly becoming the focus of developmentpolicy and strategy. Therefore, there is now increased recognition of the need to monitor andmeasure productivity constantly to improve both productivity and competitiveness. This paperaims to calculate various measure of efficiency and analyse TFP growth of six ICT manufacturingindustries in Malaysia for the period of 1988-1999. Tlie study applies a non-parametric dataenvelopment analysis (DEA) approach to measure Malmquist production indices based on thepanel data. The indices are then decomposed into efficiency change and technical change. Thestudy finds that TFP of ICT manufacturing sector has increased at the annual rate of 7 percent.Improvement in TFP growth can be explained mostly by the technical change or technical progress(6.9%), however only 0.1 percent due to efficiency improvement.

PENGENALAN

Produktiviti telah menarik minat ahli-ahli ekonomi dan pembuat dasar keranapertumbuhan produktiviti adalah sumber utama pertumbuhan ekonomi keseluruhandan pembaikan kebajikan kedua-dua pengguna dan pengeluar. Oleh itu pemahamandan pengukuran produktiviti adalah penting dan terdapat keperluan untukmenghuraikan jumlah pertumbuhan produktiviti tersebut kepada dua komponenpenting iaitu perubahan kecekapan teknik dan pembahan teknologi. Progres teknik(anjakan dalam sempadan pengeluaran) dan perubahan kecekapan teknik (pergerakankearah atau jauh daripada sempadan pengeluaran) adalah dua faktor utama dalampertumbuhan produktiviti, yang berkaitan dengan sumber berbeza, dan dengan itudasar-dasar berbeza diperlukan untuk melaksanakannya.

Pertumbuhan jumlah produktiviti faktor adalah merupakan ukuran penting bagipertumbuhan potensi output disebabkan oleh pulangan berkurangan bagi penggunaaninput dalam jangka panjang. Menyedari kepentingan jumlah produktiviti faktor (TFP)bagi mempercepatkan pembangunan negara bukan sahaja telah menjadikannya fokusdasar pembangunan dan strategi negara contohnya dalam Pelan Induk Industri Kedua1996-2005 malahan terdapat keperluan yang meningkat untuk mengukur dan memantauTFP sektor pembuatan negara secara berterusan untuk membaiki produktiviti dan dayasaing ekonomi sektor tersebut.

Minat untuk mengkaji pertumbuhan TFP dalam sektor pembuatan Malaysia semakinmeningkat terutamanya di kalangan pembuat dasar untuk melihat kebolehan industriini mengekalkan daya saing dan output mapan kerana pertumbuhan TFP adalah salahsatu ukuran pertumbuhan output mapan dan dalam jangka panjang pertumbuhanekonomi tidak boleh bergantung kepada pertumbuhan input semata-mata. Kajian-kajian lepas terhadap pertumbuhan TFP dalam industri pembuatan di Malaysia telahdilakukan dengan berbagai kaedah kajian. Kajian World Bank (1989) mendapati kadarpertumbuhan TFP dalam sektor pembuatan hanyalah -1.9 peratus bagi tempoh 1981 -1984. Kajian-kajian menggunakan pendekatan bukan sempadan (nonfrontier) oleh

12

Okamoto (1994) dan Tham (1996, 1997) mendapati pertumbuhan TFP yang tidakmelebehi 0.3 peratus bagi tempoh akhir tahun 1980an. The Productivity Report (1999)dan Mahadevan (2001) pula menyediakan bukti terdapatnya pertumbuhan TFP yangmerosot bagi sektor pembuatan dalam pertengahan tahun 1990an. Mahadevan (2002)pula dengan menggunakan pendekatan sempadan dan analisis data envelopment (DEA)kepada panel data terdiri daripada 28 industri sepanjang tempoh 1981-1996 mendapatipertumbuhan TFP tahunan sektor pembuatan adalah tersangat rendah iaitu hanya pada0.8 peratus sahaja dan ini dihasilkan oleh pembaikan yang sangat kecil dalam kedua-dua perubahan teknik dan kecekapan dengan hampir semua industri beroperasi hampirpada skel optimum.

Kajian ini penting dari segi tambahan kepada literatur empirik pertumbuhan TFP sektorpembuatan yang sedia ada kerana kajian terperinci mengenai industri pembuatan ICTdi mana 5-digit industri kod perlu digunakan tidak pernah dilakukan. Sektorpembuatan ICT dianggap sebagai sektor strategik bukan sahaja dari segi sumbangannyakepada pendapatan eksport negara melalui produk elektronik malahan kepadapenjanaan pekerjaan penduduk. Pengeluaran sektor pembuatan ICT merupakan 30peratus daripada Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK). Eksport elektronik danelektrik yang merupakan salah sahi komponen ICT pembuatan mewakili 70 peratusdaripada eksport Malaysia. Walaupun Malaysia telah membangunkan ekonomiberorientasikan eksport yang kukuh dalam pembuatan ICT namun pergantungan yangsangat kuat pada elektronik dan persaingan yang hebat daripada negara lain dankehilangan syer ketara dalam komponen tertentu ICT pembuatan seperti peralatantelekomunikasi dan perakaman telah mencabar daya saing sektor ICT pembuatannegara.

Sektor pembuatan ICT di Malaysia telah melalui beberapa perubahan penting sepanjangbeberapa dekad lepas, kebanyakannya disebabkan oleh peningkatan pembangunanperindustrian, globalisasi, dan perubahan-perubahan teknologi. Dalam environmenekonomi yang berubah dengan cepat tersebut, adalah penting untuk mengetahui prestasipertumbuhan produktiviti industri pembuatan dalam sektor ICT secara keseluruhandan industri mana yang dilakukan secara cekap dan implikasinya.

Kertas kerja ini menerokai isu-isu tersebut di atas bagi kes 6 industri pembuatan ICTpada kumpulan peringkat 5-digit bagi tempoh 1988-1999. Untuk mencapai tujuan inikaedah yang dimulai oleh Fare et al. (1989) dan digunakan dalam Fare et al. (1995)digunakan, i.e. indeks jumlah prodiktiviti faktor (TFP) Malmquist dihuraikan kepadadua komponen: perubahan teknik dan perubahan kecekapan teknik.

Indeks TFP Malmquist yang digunakan adalah purata dua indeks Malmquist yangdiperkenalkan oleh Caves et al. (1982). Walau bagaimanapun, indeks TFP Malmquistini membenarkan perubahan kecekapan teknik. Fungsi-fungsi jarak komponen bagiindeks Malmquist dihitung menggunakan pendekatan DEA tak berparameter yang

13

mula diperkenalkan oleh Charnes et al. (1978). Teknik tak berparameter bagi ukuranproduktiviti yang digunakan dalam analisis ini akan membentuk sempadan utama ataukadang-kadang dikenali sebagai sempadan 'amalan terbaik' berdasarkan data sampelindustri dan membandingkan setiap industri dengan sempadan ini. Berapa hampirsesebuah industri kepada sempadan utama dipanggil 'kecekapan teknik', berapa banyaksempadan utama beranjak pada setiap campuran input tercerap industri pula dipanggil'perubahan teknik'.

Kertas kerja ini dibahagikan kepada enam bahagian. Bahagian kedua membincangkansecara ringkas industri pembuatan dalam sektor ICT. Bahagian ketiga menjelaskanmetodologi yang terlibat dalam mendapatkan ukuran jumlah produktiviti f aktor (TFP)dan huraiannya kedalam perubahan kecekapan teknik dan perubahan teknologi.Bahagian keempat pula membincangkan data dan sumber data yang digunakan.Bahagian kelima melaporkan keputusan kajian manakala Bahagian keenam akanmenyimpulkan keseluruhan kajian dan membincangkan implikasi dasar bagipertumbuhan produktiviti masa hadapan.

INDUSTRI PEMBUATAN DALAM SEKTOR ICT

Mengikut MSIC 2000 kini terdapat 28 industri yang dikenali dalam sektor ICT yangdigolongkan dalam lima pengkelasan besar iaitu pembuatan; pemborongan mesin,peralatan dan bekalan; telekomunikasi; penyewaan mesin dan peralatan; dan komputerdan aktiviti-aktiviti berkaitan. Jadual 1 berikut menunjukkan senarai terperinci bagi12 sub-industri pembuatan dalam sektor ICT berdasarkan MSIC 2000 dengan industribersamaannya berdasarkan MIC 72. Jika konsep maklumat kandungan industri yanglebih luas diperlukan maka senarai berikut yang ditunjukkan oleh Jadual 2 perludisertakan.

Oleh kerana data siri masa bagi industri pembuatan dalam sektor ICT menggunakanklasifikasi baru MISC 2000 belum tersedia, untuk mengenali industri pembuatan yangterlibat dalam sektor ICT, statistik utama sektor pembuatan ICT 5-digit berdasarkanMIC 72 bagi tempoh 1986-99 yang digunakan ditunjukkan dalam Jadual 3. Statistiktersebut dikumpulkan daripada tujuh industri yang terlibat dalam pembuatan produkICT daripada Laporan Penyiasatan Industri Pembuatan Tahunan yang dikeluaran olehJabatan Perangkaan Malaysia seperti disenaraikan berikut:

• percetakan, penerbitan dan industri berkaitan (34200),• membuat mesin pejabat, pengiraan dan perakaunan (38250),• membuat set radio dan televisyen, perkakas pengeluar dan perakam bunyi

(38321),• membuat piring hitam dan pita magnet yang telah dirakam (38322),• separa konduktor dan komponen elektronik dan alat dan radas perhubungan

lain (38329),

14

• membuat kabel dan dawai (38391),• membuat alat profesional dan saintifik serta ukuran dan kawalan (38510).

Secara umum, dalam tahun 1986, sektor pembuatan ICT melaporkan kadarpertumbuhan tahunan negatif dalam nilai ditambah manakala nilai-nilai kadarpertumbuhan tahunan guna tenaga, upah dan nilai aset tetap secara relatif sangatkecil berbanding dengan tahun-tahun selepas itu. Ini adalah disebabkan olehkemelesetan ekonomi yang dihadapi pada tahun sebelum ini. Deregulasi pelaburanlangsung asing (FDI) yang membenarkan 100 peratus hak milik modal asingmengeksport lebih daripada 80 peratus produk mereka telah menyumbang kepadapertumbuhan guna tenaga, upah dan gaji dan nilai aset tetap selepas 1987. Dalamtahun 1987 kadar pertumbuhan tahunan guna tenaga bernilai negatif disebabkankelembapan dalam permintaan sektor pembuatan secara umumnya akibat krisiskewangan. Pada tahun 1990 walaupun ekonomi telah pulih, kadar pertumbuhantahunan guna tenaga masih kecil berbanding dengan tahun-tahun sebelum inikecuali tahun 1997.

Pertumbuhan cepat dalam nilai aset tetap daripada 1990-1996 adalah disebabkanoleh peningkatan penggunaan automasi oleh firma-firma sebagai respon kepadakekurangan buruh dan tekanan-tekanan persaingan global yang semakinmeningkat. Pelaburan dalam sektor pembuatan ICT terus meningkat seperti yangditunjukkan oleh pertambahan bilangan pertubuhan daripada 385 dalam tahun1986 kepada 777 pada tahun 1994 dan 1,842 pada tahun 1997. Selepas krisiskewangan pada tahun 1997 cuma lima firma baru sahaja dilaporkan pada tahun1990.

Mengikut industri pula, industri yang dianggap penting dalam pembuatan ICT darisegi sumbangan kepada guna tenaga, nilai ditambah dan jumlah eksport adalah industrisepara konduktor dan komponen elektronik dan alat dan radas perhubungan lain(38329). Bilangan pertubuhan yang terlibat dalam industri ini telah meningkat daripada75 pada tahun 1985 kepada 516 pada tahun 1997 bila krisis kewangan melanda negaraini. Walaupun ekonomi telah pulih pada tahun 1999 namun bilangan ini telah merosotkepada 495. Walau bagaimanapun krisis kewangan tidak banyak memberi kesan kepadanilai output kasar, nilai ditambah, guna tenaga, upah dan gaji, dan nilai aset tetap bagiindustri ini. Semua pembolehubah ini menunjukkan arah aliran yang meningkat dankadar pertumbuhan tahunan positif bagi tempoh 1985-1999. Industri ini menyerappaling ramai guna tenaga dalam sektor pembuatan ICT iaitu seramai 306,330 pekerjapada tahun 1999 berbanding dengan 59,673 pekerja pada tahun 1985 pada ketika industriini mula diperkenalkan di Malaysia. Nilai ditambah juga meningkat kepada

15

RM24,864.602 juta pada tahun 1999 berbanding dengan RM1,392.109 juta pada tahun1985.

Mengikut industri pula, industri percetakan, penerbitan dan industri berkaitan (34200)merupakan industri yang sangat berkembang pesat dengan 1,081 pertubuhan padatahun 1999 berbanding dengan hanya 253 pertubuhan pada tahun 1985. Nilai ditambahmeningkat kepada 1,822.828 juta pada tahun 1999 berbanding RM489.924 juta padatahun 1985. Dalam tempoh yang sama bilangan pekerja telah bertambah kepada 35,513berbanding 20,719 orang. Upah dan gaji juga telah meningkat daripada RM212.820juta kepada 664.785 juta. Nilai aset tetap industri ini juga telah meningkat kepadaRM2,861.902 juta berbanding RM343.894 juta. Sepanjang tempoh 1985-1999 semuastatistik utama dalam industri ini menunjukkan arah aliran yang meningkat kecualipada masa meleset pada tahun 1986-87.

PENGUKURAN PRODUKTIYITI DAN KECEKAPAN

Dalam kertas kerja ini, perubahan produktiviti dalam 6 industri pembuatan ICT pada5-digit dihitung sebagai min geometrik bagi dua indeks Malmquist. Industri mencetak,menerbit dan industri berkaitan (34200) tidak disertakan kerana industri ini termasukdalam sektor pembuatan mengikut klasifikasi baru MSIC 2000. Diperkenalkan olehCaves et al. (1982), indek produktiviti Malmquist (berdasarkan output) ditakrifkansebagai nisbah dua (output) fungsi jarak. Fungsi-fungsi jarak adalah perwakilan fungsibagi teknologi berbilang-output, berbilang input yang hanya memerlukan data kuantiti-kuantiti input dan output. Dengan itu, indeks ini adalah ukuran perubahan produktivitiprimal yang, berbanding dengan indeks Tornquist atau Fisher, tidak memerlukan kosatau syer hasil bagi tujuan pengagregatan tetapi mampu mengukur pertumbuhan TFPdalam situasi berbilang input dan berbilang output.

Mengikuti Fare et al. (1989) dan Caves et al. (1982) indeks produktiviti Malmquist bolehditakrifkan sebagai min geometrik dua quotients bagi fungsi-fungsi jarak output sepertiberikut:

, ,t+1 vt+i,y ,

Dengan itu indeks tersebut menggunakan fungsi-fungsi jarak daripada dua tempohberbeza atau teknologi, D,,* (.,.) dan DQ

t+1(.,.) dan dua pasangan vektor input-output, (x*,yl) dan (xt+1, yi+1). Caves et al. (1982) mengandaikan yang DO

I (x', y') dan D^1^1, yt+1)yang membayangkan yang cerapan-cerapan tempoh tertentu adalah cekap secara teknikdalam takrifan Farrell (1957). Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh Fare et al. (1989), indeksMalmquist tersebut diatas boleh dihuraikan kedalam dua komponen iaitu perubahan

16

kecekapan teknik (EFFCH) dan perubahan teknik (TECHCH) yang ditakrifkan sepertiberikut:

' M M ' ' '________ D0'(*'+',/+')D0'(*',/)(xwi v,t, x. v,> _ ———————-————-————.————— | ——Mn (x1*1, y'*', x', y') =

di mana nisbah diluar kurungan adalah mengukur perubahan dalam kecekapan relatif(i.e., perubahan dalam berapa jauh jarak pengeluaran tercerap daripada pengeluaranpotensi maksimum) antara tahun t dan t+1. Min geometrik bagi dua nisbah dalamkurungan pula menggambarkan anjakan dalam teknologi antara dua tempoh dinilaipada x*, dan x1*1, iaitu,

ZV+V+1,/+1)EFFCH = nt,..t ,,

TECHCH =

Walaupun, indeks produktiviti Malmquist boleh dihitung berdasarkan andaian-andaianpulangan ikut skel berbeza, kertas ini menghitung indeks relatif pada teknologipulangan malar ikut skel (CRS) yang dihuraikan pada perubahan kecekapan dan progresteknik. Oleh kerana di bawah CRS skel operasi ridak penting, keseluruhan perubahankecekapan adalah perubahan kecekapan teknik. Walau bagaimanapun, jika pulanganberubah ikut skel (VRS) digunakan (i.e., teknologi yang menunjukkan mula-mulapulangan meningkat, kemudian malar, dan akhirnya merosot) perubahan kecekapanberasal daripada penggunaan skel operasi tidak cekap (dikenali sebagai kecekapan skel)dan daripada ketakcekapan teknik tulin. Komponen perubahan kecekapan dihitungberkaitan dengan teknologi CRS dihuraikan ke dalam perubahan kecekapan tulin(PECH) dan perubahan kecekapan skel (SCCH) yang membayangkan penggunaan skelsub-optimal oleh firma.

Kecekapan skel boleh disertakan bagi tempoh t dan t+1 dalam ukuran perubahankecekapan seperti berikut:

EFFCH =

17

Perubahan Kecekapan Skel = SCCH = r+1 r+1 /+1 , dan

Perubahan Kecekapan Tulin = PECH = —_ , , ,—,..,„„,D0 (x ,y \VRS)

Dengan itu, penghuraian lanjutan bagi indek produktiviti Malmquist (M0) yangdigunakan dalam kertas ini boleh dihuraikan seperti berikut:

Indek Produktiviti Malmquist = Perubahan Kecekapan Teknik (EFFCH) x PerubahanTeknik (TECHCH)

(Pertumbuhan TFP) = (Kesan Catching up) x (Kesan Sempadan)

= (SECHxPECH) x TECHCH

DATA KAJIAN DAN SUMBER DATA

Dalam kajian ini pendekatan DEA akan digunakan dengan menggunakan satu outputiaitu nilai ditambah dan dua input iaitu modal dan buruh. Sebelum sektor ICTdiwujudkan sebagai salah satu sektor baru ekonomi, produk pembuatan ICT telahdikelaskan dalam sektor pembuatan. Data bagi industri-industri yang berkaitan denganpembuatan produk ICT boleh didapati dalam sama ada Tinjauan Tahunan IndustriPembuatan yang telah dilakukan sejak 1975 (kecuali 1980 dan 1998) atau Band IndustriPembuatan yang dilakukan setiap lima tahun (kecuali 1998) ole Jabatan PerangkaanMalaysia. Data asas yang dikumpulkan termasuk nilai pengeluaran, nilai ditambah,kos bahan, inventori perbelanjaan modal, guna tenaga dan upah. Dalam kajian ini datanilai ditambah, buruh dan modal bagi tempoh 1988-1999 didapati dari 6 industripembuatan ICT di peringkat 5-digit menggunakan kod industri MIC 72 dalam sektorpembuatan. Data buruh diukur sebagai bilangan pekerja dalam industri tertentu danpengeluaran dan modal diukur dalam RM.

ANALISIS KEPUTUSAN KAJIAN EMPIRIK

Dalam bahagian ini indeks produktiviti Malmquist dihitung begitu juga komponen-komponen perubahan kecekapan, perubahan teknik dan perubahan skel bagi setiapindustri dalam sampel akan dibincangkan. Secara perinsipnya keenam-enam industriyang dikaji adalah agak berbeza sifat semulajadinya. Oleh itu, diandaikan teknologi-teknologi mereka adalah berbeza dalam intensiti faktor tetapi mereka berkongsisempadan pengeluaran yang sama, i.e. mereka beroperasi pada bahagian-bahagian yangsangat berbeza pada fungsi pengeluaran yang sama. Teknologi CRS diandaikan untuk

18

menghitung indeks produktiviti Malmquist kerana adalah perlu dan cukup bagi indeksMalmquist menjadi indeks TFP sebenar jika indeks produktiviti ditakrifkan sebagainisbah hasildarab purata (average products) bagi dua tempoh. Teknologi dalamsebarang tempoh tertentu diwakili sebagai fungsi jarak output. Oleh kerana hanyasatu output digunakan, fungsi jarak output adalah bersamaan dengan fungsipengeluaran.

Dalam kajian ini program DEAF versi 2.1 yang dicipta oleh Coelli (1996) telah digunakanuntuk membentuk sempadan utama 'amalan-terbaik' bagi semua industri dalam sampeldata dan menghitung fungsi-fungsi jarak menerusi teknik pemprograman linear dankemudianya menggunakan fungsi-fungsi tersebut untuk menghitung indeksproduktiviti Malmquist, perubahan kecekapan dan perubahan teknik. Mengikut Fareet al. (1994) produktiviti dihuraikan dalam cara ini kedalam perubahan-perubahandalam kecekapan (catching up) dan perubahan-perubahan dalam teknologi (inovasi).

Perhatikan yang jika nilai indek Malmquist atau sebarang komponennya adalah kurangdaripada satu, ini menunjukkan kemerosotan dalam prestasi antara dua tahunberdekatan, sedangkan nilai-nilai lebih besar daripada 1 menunjukkan pembaikan dalamprestasi berkaitan. Dengan itu dengan menolak satu daripada nombor yang dilaporkandalam setiap jadual akan memberikan kenaikan atau kejatuhan purata tahunan bagitempoh masa berkaitan dan ukuran prestasi berkaitan. Perhatikan yang ukuran-ukuranini menggambarkan prestasi industri berbanding dengan 'amalan terbaik' dalam sampel.

PERUBAHAN TFP

Sebelum membincangkan keputusan kajian bagi setiap industri prestasi purata industripembuatan ICT secara keseluruhan bagi tempoh 1988-1999 akan dibincangkan. Jadual4 melaporkan perubahan tahunan dalam TFP dan komponennya dalam industripembuatan ICT berdasarkan anggaran-anggaran DEA. Rajah 1 dalam lampiran yangmengambarkan arah aliran EFFCH, TECHCH, dan TFPCH sepanjang tempoh 1988-1999 menguatkan perbincangan prestasi industri pembuatan secara keseluruhan danpurata dalam sektor ICT. Dengan mula melihat kepada baris min, adalah ketara yangTFP meningkat pada kadar purata 7.0 peratus setahun sepanjang tempoh 1988-1999bagi industri pembuatan ICT secara keseluruhan. Secara purata, pembaikan tersebutberpunca daripada progres teknik (6.9 peratus) dan pembaikan kecekapan yang sangatkecil (0.1 peratus).Secara terperinci, terdapat peningkatan dalam TFPCH sepanjang tempoh tersebutkecuali pada tahun 1989/90-1991/92 di mana TFP merosot sebanyak masing-masing6.5, 0.2, dan 4.2 peratus. Namun demikian terdapat keadaan turun naik dalampeningkatan TFP tersebut, sebagai contoh peningkatan TFP pada tahun 1997/99 adalahlebih kecil berbanding dengan tahun sebelumnya kecuali tahun 1993/94. Ini adalahberhubungan dengan krisis kewangan dan ekonomi yang berlaku pada tahun-tahuntersebut.

19

Jadual 5 melaporkan penghuraian perubahan tahunan TFP kepada perubahan-perubahan komponennya mengikut industri. Semua industri mengalami peningkatanpertumbuhan TFP dan terdapat 2 industi yang mengalami pertumbuhan TFP tahunanpuratanya yang melebehi kadar pertumbuhan purata TFP industri ICT keseluruhandengan 9.3 -12.7 peratus peningkatan TFP setahun, seperti industri 38322 (membuatpiring hitam dan pita magnet yang telah dirakam) dan 38321 (set radio dan televisyen,perkakas pengeluar dan perakam bunyi). Industri membuat piring hitam dan pitamagnet yang telah dirakam (38322) mencapai pertumbuhan tahunan purata TFPtertinggi pada 12.7 peratus. Industri separa konduktor dan komponen elektronik danalat dan radas perhubungan lain (38329) pula mengalami pertumbuhan tahunan purataTFP sebanyak 6 peratus. Ketiga-tiga industri ini sahaja yang mengalami peningkatandalam perubahan teknik (kesan sempadan/inovasi) dan perubahan kecekapan teknik(kesan catching up). Dalam industri 38321 peningkatan dalam perubahan kecekapanteknik adalah lebih besar berbanding dengan perubahan teknik dengan nilai-masing-masing 5 peratus dan 4.2 peratus. Bagi industri 38322 pula perubahan teknik lebihbesar berbanding perubahan kecekapan teknik dengan nilai masing-masing 9.3 peratusdan 3.1 peratus. Bagi industri 38329 terdapat peningkatan yang agak besar dalam progresteknik (6 peratus) tetapi tiada perubahan dalam kecekapan teknik.

Jadual 6 melaporkan berbagai perubahan ukuran kecekapan dan TFP mengikut industrisecara terperinci. Untuk mengukuhkan penjelasan tentang pertumbuhan TFP,perubahan kecekapan (EFFCH) dan perubahan teknik (TECHCH), Rajah 2-7 disertakanuntuk menunjukkan arah aliran terkumpul bagi ketiga-tiga indeks pertumbuhankecekapan tersebut dalam enam industri pembuatan ICT sepanjang tempoh 1988-1999.

PERUBAHAN TEKNIK, PERUBAHAN KECEKAPAN TEKNIK, PERUBAHAN SKELDAN PERUBAHAN KECEKAPAN TULIN

Jadual 4 juga menunjukkan yang komponen TECHCH telah meningkat dengan puratayang agak besar iaitu 7 peratus setahun. Malahan sepanjang tempoh 1988-1999 terdapatpeningkatan dalam TECH kecuali bagi tahun 1989/90 dan 1990/91 di mana TECHmerosot sebanyak masing-masing 6.3 peratus dan 4.3 peratus berbanding tahun-tahunsebelumnya. Pada sepanjang tempoh 1988-1999 EFFCH meningkat dengan kadar puratayang sangat kecil iaitu sebanyak 0.1 peratus setahun. Terdapat perbezaan dalam nilaikedua-dua EFFCH dan TECHCH dengan nilai TECHCH sentiasa lebih besar daripadaEFFCH kecuali pada tahun 89/90, 90/91, 94/95, dan 97/99 di mana TECHCH ketaramerosot pada tempoh 89/90, 90/91 dan 97/99 masing-masing disebabkan olehkelembapan ekonomi dunia dan krisis kewangan. Namun demikian pembaikan dalamEFFCH pada tahun-tahun tersebut menampung kesan negatif kelembapan ekonomidunia dan krisis kewangan tersebut kepada pertumbuhan TFPCH. Contohnya padatempoh 1989/90 nilai indeks TFPCH sebanyak 0.935 (merosot sebanyak 6.5 peratus)

20

adalah hasildarab komponen EFFCH yang bernilai 1,117 (meningkat sebanyak 11.7peratus) dengan TECHCH yang bernilai 0.837 (merosot sebanyak 16.3 peratus).

Berdasarkan jadual 4 juga didapati yang progres teknik memainkan peranan yang lebihpenting kerana ia berkemampuan menampung kesan kemerosotan perubahankecekapan teknik (EFFCH) dengan menghasilkan peningkatan dalam perubahan TFP.Sedangkan kecekapan teknik tidak mampu untuk menampung kemerosotan dalamperubahan teknik untuk menghasilkan peningkatan dalam perubahan TFP.

Secara purata dan individu industri pula, hanya dua industri sahaja mengalamipeningkatan dalam kecekapan teknik iaitu industri 38321 (5 peratus) dan 38322 (3.1peratus). Industri 38329 iaitu industri separa konduktor dan komponen elektronikdan alat dan radas perhubungan lain pula tidak mengalami apa-apa perubahankecekapan teknik. Walaupun industri 38250,38391 dan 38510 mengalami kemerosotandalam perubahan kecekapan teknik namun kecekapan teknik purata mereka melebehi90 peratus yang bermakna industri-industri tersebut beroperasi pada hampir 90 peratusoutput potensi maksimumnya. Contohnya industri 38391 dengan kecekapan teknikpurata terkecil pada 95.2 peratus boleh meningkatkan outputnya sebanyak 4.8 peratustanpa meningkatkan penggunaan inputnya.

Dari segi perubahan teknik pula, semua industri mengalami peningkatan perubahanteknik malahan terdapat dua industri iaitu industri 38391 dan 38322 dengan peningkatanyang melebehi peningkatan teknik purata sebanyak 6.9 peratus. Industri denganpertumbuhan perubahan teknik terbesar adalah industri kabel dan dawai (38391)dengan kadar 11.5 peratus diikuti oleh industri membuat piling hitam dan pita magnetyang telah dirakam (38322) dengan kadar 9.3 peratus.Ingat semula yang EFFCH adalah diwakili oleh hasildarab SECH dengan PECH. SEmengukur kehilangan output relatif disebabkan oleh sisihan daripada pulangan malarikut skel. Sedangkan PE mengukur berapa jauh sesebuah industri daripada tingkatpengeluaran cekap di bawah VRS. Oleh itu peningkatan perubahan kecekapan skel(SECH) akan membaiki kecekapan dan produktiviti dengan nilai hampir kepada satumembayangkan pulangan malar ikut skel. Berdasarkan jadual 5 dan 6 terdapat duaindustri iaitu industri 38322 dan 38329 yang tidak mengalami perubahan dalampertumbuhan kecekapan tulin (PECH). Industri lain kecuali 38321 mempunyai nilaipurata PECH yang lebih kecil dari nilai purata PECH (= 0.991). Terdapat peningkatan1 peratus dalam purata perubahan kesan skel. Kebanyakan industri mempunyai SECHyang bernilai hampir satu yang membayangkan keadaan pulangan malar ikut skel dansecara langsung semua industri adalah hampir cekap.

Berdasarkan Rajah 1 dapat ditunjukkan yang sepanjang tempoh 1988-1999 hampirkesemua pertumbuhan TFP dalam industri pembuatan ICT secara keseluruhandisumbangkan oleh TECHCH kecuali bagi tempoh 1989/90 dan 1990/91. Begitu jugadengan pertumbuhan TFP industri individu. Rajah 2-7 menunjukkan yang walaupun

21

diperingkat permulaan kajian pertumbuhan TFP bagi industri tertentu seperti industri38322, 38329, dan 38391 adalah dipacu oleh kecekapan teknik dan bukannya olehperubahan teknik namun selepas itu sumber pertumbuhan TFP telah dikuasi olehpeningkatan dalam perubahan teknik dan kemerosotan dalam perubahan kecekapanteknik. Ini adalah sepadan dengan kajian Mahadevan (2002) terhadap sektor pembuatanyang mendapati faedah daripada kecekapan teknik semakin merosot sementaraperubahan teknik menunjukkan arah aliran yang semakin meningkat mengikut masa.Namun demikian dalam industri pembuatan ICT kemerosotan perubahan kecekapanteknik masih dapat ditampung oleh peningkatan dalam perubahan teknik untukmenghasilkan peningkatan dalam perubahan TFP.

Progres teknik yang agak tinggi ini dalam industri pembuatan ICT boleh difikirkanberkaitan rapat dengan dasar-dasar menaiktaraf industri tersebut melalui projek dandasar dengan insektif cukai untuk meningkatkan produktiviti, galakan-galakanpelaburan melalui Akta Pelaburan 1986 yang menggalakkan strategi pertumbuhanberorientasikan eksport melalui kemasukan pelaburan langsung asing (FDI) yangmembawa peralatan dan teknologi yang lebih baik dan kenaikan-kenaikan dalam aktivitiR&D yang menghasilkan peningkatan dalam perubahan teknik. Walau bagaimanapunpenguasaan teknologi asing ini semenjak akhir 1980an tidak sejajar dan mengikutikemasukan teknologi yang sangat besar ini seperti yang digambarkan oleh kemerotandalam kecekapan teknik tulin (PE).

KESIMPULAN DAN IMPUKASI DASAR

Sektor pembuatan ICT dianggap sebagai sektor strategik bukan sahaja dari segisumbangannya kepada pendapatan eksport negara melalui produk elektronik danelektriknya malahan kepada penjanaan pekerjaan penduduk. Pengeluaran sektorpembuatan ICT merupakan 30 peratus daripada Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK).Eksport industri elektronik dan elektrik (38329) yang merupakan salah satu komponenindustri pembutan dalam sektor ICT mewakili 70 peratus daripada eksport Malaysia.Walaupun Malaysia telah membangunkan ekonomi berorientasikan eksport yang kukuhdalam pembuatan ICT namun pergantungan yang sangat kuat pada elektronik danpersaingan yang hebat daripada negara lain dan kehilangan syer ketara dalamkomponen tertentu ICT pembuatan seperti peralatan telekomunikasi dan perakamantelah mencabar daya saing sektor ICT pembuatan negara. Menyedari kepentingan totalfaktor produktiviti (TFP) bagi mempercepatkan pembangunan negara bukan sahajatelah menjadikannya fokus dasar pembangunan dan strategi negara malahan terdapatkeperluan yang meningkat untuk mengukur dan memantau TFP sektor ICT pembuatansecara berterusan untuk membaiki produktiviti dan daya saing ekonomi sektor tersebut.

Kertas kerja ini bertujuan menghitung berbagai jenis ukuran kecekapan danmenganalisis pertumbuhan produktiviti berdasrkan ukuran-ukuran tersebut dalamenam industri pembuatan ICT diperingkat 5-digit klasifikasi MIC 72 di Malaysia bagi

22

tempoh 1988-1999. Pendekatan analisis data envelopment tak berparameter telahdigunakan untuk menghitung indeks-indeks produktiviti Malmquist menggunakandata panel. Indeks-indeks ini telah dihuraikan kepada perubahan kecekapan danperubahan teknik dan perubahan kecekapan pula telah dihuraikan kepada perubahankecekapan tulin dan perubahan skel. Keputusan empirik mendapati sepanjang tempoh1988-1999 pertumbuhan TFP bagi industri pembuatan ICT telah meningkat pada kadarpurata 7 peratus dengan peningkatan perubahan teknologi yang agak tinggi pada 6.9peratus dan pembaikan yang tersangat kecil iaitu hanya 0.1 peratus dalam perubahankecekapan teknik. Walaupun perubahan teknik menunjukkan arah aliran yang semakinmeningkat sepanjang tempoh tersebut namun pola perubahan kecekapan teknik agakturun naik dan menunjukkan faedah kecekapan teknik yang semakin merosot. Dalamkebanyakan kes kemerosotan perubahan kecekapan teknik dapat ditampung olehpeningkatan dalam perubahan teknik untuk menghasilkan pertumbuhan TFP yangpositif.

Keputusan di atas mencadangkan beberapa perkara. Pertama, hampir kesemuapertumbuhan TFP industri pembuatan dalam sektor ICT datangnya daripada kesanteknik atau sempadan. Ini adalah sejajar dengan berbagai dasar dan galakan pelaburanmelalui Akta Pelaburan 1986 yang menggalakkan strategi pertumbuhan berorientasikaneksport melalui kemasukan pelaburan langsung asing (FDI) yang membawa peralatandan teknologi yang lebih baik. Ini bermakna hanya faedah penggunaan teknologi danmodal yang lebih baik menyumbang kepada pertumbuhan TFP. Sedangkan kesanfaedah-faedah pembelajaran dengan perlakuan (learning-by-doing) atau resapansebenar pengetahuan penggunaan teknologi yang diwakili oleh pertumbuhankecekapan teknik adalah sangat kecil atau negatif. Kebanyakan industri pembuatanICT tersebut adalah pada hujung tertinggi bagi operas! pembuatan. Dengan itu terdapatkemungkinan penggunaan berterusan teknologi yang lebih baik dan lebih canggih dandengan itu kesan-kesan sempadan adalah besar. Hanya dalam industri membuat pilinghitam dan pita magnet yang telah dirakam {38322} dan membuat set radio dantelevisyen, perkakas pengeluar dan perakam bunyi (38321) sahaja terdapat sumbangankesan catching up (perubahan kecekapan teknik) bersama-sama kesan sempadan(perubahan teknik) terhadap pertumbuhan TFP. Ini bermakna faedah pembelajarandengan perlakuan atau resapan sebenar dalam pengetahuan penggunaan teknologibersama-sama faedah dari penggunaan teknologi dan modal yang lebih baik bersama-sama menyumbang kepada pertumbuhan TFP dalam kedua-dua industri ini. Ini adalahbenar disebabkan oleh keperluan teknologi dan proses pengadaptasian teknologi yangagak rendah dalam industri ini berbanding dengan industri-industri lain dalampembuatan ICT ini. Dalam industri ini jenis teknologi pengeluaran yang sama yangdimiliki dan pengetahuan yang diperolehi dalam pengadaptasian dan penggunaanteknologi tersebut secara cekap telah memberi faedah kepada pengeluaran industritersebut disamping teknologi baru juga diperkenalkan.

23

Dalam industri separa konduktor dan komponen elektronik dan alat dan radasperhubungan lain (38329) pula walaupun terdapat peningkatan dalam TECHCH namuntiada perubahan langsung dalam EFFCH. Ini bermakna walaupun terdapatkemungkinan teknologi baru dan canggih diperkenalkan dalam industri ini (diwakilioleh nilai indeks pertumbuhan TECHCH melebehi 1) namun faedah atau resapansebenar pengetahuan yang diperolehi dari pengadaptasian dan penggunaan teknologiadalah sifar (diwakili oleh nilai indeks pertumbuhan kecekapan teknik (EFFCH)bersamaan 1).

Kedua, faedah kecekapan teknik yang semakin merosot contohnya dalam industri 38250,38391, dan 38510 menunjukkan penguasaan teknologi tidak mengikut langkahpengadaptasian teknologi di mana industri tidak mampu mencapai atau menggunakanpengetahuan teknik yang sesuai untuk menjamin output maksimum daripadapenggunaan teknologi canggih. Ini menimbulkan persoalan sama ada perubahan teknikyang terlalu cepat ini telah menghasilkan ketakcekapan teknik atau adakah pekerjadan pengurusan tidak dapat mengadaptasikan diri secara cukup bila teknologi beranjak?Sememangnya penggunaan teknologi tinggi dapat mengurangkan pergantunganMalaysia kepada pekerja asing yang kebanyakannya buruh kurang mahir namunkekurangan buruh mahir Malaysia sendiri akan melambatkan pemakaian teknologibaru untuk menjadi cekap. Sebagaimana yang diketahui penggunaan teknologi barumemerlukan proses pengadaptasian yang memakan masa serta menjejaskanproduktiviti modal pada peringkat awal.

Ketiga, dalam jangka panjang pertumbuhan ekonomi tidak boleh bergantung kepadapertumbuhan input sama ada modal atau butuh semata-mata. Tambahan pula, masalahketerhadan input seperti kekurangan buruh secara umum dan buruh mahir khasnyadan pemilihan penggunaan input akan mempengaruhi pertumbuhan input itu sendiri.Oleh itu aspek yang patut lebih diberikan penekanan ialah pertumbuhan dipimpinkecekapan (efficiency-led growth). Dengan itu disarankan industri pembuatan ICT inimemberikan perhatian kepada peningkatan (deepening) buruh mahir dan bukansemata-mata kepada peningkatan modal sahaja. Industri pembuatan ICT perlumempunyai pekerja yang berkemahiran tinggi untuk mengoperasi mesin yang lebihcanggih. Dengan itu majikan disarankan meningkatkan latihan pekerja bagi mencapaitahap kemahiran dan meningkatkan pengetahuan mereka supaya industri-industridapat mengeluarkan keluaran pada potensi penuh mereka.

Akhirnya, walaupun dasar keterbukaan kepada FDI terutamanya bagi industripembuatan dalam sektor ICT bersama-sama dengan strategi berorientasikan eksporttelah meningkatkan pertumbuhan pengeluaran dan mencapai pertumbuhan TFP yangpositif namun terdapat sumbangan sumber pertumbuhan TFP yang tidak seimbang dimana hanya perubahan teknik sahaja yang menyumbang kepada peningkatanpertumbuhan tersebut sedangkan sumbangan perubahan kecekapan teknik terlalu kecildan dikuatiti bila-bila masa sahaja boleh menjadi negatif. Oleh itu terdapat kebimbangan

24

tentang sama ada pertumbuhan TFP ini akan mapan dalam jangka panjang keranadikuatiri sekiranya tiada pembaikan dalam perubahan kecekapan teknik yangmelibatkan amalan-amalan pengurusan, insentif latihan, dasar-dasar kerajaan,pendidikan dan industri perubahan kecekapan teknik yang hampir negatif akanmerendahkan kadar pertumbuhan TFP di masa akan datang.

RUJUKAN

Caves, D., L. Christensen, and W. E. Diewert. 1982 The theory of index number andmeasurement of input, output and productivity. /. of Econometrics 50,1393-414.

Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decisionmaking units. European ]. of Operational Research 6,429-444.

Coelli, T. 1996. A guide to DEAF version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer)program. CEPA Working Paper 96/08, Australia.

Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, B. Lingren, and P. Roos. 1989. Productivity development inSwedish hospitals: a Malmquist output index approach, memo.

Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang. 1994. Productivity growth, technicalprogress, and efficiency changes in industrialised countries. American EconomicReview 30(3), 655-666.

Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, and W. F. Lee. 1995. Productivity in Taiwanese manufacturingindustries. Applied Economics, 27,259-65.

Farrell, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. /. of Royal Statistical SocietySeries A (General) 120,253-281.

Mahadevan, R. 2001. Assessing the output and productivity growth of Malaysia'smanufacturing sector. /. of Asian Economics 12(4) 587-597.

Mahadevan, R. 2002. A DEA approach to understanding the productivity growth ofMalaysia's manufacturing industries. Asia Pacific], of Management, 19, 587-600.

National Productivity Corporation of Malaysia. The Productivity Report 1999.Okamoto, Y. 1994. Impacts of trade and FDI liberalization policies on the Malaysian

economy. The Developing Economies 32(4), 460-478.Tham, S. Y. 1996. Productivity and competitiveness of Malaysian manufacturing sector.

Paper presented at the 7th Malaysian Plan National Convention, Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 August.

Tham, S. Y. 1997. Determinants of productivity growth in the Malaysian manufacturingsector. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 13(3) 333-343.

World Bank. 1989. Malaysia: matching risks and rewards in a mixed economyprogramme. Washington D.C. World bank.

25

LAMPIRAN

JADUAL1Industri Pembuatan ICT- Pengkelasan MSIC 2000 dan MIC 72MSIC 20003000

3001

3002

31303130131302

31309

3210

32101

3210232109

32200

32300

33120

33130

Penjelasan MSIC 2000Membuat mesin pejabat, pengiraandan perakaunanMembuat mesin pejabat danperakaunanMembuat komputer dan peralatankomputerMembuat kabel dan dawaiMembuat kabel telekomunikasiMembuat kabel kuasa elektrik dandawaiMembuat dawai insulated lain dankabelMmbuat valve elektronik dan Hubdan komponen elektronik lainMembuat alat separa-konduktor

Membuat valve elektronik dan hubMembuat komponen elektroniklainMembuat transmiter televisyen danradio dan perkakas bagi taliantalipon dan telegrafiMembuat penerima tebvisyen danradio, rakamam bunyi atau videoatau perkakas pengeluar, danbarangan berkaitan

Membuat alat dan perkakas bagimengukur, menyiasat, menguji,mengemudi (navigating) dantujuan-tujuan lain, kecuali alatkawalan proses industriMembuat alat kawalan prosesindustri

MIC 72

38250

38250

3839138391

38391

38329

3832938329

38329

38322,38321,38329

38510

38510

Penjelasan MIC 72

Membuat mesin pejabat, pengiraandan perakaunan

Membuat kabel dan dawai

Komponen separa-konduktor danelektronik lain dan peralatankomunikasi dan perkakasan

Membuat rekod gramafon dan tapemagnetik; radio dan set televisyen,pengeluaran bunyi dan peralatanperakaman; separa-konduktor dankomponen lain dan peralatankomunikasi dan bekalanMembuat alat profesional dansaintifik serta ukuran dan kawalan

Sumber: Palanyandy (2000).

26

JADUAL 2Industri Pembuatan ICT (lama) dan Industri Pembuatan (baru) Pengkelasan MSIC 2000 danMIC 72

MSIC 200022110

22120

22130

2219022300

Penjelasan MSIC 2000Menerbit buku, brochures,buku musik dan lainpenerbitanMenerbit surat khabar,jurnal dan berkalaMenerbit media dtrekod

Menerbit lain-lainMengeluar semula mediadirekod

MIC 7234200

34200

38322

3420038322

Penjelasan MIC 72Mencetak, menerbit danindustri berkaitan

rekod gramopon dan pitamagnetic rekod awal

Sumber: Sumber: Palanyandy (2000).

JADUAL 3Statistik Utama Industri Pembuatan ICT

Tahun

1986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998*1999

BilanganPertubuhan

38539048444956263668075677711871597184218451847

Kadar Pertumbuhan Tahunan (%)

NilaiKasarOutput14.7134.8142.5930.9732.9647.0814.7726.99134.80-30.6117.245.8923.4018.96

NilaiDitambah

-0.5513.7529.9529.2335.9637.8524.3823.1627.8927.0121.2611.9916.0813.85

GunaTenaga

3.4312.4138.149.6431.4920.149.1817.3110.729.909.01-3.702.952.87

Upah danGaji

0.747.3329.5618.1731.5934.6121.9723.3222.4124.6219.753.678.137.52

Nilai AsetTetap

0.4811.4344.7921.6266.7039.1319.8324.9620.6626.5420.9712.669.899.01

Nota: tiada penyiasatan dilakukan pada 1998. Angka adalah anggaran.Industri terlibat mengikut MIC 72:34200,38250,38321,38322,38329,38391, dan 38510.Sumber: Dihitung daripada Penyiasatan Tahunan Industri Pembuatan Malaysia, JabatanPerangkaan Malaysia, berbagai keluaran.

27

JADUAL 4Perubahan-perubahan Teknik, Kecekapan dan TFP Purata dalam Industri Pembuatan ICT

Tahun1988/891989/901990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/99

Min

EFFCH0.9991.1171.0420.8651.0150.9601.0581.0300.8441.1191.001

TECH1.2070.8370.9571.1071.0651.0861.0281.0951.4470.9641.147

CHPECH0.8601.1141.0780.9591.0490.9740.9931.0130.9680.9250.991

SECH1.1621.0030.9670.9030.9670.9851.0661.0160.8721.2091.010

TFPCH1.2060.9350.9980.9581.0811.0421.0881.1281.2201.0791.070

JADUAL 5Penghuraian TFP dengan Kgsan Skel: Perubahan Tahunan Purata

Industri382503832138322383293839138510Min

EFFCH0.9871.0501.0311.0000.9520.9881.001

TECHCH1.0441.0421.0931.0601.1151.0611.069

PECH0.9881.0151.0001.0000.9520.9900.991

SECH0.9991.0341.0311.0000.9990.9991.010

TFPCH1.0311.0931.1271.0601.0611.0481.070

Nota: 38250: membuat mesin pejabat, pengiraan dan perakaunan; 38321: membuat set radiodan televisyen, perkakas pengeluar dan perakam bunyi; 38322: membuat piring hitam danpita magnet yang telah dirakam; 38329: separa konduktor dan komponen elektronik danalat dan radas perhubungan lain; 38391: membuat kabel dan dawai; dan 38510: membuatalat profesional dan saintifik serta ukuran dan kazualan.

28

JADUAL 6Perubahan Berbagai Ukuran Kecekapan dan TFP mengikut Industri

INDUSTRI 38250TAHUN1988/891989/901990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/99

EFFCH1.0000.6331.4910.7621.3900.7661.1811.0851.0190.880

INDUSTRI 38322TAHUN EFFCH1988/891989/901990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/99

0.8931.9040.8480.6810.6951.1061.3511.2790.9631.084

INDUSTRI 38391TAHUN EFFCH1988/891989/901990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/99

1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.8740.8260.843

TECH1.2790.6640.9461.1081.0231.0461.0971.0881.5510.875

TECH1.1790.9680.9001.1161.1991.1130.9471.1021.6410.928

TECH1.3211.1820.8631.0931.1791.0810.9461.1021.6410.928

PECH1.0000.6561.4710.8131.2740.8541.1711.0001.0000.887

PECH0.4462.2431.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000

PECH1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.8860.8220.843

SECH1.0000.9651.0140.9371.0910.8971.0091.0851.0190.992

SECH2.0040.8490.8480.6810.6951.1061.3511.2790.9631.084

SECH1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.9861.0051.000

TFPCH1.2790.4201.4110.8441.4220.8011.2951.1811.5810.770

TFPCH1.0531.8440.7630.7600.8331.2321.2801.4091.5801.005

TFPCH1.3211.1820.8631.0931.1791.0810.9460.9631.3560.782

INDUSTKI 38321EFFCH0.9731.5591.0700.9401.0391.0241.0001.0000.9311.074

TECH1.1930.6971.0151.0780.9961.0631.1111.1081.1591.097

INDUSTRI 38329EFFCH TECH1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.6861.457

1.1360.8061.0251.1200.9831.1021.0731.0841.4870.908

INDUSTRI 38510EFFCH TECH1.1441.0330.9490.8601.0870.9020.8810.9840.6961.559

1.1470.8061.0061.1301.0321.1131.0061.0871.2731.073

PECH0.8541.2821.0650.9561.0471.0001.0001.0001.0001.000

PECH1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000

PECH1.0601.0131.0001.0001.0001.0000.8191.2211.0000.838

SECH1.1401.2161.0040.9840.9931.0241.0001.0000.9311.074

SECH1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.6861.457

SECH1.0791.0200.9490.8601.0870.9021.0760.8050.6961.860

TFPCH1.1611.0871.0851.0141.0341.0881.1111.1081.0791.178

TFPCH1.1360.8061.0251.1200.9831.1021.0731.0841.0201.323

TFPCH1.3120.8320.9540.9721.1221.0040.8861.0700.8861.673

1.6

1.4

I 1-2 H

.5 1.0

0.8

0.689 90 91 92 93 94

tahun

95 96 97 98

•effch•techch•tfpch

Rajah 1 Arah Aliran Perubahan Kecekapan (effch), Teknik (techch) dan JumlahProduktiviti Faktor (tfpch} dalam Industri Pembuatan ICT

29

2.000

1.600 -

1.200 -

0.800 -

0.400

•effch• techch•tfpch

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

tahun

Ro/oh 2: Arah Aliran ej^Wi, techch dan tfpch dalam Industri Membuat Mesin Pejabat,Pengiraan dan Perakaunan (38250)

•8-oc

2.0OO1.8001.6001.4001.2001.0000.8000.6000.400

effchtechchtfpch

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

tahun

Rajah 3 Arah Aliran effch, techch dan tfpch dalam Industri Membuat Set Radio dan TV,Perkakas Pengeluar dan Perakam Bunyi (38321)

1.8001.600 -|

„ 1.400 -•S 1.200"* 1.000 -

0.800 -0.600

-effch- techch-tfpch

90 91 92 93 94

tahun

95 96 97 98

Rajah 4 Arah Aliran effch, techch dan tfpch dalam Industri Membuat Firing Hitam danPita Magnet yang telah Dirakam (38322)

30

effchtechchtfpch

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

tahun

5 Arah Aliran effch, techch dan tfpch dalam Industri Separa Konduktor danKomponen Elektronik dan Alat Radas Ferhubungan lain (38329)

2.000 n

1.500 -in

-3 1.000-.5

0.500 -

0.000 -89 90 91 92 93 94 • 95 96 97 98

tahun

Rajah 6 Arah Aliran effch, techch dan tfpch dalam Industri Membuat Kabel dan Dawai(39391)

1.8 -i1.6 -1.41.2 -

0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

tahun

Rajah 7 Arah Aliran effch, techch dan tfpch dalam Industri Membuat Alat Prof esionaldan Saintifik serta Ukuran dan Kawalan (38510)

31

SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY SECTOR: AN OVERVIEW

By

MOHHIDIN OTHMANThe Scottish Hotel School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom

NOR FAZILA HASHIMNational Productivity Corporation

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Abstract

This paper examines the concept of service quality, its developments, definitions, models,instruments and issues relating to service quality measurements and performances in thehospitality sector. Special attention is given to the works ofParasuraman et al and the proponentsof the North American School. On the other hand, the review also explores the works of theresearchers from the Nordic School led by Gronroos. The focus of the discussion is centred on thearguments of both quantitative and qualitative methods aims at providing customers feedbackby measuring the different service quality gaps. Despite of being a popular tool, SERVQUAL isnot spared from criticism for being toofocussed on the process of the service delivery rather thanthe outcomes of the service encounter. Meanwhile, the proponents of the qualitative methodpointed out that customers do not always evaluate service quality in terms of expectations andperceptions. Other related issues discussed are the links between service quality to human resourcemanagement practices, productivity and empowerment.

INTRODUCTION.

Service quality has become an important topic in business primarily during the lasttwo decades. Quality management systems have been identified as ways and means ofincreasing the professionalism and social competence of the staff by making them moresensitive to customer requirements. This paper will review the concept of service quality,its developments, definitions, models, instruments and issues relating to service qualitymeasurements and performances in the hospitality industry.J.M. Juran, (1994) a consultant on quality control and a pioneer in the development ofprinciples and methods for managing quality control programs, pointed out that allinstitutions, whether for manufacturing, service or others purpose, face problemspertaining to quality. However, for manufacturing industries, a lot of work has beendone, in the past three decades to find solutions to problems on quality issues. Some

33

successful universal solutions have been identified and are a great aid to the practitioners.Among them are process capability, the Pareto Principle, quality cost analysis andstatistical methodology. However, some of the applications are not really suitable foruse in the service industries.

According to J.M. Juran, service is work, which is performed for someone else. Therecipient of the service, often called the client, can be an individual user, an institutionor both. In addition, service work may include sale of the product, for example, food inrestaurants and spare parts used during automobile repair. However, the sale of aproduct is normally incidental to the work performed for client or customer. In hisdefinition of service industries, Juran includes public transportation, public utilities,restaurants, hotels and motels, marketing finance, news media, personal services,professional services and government services but excludes manufacture, agriculture,mining and construction. The important contribution of services in the world economyhas been realized since the late 1970s. This point is reflected in the number of scholarlyarticles mainly devoted to topics such as customer satisfaction, service quality, customerservice and services marketing. In addition to that, many companies are increasinglyre-examining their relationship with the customer. As a consequence, service qualityand customer satisfaction are being seen as an integral part of total quality management.

The evolution of service quality started in the 1980s, where the first wave of researchersdefined the frontiers of service quality. Among these pioneers in service quality researchare those who have made an impact on service management and also are 'householdnames' in the more general business community (Rust, 1994). Some of these 'householdnames' are Christian Gronroos, Len Berry, A. Parasuraman, Valarie Zeithaml, LynnShostack, Steve Brown, Terri Swartz, Larry Crosby, Mary Jo Bitner and Steve Grove(Rust, 1994). We can now consider some of the key contributors made by these influentialthinkers.

ed Service Quality

Figure 1 Gronroos' Model of Service Quality Delivery.Source: Johns (1996:14)

34

Christian Gronroos of Finland established a research agenda for service qualitymeasurement. In 1983, Gronroos offers a model (Fig.l) based on the relationship betweencorporate image, technical quality and functional quality. As can be seen in Figure 1Gronroos defines the technical content of the service as the outcome received by theservice customer. As an example the quality of a hair cut. While the functional qualityis the way the service is delivered, as an example promptly or efficiently. In other words,he stressed on the importance of gap between perceived and expected quality. Most ofGrSnroos' work is seen as representative of the approach of the Nordic School of Services.In another work, Gronroos (1994), he stressed that the principles of 'scientificmanagement' are not applicable to the same extent as before in the industrial society. Inthe earlier studies by Levitt (1972,1976), Levitt treated 'service' similar to products inthe factory. Levitt (1972) shows how companies like McDonald and Honeywell havesuccessfully applied manufacturing approaches to solve people-intensive serviceproblems. In industrialization of service, Levitt (1976) demonstrated how inefficiencyin service industries could be overcome through the application of assembly-linetechniques. In fast-food restaurants, like McDonald's, Burger Kings, Pizza Hut, Dunkin'sDonut, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, each applied the same rational system of divisionof labour and specialization is rigorously followed to produce speed, quality control,cleanliness, and low prices. On the contrary, Gronroos pointed that during the post-industrial society companies faced what are known as service competition, hencemanaging services has become of strategic importance for service firms andmanufacturers of goods alike. In one of his recent works, GrOnroos' compares traditionalmarketing models to service marketing models, stating that the most importantcharacteristics of services is the fact that services are processes, not things (Gronroos,2001.) He further elaborates that a service firm has no products, only interactive processesand the consumption of physical products can be described as 'outcome consumption',while the consumption of services can be characterized as 'process consumption'. Mostof the publications from Gronroos were published in Swedish, Finnish, Danish orNorwegian although a number of publications were in English.

On the other hand, the so-called North American school of service quality managementas led by A.Parasuraman, Len Berry, and Valarie Zeithaml. They devised an influentialservice quality measurement scale known as SERVQUAL in 1988. Parasuraman et al.,have become famous for their 'gap' model that identifies five discrepancies, or 'gaps'which may develop in the service supply process and interfere with the serviceexperience. In 1991, Parasuraman et al. refined the questionnaire instrument calledSERVQUAL scale. As indicated later, SERVQUAL has eventually evolved to becomeone of the most important tools in the service quality measurement, especially amongthe proponents of quantitative researchers. Many of the subsequent works on servicequality was benchmark against Parasuraman et al.'s SERVQUAL.

The second wave of researchers in the 1990's consists of a new generation of researchers,where most of them are highly trained in quantitative methods, psychology, sociology,

35

or anthropology {Rust, 1995). Among the quantitative modellers are Ruth Bolton andJim Drew at GTE, Claes Fornell, Wayne DeSarbo and Gene Anderson at Michigan, JohnHauser and Birger Wernerfelt at MIT, Rick Staelin and Bill Boulding at Duke, SteveShugan at Florida, Donna Hoffman at Vanderbilt, Valarie Folkes at USC, Aaron Ahuviaat Michigan.

The above researchers merely expanded the field of investigation and built upon theworks of the first wave, which still continues to make important contributions. In 1990,Vandebilt University founded its Centre for Services Marketing, which becomes a focalpoint for cutting edge thought in the management of service quality; its Owen GraduateSchool of Management also instituted an innovative curriculum in customer serviceand service quality. Vandebilt's strong ties to both leading academic researchers andthe business community created a new opportunity to expand the scope of research inservice quality. Many of the second waves researchers are still making cutting-edgecontributions to service quality, much of their earlier works were looking at measuringthe various elements of service quality and the philosophising about nature of customersvalue.

The followings literature examines the meaning of service and issues relating to servicequality.

SERVICE AND SERVICE QUALITY.

Unlike goods, services contain some intangible elements. In reality it is possible to seethat in services the intangible and tangible benefits are usually clustered together.Nevertheless, services have always demonstrated varying degrees of the tangibledominant and the intangible dominant. Service is defined by Palmer (1993:3) as:

The production of an essentially intangible benefit, either in its own right oras significant element of a tangible product, which through some form ofexchange satisfies an identified need.

On the other hand, services to Regan (1963:57) are 'activities, benefits or satisfactionswhich are offered for sale, or are provided in connection with the sale of goods'. Hefurther elaborates that services are either intangibles yielding satisfactions directly(insurance), tangibles yielding satisfactions directly (transportation, housing), orintangibles yielding satisfactions jointly when purchased either with commodities orother services (credit, delivery). Meanwhile purchased meals, a joint commodity-servicegroup has been classified as a nondurable commodity and a shoe repair is classified ass service. Again as Regan (1963) notes, the question is how much service is involved indining at a restaurant or a snack bar? Generally though the key point to note is thatRegan believes that the intangibility, perishability, heterogeneity, and ubiquitous nature

36

of services make total comprehension of services difficult. However, Regan added thatthe above phrase may take on variables meanings depending upon whether the usageis directed to employment, national accounting or marketing activities.

The core service features of intangibility, inseparability, variability, and perishablity(Cowell, 1994) provide service organizations with some difficulties and dilemmas inmanaging delivery of services. As has been already noted at the early stage ofconceptualisation of service quality, Gronroos (1984) identified technical and functionalelements for defining service quality. Technical elements are mainly concerned withwhat is delivered, the quantifiable aspects of the service. While the functional elementsare dealing with how it is delivered, and focuses more on customer judgements of service,based on the interaction between service deliverer and consumer.

On the other hand, Bitner and Hubbert (1994) defined service quality as the customer'soverall impression of the relative inferiority or superiority of the organization and itsservices. According to Keiser, DeMicco and Grimes (2000), the two fundamentals ofservice quality are:

1% Meeting or positively exceeding expectation through quality product(food) and service ('doing the right things').1% 'Doing things right' to ensure profitability through process engineeringand guarding.

Similarly, service quality is basically doing the right things for guest/customers anddoing things right (the process, defect free, including standard operation procedures(SOP), guests policies and so on). Although a lots have been written on the service andservice quality, thus attracting endless debates among the researchers, nevertheless itis still necessary to examine some of the important concepts of service quality in orderto better explain the whole concept of service quality.

THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY.

Kotler and Armstrong (1999) imply that service quality is harder to define and judgecompared to product quality. This is due to the fact that it is always varies, dependingon the interactions between employees and customers. However, in research conductedby Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), they concluded that service qualitydefinition as a discrepancy between customer's expectations and perceptions. The keyfactors, such as word-of-mouth, communications, and personal needs, past experienceand external communications influence customer's expectations. At the same time, theyidentified ten general dimensions that represent the evaluative criteria customers useto access service quality.

Table 1 shows the initial finding of Parasuraman et al. (1988), the SERVQUALDimensions and Figure 2 shows customer assessment of service quality.

37

TABLE 1The Customers View of Service Quality

I

2

34

5

6789

10

Dimension

Tangible

Reliability

ResponsivenessCompetence

Courtesy

CredibilitySecurityAccessibilityCommunication

UnderstandingThe Customers

Definition

Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personal andcommunication materials.Ability to perform the promised service dependably andaccurately.Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.Possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform theservice.Politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of contactpersonnel.Trustworthiness, believability, honesty of the service provider.Freedom from danger, risk or doubt.ApproachabiJity and ease of contact.Keeping customers informed in language they can understandand listening to them.Making the effort to know customers and their needs.

DIMENSIONS

1.Tangible2.Reliability3. Responsiveness4.Competence5.Courtesy6.Cr edibility7.Security8. Accessibility9. Communication10.Understanding

the customer.

Figure 2: Customer assessment of Service Quality.Source: Parasumman et al. (1990:23)

Parasuraman et al. (1988) further indicated that consumers quality perception areinfluenced by four distinct gaps which may occur in organizations and a gap whichmay occur from the customers side. The gaps are as the followings:Gap 1: Differences between consumer expectations and management

perceptions of the consumer expectations.Gap 2: Differences between management perceptions of consumer

expectations and service quality specifications.

38

Gap 3: Differences between service quality specifications and actual servicedelivered.

Gap 4: Differences between service quality delivery and what is beingcommunicated about the service to customers (external communications).

Gap 5: Differences between consumer expectations and consumer perceptions ofservice.

At a later stage, Parasuraman et al. (1990) then summarized the ten dimensions intofive dimensions as shown in figure 3.

In 1988, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry designed SERVQUAL, a 22 facet measurethat tapped service quality. In their argument, service quality is more about theconsumer's judgement about the entity's overall excellence or superiority. In many waysit is similar to attitude, a psychological state indicative of an enduring affect orientationwhile service satisfaction relates to specific transaction, (Parasuraman, 1988). Theinstrument uses a 7- point Likert scale; from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Subjectswere asked to indicate the expectation (E) (the service that should be offered by thefirm) and the perception (P) (the actual delivery of the service). Hence, the service quality(Q) is better expressed as Q= P - E. In relation to that, SERVQUAL also consists of fivestable dimensions (down from an initial ten dimensions): The dimensions are tangibles,used to measure each dimension (Table 2). An analysis of SERVQUAL data can takeseveral forms: items-by -item analysis, as an example PI-El, P2- E2 or dimension-by-dimension analysis, example (P1+P2+P3+P4/4) - (E1+E2+E3+E4/4), where PI to P4,and El to E4, represent the four perception and expectation statements relating to singledimension. The computation of single measure of service quality (P1+P2+P3...+P22/22)- E1+E2+E3+...E22/22) is known as SERVQUAL gap (Buttle, 1996). In 1991,Parasuraman et al. published a follow-up study, which has refined their previous work.The revision includes changes in wording in the statements, as an example the revisedwording now focussed on what customers would expect from excellent servicecompanies. The authors further argued that SERVQUAL was a generic instrument andhighly reliable with a consistent factor structure and usable in many organizations withsome changes in wording if necessary.

TABLE 2SERVQUAL dimensions.

DimensionsReliability

Assurance

Tangibles

Empathy

Responsiveness

DefinitionThe ability to perform the promised service dependablyand accuratelyThe knowledge and courtesy of employees and theirability to convey trust and confidenceThe appearance of physical facilities, equipment,personnel and communication materialsThe provision of caring, individualized attention tocustomersThe willingness to help customers and to provide promptservice

Items in scale4

5

4

5

4

Source: Buttle (1996:13)

39

Marketing research orientation

Upward communication

Levels of management

Management commitment toquality of service

Goal setting

Task standardization

Perception of feasibility ——

Teamwork

Employee Job-fit

Technology job fit

——

Perceived control ]

Supervisory control systems

Role conflict

Role ambiguity

-

Horizontal communication

Propensity to overpromise

Tangible

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

1— Empathy

Figure 3 The Extended Gaps Model of Quality of Service.Source: Parasuraman (1990:131)

Parasuraman et al.'s work, according to Buttle (1996), provides a technology formeasuring and managing service quality. The technology has since being furtherdeveloped, promulgated and promoted by Parasuraman et al. through their publications.The applications of SERVQUAL has since been tested is various industries, commercialand non-profit settings by many researchers. Published studies in hospitality sectorsincludes, hotels (Saleh and Ryan, 1992), travel and tourism (Pick and Ritchie, 1991),hospitality (Johns, 1993), recreational services (Taylor et at., 1993) and airline catering(Babakusetal.,1993).

40

TABLE 3Evolution of Service Quality Instruments Since SERVQUAL.

INSTRUMENTSERVQUAL (1988)LODGSERVE (1991)SERVPERF (1992)DINESERV (1995)INTQUAL (1997)INTERSERVQUAL (1999)

HOLSERV (1999)

AUTHORSPASARURAMAN et al.KNUTSON et al.CRONIN AND TAYLORKNUTSON et al.CARUANA AND PITTWHITE AND RUDALL

AMY WONG OOI et al.

INDUSTRYGENERAL SERVICEHOTEL / LODGINGGENERAL SERVICERESTAURANTGENERAL SERVICEINTERNAL SERVICEQUALITY/HOSPITALITYHOTEL/ HOSPITALITY

Using, SERVQUAL as a foundation, Knutson, Stevens, Wullaer, Fatten, and Yokoyama(1991) developed LODGSERV, a specific instrument to measure consumers' expectationsand perceptions of service quality in the lodging industry. They further confirmed thefive generic dimensions hypothesized by Parasurman et al. (1988). In this studyconfirmatory factor analysis develop by Hunter and Gerbing was used to purify thescale and confirm the five at dimensions of service quality. Originally 36 items weredeveloped, but they later found that only 26 items were contributing to the LODGSERVindex and it has the same five dimensions as SERVQUAL. In Knutson et al.'s research,reliability was found to be the most important of the five dimensions, followed byassurance, responsiveness, tangibles and empathy. The same instrument was used totest consumers expectations based on the price segment: economy, mid-price and luxuryhotels in the United States. The findings proved that the five dimensions maintainedtheir ranking position across the three segments. They also determined that the higherthe hotel price, the higher the service quality expectations. Patton et al. (1994) eventranslated LODGSERV into Japanese and Chinese and administered the instrument inJapan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia and the UK. The studies found that LODGSERVstill retains its reliability even when administered in cultures outside the US. However,the validity of LODGSERV was not measured in the latter study.

In 1992, Cronin and Taylor further investigated the concept of service quality asdeveloped by Parasuraman et al. (1988), by concentrating on satisfaction and attitude.Cronin and Taylor however, identified the performance-based measure of servicequality, which raised concerns by Parasuraman et al. that the performance-minus-expectation is an inappropriate basis for use in the measurement of service quality. InSERVPERF model Cronin and Taylor found that service quality has a statisticallysignificant effect in three industries (banking, pest control, and fast food). Similarly toSERVQUAL, SERVPERF also uses 22 items measurement. They also examined therelationship between service quality, consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions.Using several interactions of expectations, perceptions and importance measures, Croninand Taylor developed several tests on the operation of service quality. Based on theresearch Cronin and Taylor found using SERVPERF to measure the service perceptions

41

alone explained the most variance in the measurement of overall service quality. Theysuggested that performance-based measures better reflect long-term service qualityattitudes in cross-sectional studies. Cronin and Taylor (1994) believe that the SERVPERFscale can provide managers with a summation of overall service quality score that canbe plotted relative to time and specific consumer subgroups (e.g., demographicsubcategories, individual constituencies)

In order to adapt SERVQUAL into the restaurant setting, Knutson, Stevens, and Patton(1995) developed DINESERV. DINESERV was drafted using the lessons learned indeveloping and refining LODGESERV. Initially the instrument contained 40 statementsof what should happen. Responses were on a seven-point scale, from 'strongly agree'to 'strongly disagree'. A random sample of people was selected from telephonedirectories of a midsize city in the north central United States and DINESERV was usedto conduct telephone interviews with adults who said that they had eaten out six ormore times during the previous six months. The interviewers asked the respondentswhether and where they had dined out in the past week. The respondents were askedabout their expectations of the restaurants they had gone to whether it is a fine-dining,casual dining, or quick service establishments. A total of 596 respondents were contacted,consisting of 200 for fine dining, 198 for casual dining, and 198 for quick servicerestaurants. The researchers insisted on a sample size of about 200 for each group becausethe other scales developed in the marketing area had used similar sample sizes to purifyinitial instruments. At the end of the day, the survey items were reduced to only 29,consisting of 10 items representing tangibles, 5 representing reliability, 3 forresponsiveness, 5 for assurance and 5 for empathy. Again, the DINESERV proved tohave a high degree of reliability and the finding pointed out that there were no significantdifferences in consumers' service quality expectations across the three restaurantcategories. This is because the distribution of total indexes scores suggested thatconsumers have only small differences in their 'expectations' of service quality acrossthe three restaurant categories. According to Knutson et al. (1995) perceived quality isa function of the interaction among three independent variables: normative expectations,predictive expectations, and actual service quality. The lower the expectations theconsumers have about what should happen, the better their perceptions of the actualservice. And the higher their expectations about what will happen, the better theirperception of the actual service. Hence, in their opinion marketing can plays an importantroles in improving customers' perceptions about service, one of the ways is to improvethe service, lower the expectations of what should happen and raise the expectationsabout what will happen (Knutson et al. 1995.) Consequently, Knutson et al. feel thatDINESERV is a valid, reliable, and a cost effective instrument. They believe to administerDINESERV by telephone is easy and easy to respond to and using it will be well worththe effort.

Caruana and Pitt (1997) investigated the relationship between internal service qualityand business performance by using two measuring instruments. First, the questionnaire

42

reliability was found to be the most important of the five dimensions, followed byassurance, responsiveness, tangibles and empathy. The same instrument was used totest consumers expectations based on the price segment: economy, mid-price and luxuryhotels in the United States. The findings proved that the five dimensions maintainedtheir ranking position across the three segments. They also determined that the higherthe hotel price, the higher the service quality expectations. Fatten et al. (1994) eventranslated LODGSERV into Japanese and Chinese and administered the instrument inJapan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia and the UK. The studies found that LODGSERVstill retains its reliability even when administered in cultures outside the US. However,the validity of LODGSERV was not measured in the latter study.

In 1992, Cronin and Taylor further investigated the concept of service quality asdeveloped by Parasuraman et al. (1988), by concentrating on satisfaction and attitude.Cronin and Taylor however, identified the performance-based measure of servicequality, which raised concerns by Parasuraman et al. that the performance-minus-expectation is an inappropriate basis for use in the measurement of service quality. InSERVPERF model Cronin and Taylor found that service quality has a statisticallysignificant effect in three industries (banking, pest control, and fast food). Similarly toSERVQUAL, SERVPERF also uses 22 items measurement. They also examined therelationship between service quality, consumer satisfaction and purchase intentions.Using several interactions of expectations, perceptions and importance measures, Croninand Taylor developed several tests on the operation of service quality. Based on theresearch Cronin and Taylor found using SERVPERF to measure the service perceptionsalone explained the most variance in the measurement of overall service quality. Theysuggested that performance-based measures better reflect long-term service qualityattitudes in cross-sectional studies. Cronin and Taylor (1994) believe that the SERVPERFscale can provide managers with a summation of overall service quality score that canbe plotted relative to time and specific consumer subgroups (e.g., demographicsubcategories, individual constituencies)

In order to adapt SERVQUAL into the restaurant setting, Knutson, Stevens, and Patton(1995) developed DINESERV. DINESERV was drafted using the lessons learned indeveloping and refining LODGESERV. Initially the instrument contained 40 statementsof what should happen. Responses were on a seven-point scale, from 'strongly agree'to 'strongly disagree'. A random sample of people was selected from telephonedirectories of a midsize city in the north central United States and DINESERV was usedto conduct telephone interviews with adults who said that they had eaten out six ormore times during the previous six months. The interviewers asked the respondentswhether and where they had dined out in the past week. The respondents were askedabout their expectations of the restaurants they had gone to whether it is a fine-dining,casual dining, or quick service establishments. A total of 596 respondents were contacted,consisting of 200 for fine dining, 198 for casual dining, and 198 for quick servicerestaurants. The researchers insisted on a sample size of about 200 for each group because

43

the other scales developed in the marketing area had used similar sample sizes to purifyinitial instruments. At the end of the day, the survey items were reduced to only 29,consisting of 10 items representing tangibles, 5 representing reliability, 3 forresponsiveness, 5 for assurance and 5 for empathy. Again, the DINESERV proved tohave a high degree of reliability and the finding pointed out that there were no significantdifferences in consumers' service quality expectations across the three restaurantcategories. This is because the distribution of total indexes scores suggested thatconsumers have only small differences in their 'expectations' of service quality acrossthe three restaurant categories. According to Knutson et al. (1995) perceived quality isa function of the interaction among three independent variables: normative expectations,predictive expectations, and actual service quality. The lower the expectations theconsumers have about what should happen, the better their perceptions of the actualservice. And the higher their expectations about what will happen, the better theirperception of the actual service. Hence, in their opinion marketing can plays an importantroles in improving customers' perceptions about service, one of the ways is to improvethe service, lower the expectations of what should happen and raise the expectationsabout what will happen (Knutson et al. 1995.) Consequently, Knutson et al. feel thatDINESERV is a valid, reliable, and a cost effective instrument. They believe to administerDINESERV by telephone is easy and easy to respond to and using it will be well worththe effort.

Caruana and Pitt (1997) investigated the relationship between internal service qualityand business performance by using two measuring instruments. First, the questionnaireitems for the service quality, which were developed, based on Parasuraman et al/swork and also a focus group involving 18 managers from service firms. They generated41 measurement items, which later reduced to 34. These items were measured on aseven-point Likert type scale. A mail survey was directed to the marketing director of1,000 of the largest service firms in the UK. The list was taken from FAME CD-ROMdatabase. Even with a reply-paid envelope, only 131 usable responses were receivedwith an effective response rate of 13.1 percent. In their attempt to measure performance,Caruana and Pitt resort to subjective perceptual measure based on Pearce et al. (1987),which indicated subjective evaluations, are reliable means for measuring performance.Although a subjective measure, a Likert scale consisting of three items was used tomeasure performance, two of the items supposed to measure Return on capital employed(ROCE) and sales growth of the respondent's firm in the last five years relative to othercompanies in the industry. The third item asked respondents on their impression oftheir firm's overall performance in the last five years, relative to others. Basically, thestudy utilized Parasuraman et al. model, however INTQUAL focuses on internal actionsthat management needs to implement to ensure a quality service to customers. Thefindings suggested that the service quality delivered by a business has an effect onperformance. In their opinion, INTQUAL is fairly a reliable instrument, mainly as aninternal measure. Partly because it offers an opportunity to investigate links between

44

quality and performance among non-profit organizations where profitability is not themain concerned.

While most of the earlier studies were focused on external customers perceptions, Whiteand Rudall (1999) also carried out an investigation of the dimensions and measurementof internal service quality (the internal customers) in the hospitality industry. Theresearchers developed INTERSERVQUAL, which focused specifically on the internalservice domain and included the dimensions that were not included in SERVQUAL.INTSERVQUAL uses twenty-seven items, as compared to twenty-two items used byParasuraman et al. (1988) to capture the dimensions not contained in SERVQUAL. Anine-point scale accompanied each item. The data was collected from a largeentertainment and gaming complex, the site was chosen because the organization wasinterested in possible outcomes of the proposal and willingness to cooperate. For thestudy, four departments were selected; with the maintenance department as the internalservice provider as it provide services to all departments within the complex. The servicereceiving departments were identified as food and beverage, Housekeeping and gamingdepartment.

The study used a sample consisting of employees who worked in the receivingdepartments and have had experienced the service of the maintenance department.The sample size selected was representative of the actual organization's demographicand profile. The human resource department distributed a total of 180 questionnaires,which generated 140 usable responses. Employees were surveyed to determined theirperceptions and expectations of the services provided by the maintenance department.The results indicated that there is high degree of reliability of both scales (as theresearchers used both instruments SERVQUAL and INTSERVQUAL in their studies)and the use of INTSERVQUAL was more appropriate in conceptualising and measuringof internal service quality. The study shows that internal customers use five distinctdimensions that capture the area of empathy, reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, andassurance when evaluating internal service quality.

Meanwhile, HOLSERV, which was developed, by Mei, Dean, and White (1999) is alsoan extension of the SERVQUAL scale. HOLSERV however included eight new itemsthat specifically pertain to the hospitality industry. Some modifications on thequestionnaires items was done to suit the hospitality setting, changes were made tocertain items and inclusion of new items and deletion of items. A one-column formatquestionnaire was used in this study with a single rating ten-point scale. A total of1,000 questionnaires and covering letter were distributed to guests of five hotels inAustralia. The hotel standard ranges from three-star to five-star hotels. The study wascarried out for duration of four months and a sample size of 155 respondents werecollected. The response rate of 15.5 percent was considered good. The key findings ofthe study are service quality is represented by three dimensions in the hospitalityindustry relating to employees (behaviour and appearance), tangibles and reliability.

45

Based on this research Mei et al. found that the best predictor of overall service qualityis the dimensions referred to as "employees". In this study the researchers found thatthe one-column format questionnaires provides a valid and reliable, but also muchshorter, survey. Meanwhile, Mei et al. felt that hotel managers in order to uncover thecauses of underlying problems area identified in the study should supplement andrefined HOLSERV scale with additional qualitative research such as in-depth interviewsor focus group discussions. However, HOLSERV is a good and useful starting point,and it is not the final answer for assessing and improving quality (Mei et al. 1999).In summary, SERVQUAL despite a number of theoretical and operational criticisms,has endured as a highly valued and widely applied instruments in measuring customerperceptions of service quality as shown in table below. Table 3 demonstrates variousinstruments used in measurement of service quality and understandably some of thedimensions used are very similar to Parasuraman et al. work. It has undoubtedly had amajor impact on the business, as well as academic community. Parasuraman et al. haveled the way in developing a conceptual model of service quality and introducedSERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale which is very significance for future research.However, most of the above mentioned techniques are quantitative in nature, whichmay seem to assume that consumers and providers perceive service performance insimilar terms. Some researchers think this is very unlikely, as indeed advertising maybe view as an attempt to bring the two views into line (Johns 1996). Johns believe thatqualitative research is needed to identify the main features of consumers' and providers'mythologies, such that the gap between the two may be reduced. On the other hand,the qualitative research that focuses on profile accumulation (PAT) provides accessibilityto consumers owns words. While, the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) allows peopleto say what they think about the service and their responses will be coded and countedaccordingly.

THE QUALITATIVE APPROACH IN SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT IN THEHOSPITALITY SECTOR.

Apart from Nick Johns, another key author who shares the same sentiment about thequantitative approach of SERVQUAL instrument is Francis Buttle. Buttle (1996) hascriticised SERVQUAL for being too focused on the process of service delivery ratherthan outcomes of the service encounter. Furthermore, he feels that many of the researchquestions in service quality require contextually sensitive qualitative research. Hepointed that consumers do not always evaluate service quality in terms of expectationsand perceptions. But rather, the formation of expectations is a result of consumersaccumulates and processes of information about the service providers.

Being the strong proponents of qualitative method in service quality, Johns and Buttlefound CIT and PAT technique to be the best alternative for the SERVQUAL instrument.They strongly believe that these qualitative approaches would be able to explore moredeeply into matter that would be difficult, if using survey method.

46

TABLE 4Summary of Perception Dimensions associated with service quality instruments.

1.SERVQUAL

RevisedFARASURAMAN

etal.

1988

Tangibles

ReliabilityResponsiveness

AssuranceEmpathy

2.LODGSERV

KNUTSONetal.

1991ReliabilityAssuranceResponsivenessTangibesEmpathy

3.SERVPERV

CRONINAND

TAYLOR

1992Tangibles

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

4.DINESERV

KNUDSONetal.

1995Assurance

Empathy

Reliability

Responsiveness

Tangibles

5.

INTQUAL

CARUANA

AND

PITT

1997TangiblesReliabilityResponsivenessAssuranceEmpathy

6.

INTSERVQUAL

WHITE

AND

RUDALL

1999TangiblesReliabilityResponsiveness

AssuranceEmpathyCommunication

Flexibility

Relevance

7.

HOLSERV

OOI

etal.

1999Employees

TangiblesReliability

METHODOLOGY

Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative/Qualitative

Quantitative Quantitative

QUESTIONNAIRES ITEMS

22 26 22 29 34 27 27

Questionnaire Formal/ Column

2 2 2 2 2 2 1

FOCUS

Expectation &Perceptions

Tested ondifferentcultures

Performanceonly

Expectation &Perceptions

* telephonesurvey

Internalactions

*Mailsurvey

InternalServicedomains

Reliability ofone column

formatquestionnairt

Likert-Scales

1-7 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-9 1-7

CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE (CIT)

Flanagan invented the critical incident technique (CIT) in 1954 (Paraskevas, 2001). Hedescribes CIT as a procedure for gathering certain important facts concerning behaviourin defined situations. It was offered as an alternative approach to using scaledquestionnaires. This technique was used by Flanagan to identify critical requirements

47

in job performance. The concept was later developed in order to study satisfactorilyand unsatisfactory services in airlines, hotels and hotels. Bitner et al. (1990), have defined'incident' as an observable human activity that is complete enough in itself to permitinferences to be made about a person performing an act and the critical incident as 'anevent that contributes to, or detracts from, the general aim of the activity in a significantway' (cited in Paraskevas, 2001pp: 286). Similarly, Clark et al. (1998) describe CIT as amethod of observing and analysing human behaviour within very limited parameters.In their opinion, in order for the incident to be critical, the observer must be able toidentify what was intended to happen and what the effect in fact was. The followingtable examine the applicability of CIT and PAT techniques in researching service qualityin hospitality sector.

The incidents are collected through qualitative interviews or questionnaires. The subjectsare asked to recall a remarkable experience, which can be positive or negative in anyservice situation and describe it. Then, content analysis is used to sort incidents intogroups according to topics and classifications. The collected incidents are theninventoried and analysed using techniques such as Pareto analysis, cause-effect andfish-bone analysis. Incidents are sometimes, classified into dissatisfiers, neutral incidentsand satisfiers, according to their absence dissatisfiers, their present satisfiers, or theyproduce no effect at all. The list is then prioritised in order to identify the truly criticalincidents. Incidents then are traced back to their origins, and actions are to be taken onthe most significant satisfiers/dissatisfiers (Hemammasi, 1997).

In Paraskevas (2001) study he explored an'internal service chain' in the internationalcity hotels and identified the events and behaviours (service dimensions) thatdistinguished a successful internal service encounter from a non-successful one. Thesample of the Paraskevas study consisted of employees from the room division servicechain of three international hotels in Athens. In this study, two forms of internal serviceencounter were identified. First the front office efficiency is very much dependent onthe housekeeping department and on the other hand, the housekeeping departmentefficiency depends on the response of the maintenance department. A random sampleof 82 employees from room division with an average of 3.9 years of work experienceparticipated in this research. Both the internal customers and service providers wereasked to describe the encounter. Instead of asking the respondents to use either/orapproach, both the negative 'and' positive service experiences were solicited by allrespondents, This was done to differentiate between aspects relating to minimum servicerequirements and value-enhancing service aspects. In-depth interviews were used withsenior and middle management. Interviews were tape recorded with the agreements ofthe participants and later transcribed verbatim. To ensure the reliability quotient in theprocess, two analysts were asked to read, sort and re-read the incidents until they reachan agreement. However, the Chi-square tests for homogeneity were also done, but itshows no significant differences between the analysts' classifications at 0.05 level. Apartfrom appointing another judge, an industry professional to check on the classifications,

48

the study also asked the two analysts to repeat the same tasks. The quotient this timewas higher than the prescribed level of acceptance (Paraskevas, 2001).

TABLE 5The Qualitative Techniques in Service Quality Measurement.

WHAT

WHO

METHOD

ANALYSIS

(CIT)CRITICAL INCIDENT

TECHNIQUE-Identifying a large number ofservice incidents.

-A method of observing andanalysing human behaviourswithin a very limitedparameter (Clark et al., 1998).- An alternative approach to ascaled questionnaire.

InventorFlanagan (1954).Other researchers:-Bitner et al. (1990).-Lockwood (1 994).-Danaher and Mattsson(1994).-Bitner et al. (1994).-Johns and Clark (1994).-Paraskevas (2001).-Qualitative interview orquestionnaires.-In-depth interview.

-Content analysis.-Inventories.-Pareto and Fishbone analysis.

- Prioritised critical and noncritical incidents.-Action taken to the mostsignificant satisfiers/dissatisfiers.- Two Analysts appointed.-Judge appointed.

(PAT)PROFILE ACCUMULATION

TECHNIQUE-A free -response technique, verbalrather than numerical, easy andaccessible for manager and staff tounderstand.-Investigate importance -performance relationship usingPAT.-A Semi-quantitative method.-Eliciting customeris free responses.-It is a verbal approach rather thannumerical.Inventor-Johns and Lee -Ross (1993).Other researchers:Manilla and James (1977).Importance -performance analysis.

Johns and Howard (1998).

-Respondents write down (PATform) their best and worse aspectsof a particular service experience.-Questionnaires were developedbased on attributes from PATsurvey.-Researchers will code, count andinterpret data.- PAT forms. Open endedSoftware: iPasadena.i- Quantitative and qualitative

evidence.

Data from PAT study andquestionnaires are use to constructan importance -performance grid.

The study resulted in the development of an internal service provider framework,consisting of five categories, professionalism, dependability, conscientiousness,communication and consideration. Generally, the five categories only reflected the view

49

of the room division service chain employees and managers, but may also apply for theentire hotel (Paraskevas, 2001). Parakevas, however, suggests it would not be appropriateto generalise the findings of this study before more studies are done on other servicechains within the hotel. Furthermore, CIT records only the exceptional impressions,which represent the subject's under or over-fulfilment of expectations. The next sectionoutline the Profile Accumulation Technique (PAT), which is quite similar to CIT,nevertheless the PAT is unique tool as it is quite versatile. A part from being qualitativein nature, it can also be use to generate statistical analysis.

PROFILE ACCUMULATION TECHNIQUE (PAT)

Profile Accumulation technique (PAT) was introduce by Johns and Lee-Ross (1996) as anew technique for assessing perceptions of service quality. This technique was a resultof disappointment with SERVQUAL as a research tool and PAT was set to become animportant research tool. According to Johns (1996), most of the time people findquestionnaires ambiguous, so they tend to give their general impression rather thantheir specific answer to what was asked. As an example 2000 respondents will re-interpret the questionnaire 2000 ways. John does not not believe the statistical treatmentssuch as averaging would be able to ironed-out the 'human error', because most oftenrespondents tends to answer the way they like.

On the other hand PAT, a semi-quantitative quality assessment methodology, whichallows respondents to say what they think about the service, and the researcher, is theonly person who will code, count and interpret the data. There are number of processesinvolved in PAT, First respondents will write down their best and worse aspects of aparticular service experience on a simple form and give reasons for their choices. Thenthe numbers of responses are counted to provide a profile of the strengths andweaknesses of the service. Among the uses of the data are, to compare relative strengthsand weaknesses of several outlets and to differentiate between customers segments, orcompare changes in the quality of service over time.The response forms, although simple are able to provide accessible feedback aboutcustomer preferences, it allows respondents to say exactly what they want and the datais not tainted by the possibly irrelevant assumptions of the service provider. Theapproach is verbal rather than numerical and is a free-response technique. Thus,customer perceptions of service experiences can be assessed without in any wayprescribing or influencing their responses (Johns, 2001). Specialised software called'Pasadena' is available to aid the data entry and analysis- A novel statistical approachhas been developed, so that all the multivariate techniques used in the conventionalclosed type questionnaires can also be applied to PAT data (Johns, 1996). PAT is anextremely versatile technique, Johns has been using it to access the service quality ofvarious customers services, including hotels, restaurants, management associations,training organisations and tourist attractions. As for the other statistical techniques, thelarger the numbers of responses collected the more reliable the quantitative data become,

50

but in case of PAT even as few as fifty completed response forms could providemeaningful information.

Johns (2001) conducted a study of an importance-performance analysis using PAT. Theaim of the study was to produce an importance-performance analysis for a professionalassociation. Ninety PAT forms obtained from a random sample of association memberswere used to draw up a 22 item closed questionnaire, which was later administered toa different, randomly selected sample. Means from the items on 388 returnedquestionnaires were used as the performance data for analysis. Meanwhile, PAT scoresobtained from the previous survey were use as the importance values. So, the resultingmatrix used comparable data from two different sources, reducing methodological bias.The data collected are entered into the spreadsheet, listing the cases down the left hand,while the aspects related attributes across the top of the data matrix. Then, the calculationstarted with counting the occurrences of the aspects and attributes down the columnsand dividing it by the total number of responses. A more sophisticated statistical analysisis carried out on this data by using 'Pasadena'. Data from PAT is then used to constructan importance-performance grid, which used examines the performance and marketingof the association's member services. PAT has been used to compare different serviceincident, to differentiate between restaurants and hotels. This study suggested that PATis feasible and relevant to be use as a basis for importance-performance studies. Thedata was robust and reliable and demonstrated good construct validity in terms ofGronroos' dimensions of service quality but did not correspond very well with theservice quality dimensions of Parasuraman et al. {Johns, 2001).

CustcExperelsevi

iCustomeris

benactu

'- ———— . bmeris custi

iceaUyvcdYmer

ences *

D custexp

i

Received

information

+

Consumptioncycle

ttheornereels

* Sendee V Aci EicinmeF t serv\i "T/i prov

1 T

....L...as perceivedby provider

4

sion specil......

Service• ••••• promotion <••••••

"T™

D

^vicecation

Productioncycle

Figure 4 Service Provision ModelSource: Johns (1996:2)

51

Both the quantitative and qualitative methods of analysing service quality can be bestexplained by the above figure. Figure 4. sums up the current models of service provision.The consumption cycle represented by solid lines the consumer forms an expectationand compares it with service performance in a 'moment of truth'. While the providercycle (represented by the dotted lines) is the service provided being matched to therequirements through consumer feedback. Both quantitative and qualitative methodsaim at providing the consumers feedback by measuring the different service qualitygap. However, SERVQUAL are targeting to measure the gap A-B, while the criticalincident analysis measures gaps C-D or perhaps A-C, depending on whether staff orcustomers provide details of the incidents (Johns, 1996).

The next section will look at some of the crucial service quality management issues inthe service sector.

SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN THE SERVICE SECTOR.

The existence of many quality management systems, has been recognized as an effectiveways of increasing efficiency in the service sector. Some of the earlier systems that havehad made an impact in the service sector initiatives such as, quality assurance (QA),quality control circle (QCC), total quality management (TQM) or BS5750 and ISO 9000.However, the above systems are very much 'borrowed' or adopted from themanufacturing sector. Although these systems may have similar intentions, orconceptual origins and perhaps the same ideological roots, the real issue that needs tobe addressed is the characteristics of the services, especially in dealing with customers'interactions involving also the service intangibility. The definition of quality in serviceindustry has become sophisticated since then, due to the interpersonal nature of theservice, difficulties in standardizing service, difficulties to rework or replace faultyservices, as they can neither be returned for correction or reworked. In other words,service needs to be right the first time. The difficulties and dilemmas lie in dealing withcustomers who are actors and audiences at the same time during the service delivery.

The introduction of the service quality concept should be seen as an attempt to moveaway from the earlier methods of assessing service quality using the pattern set by themanufacturing sector. The earlier approaches are very much focussed on the tangibleaspects of quality assessment. In the hospitality industry, the earlier approaches werenormally aimed at measuring the tangibles aspects such as the quality of food andaccommodation. Such mechanistic approaches were found to be very suitable for masscatering or fast food where the intangible aspects of the service are less significant.However, the methods were found to be of little assistance in assessing the full servicerestaurants, when these establishments were really dealing with the total meal experience(Johns 1996).

52

Another interesting issue pertaining to service quality is the relationship which linksservice quality to human resource management (HRM) practices, productivity,performances and empowerment. As Bolton and Drew (1994) point out customer'ssatisfaction rating has become one element in a loop that links service operations andoutcomes (Figure 5).

SurveysCustomer Satisfaction

Perceived Service Quality

Internal MeasuresEngineering, Operations

Operations Outcomes

t______IStatistical Analysis

Of Relationship

Figure 5: Customer Satisfaction Loop.Source: Bolton and Drew, (1994:175)

Hence, organizations are said to become interested in the relationship between serviceoperations, primarily characterized by internal measures, market outcomes, which areprimarily characterized by external measures. As a result of this, managers in manyways were able to predict service changes that affected customer satisfaction andultimately the revenues or profit. At the same time they were able to diagnose lowcustomer ratings and use it to evaluate the effectiveness of personal and organizationalunits (Bolton and Drew 1994).

On the other hand, Parasuraman (2002) proposes a synergistic perspective to servicequality and productivity. He believes that services companies should broaden theirexamination of productivity from the conventional company-orientated perspective toa dual company-customer perspective. Productivity should not be narrowly definedand viewed solely from the producer's standpoint but instead should consider thecustomers' inputs into the process as well as the outputs experience by the customers.He further proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the inter-linkagesamong service quality and the various components of the company-customer perspectiveof productivity (Figure 6).

53

Figure 6: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Interplay Between ServiceQuality and Productivity.

The above framework proposed the idea how service quality influences outputs fromboth the company and customer perspectives. Obviously, it is time to start viewingproductivity from two perspectives rather than traditional ways of viewing productivityfrom a purely production perspective. To complement that, a broader definition ofcompany's output (e.g. sales, profits, markets share) needs to be adopted from apreviously narrow terms {e.g. number of customers served, number of transactionsprocessed). The Parasuraman's framework will encourages service executives to thinkmore broadly about productivity. In Parasuraman's opinion, the process of improvingservice quality and boosting service productivity is halted when productivity is narrowlydefined and view solely from the producer's standpoint. Hence, the framework hopedto highlight the potential synergy between service quality and productivity whereservice executives can start leveraging on it, by examining the following questions intheir own contexts (Parasuraman, (2002: 8):

• What inputs do our customers and we currently channel into our serviceprocesses?

• In what ways are changes on our inputs likely to effect customer inputs andperceptions of service quality?

• Are we allocating our input resources in a manner that is consistent withcustomer priorities?

• In evaluating the results of our service operations, do we define the outcomessufficiently broadly and from the perspectives of our customers as well?

• What is the nature and extent of the association between the outcomesexperienced by our customers and realized by us?

A part from these, Parasuraman hopes the proposed framework provides an impetusfor further research in the overlapping domain of service quality and productivity. In

54

particular, the mathematical models, which will help decision makers, determine theoptimum amount and allocation of company inputs for maximum outputs.

By the same token Gronroos (1994), also noted that currently the principles of 'scientificmanagement' are not applicable to the same extent as before in the industrial society. Inthe post-industrial era, the critical issue is service competition; hence managing servicenow becomes more important both for service providers and manufacturers of goods.Meanwhile, productivity measurement is treated as an internal efficiency issue only,where the impact on perceived quality and customers satisfaction is often neglected.Even today, the practices of using productivity measurement is based on modelsdeveloped within the manufacturing context and these models are inappropriate forthe service environment, thus giving then wrong signal to the decisions makers in serviceorganizations. Most of the time the models are internally orientated, short term in nature,unable to give a sense of long-term productivity and do not measure the productivityof the whole operation. Pickworth (1987:43) who uses a restaurant example, noted that:

The issue is whether food-service managers should think of their outputs asmeals produced or customers satisfied. If customer satisfaction is the measure,a quality dimension is also needed in productivity measurement

Hence, efforts to improve service quality will at the same time have a favourable impacton productivity.

Haynes and Fryer (2000) point out that the relationship between HRM policies andpractices and organizational performance are not always well understood, althoughover the past decade a number of studies have reported a positive relationship betweena high commitment or high performance HRM policies and practices, and organizationalperformance. A case study approach was use by Haynes and Fryer to deepen theunderstanding of the relationship between service quality and HRM. The study used anumber-of the organizations' own measures of organizational performance whichallowed a range of longitudinal examination of measures of interest to multiplestakeholders. Schneider (1994) in his research points out the use of customer evaluations,as an index of organizational effectiveness is more appropriate for the service sector.The existence of organizational dynamics in the service sector will normally have adirect impact on the people it serves. Haynes and Fryer further argue that, a hotel unlikeother service providers, is not a public company where their financial data are alwaysaccessible for use to calculate financial performance indicators. Hence, they concludedthat although there are some indication of linkages between HRM and performance,still further research is necessary in order to determine precisely the characteristics ofhigh performance bundles (HRM policies and practices) and the exact nature of therelationship in the service sector.

55

Similarly, Ashness and Lashley (1995), propagate the idea that employee commitmentto service quality requires the development of a service driven culture or a total qualityculture. To ensure greater employee involvement and empowerment in the group'srestaurants HRM approaches were used. They believe, the emotional state of beingempowered will produce workplace behaviour which in return will leads toimprovement in organizational performance, increased customer satisfaction, morerepeat business, improved turnover and profits (Ashness and Lashley 1995). In case ofthe Harvester restaurants, they found that the strategic approach to restructuring wasbased on a model that have taken into consideration of culture, organization, peopleand systems.

CONCLUSION.

Service quality has come a long way since its inception in the 1980s. The existence of alot of literature on the subject has proved that it has never failed to attract old and newresearchers across the globe to contribute. That said, obviously the most significantcontributors presently are both from U.S.A and Europe. Their contributions should notgo without recognition through the two schools of thought that existed: The Nordicschool consisting of important personalities like Gronroos, Gummesson, and others,while the North American school consisting of Parasuraman, Zeithml, Berry, Brogowiczand others. Their opinions and suggestions on the subject have continued to contributetowards further debates.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, R.W., Mok, C, Go, P.M., Chan, A., 1997,"The importance of cross-culturalexpectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions industry",International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16,2 p.p.181-190.

Ashness, D., Lashley, C., 1995 " Empowering Service workers at Harvester Restaurants",Personnel Review, 27,1, pp.57-77.

Buttle, F., 1996 "SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda", European Journal ofMarketing, 30,1, pp.8-32.

Caruana, A., Pitt, L., 1997 " INTQUAL- an internal measure of service quality and thelink between quality and business performance", European Journal of Marketing,31,8, pp.604-616.

Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E., Wood, R., 1998, Researching and Writing Dissertations inHospitality and Tourism, Thomson, London.

Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1997 " SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL; Reconcilingperformance-based and perceptions-minus expectations measure of service quality", Journal of Marketing, 58,1, pp.125-132.

Ekinci, Y, Riley, M., Schaw, C.F., 1998 " Which school of thought? The dimensions ofresort hotel quality", International Journal of Contemporary Management, 10,2, pp.63-67.

56

Gronroos, C, 1991, "Scandinavian Management and the Nordic School of Services-contributions to Service Management and quality", International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 2,3, pp.17-25.

ronroos, C., 1994, "From Scientific Management to Service Management, A ManagementPerspective for the Age of Service Competition", International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 5,1, pp.5-20.

Gronroos, C., 2001, "The perceived service quality concept-a mistake?", ManagingService Quality, 11,3, pp.150-152.

Guests, D.E., 1997, "Human Resource Management and Performance: a review andresearch agenda", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8,3,pp.264-276.

Haynes, P., Fryer, G., 2000, "Human Resources, Service Quality and Performance: acase study", International Journal of Cotemporary Hospitality Management, 12,4,pp.240-248.

Hemmasi, M., Strong, K.C., Taylor, S.A., 1994, "Measuring service quality for strategicplanning and analysis in service firms", Journal of Applied Business Research, 10,4,pp.24-38.

Ho, K.Y., Pun, K.F., 2000, "Identification of service quality attributes for restaurantoperations: a Hong Kong case", Managing Service Quality, 11,4, pp.233-240.

Johns, N., 1996, "Measuring Hospitality Service Quality"http://www.mcb.co.uk/services/conferen/apr96/hospitality/johns/service.html.

Johns, N., 1996, "Profile Accumulation Technique"http://www.pastonroot.co.Uk/.html.

Johns, N., Tyas, P., 1997, "Customer perceptions of service operations: Gestalt, incidentor mythology ?", The Service Industries Journal, 17,3,pp.474-488.

Johns, N., 1999, "What is this thing called service?", European Journal of Marketing,33,9/10-,pp958-973.

Johns, N., 2001, "Importance-performance analysis using the profile accumulationtechnique", The Service Industries Journal, 21,3,pp.49-63.

Juran, J.M. 199^.Quality Control in Service Industries, Juran Institute, ppl-10.Lam, T., Wong, A., Yeung, S, 1997, "Measuring Service Quality in Clubs: An Application

of The SERVQUAL Instrument", Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 4,1,pp.-7-14.

Lasley, C., 1994, Empowering Service Excellence: Beyond the Quick Fix, Casell, London.Low, Y.K., Lee, K.C., 1997, "Quality Measurement of the Malaysian rail services using

the SERVQUAL scale", Malaysian Management Review, 32,1, pp.61-71.Maxwell, G., McDougall, M., Blairs, S., 1994, "Service quality measurement", Journal of

Health care marketing, 14,3, pp.34-44.McAlexander, J.H., Kaldenburg, D.O., Koenig, H.F., 2000, "Managing diversity in the

hotel sector: the emergence of a service quality opportunity", Managing ServiceQuality, 10,6, pp.367-373.

57

Olsen, M.D., Teare, R., Gunmmesson, E., 1996, Service Quality in HospitalityOrganization, Casell, London, pp.10-25.

Ooi, A.W., Dean, A.M., White, C.J., 1999, "Analysing Service Quality in the HospitalityIndustry", Managing Service Quality, 9,2, pp.136-143.

Paraskevas, A., 2001, "Internal service encounters in hotels: an empirical study",International Journal of Cotemporary Hospitality Management", 13,6,pp.285-292.

Parasuraman, A., 2002, "Service Quality and Productivity: a synergistic perspective",Managing Service Quality", 12,l,pp.6-9.

Redman, T., Mathews, B.P., 1998, "Service Quality and Human Resource Management:a review and research agenda", Personnel Review, 27,1,pp.57'-77.

Regan, W.J., 1963, "The Service Revolution", Journal of Marketing, July, pp.57-62.Rust R.T., Oliver, R.L., 1994, Service Qualify: New Dimensions in Theory and Practice, Sage

Publications, California.Schneider, B., 1994, "HRM-A Service Perspective: Towards a Customer-focused HRM",

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5,l,pp.64-76.Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M., 1995, "DINESERV: A tool for measuring service

quality in restaurant", Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,36,2,pp.56-65.

Theodore, L.1972, "Production-Line approach to Service", Harvard Business Review,50,4, pp.41-52.

Theodore, L.1976, "The Industrialization of Service", Harvard Business Review, 54,5,pp.63-74.

White, C, Rudall, L., 1999, "Interservqual: An Investigation of the Dimensions andMeasurement of Internal Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry" Australianjournal of Hospitality Management, 6,2, pp.13-22.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., 1990 "Delivering quality service: balancingcustomer perceptions and expectations" The Free Press, New York.

58

TFP AS ASIAN ECONOMIES' SOURCE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH: PASTEVIDENCES, MEASUREMENT CONTROVERSIES AND RECENT FINDINGS

By

NAZIRUDDIN ABDULLAHKulliyah Economics and Management Sciences

International Islamic University Malaysia

ABDUL WAHAB MUHAMADSAMAUDIN RADIMAN

EAMIZAN HASHIMNORAONI MOHD. SHARIFF

National Productivity CorporationPetaling Jaya, Malaysia

Abstract

Owing to Enke's remark, Young's findings, and Krugman's consequential Soviet resemblance,studies on the Asian economies sources of growth and its potentials have not only become morelively and interesting but also puzzling. In fact, the studies had triggered numerous worksdevoted to investigate and analyze the actual contributory factors to growth process in Asia,particularly South-east Asian (ASEAN) and East Asian economies. In the present paper, it isshown that the sources of Asian economic growth in the past two decades or so were nothomogeneous. While in some countries the source was input-driven, in some others it wasproductivity-driven. Specifically, in the case of ASEAN countries, with Vietnam being the onlyexception, all other countries' source of growth was predominantly input-driven. However,when the observation was extended to include East Asian and few West Asian countries theresults were in stark contrast to Young's and Krugman's findings. Thus, we conclude that thegrowth of Asian economies was not fundamentally dominated by factor accumulation. As forthe growth accounting method, as adopted by the previous and present studies to measure thesources of a country or a group of countries' economic growth and its attributes, it is still thework horse of empirical growth analysis. For all its flaws, be it real or imagined, as discussed inthe measurement issues, many researchers have used it to gain valuable insights into the processof economic growth. Not only thousands of research papers have been published but also theresidual (TFP) has consistently become a closely watched government statistics. Indeed, thisproves nothing but an evergreen and sustainable forty-year Solow vintage work.

INTRODUCTION

It was in 1963 when Enke, the then World Bank's chief economist, wrote that Asia as awhole has the worst prospects among developing countries. He ranked them last in

59

development potential, after Latin America, sub-Saharan, and the Middle East. In fact,he predicted in 1967 that Africa's economic future was brighter with seven of them hadthe potential to reach or surpass a 7-percent growth rate (Easterly, 1995). Instead, in1980s, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and to a larger extent, Malaysiaemerged as the most promising candidates to join the so-called Newly Industrializingcountries club. The subsequent years, i.e., 1990s onwards, had witnessed several moreAsian countries at the threshold of joining the "club" of which Thailand, Indonesia,and the Philippines were the talented ones.

Then came 1994, Krugman, a prominent US economist, who argued based on Young's(1992,1994) findings that" [The] newly industrializing countries of Asia, like the SovietUnion of the 1950s, have achieved rapid growth in large part through an astonishingmobilization of resources. Once one accounts for the role of rapidly growing inputs inthese countries' growth, one finds little left to explain. Asian growth, like that of theSoviet Union in its high-growth era, seems to be driven by extraordinary growth ininputs like labor and capital rather than by gains in efficiency" (Krugman, 1994, p.70).Obviously, his findings also serve to deflate the idea that East Asia poses a fundamentaleconomic challenge to the United States. To put it differently, if the investment is subjectto diminishing returns, the region's astronomical growth rates are destined to fall backto earth, which nothing to worry about, especially by the US.

Owing to Enke's remark, Young's findings, and Krugman's consequential Sovietresemblance, studies on the Asian economies sources of growth and its potentials havenot only become more lively and interesting but also puzzling. While the former hadtriggered numerous works devoted to investigate and analyze the actual contributoryfactors to growth process in Asia, particularly South-east Asian (ASEAN) and East Asianeconomies, the latter, due to the post-Young-Krugman's studies, have shown that thefuture of Asian economies was not so gloomy. In general, studies conducted after 1995have produced mixed results1. Some of them like Sonobe arid Otsuka (2001), Hayamiand Ogasawara (1999), and Singh and Trieu {1997,1999) attributed the high economicperformance of some of Asian countries to several factors ranging from capitaldeepening, borrowed technology, to technological change (Han et al., 2004). Hultenand Srinivasan (1999), and Hulten (2000), on the other hand, based on their empiricalfindings have concluded that the Young's and Krugman's findings, "[Do] not take intoaccount the induced capital accumulation effect. The role played by total factorproductivity (TFP) growth ..... is actually larger ........... Exactly how much larger ishard to say, because the induced-accumulation effect depends on several factors, suchas the bias in technical change and the elasticity of substitution between capital andlabor (p.36)".2 In fact, contrary to Young's and Krugman's findings, studies conductedto investigate individual Asian countries' sources of economic growth found supportfor the view that TFP growth in these countries was much stronger than their researchresults suggest3

' See Collins and Bosworth (1996, Table 4) for the details of sources of growth by regions.* When Huiten and Srinivasan (1999) made the correction using a different method of estimation called Harrodian correction, they found that the contribution

ofof

production. ,_o(J

On the same subject, the World Bank has specifically attributed the East Asia highgrowth to improvements in efficiency or TFP that is associated with policy reform,openness to trade, and technological innovation (IMF, 1998). Collins and Bosworth(1996), despite quite in agreement to both Young's and Krugman's conclusions, haveargued that there is some evidence that the East Asian economies were evolving towarda greater emphasis on TFP gains, and the future can be sustained. This was thensupported by Crafts (1999) of the London School Economics (LSE), who showed that atleast in the case of few leading East Asian economies " [The] opportunity for furtherrapid catch-up growth has not been completely eroded" (p.153). All of these findingstend to suggest that TFP still remains crucial as Asian economies' source of sustainablelong-term economic growth for many years to come. Having said this, the questionnow is, what was the factor that had influenced the Asian economic growth performanceafter the 1997 financial crisis? Was it input-driven or productivity-driven? To the bestof our knowledge, this question has not been addressed by any of the researchersmentioned above. Second, what happens, in terms of the sources of economic growth,to countries like Nepal, India and Iran, among others, which were not reported in theprevious studies? Next, was the methodology used to measure TFP growth by the pastresearchers appropriate and reliable? This question is very pertinent because it hasbeen frequently argued that the conflicting views, findings and conclusions of the above-surveyed works could have also been the results of different methodologies ormeasurements employed by the researchers to quantify the Asian economies' growthand its attributes. In other words, measurement or methodological issues are at theheart of the differences of those works' findings, which, in turn, gave rise to differentgrowth estimates of the Asian economies' TFP growth. Each question and issue that israised here will be addressed and incorporated into the analysis of the paper.

The schematic details of the paper are as follows. In Section 2, the focus and emphasiswill be to discuss the previous empirical studies conducted to measure the sources ofAsian countries economic growth. The discussion will show that the different resultsobtained for the two sources, viz., from inputs accumulation and productivity, of Asiancountries economic growth by various studies stemmed from the difference in themethodologies or measurements used. This clearly provides a reason for the previousfindings to be verified further. Section 3 of the paper will be devoted to address theissue. In Section 4, using the recently Asian Productivity Organization (APO, 2004)published data and disaggregating them into three regions4, the paper will demonstratethe peculiarity of each region, in so far as the sources of economic growth are concerned.Making this distinction in a cross-region analysis symbolizes the main contribution ofthe paper. There is a concluding remark in Section 5.

FAST EVIDENCES

The admirable performance of a number of Asian economies has been the premise fora large and diverged literature, much of which looks into reasons for the persistentlyJ Examples are: Wong Fot-Chyi (1995) conducted a study for the case of Singapore; and, Tinakorn and Sussangkarn (1994) for Thailand. Both studies have

estimated strong TFP growth for Singapore and Thailand. Fatimah et al (2003) measured Malaysia's sources of growth and found thai the economy andits manufacturing sector was primarily input-driven.

1 They are: East Asian countries or economies: South-east Asian (ASEAN) countries or economies; and, West Asian countries or economies.

61

high growth, and draws lessons for other countries that would like to follow suit. Thegrowth experienced by those countries not only dramatically changed people's lives,but also raised issues such as what had been the contributing factors, and whether theexperience was replicable. In fact, it has become a stylized fact that the growth rates ofthese countries have continued, even in recent years, at rates that exceeded by far thenormal historical and geographical experience of other regions in other parts of theworld. During 1980-95, for example, four ASEAN economies (Malaysia, Indonesia,Thailand, and Singapore), more than doubled their real income per person, comparedwith an increase of only 20% in the United States and other industrial countries andeven less than that in many other regions of the World (Sarel, 1997).

While some assessments of the sources of growth literature have questioned theapproach and its theoretical basis, it remains true that empirical studies have beennumerous and influential. Notwithstanding many differences in data and analyticalmethodologies, most of the studies have the tendency to share one common feature inanalyzing the relative role of input accumulation and TFP change; they relied heavilyon a growth accounting approach.

Surprisingly, the growth accounting approach5 employed by the studies came out withmarkedly different results. For example, using the approach and taking the case of fourEast Asian countries; Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea, Young (1995)argued that the East Asian source of economic growth was not very different from thatof Latin America. However, Singh and Trieu (1999) showed that this conclusion mightbe flawed, since it was based on comparing results from different measurements. Othergrowth accounting exercises for individual East Asian countries have been found togive mixed results (Felipe, 1999). Han et al (2004) have deviated somehow in theirapproach. They have utilized frontier approach to measure the sources of a diverse ofcountries economic growth. Specifically, an allowance was given for the possibilitythat an economy might be producing output not using the inputs efficiently, or outputis produced inside the best practice frontier. For sake of comparison, these and otherstudies' TFP results, which may be viewed as the pre-1997 empirical evidences, areshown in Table 1.

1 A moie detailed discussion on the approach and the measurement issues is available in Section 3 of the paper.

62

TABLE 1Estimates of a Selected Asian Economies TFP Growth (% a year)

Young Collins and Bosworth SarelPeriod 1966-90 1960-94 1978-96

IndiaChinaIndonesiaKoreaMalaysiaPhilippinesSingaporeTaiwanThailandJapan

_

-1.21.71.1

0.22.61.5-

_2.60.81.50.9-0.41.52.01.8-

_-

1.2-

2.0-0.82.2

2.0-

Han et al.1970-90*

-0.01--

0.03-0.030.010.00

-0.02-0.01-0.06

Crafts1960-84

_-1.40.81.50.9-0.41.52.01.83.6

Source: Crafts (1999, Tables 3 and 9), and, Ran et al (2004, Tables A2-A5).* Simple average. The TFP growth has been decomposed into technical efficiency change (TEC) and technologicalprogress (TP).

As evident from the table, Collins and Bosworth (1996) obtained a TFP growth estimateof 2.6% for China during 1960-94, while Crafts (1997), despite utilizing the sameapproach, obtained a TFP growth of -1.4% for 1960-84. Further investigation has shownthat the unique results obtained by the respective study can be attributed to the way inwhich the sources of economic/output growth of a country are decomposed.Traditionally (i.e., owing to Solow), the sources of output growth are decomposed intotwo components; a component that is accounted for by increases in the factors ofproduction (capital and labor), and, a component that is not accounted by increases infactors of production, which is the residual after calculating the first component. Thelatter component actually represents the contribution of TFP growth. As shown byHulten (2000), by careful measurement and correct model specification one can rid theresidual (p. 17).It seems from Hulten's (2000) comment, the problem actually originated from the waythe sources of economic growth of a country are measured. Simply put, differentmeasurements used will result in different findings, and hence different conclusions.There are at least four major measurement issues that have led researchers to givedifferent pictures on the growth and its attributes of the Asian countries performance.They are discussed in the next section.

MEASUREMENT CONTROVERSIES

To begin with, the underlying methodology employed by the previous studies to measurethe relative contributions of factor accumulation and productivity to the growth of an

63

economy and thereby determining whether the economy is input- or productivity-driven,was the growth accounting framework. The standard neo-classical production functionis,

Q=AF<.K,-L> a)where Q, A, K, and L are output, technology, capital and labor, respectively.6Differentiating (1) with respect to (hereinafter, w.r.t ) time (t), we obtain,

Q, 3Q KL K L, L ATT= n — + — ~n — + —Q, K Q' K, 3L Q- L A,

Equation (2) suggests that the growth of real output can be decomposed into the growthrates of capital and labor, both weighted by their output elasticities, and the growthrate of the Hicksian efficiency index. While the former rates represent movements alongthe production function, the latter rate is the shift in the function.

The output elasticities in (2) are not directly observable. However, if each input is paidthe value of its marginal product, i.e., if

'and

where r, p and w are the price of capital, output and labor, respectively, then we get,

Q, P.Q.K, P ' - L A,

L+ C j lSll K, l L Awhere and are the shares of capital and labor in the total production or output, and thesummation of both is equal to one. Equation (4), after rearranging, becomes6 Note that A, should no! only he attributed to technical change but to some other meamrable and un-measurable variables (Hulten, 1986).

64

A,=TFP

= TFP is a residual, the growth rate of output not explained by the growth ininputs. It is from (5) that the controversies or issues on the measurement of the sourcesof a country's economic growth originated. To reiterate, there are four issues, and eachwill be dealt with in the same order as when they were highlighted.

K LFirst, the terms § and £ , which are intended to capture the elasticity of outputw.r.t. growth of capital and labor, are valid only under perfect competition. In mostcases, regardless whether the measurement of the sources is done for developed (wherethe markets for both capital and labor are said to be more competitive) or developingcountries (where the markets for both capital and labor are said to be less competitive),the terms are merely approximated. Studies conducted on the Asian economies havechosen C and C on different grounds. Sarel, for example, derives weighted averagesfor each economy according to their output composition {Crafts, 1999, p.147). Theestimated C was in the range of 0.28 to 0.35, which was much lower than Collins andBosworth (1996) estimation, 0.35. It goes without saying that the higher (lower) of Vwill have influence on the lower (higher) value of C and AK the residual or TFP.

Second, an issue that has put many researchers at variance concerns the treatment ofimprovements in the quality of labor (L), in particular through education. WhereasYoung (1995), and Collins and Bosworth (1996) adjust their raw labor force estimateson the basis of assumptions about rates of return to observed increases in schooling,Sarel (1999) prefers to make no adjustment, with the implication that any unmeasuredimprovement in labor force quality will show up in the residual, i.e., TFP growth. Asimplied by the results of both studies (see Table 1), the value of TFP growth of all selectedAsian economies measured using Sarel method was higher than that of Collins andBosworth.

Third, it has been argued that a more subtle reason to believe that the results of the studieson sources of the Asian economies economic growth were biased is because they rely onthe nature of the production function that the technological change is Hicks-neutral.When Hulten and Srinivasan (1999) rectified it using a different method of estimation,called Harrodian correction, they found that the contribution of TFP has changedsignificantly. While with conventional (Hicksian) method the TFP accounts forapproximately one-third of output growth in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan overthe 1966-90/91 period, with Harrodian method the TFP figure magnifies to nearly 50percent for the same period. In other words, employing a slightly different technique ofmeasuring the sources will change the result significantly, i.e., the sources change frominput-driven to productivity-driven.

65

Finally, the results of measurements of the sources of economic growth can also be biasedbecause the production function is assumed to be subject to constant returns to scale.Collins and Bosworth (1996) were of the opinion that "[any] deviation of (the function)from constant returns to scale is allocated to the residual of total factor productivity(p.8)". Obviously, this will induce the estimate of TFP upwards (downwards) if theproduction function is bound by increasing returns to scale (decreasing returns to scale).

It is interesting to note that all these biases, according to Hulten (2000)7and others8, donot in any way indicate the inferiority of the neo-classical technique, pioneered by Solow,of measuring the sources of economic growth of a country. The arguments pertainingto the measurement issues highlighted above are addressed accordingly below.

K /On the first issue C and C that the terms and, which are intended to capture theelasticity of output w.r.t. growth of capital and labor, are valid only under perfectcompetition, Collins and Bosworth (1996) have resolved it when they employed fixedweights in aggregating the factor inputs, capital and labor. They found that there issurprisingly little evidence of major changes in factor shares over time. In fact, since theshare of capital ( C ) in both developed and developing countries are not so difficultto obtain, the share of labor can be computed residually. That is to say, £ = 1- § .Furthermore, even though various methods have been employed by many researchersto measure the share of factor inputs of an economy, particularly the share of capital($ ), like parametric estimates and fixed weights (Collins and Bosworth, 1996, p.17),national accounts and regression approaches (Sarel, 1997, p.14), and "new method"(Sarel, 1997), little evidence of major changes in factor shares over time. In fact, usingthe "new method", Sarel (1997) found the level of development {measured by the averagestock of capital per person) did not significantly affect the share of capital in eacheconomic activity (p.16).

On the second issue of the treatment of improvements in the quality of labor and itsrelationship with the sources of economic growth, it has always been the case that it isconfined to the number or years of schooling of the labor force. This is not to rule outthe fact that over years the quality of labor force is also influenced by the institutionaland policy changes. However, unfortunately the latter change could not be directlyquantified. The case at hand is the change of education policy from social sciences-based to natural or physical sciences-based, and then to ICT-based. Even thoughundoubtedly such changes will significantly affect the quality of labor nurtured at aparticular point of time when the development process is being undertaken, they aredifficult, if not impossible, to be measured quantitatively. Since an effective method toquantify the quality of labor has not yet been found we are left with little choice but toadopt the existing method, i.e., the measurement has to be based on number of labor forceschooling years.

7 This is based on Hulten (2000) work." Sarel (1997), and Collins and Bosworth (1996), among others.

66

A third issue concerns the implied nature of the technical change. The Hicksian-neutralof technical change of the production function (5) is valid if innovation improves themarginal productivity of all inputs equally. In this case, the production function shiftsby the same proportion at all combinations of labor and capital. This is/ however, astrong assumption, if violated, may lead to biases. As shown by Hulten (2000), a moregeneral formulation allows costless improvements in technology to augment themarginal productivity of each factor input separately:

Qr F (a,K,>b,L) d')This is the "factor-augmentation" formulation of technology or better known as theSolow-augmented model. It replaces the Hicksian A; with two augmentation parameters,a, and b(. If all the other assumptions of the Solow derivation are retained, a little algebrashows that the residual can be expressed as9

S-+S (5')as brThe residual is now the share-weighted average of the rates of factor augmentation, butit still measures changes in total factor productivity. Indeed, when the rates of factoraugmentation are equal, and the sum of the shares is constant, it effectively brings usback to the previous Hicksian case (equation 4).

On the final issue, which is presumably caused by the close link between the GDPaccounting identity and the production function, the problem is resolved as follows. Ifthe production function happens to exhibit constant returns to scale and the inputs arepaid the value of their marginal products, as in (3), the value of output equals the sumof the input values. This product exhaustion follows from Euler's theorem, and it impliesthat the value shares, and C and C , sum to one.1in

In a nutshell, what the preceding discussion tends to highlight is that the growthaccounting method, despite being put under unceasing criticisms since its inception, isstill robust and reliable, and thus valid to be used to measure the sources of economicgrowth of any country. Perhaps, it was for this reason that until recently the same methodis utilized by the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) to measure the Asian countriessources of economic growth. To recapitulate, the empirical results of the present studyare obtained from APO (2004) publication, which uses the growth accounting methodto measure the sources of Asian countries economic growth.

RECENT FINDINGS

To be precise, the sources of Asian economic growth are estimated using equation (5), andthe sample period by period together with the estimated results of the output, input and9 For a detailed exposition of this, see Hulten (2000).10 However, there is nothing in the sequence of (1) - (5), i.e., leading from the production function to the residual, that requires constant returns (Hulten,

1973). Constant returns are actually required far another purpose: to estimate the return to capital as a residual, as shown by Jorgensen and Griliches(1967). If an independent measure of the return to capital is used in constructing the share-weights, the residual can be derived without the assumptionof constant returns.

67

RECENT FINDINGS

To be precise, the sources of Asian economic growth are estimated using equation (5),and the sample period by period together with the estimated results of the output,input and TFP for 1980-84,1985-89,1990-94,1995-99, and 1980-2000 of the twelve selectedAsian countries are shown in Table 2.6

As can be seen from the table, with Iran (1985-89) being the only exception, the outputgrowth was positive in all economies during the periods analyzed, and that the estimatedcontribution of input accumulation to growth was also positive. The TFP growth,however, showed some variations between the economies. While in the case of Japan,the one and only one Asian developed economy, the TFP contributed not only positivelybut very significantly (i.e., 68.46% per year throughout 1980-2000) to growth, otherdeveloping economies including South Korea and Singapore the contribution of TFPwas not only far less than that of the Japanese but also negative in some periods. It is,however, quite surprising but interesting to note here that in the seemingly leastdeveloped economies like Nepal, India and Vietnam the contribution of TFP to growthwas relatively high compared to more developed ones like Malaysia, Thailand andIndonesia. The latter countries are known to have achieved a high level of technology.In the case of India (second huge economy after China), for instance, the contribution ofTFP for 1995-99 was 71.21 %, which was far higher than the contribution of inputs, 28.79%.In a huge economy like China, the share of TFP in output growth was about one-fourththat of inputs.

Putting this and other studies results side by side will reveal a number of interestingfacts. First, the present study results pertaining to sources of Asian economies growthare closer to reality, simply because it takes into account the impact the of the 1998financial crisis on the Asian economies, especially ASEAN countries. Specifically,throughout the two-decade periods (1980-2000), the contribution of TFP to growth inthese countries was relatively higher, despite the crises of 1980s and 1990s came in themiddle. Second, in countries that were "overlooked" by the previous studies the TFPseemed to have been the major contributing factor to their economic growth. India,Vietnam, and Nepal with TFP growth per year of 2.08%, 3.27%, and 1.11 %, respectively,were considered high, implying that they were in the process of catching-up with themore developed countries

'The author of this paper lias the privilege to have access to the results published by APO by virtue of being a resource person to the Malaysia!! NationalProductivity Corporation's (NPC) Macroeconomic Unit, and NPC is one of the APO members.

68

TABLE 2Sources of Economic Growth, Selected Asian Countries: 1980-2000

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

INDIA GDP growth rate (%)1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

INDONESIA1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

IRAN1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

JAPAN1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

ROK1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

MALAYSIA1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

NEPAL1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

3.535.334.786.535.10

6.886.047.351.445.40

1.78-1.186.833.112.63

4.224.641.020.872.60

6.519.397.775.187.22

6.874.209.315.126.48

4.695.485.434.255.04

Inputs growth rate (%)2.95 (83.57)2.70 (50.66)2.77 (57.95)1.88 (28.79)3.02 (59.22)

7.20 (106.65)6.51 (107.78)6.53 (88.84)5.11 (354.86)6.20 (114.82)

4.19 (235.39)-0.07 (-5.98)2.43 (35.59)1.96 (63.02)2.16 (82.13)

1.04 (24.64)1.82 (39.22)0.42 (41.18)0.12 (13.80)0.82 (31.54)

5.76 (88.48)6.61 (70.40)6.04 (77.73)3.11 (60.04)5.40 (74.79)

6.13 (89.23)4.00 (95.24)5.95 (63.91)4.80 (93.75)5.19 (80.10)

4.12 (87.85)4.24 (77.37)3.16 (58.19)4.11 (96.71)3.93 (77.98)

TFP growth rate t%\0.58 (16.43)2.63 (49.34)2.01 (42.05)2.90 (71.21)2.08 (40.78)

-0.32 (-4.65)-0.47 (-7.78)0.82 (11.16)

-3.67 (-254.86)-0.80 (-14.82)

-2.41 (-135.39)-1.25 (105.98)4.40 (64.41)1.15 (36.98)0.47 (17.87)

3.18 (75.34)2.82 (60.78)0.60 (58.82)0.75 (86.22)1.78 (68.46)

0.75 (11.52)2.75 (29.60)1.73 (22.27)2.07 (39.96)1.82 (25.21)

0.74 (10.77)0.20 (4.76)

3.36 (36.09)0.32 (6.25)

1.29 (19.90)

0.57 (12.15)1.24 (22.63)2.27 (41.81)0.14 (3.29)

1.11 (22.02)

69

TABLE 2Sources of Economic Growth, Selected Asian Countries: 1980-2000 (...continued)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

PHILIPHINES1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000SINGAPORE1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

ROC1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

THAILAND1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000VIETNAM1980-841985-891990-941995-991980-2000

1.872.301.283.962.51

7.916.037.746.707.12

7.479.086.955.877.34

5.308.608.641.185.93

DNA3.616.807.666.36

4.21 (225.13)1.81 (78.70)

2.96 (231.25)2.93 (73.99)

2.88 (114.74)

8.20 (103.67)4.74 (78.61)5.41 (69.90)

7.11 (106.12)6.34 (89.05)

7.24 (96.92)6.19 (68.17)4.18 (60.14)4.34 (73.93)5.49 (74.80)

4.93 (93.02)4.94 (57.44)6.50 (75.23)

3.34 (283.05)4.93 (83.14)

DNA1.59 (44.04)2.68 (39.41)4.44 (57.96)3.09 (48.58)

-2.34 (-125,13)0.49 (21.30)

-1.68 (-131.25)1.03 (26.01)

-0.37 (-14.74)

-0.29 (-3.67)1.25 (21.39)2.33 (30.10)-0.41 (-6.12)0.78 (10.95)

0.23 (3.08)2.89 (31.83)2.77 (39.86)1.53 (26.07)1.85 (25.20)

0.37 (6.98)3.66 (42.56)2.14 (24.77)

-2.16 (-183.05)1.00 (16.86)

DNA2.02 (55.96)4.12 (60.59)3.22 (42.04)3.27 (51.42)

Source: Asian Productivity Organization (APO, 2004) and self computations.DNA = Data Not available.figures in the parentheses are the contribution of factor inputs and productivity in percentage terms to the respectivecountries' economic growth.

Next, we perform a disaggregating analysis where the twelve countries aredisaggregated into three sub-samples: East Asian consisting of ROK, ROC, and Japan;South-east Asian (ASEAN) comprising of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, thePhilippines and Indonesia; and, West Asian made-up of Nepal, Iran and India.

These sub-samples provide an interesting experiment for a study on the different sourcesof economic growth in Asian countries. Table 3 shows the empirical estimates of thesources of economic growth for the respective sub-samples.

70

The evidence provided in this paper suggests that the sources of economic growth in agroup of Asian countries differ from one another. From the table, it can be seen that theTFP growth rate registered by the ASEAN countries during the 1980-2000 (i.e., 1.00%)was the lowest followed by West Asian countries with a TFP growth rate of 1.22%, andEast Asian countries with 1.62%. This tends to suggest that the West Asian countries' orthe late-comers, during the entire period, had the ability to efficiently make use of thetechnology and management know-how acquired from the advanced industrialcountries. Indeed, the case for convergence appears to be true.

From the same table, what is also equally interesting is the fact that the 1998 financialcrisis-affected countries, especially among the ASEAN, were less able to manage thecrisis as compared with another sub-sample countries, East Asian countries. This isevident from the TFP growth rate registered by the former countries as a whole was -0.28% throughout the 1995-99 period, which was far low than that registered by its"counterparts". Thus, in general, the first sub-sample countries did not stand out interms of levels or improvements in technical efficiency compared to another group ofcountries.

Concluding this section, based on these results it can safely be said that our finding isnot totally in line with that of Young and Krugman, though the methodology used isthe same.

TABLE 3East Asian, South-east Asian (ASEAN) and West Asian Economies: GDP Growth Rate, InputGrowth Rate and TFP Growth Rate (Simple Average)

EAST ASIAN(ROK, ROC, and Japan)Period GDP growth rate (%) Inputs growth rate (%) TFP growth rate (%)1980-84 6.07 4.68 1.371985-89 7.70 4.87 2.821990-94 5.25 3.55 1.501995-99 5.31 2.52 1.451980-2000 5.72 3.90 (68.18) 1.82 (31.82)

SOUTH-EAST ASIAN (ASEAN)(Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia)Period GDF growth rate (%) Inputs growth rate (%) TFP growth rate <%11980-84 5.77 6.13 -0.371985-89 5.13 3.93 1.191990-94 6.85 5.01 1.851995-99 4.34 4.62 -0.281980-2000 5.63 4.77 (84.72) 1.00 (15.28)

71

TABLE 3East Asian, South-east Asian (ASEAN) and West Asian Economies: GDP Growth Rate, InputGrowth Rate and TFP Growth Rate (Simple Average) (... continued)

WEST ASIAN(Nepal, Iran and India)Period GDP growth rate (°/o\ Inputs growth rate (%} TFP growth rate (%)1980-84 3.33 3.75 -0.331985-89 3.21 2.29 0.871990-94 5.68 2.79 2.891995-99 4.63 2.65 1.401980-2000 4.26 3.04 (71.36) 1.22 (28.63)

Source: Asian Productivity Organization (APO, 2004), and self computations.Figures in the parentheses are the contribution of factor inputs and productivity, in percentage terms, to therespectivecountries economic growth.

CONCLUDING REMARK

In this study, it is shown that the sources of Asian economic growth in past two decadesor so were not homogeneous. While in some countries the source was input-driven, insome others it was productivity-driven. Specifically, in the case of ASEAN countries,with Vietnam being the only exception, all other countries' source of growth waspredominantly input-driven. Obviously, the finding provides little support to Young'sand Krugman's, because when the observation was extended to include Vietnam andfew West Asian countries the results were in stark contrast to theirs. Thus, we henceforthconclude that the growth of Asian economies was not fundamentally dominated byfactor accumulation.

As far as the growth accounting method, which was adopted by the previous and presentstudies to measure the sources of a country or a group of countries' economic growthand its attributes, is concerned, as aptly put by Hulten (2000), it is still the work horse ofempirical growth analysis. For all its flaws, be it real or imagined, as discussed in themeasurement issues, many researchers have used it to gain valuable insights into theprocess of economic growth. Not only thousands of research papers have been publishedbut also the residual (TFP) has consistently become a closely watched governmentstatistics. Indeed, this proves nothing but an evergreen and sustainable forty-year Solowvintage work. Bravo Solow!

72

REFERENCES

Asian Productivity Organization (APO), Annual Report, 2004.Collins, S.M. and Bosworth, B.P., "Economic Growth in East Asia: Accumulation Versus

Assimilation", Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol.2,1996, pp.135-191.Crafts, N., "East Asian Growth Before and After the Crisis", IMF Staff Papers, vol.46,

no.2 (June) 1999.Easterly, W., "The Mystery of Growth: Shocks, Policies, and Surprises in Old and New

Theories of Economic Growth, The Singapore Economic Review, vol.40, no.l, 1995.Enke, S., Economics for Development, London: Dennis Dobson, 1963.Fatimah, S., Saad, M.S., Azhar, H., and Abdul Azid, C.I., "Sources of Growth Studies in

Malaysia: Methodologies and Results" Faculty of Economics and Administration(FEA) Working Paper No. 2003-10, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 2003.

Felipe, J., "Total Factor Productivity Growth in East Asia: A Critical Survey", Journalof Development Studies, vol.35, no.4,1999, pp.1-41.

Gan, W.B., and Soon, L.Y., "Input- versus Productivity-Driven Growth: Implicationsfor Malaysian Economy" in Soon and Nagaraj, Productivity for SustainableDevelopment, University of Malaya Press, 1998.

Han, G., Kaliappa, K., and Singh, N., "Productivity, Efficiency and Economic Growth:East Asia and the Rest of the World", The Journal of Developing Areas, vol.37,no.2, 2004.

Han, G., Kalirajan, K., and Singh, N., "Productivity, Efficiency and Economic Growth:East Asia and the Rest of the World", The Journal of Developing Areas, vol.37,no.2, 2004.

Hayami, Y., and Ogasawara, J., "Changes in the Sources of Modern Economic Growth:Japan Compared with the United States," Journal of Japanese and InternationalEconomies, vol.13,1999, pp.1-21.

Hulten, C.R., "Divisia Index Numbers," Econometrica, vol.41, no.l, 1973.Hulten, C.R., "Productivity Change, Capacity Utilization and the Source of Efficiency

Growth," Journal of Econometrics, vol.33, no.2,1986.Hulten, C.R., "Total Factor Productivity: A Short Biography", NBER Working Paper

Series 7471, 2000.Hulten C. R., and Srinivasan, S., "Indian Manufacturing Industry: Elephant or Tiger",

University of Maryland, October 1999.IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, various issues.International Monetary Fund (IMF), "The Asian Crisis and the Region's Long-term

Growth Performance", 1998, pp.82-106.Krugman, P., "The Myth of Asia's Miracle", Foreign Affairs, vol.73, no. 6,1994, pp.62-

77.Sarel, M., "Growth and Productivity in ASEAN", IMF Working Paper, WP/97/97,

August 1997.Singh, N., and Trieu, H., "Accounting for East Asian Growth: Japan, Korea and Taiwan"

Indian Economic Review, vol.20, no.l, 1999.

73

Singh, N., arid Trieu, H., "The Role pfR&D in Explaining Total Factor ProductivityGrowth in Japan, Korea and Taiwan" UCSC Dept. of Economics Working Paper,1997.

Sonobe, T., and Otsuka, K., "A New Decomposition Approach to GrowthAccounting: Derivation of the Formula and Its Application to Prewar Japan" Japanand the World Economy, vol.13, no.2, 2001.

Tinakorn, P., and Sussangkarn, C, "Productivity Growth in Thailand, Pattaya CityNational Economic and Social Development Board and Thailand DevelopmentResearch Institute, 1994.

Wong, Fot-Chyi, "Discussion", in Productivity and Growth, Proceedings of a Conference,Sydney Economic Group, Reserve Bank of Australia, 1995.

Young, A., "The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the Statistical Realities of the EastAsian Experience," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, pp.641-80.

74

HOW THOUGHT PROCESSES IMPACT TECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCTIVITY*

By

EDGAR J.RIDLEY,EDGAR J.RIDLEY & ASSOCIATES

INC. INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS.

In order for globalization and productivity to be effective for research and developmentto introduce new products that will qualitatively change our lives for the better; theremust be a change in people behavior that will only occur when an attitudinal shift takesplace. This attitudinal shift has been emphasized by the former Prime Minister ofMalaysia, Mahathir Muhamad, and is one of the main drivers for Malaysia's success inthe Pacific Rim and the world at large.

When talking about productivity and the engine that runs productivity, we are talkingabout people. We will first explore why traditional thought processes have failed toproduce effective behavior patterns that would allow decision-making that would enablethe masses of people to behave in such a way that the problems that we see now wouldbe drastically reduced or eliminated completely.

It is very important to understand that the most effective approach to problem solvingis multi-disciplinary. This approach has never been dealt with adequately. The attemptto solve problems has been one-dimensional and the resulting solutions have beeninadequate and misleading. This applies to almost all disciplines but is especiallyimportant for the critical disciplines of the behavioral sciences. The late consultant, W.E. Deming (1982), stated,

Transformation can only be accomplished by man. Not by hardware(computers, gadgets, automation, new machinery). A company cannot buyits way into quality.

Deming (1982) continued,In my experience, people can face almost any problem except the problemsof people. They can work long hours, face declining business, face loss ofjobs, but not the problems of people. Faced with problems of people(management included), management, in my experience, goes into a state ofparalysis, taking refuge in formation of QC Circles and groups forEmployment Involvement, Employment participation, and Quality of WorkLife. These groups predictably disintegrate within a few months from

The Paper Presented at The International Quality Conference, August 17-JS 2004, Malaysia

15

frustration, finding themselves unwilling parties to a cruel hoax, unable toaccomplish anything, for the simple reason that no one in management willtake action on suggestions for improvement. These are devastatingly crueldevices to get rid of the problems of people. There are of course pleasingexceptions, where the management understands their responsibilities, wherethe management participates with advice and action on suggestions forremoval of barriers to pride of workmanship.

I have often wondered why it is so problematic for management and leaders to dealwith the critical concern of people behavior, which is the core of management andleadership. The engine that runs productivity is people and their mode of behavior,which dictates their decision-making and creativity. To be sure, that is the lifeblood oftechnology; it drives the effectiveness of that technology and its impact on productivity.

I have come to realize that in solving the problems of people, you are dealing with themost critical area of human life that one can face. As a result, it is extremely difficult formanagers and leaders to face the ultimate realities that accompany the problemsassociated with people, people behavior, and ultimately, a just and civilized civilization.Indeed, if one attempts to skip over these issues, then the critical research anddevelopment along with an effective mode of technology transfer will never be realized.

The average procedures for problem solving in today's highly advanced, technologicalworld are totally in adequate. Unfortunately, it starts with the basic assumption thatthe current thought processes that dictate human behavior are sound. Subsequentresearch and development, built on these same thought processes, drives a technologyagain assumed to be not only sound but also adequate for creativity and advancementof civilization.

Research is a crucial and critical part of productivity and its growth, since its function isto elicit knowledge and data to perpetuate a useful product. Development is essentialfor a product to reach its ultimate qualitative ness. Once these events have taken place,the transfer of that technology has to be accomplished or all work has been for naught.That is the reason why the thought processes that drive these events must be sound.The current use of technology does not emphasize this methodology, simply becausemanagement and leaders do not want to confront uncomfortable, threatening issues.

A core problem affecting research and development is the tendency to proceed withisolated concepts that are unrelated to the multiple problems faced in today's civilization.Due to a one-dimensional approach to problem solving, there is a disconnect. There isa fear derived from connecting problem solving and research and development withthe real problems of people taken in context with the cultural problems that emanatefrom real-world experiences. We are all familiar with the critical problems evident inAfrica, Asia and the Middle East today. The problems of war, cultural conflict, and

76

famine have to be implicitly tied to technology and its development. Today's economicissues arising from globalization have to be accounted for when conducting researchand development and technology transfer. Nothing can be done in isolation; all thingsare related. If that is not understood, then the methodologies used to advance technologyand productivity will never be effective.

The point that I am trying to make here is that people and their behavior drive theachievement of technology and its effectiveness. Deming (1982) stated,

The wealth of a nation depends on its people, management, and government, morethan on its natural resources.

This is especially true when we look at the problems in Africa and other areas of theworld that are rich in natural resources. When people behavior is ineffective and goodmanagement is lacking, those natural resources cannot be taken advantage of by thepeople. As noted by APO Secretary General Tajima (2003),

The new development scenario in the region and the world, rapid advances intechnology, new concepts in business, and new demands from society will require newperspectives and strategies in our productivity endeavor.

SYMBOLS VS. SYMPTOMS

One thing has to be made absolutely clear. It is understood by almost all scholars thatthere are two possible approaches to the problems and disturbances that life presents.They are the symptomatic approach and the symbolic approach. AT this point it isimportant to define symbolism. Carl Jung (1964) gave a very good working definitionof the symbolic when he stated:

A word or an image is symbolic when it implies something more than its obvious andimmediate meaning.

This can also be the meaning of myth.

Conversely, a sign, in its concrete form, is a symptom. Therefore, a good workingdefinition of a symptom is a natural sign, as smoke is symptom of fire. As Deacon(1997) says,

Laughter indicates something about what just preceded it as a symptom of a person'sresponse to certain stimuli.

There are two ways to use symptoms: one is the analysis of data (natural signs orsymptoms) like genetic material or fossils" as a part of a greater event or a complex

77

condition," as Langer (1948) states. Secondly, we use symptoms in our behavior whenwe see things as they really are without adding myth to what we see. We do not addmore than its obvious and immediate meaning. A tree is a tree; there is no magic intrees. A stone is a stone; there is no magic in stones. We do not apply superstition toevents or things. Even more basic, when we see someone who does not look like usfrom another culture or country, we do not add connotations that stem from individualidiosyncrasies or prejudices. We see each other as we really are, no more, no less. Thisis living without myth. Indeed, we experience the energy that creates whatever stimuliare present as symptoms of our experience. Living without myth is the ultimateexperience as a non-symbolic-behaving human. This is the engine that must be operablewhen we enter the phase of research and development and technology transfer, andany other starting point is fruitless and will lead to faulty results.

It has been traditionally understood that we think and live not merely symptomatically,but also symbolically. This has been the problem. It is not possible to thinksymptomatically and symbolically at the same time and behave soundly. What thisactually produces is a schizophrenic person who is very ritualistic and superstitious.

In traditional psychological circles, especially Carl Jung, the aim is to always turnsymptoms into symbols. This produces a symbolizing attitude where humans makedecisions based on myth and superstition, subsequently reversing symptoms intosymbols. This phenomenon started in pre-history and continues today. It cannot bestressed enough that the critical interaction is a new, logical one that involves a dynamicrelationship between symbols and symptoms. Everything must start from this. Thereis no other starting point.

It is essential to understand that whether a thing is a symbol or not depends chieflyupon the attitude of the observing person. For one person, an object can be a symbol;for another person, that same object can be a natural sign. Depending on the individualneurological process, anything can be a symbol. As Langer (1948) stated:

A natural sign is a part of a greater event or a complex condition, and to an experiencedobserver, it signifies the rest of that situation of which it is a notable feature. It is asymptom of a state of affairs.

Although the traditional thought process has been to think symbolically, symbolic-behaving man cannot solve the problems that we face in today's world. Symbolicbehavior has produced people who cannot deal with reality, so they mask that inabilityby mythologizing events and concepts. They then manipulate data in order to fit theirown agenda. We experienced this with the meltdown of American firms such as Enronand Arthur Andersen.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN CORRECT HISTORY

78

Symbolic thought is the engine that influences the effectiveness of Research andDevelopment, and it eliminates any possibility of having an effective mode oftechnological transfer. Research that is approached with a symbolizing attitude isaccompanied by assumptions that are based on myths that seriously damage the researchmethodology. For example, a scientist educated in the West will in all probability haveassumptions based on Western democratic principles, inclusive of history, anthropology,and other disciplines that formulate the complete educational network of the Westernworld. The scholar, Martin Bernal (1985) states,

In his Book II, Herodotos gives details of many cultic parallels between the Greeks andEgyptian religious systems and explicitly reasons that as they were closely far older inEgypt, that must be their place of origin (11:49). It is interesting to note that at theUniversity of Oxford all books of Herodotos are required reading except for Book II.The situation is not so clear cut an Cambridge but there too Book II is omitted withsome others.

Institutions like Oxford and Cambridge do not encourage students to read HeordotosBook II, due to the emphasis Herodotos placed on Egypt's influence on Greece.Additionally, these institutions object to Heordotos' infamous passage, when he stated"that the Egyptians had black skin and woolly hair", Herodotos was saying that theEgyptians were indeed Black Africans.

This attitude of the Western world is compatible with the uproar over UNESCO's projectto rewrite the history of Africa. This objection to UNESCO's great work had far-reachingimpact on UNESCO's ability to accomplish its objectives in the areas of science andtechnology. UNESCO is the multilateral United Nations body responsible for education,culture, and science. In 1984, the United States pulled' out of UNESCO, with Britainleaving a year later. Britain return to UNESCO in 1997 when it was assured that theorganization has been restructured; the U.S. finally rejoined in 2003. The withdrawalof the United States and Britain was driven primarily by their disagreement with thenSecretary General of UNESCO Amadou M'Bow and his stated direction for theorganization. UNESCO's science and engineering programs were cut by 37 percentdue to its lowered budget.

In the process of challenging Western principles for the sake of research anddevelopment, Secretary General M'Bow had researched African history withoutmythologizing it. For the General History of Africa Series, he gathered eminent scholarsto record an African history that was void of the paternalistic, racist ideas of the West.UNESCO's noble initiative would put to rest what the late Cheikh Anta Diop called the"most monstrous falsification in the history of humanity by modern historians". Thispoint is important for it illustrates how UNESCO's seminal work was destroyed by agroup of people who did not want to see a fair reinterpretation of history. The

79

mythologizing of historical research is taught in Western educational institutions,perpetuating those assumptions that are brought into research. That mythologizedresearch elicits products and ideas that fail to serve the interests of the entire population.Those products and ideas, developed without objective scrutiny, are geared to keep inplace the prevailing status quo. Had Secretary General M'Bow's program been permittedto proceed, an accurate portrayal of world history would have demythologized previousfalse assumptions. This development would have led the way to the kind of soundresearch that would deliver an attitudinal change. The late physicist, Cheikh AntaDiop states:

The attitude which consists of resorting to an insane misinterpretation of texts insteadof accepting the evidence, is typical of modern scholarship. It reflects the special stateof mind that prompts one to seek secondary meanings for words rather than give themtheir usual significance.

The late linguist, Max Muller, stated:What intellectual condition was our race when mythology originated? Wasthere a period of temporary insanity through which the human mind had topass, and was it a madness identically the same in the South of India and inthe north of Iceland?

What I am saying is that the moment man started to symbolize, the human mindunderwent a period of temporary insanity. That is what we call a NeurologicalMisadventure. Diop and muller both were at a loss to explain the dynamics that createda situation where the human mind underwent a strange metamorphosis. Mullercontinued,

Even if we take only that part of mythology which refers to religion, in our sense of theword, or the myths which bear on the highest problems of philosophy - such as thecreation, the relation of man to God, Life and death, virtue and vice - myths generallythe most modern in origin, we find that even this small portion, which might be supposedto contain some sober ideas, or some pure and sublime conceptions, is unworthy of theancestors of the Homeric poets, or the Ionic philosophers.

These are the dynamics that produce the engine that directs Research and Development.There is an old technology saying which states "garbage in - garbage out". If mythologyis fed into Research and Development, the results will be more mythology. Productsand ideas will be defective, will never stand the test of time, and will lapse intoirrelevance.

Denting (1982) further states,What is the world's most undeveloped nation? With the storehouse of skillsand knowledge contained in its millions of unemployed, and with the even

80

more appalling underused, misuse, and abuse of skills and knowledge in thearmy of employed people in all ranks in all industries, the United States maybe today the most underdeveloped nation in the world.

Although Deming wrote this over 20 years ago, I think it is the one of the most revealingstatements ever made about a so-called superpower in modern history. Deming wasactually describing symbolic behavior. The United States has mastered the manipulationof symbol systems, which only reinforces its underdevelopment. Additionally, Deming'sstatement begs the question of why some of America's most talented and knowledgeablepeople are not being used in Research and Development? In fact, the predominance ofunderutilized members of society are people of color. Due to racism, poverty, unequalemployment and an unjust system, people with the ability to solve problems are stronglydiscouraged. Contributions to research and development, when made by people ofcolor, are resisted, due to myths, superstition and even physical force.

America's underdevelopment became most visible in the tragic bombing of the WorldTrade Center, on September 11,2001. It is well-documented that U.S. law enforcementagencies competed instead of cooperating with each other both in the months prior to,as well as during critical, time-sensitive moments following the attack. Instead ofallowing all her people to participate fully in the critical disciplines that could haveavoided September 11, the United States spends zealous and time-wasting energydividing and oppressing people of color. Notwithstanding our advanced technology,interdepartmental conflicts led to failure in technology transfer due to abhorrent peoplebehavior. This is symbolic behavior that will ultimately cause not only destruction inthe United States, but globally, and it must be eradicated wherever it is practiced.

Research and development are extremely important to make the world truly civilized.Objective research is not only critical for organizations, but for life itself. Researchscientists know that data can produce information that may or may not be desirable.There is an old saying: "You must be able to look truth in the face and not blink."When one is overcome with his or her personal agenda or prejudices, there is a tendencyto manipulate the research findings, especially if those findings have a different outcomethan expected. This is why it is imperative to perform research and development withouta symbolizing mind-set. This would mitigate any desire to manipulate conclusionsthat do not coincide with what was expected.The development of a product or idea is critical to the ultimate success of a product,whether material or intellectual. Development must reach established standards, andtechnology transfer can be successful only if it is free of mythology. When transferringtechnology, multidisciplinary data must be seriously considered, which means issueslike religion, language, and other cultural differences must be carefully evaluated.

A principal illustration of the promises of research, development and technology transferhas to be the global quest to find a cure for AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies have

81

done a splendid job fast-tracking this technology; in fact, breakthrough research hasconfirmed through clinical trials that generic AIDS drugs have as much efficacy asbrand-name drugs. However, the implementation of generic drugs is being constraineddue to lack of funds - the Bush administration does not agree that the generic drugshave been proven to be as effective, even though they are chemically identical to thebrand-name drugs. The U.S. bureaucratic system has prevented a method of distributionthat will allow affected people to take advantages of these drugs. I want to be veryclear about this: the technology is in place, but it is the destructive people behavior thatallows the HIV virus to continue its devastation, especially in poor areas of the world.

THE TECHNOLOGY OF FISH PRODUCTION

A study done by Dr. Ka He at Harvard's School of Public Health is an excellent exampleof the need for evolving research and development. Accepted wisdom over the lasttwo decades has found that fish consumption, the more the better, reduces the risk ofstroke and heart attack. The Harvard study found that men consuming seafood asseldom as once a month can cut their risk of the most common kind of stroke by morethan 40 %. The significance of this study was it illustrated how even when a low quantityof fish was eaten - one to three meals monthly - maximum benefit was produced.Previous studies had dictated that fish ahd to be eaten at least once or twice a week,suggesting a correlation between additional fish consumed and the amount of benefitmaximized. Comparatively, a conflicting Harvard study involving 8,000 female nursesfound that women that ate fish five or more times weekly had a 50% lower risk ofstroke than women consuming fish less than once a month. Dr. He could not explainwhy his study found a threshold level, while the womens' study found a progressivebenefit.

Another mystery evolved out of Dr. He's research project. Science has concluded foryears that the presence of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish wards off heartdisease and stroke. This led consumers to create demand for fish oil capsules. But Dr.He's study, like other recent ones, found no definitive connection that fish with largeramounts of omega-3 fatty acids conferred larger protection against stroke. This leftexperts to wonder whether the protection from stroke derived from some othercomponents of the fish, some combination, or what? This does not mean that omega-3fatty acids do not have other kinds of benefits.

What is exciting about Dr. He's study is that it can only reach a positive conclusion bysymptomatic analysis. The long-standing assumption that omega-3 fatty acids are theentity in fish that protects against heart disease and stroke is called into question. Becauseof the resulting assumptions of the study, other components are being looked at besidesomega-3. Due to the analysis of symptoms, the myth of omega-3 benefits is beingrethought. Dr. He's study illustrates how a symptomatic approach is the only viableanalytical tool for any research projects. The Orientalist, Martin Bernal (1985) states:

82

It is my contention that there is no scholarship that can stand outside the social andintellectual paradigms held by the community or communities to which the scholarbelongs.

What is paramount here, and I want to emphasize this, is that no finding, no concept,can be viable unless it can be intrinsically tied and implemented within the cultural andglobal communities of the world. The Ivory Tower approach to scholarship is goneforever and should never raise its head again. All research and development has to belinked to the multiple issues that confront us today. Nothing can be separated.

What are the global implications of the technology of fish production? The over-exportation of fish stocks could have disastrous consequences in developing countries.Global fish productions will probably not keep pace with population growth, and thatcould impact heavily on the developing world, where the demand greatly exceedssupply.

European industrial fishing fleets are heading south to African borders, with EuropeanUnion diplomats clearing the way with inequitable fisheries pacts. The European Unionis desperate to preserve the domestic fishing industries in European regions (Spain,Portugal, Britain, etc.) to save jobs dependent on employment in fishing. This gives theEuropean Union a technological edge against commercial challenges from the East. Byand large, the diplomatic and technological infrastructures of developing nations areinadequate to effectively contest the European claim to fish their waters.

This feeds right into the perception and reality that the so-called developed world caresnothing about the so-called developing world. This fits perfectly with what formerPrime Minister Mahathir Mohamad meant when he stated,

'The Western world believes that a western life is much more valuable thananyone else's. It is alright for others to die but don't you dare touch thewesterners.'

Dr. Mahathir believed this attitude was symptomatic of a new racism, reminiscent ofthat practiced by the British in Colonial times (Thonhill & Burton, 2002).

We owe it to the global community to incorporate today's tensions and controversiesinto the results of research and development. We must have the objectivity and courageto look at the results of our research, even if we dislike the outcome, and implement thedate accordingly.

83

ANALYSIS OF SIGNS IN FOSSIL RESEARCH

A classic study reported in Nature involved the discovery of the fossilized skulls of twoadults and a child found in Ethiopia. Scientists claimed they see for the first time theimmediate ancestors of modern humans. There have been continuous debates on theorigin of man and whether all humans derive originally from Africa or a multi-regionalapproach, which states that there were several regional Homo sapiens.

All conclusive evidence from almost all disciplines rule out a multi-regional approach.All evidence points to a direct line to Africa for all humans, and the recent fossil finds inEthiopia prove without a doubt that the multi-regional concept is null and void. Thefossils that were found in Ethiopia must be remembered as natural signs. In otherwords, they are symptoms that show that Africa is the cradle of humanity. The newfossils proved that homo sapiens, with almost entirely human characteristics, hadevolved in Africa before the Neanderthals evolved into their classic form. These fossilsprove conclusively that the Neanderthals had no relationship with modern humans.The results of the finds and the evaluation of the symptoms concluded the fact that weare all Africans. Only those with a symbolizing attitude will deny the results of theresearch, which is evident to all objective people.

Spencer Wells, an evolutionary scientist, began his research on the genetics of humanpopulation in Central Asia. Using DNA, Wells confirmed the African origin of humanity,and he was able to trace man's roots as he left Africa to populate the rest of the world.As we know, DNA is a natural sign, or symptom, of the dynamics of our genetic code.This phenomenon makes it possible for us to have a clear understanding or our pastand the dynamics of the migration that humans embarked on. Wells' research wasvoid of any mythology - the symptoms, or natural signs were analyzed free of theflaws that mythological thinking would introduce.

Research and development carried out by individuals who do not think symbolically isfree of superstition - unlike a project that starts from a symbolic base. A technologyfree of mythology can be effectively transferred, free of the conflicts that accompany atransfer that has symbol systems throughout.

In conclusion, the dilemma we face for effective technology transfer is whether to thinksymbolically or symptomatically. This is the all-encompassing issue here and it cannotbe escaped. In order for productivity to be effective, the engine that runs all technologymust be driven by a symptomatic approach.

When a symbolic approach is taken, we end up in the situation that the United Statesfinds itself in, in Iraq. As is well known, it has been concluded by a U.S. SenateIntelligence Committee that the United States acted on deeply flawed data in going towar with Iraq. It has even been suggested by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that

84

the data was intentionally flawed. Whatever the case, the people of the United Stateswere deliberately fed false information regarding Iraq. The study concluded that ifCongress had known the real facts about weapons of mass destruction, they wouldnever have gone to war. This is indeed tragic. It demonstrates how the symbolizingattitude of the U.S. government mythologized facts and developed a plan of actionbased on those facts that was not only deeply flawed, but totally incorrect and withoutmerit. This led to the unnecessary death and injury of thousands of people, and thegrief of untold thousands of families. The United States went into Iraq based on researchdata that was mythological in content and ritualistic in application. The final resultswere indeed horrific.

In my research, all evidence points to a barbaric civilization based on superstition andmyth that is circling with no end in sight. The only way out of this circular endeavor isto eradicate all symbol systems and put in its place symptomatic approach that isthoroughgoing in every segment of civilization. This would produce a civilization thatis truly where man is no longer Homo symbolicus but Homo symptomaticus.

REFERENCES

Deming, W. Edwards, (1982i). Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts institute of TechnologyCenter for Advances Engineering Study, pp.18.

Deming, W. Edwards, (1982ii). Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts institute of TechnologyCenter for Advances Engineering Study, pp.85.

Deming, W. Edwards, (1982iii). Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts institute of TechnologyCenter for Advances Engineering Study, pp.6.

Deming, W. Edwards, (1982iv). Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts institute of TechnologyCenter for Advances Engineering Study, pp.18.

APO Secretary General Takashi Tajima, (2003). 45th Session of the APO Governing BodyMeeting, 3-5 September, Korolevu, Fiji.

Jung, Carl G., Ed., (1964). Man and His Symbols, Doubley, New York,Deacon, Terence W., (1948). The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and

the Brain, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, pp. 94-95

85

PRODUKTIVITI SEKTOR PERTANIAN MALAYSIA

Oleh

FATIMAH SAIDSAAD MOHD SAID

Jabatan Ekonomi GunaanFakulti Ekonomi dan Pentadbiran

Universiti Malaya

AZMAH HAJI OTHMANJabatan Pengajian PembangunanFakulti Ekonomi dan Pentadbiran

Universiti Malaya

Abstrak

Kajian ini menggunakan data siri masa dari tahun 1966-2000 untuk menganalisis perubahanjangka panjang perhubungan antara input dengan output dan melihat kesan pembangunanpertanian terhadap produktiviti sektor pertanian. Penemuan kaftan menunjukkan walaupunusaha dilakukan untuk memoden dan memajukan sektor pertanian, namun kadarpertumbuhantahunan purata pengeluaran pertanian Ynerosot dari 8.23 peratus pada tahun 1966-1970 kepada1.13 peratus pada tahun 1996-2000. Sepanjang tahun 1966-2000, produktiviti buruh mencatatkadar pertumbuhan purata tahunan yang paling tinggi iaitu 4.59 peratus berbanding dengan2.18 peratus produktiviti buruh dan 2.94 peratus produktiviti total. Di sepanjang tempoh kajian,kesemua ukuran produktiviti merekodkan kadar pertumbuhan yang semakin merosot. Keadaanini mencerminkan kemerosotan kecekapan pengeluaran sektor pertanian Malaysia yang mungkindisebabkan masalah penyelarasan teknologi dan subsidi input.

PENGENALAN

Pertumbuhan produktiviti pertanian merupakan syarat penting untuk pertumbuhanekonomi negara (Hayami dan Ruttan, 1971). Peningkatan produktiviti pertanian secaralangsung memberi sumbangan ke arah peningkatan pendapatan, mengatasi masalahkemiskinan dan memperbaiki taraf hidup penduduk luar bandar. Di sampingmenyediakan sumber bekalan makanan yang mantap kepada penduduk yang semakinmeningkat, peningkatan produktiviti sektor pertanian juga akan memastikan penawaraninput pertanian yang mencukupi kepada sektor perkilangan, khususnya industriberasaskan pertanian dan sektor perkhidmatan.

87

Reformasi pertanian di Malaysia bermula semenjak awal tahun 1960an apabila kerajaanmelancarkan Rancangan Malaysia Pertama, 1960-1970. Reformasi pertanian di Malaysiadilaksanakan melalui pembangunan tanah, pembangunan wilayah, penyelidikan danpembangunan (P&P) dan dasar pertanian (Pazim, 2001). Pembangunan tanahdilaksanakan melalui program penerokaan dan pembukaan tanah baru dan programin-situ. Pembangunan in-situ dikendalikan melalui program penyatuan dan pemulihantanah, penanaman semula, pengairan moden dan pembangunan pertanian bersepadu.

Pembangunan wilayah memberikan penekanan kepada pembangunan seimbang antarakawasan luar bandar dengan bandar melalui strategi menempatkan industri kecil dikawasan pertanian moden. Penyelidikan pertanian dilaksanakan oleh institusi sepertiInstitut Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan Pertanian Malaysia (MARDI), InstitutPenyelidikan Getah Malaysia (RRIM), Institut Penyelidikan Hutan Malaysia (FRIM)dan universiti tempatan. Di samping terlibat dalam aktiviti penyelidikan, agensi tersebutjuga terlibat dalam usaha menyebarkan penemuan hasil kajian kepada para petani.

Semenjak tahun 1984, Malaysia telah memperkenalkan tiga dasar pertanian negara,iaitu Dasar Pertanian Negara Pertama (1984-1991), Kedua (1991-1998) dan Ketiga (1998-2010). Teras utama Dasar Pertanian Negara ialah untuk menjadikan sektor pertaniannegara sebagai sektor yang moden, dinamik dan berdayasaing. Pada amnya,pembangunan pertanian di Malaysia memberikan penumpuan kepada peningkatanproduktiviti pertanian melalui penggunaan sepenuhnya sumber pertanian secara lebihcekap.

Objektif kajian ini ialah menganalisis perubahan jangka panjang perhubungan antarainput-output aggregat dan menilai kesan pembangunan pertanian terhadap kadarpertumbuhan produktiviti sektor pertanian. Di samping menganalisis dan menganggarpertumbuhan input dan produktiviti sektor pertanian untuk keseluruhan tempoh kajian1966-2000, analisis juga dibuat terhadap tujuh sub-masa yang berbeza.

PENGUKURAN PRODUKTIVITI DAN DATA

Produktiviti pertanian didefinisikan sebagai kecekapan penggunaan input dalammenghasilkan output berdasarkan proses pengeluaran tertentu. Peningkatanproduktiviti pertanian dapat menjimatkan penggunaan sumber-sumber terhad danmenggambarkan peningkatan kecekapan produktif dan perbaikan prestasi sektorpertanian. Pelbagai ukuran produktiviti telah diperkenalkan dalam penulisan terdahuluoleh Crosson {1955 & 1970), Kendrick (1966) dan Yamada (1975). Produktiviti dapatdiukur melalui dua ukuran iaitu produktiviti separa dan total.

Ukuran produktiviti separa mengukur perhubungan antara output dengan inputtunggal, misalnya tanah atau buruh. Nisbah produktiviti separa mencerminkan bukansahaja perubahan kecekapan produktif, malah menggambarkan perubahan dalam

88

perkadaran input, ataupun penggantian input. Peningkatan produktiviti total, dalamjangka pendek mencerminkan perubahan kecekapan buruh dan kadar penggunaanloji dan kelengkapan. Dalam jangka panjang, ianya mencerminkan perbaikan teknologidan organisasi pengeluaran {Kendrick, 1966). Dalam kajian ini kedua-dua ukuranproduktiviti tersebut digunakan yang diukur berdasarkan persamaan berikut:

Produktiviti buruh = jumlah output pertartian / jumlah input pertanianProduktiviti tanah = jumlah output pertanian / jumlah tanah pertanianIndeks produktiviti total = indeks output total / indeks input total

Indeks output total merujuk kepada indeks jumlah output pertanian. Indeks outputtotal didefinisikan sebagai purata pemberat indeks tanah, buruh, baja dan jentera,dengan bahagian setiap input digunakan sebagai pemberat (Yamada, 1975; Mya Than,1988 dan Mad Nasir, Abdul Aziz dan Mohd, Arief, 1989). Indeks input total dianggarberdasarkan persamaan berikut:

(1)di mana:It : indeks input total tahun t

s : bahagian input i tahun tq.t : indeks kuantiti input i tahun ti : input 1, 2, 3 dan 4t : tahun 1,2,3........ T

Oleh kerana data bahagian setiap input tidak diperolehi, maka data ini bolehdianggarkan dari persamaan fungsi pengeluaran seperti yang dilakukan oleh BankDunia (1993). Dalam kajian ini s^ dianggarkan dari persamaan fungsi pengeluaransektor pertanian, iaitu dengan meregresikan log output tahunan terhadap log tanah,buruh, baja dan jentera. Pekali keanjalan output yang dianggarkan diambil sebagaibahagian input. Jadual 1 menunjukkan anggaran ganda dua terkecil biasa fungsipengeluaran sektor pertanian Malaysia dari tahun 1966-2000. Pekali tanah dan buruhdidapati signifikan dan sektor pertanian Malaysia mengalami pulangan berkurangikut skala.

Kajian ini menggunakan data siri masa output agregat, tanah, buruh, baja dan jenterapertanian dari tahun 1966-2000 yang diperolehi dari World Development Indicators, 2003dan pelbagai terbitan Laporan Ekonomi. Output pertanian diukur dengan menggunakandata Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) sektor pertanian pada harga malar tahun1987. Input tanah diukur berdasarkan jumlah hektar tanah pertanian. Input buruhdidef inasikan berdasarkan jumlah gunatenaga sektor pertanian dan input modal diukurberdasarkan jumlah jentera pertanian. Input baja diukur dalam metrik ton bajadigunakan.

89

SEKTOR PERTANIAN MALAYSIA

Pada tahap awal pembangunan ekonomi, sektor pertanian memainkan peranan pentingdalam ekonomi negara dengan menyumbangkan kira-kira 31.5 peratus kepada KDNKdan 52.1 peratus gunatenaga tahun 1965 (Jadual 2). Walau bagaimanapun, dalam prosesperalihan ke arah pembangunan perindustrian, sektor ini menjadi semakin kurangpenting apabila ianya hanya menyumbangkan masing-masingnya 10.5 peratus dan 13.1peratus kepada KDNK dan gunatenaga tahun 2000. Sebaliknya, kepentingan sektorperkilangan dan perkhidmatan semakin meningkat sejajar dengan kepesatan prosesperindustrian Malaysia.

PERTUMBUHAN OUTPUT PERTANIAN

Prestasi output pertanian antara tahun 1966-2000 ditunjukkan dalam Jadual 3 dan Rajah1. Output sektor pertanian Malaysia meningkat sebanyak 273.3 peratus sepanjangtempoh kajian ataupun bertumbuh pada kadar 4.04 peratus setahun. Manakala kadarpertumfauhan pada setiap sub-masa pula menunjukkan prestasi sektor pertanian yangsemakin merosot. Kadar pertumbuhan tahunan purata pengeluaran pertanian merosotdari 8.23 peratus pada tahun 1966-1970 kepada negatif 0.56 peratus pada tahun 1991-1995 dan meningkat semula kepada 1.13 peratus pada tahun 1996-2000.

Pertumbuhan pesat output pertanian pada awal tahun 1970an disumbangkanterutamanya oleh pertumbuhan pesat pengeluaran minyak kelapa sawit, ikan danternakan (Malaysia, 1981). Manakala kemerosotan output pertanian dari tahun 1991sehingga 2000 pula adalah akibat dari pertumbuhan negatif pengeluaran perhutanan,pembalakan, getah dan koko. Prestasi lembab output pertanian dalam tempoh inidisebabkan beberapa kekangan yang dihadapi sektor pertanian, misalnya kekuranganburuh, keterbatasan kawasan tanah pertanian yang sesuai, pelaburan modal yangrendah, kemelesetan ekonomi dunia dan harga komoditi pertanian yang rendahmisalnya koko dan lada (Malaysia, 2001)

Bagi melihat perhubungan antara pembangunan pertanian dengan keadaan ekonomiMalaysia keseluruhannya adalah penting untuk kita membandingkan kadarpertumbuhan output pertanian dengan kadar pertumbuhan penduduk. Seperti yangdapat dilihat dalam Jadual 3, dari tahun 1966 sehingga tahun 1990, kadar pertumbuhanpurata output pertanian melebihi kadar pertumbuhan purata penduduk.

WaJau bagaimanapun, di samping usaha bersungguh-sungguh untuk memajukan sektorpertanian, keadaan sebaliknya terjadi pada tahun 1990an. Kadar pertumbuhan purataoutput pertanian dalam tahun 1990an jauh lebih rendah dari kadar pertumbuhan puratapenduduk. Keadaan ini mencerminkan pengeluaran pertanian yang tidak mencukupibagi memenuhi permintaan dalam negeri. Jni sudah pasti menimbulkan masalah

90

kekurangan sumber makanan yang serius dan meningkatkan kebergantungan terhadapimport makanan dari luar negara. Ini terbukti daripada perangkaan tahun 2002 yangmenunjukkan Malaysia membelanjakan lebih kurang RM12.43 bilion terhadap importmakanan berbanding dengan eksport makanan yang bernilai hanya RM7.42 bilion(Utusan Malaysia, 14 Febuari 2005).

PERTUMBUHAN INPUT PERTANIAN

TAN AH

Dari tahun 1966-2000, jumlah tanah pertanian bertambah pada kadar purata 1.87 peratussetahun. Kadar pertumbuhan tanah pertanian didapati agak tinggi pada tahun 1986-1990. Ini disebabkan keutamaan yang diberikan terhadap program pembangunan tanahbaru yang dimajukan oleh agensi sektor awam khususnya di negeri Perak, Sabah, Johordan Kelantan. Dalam tempoh masa tersebut, FELDA telah memajukan 49.7 peratusdaripada jumlah keseluruhan seluas 353,300 hektar, dengan 88.3 peratus ditanani dengankelapa sawit, 5.9 peratus getah dan 1.3 peratus koko. Bakinya telah dimajukan olehagensi pembangunan tanah negeri {Malaysia, 1991).

Kadar pertumbuhan tanah pertanian yang rendah dalam tahun 1990an akibat darilangkah kerajaan memberikan penekanan yang lebih untuk memajukan kawasanpertanian sedia ada melalui program pembangunan pertanian bersepadu,perkembangan program penanaman semula serta parit dan taliair. Di samping itu,kemerosotan kadar pertumbuhan tanah juga disebabkan kekurangan kawasan tanahbaru yang sesuai untuk pertanian serta f aktor ekologi dan alam sekitar yang memerlukanpemuliharaan kawasan hutan yang sedia ada. Dalam menghadapi kos yang tinggi untukmemajukan tanah marginal, maka teras strategi pembangunan pertanian dalam tahun1990an ialah memberikan tumpuan terhadap pembangunan in-situ melalui penanamansemula dan pemulihan tanah pertanian yang sedia ada (Malaysia, 1991).

BURUH

Pertumbuhan buruh pertanian di Malaysia mengalami arah aliran yang semakin merosotdi sepanjang tempoh kajian. Pada tahun 1966, terdapat seramai 1,690,000 buruh di sektorpertanian, dan bilangan ini merosot kepada 1,408,000 pada tahun 2000, iaitu kemerosotansebanyak 16.7 peratus dalam tempoh 34 tahun. Buruh pertanian mengalami kadarpertumbuhan purata yang negatif pada keseluruhan tempoh masa kajian.Pertumbuhan buruh pertanian yang merosot berbanding dengan jumlah pendudukmenunjukkan terdapat penghijrahan buruh dari sektor pertanian ke sektor perkilangandan perkhidmatan. Perubahan struktur gunatenaga ini ternyata dari Jadual 2 di managunatenaga sektor pertanian merosot dengan ketara dari tahun hingga tahun 2000.

91

BAJA

Jumlah penggunaan baja meningkat dari 115,000 ton metrik pada tahun 1966 kepada1,428,000 ton metrik pada tahun 2000, iaitu peningkatan sebanyak 1,142 peratussepanjang tempoh 34 tahun ataupun meningkat pada kadar purata 8.25 peratus setahun.Peningkatan penggunaan baja adalah tinggi pada tahun 1970an. Pertumbuhan perlahanpenggunaan baja pada berikutnya disebabkan pengurangan secara berperingkatpemberian pelbagai jenis subsisdi, termasuklah baja. Semenjak tahun 1984, kebanyakanskim yang menyediakan input percuma kepada para petard telah digantikan denganskim yang mengenakan bayaran minimum. Langkah ini dilakukan bertujuan melahirkanmasyarakat petard yang kukuh dan berdikari (Malaysia, 1986).

JENTERA

Jumlah jentera yang digunakan di sektor pertanian meningkat dari 2,600 unit padatahun 1966 kepada 43,300 unit pada tahun 2000, iaitu meningkat pada kadar purata8.94 peratus setahun. Kadar pertumbuhan penggunaan jentera yang tinggimenggambarkan penekanan terhadap proses penjenteraan bagi menggantikan buruhdengan modal akibat dari kekurangan buruh pertanian.

Arah aliran indeks buruh, tanah, baja dan jentera pertanian sepanjang tahun 1966-2000ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 2. Pertumbuhan tanah dan buruh pertanian agak stabil danpada tahun 1980an tanah pertanian mengalami pertumbuhan yang lebih pesat daripertumbuhan buruh. Di antara semua input pertanian, jentera dan baja mengalamipertumbuhan yang paling pesat yang mencerminkan pertambahan penggunaan inputmoden bagi menggantikan input tradisional buruh dan tanah, yang semakinberkurangan di sektor pertanian.

ARAH ALIRAN PRODUKTIVITI PERTANIAN

Arah aliran indeks produktiviti separa dan total diberikan dalam Apendiks 1 dan Rajah3. Jadual 4 pula memaparkan kadar pertumbuhan tahunan purata produktiviti separadan total.

PRODUKTIVITI BURUHRajah 3 menunjukkan di sepanjang tempoh kajian produktiviti buruh mengalami arahaliran yang semakin meningkat, namun pada kadar yang semakin perlahan. lanyameningkat pada kadar 4.59 peratus setahun dalam tempoh 1966-2000 dan merupakankadar pertumbuhan produktiviti yang paling tinggi berbanding dengan kadarpertumbuhan produktiviti lain. Produktiviti buruh mencatat kadar pertumbuhantahunan 7.33 peratus pada tahun 1966-1970 dan merosot kepada 2.29 peratus di akhirtempoh kajian.

92

PRODUKTIVITI TAN AH

Dalam tahun 1966-2000, produktiviti tanah meningkat pada kadar tahunan purata 2.18peratus. Kadar pertumbuhan produktiviti tanah secara relatif lebih tinggi pada 1960andan 1970an berbanding dengan tahun 1980an dan 1990an. Produktiviti tanah bergantungkepada jumlah input lain yang digabungkan secara bersama, maka pertambahanpenggunaan input moden, iaitu baja dan jentera, akan meningkatkan produktiviti tanah.Oleh kerana purata pertambahan tanah pada tahun 1966-2000 hanyalah 1.87 peratus(Jadual 3), maka peningkatan produktiviti tanah dalam tempoh ini disumbangkan olehpeningkatan penggunaan input moden.

Dalam tempoh 1966-2000, walaupun penggunaan baja dan jentera meningkat denganpesatnya, masing-masingnya sebanyak 8.25 peratus dan 8.94 peratus {Jadual 3), namunpertumbuhan produktiviti tanah dan output pertanian masing-masingnya hanyalahmeningkat sebanyak 2.18 peratus dan 4.04 peratus. Fenomena yang sama dapat dilihatdalam setiap sub-masa di mana peningkatan pesat input moden memberikanpeningkatan yang sedikit dalam produktiviti tanah dan output pertanian. Keadaan inimungkin mencerminkan ketakcekapan kombinasi dan penyalahuntukan inputpertanian.

PRODUKTIVITI TOTAL

Sepanjang tempoh kajian, produktiviti total sektor pertanian Malaysia meningkat padakadar 2.94 peratus setahun. Kadar pertumbuhan produktiviti total adalah tinggi, iaitu6.44 peratus pada awal tempoh kajian, namun berterusan merosot serta mencatat kadarpertumbuhan 0.92 peratus pada tahun 1996-2000.

KESIMPULAN DAN IMPLIKASI DASAR

Kajian ini menunjukkan sepanjang tempoh 1966-2000, produktiviti buruh mencatatkadar pertumbuhan tahunan yang pesat iaitu 4.59 peratus berbanding dengan kadarpertumbuhan produktiviti tanah, 2.18 peratus dan produktiviti total 2.94 peratus.Kesemua ukuran produktiviti tersebut menunjukkan kadar pertumbuhan yang semakinmerosot.

Kadar pertumbuhan produktiviti total yang semakin rendah mencerminkankemerosotan kecekapan pengeluaran. Tmjauan kajian masa lepas menunjukkan terdapatdua sumber ketakcekapan pengeluaran iaitu masalah penyesuaian teknologi dan subsidiinput (Barker, Gabler dan Winklemann, 1981; Arnade, 1998).Penggunaan input moden memerlukan petani mengubah teknologi atau amalanpengeluaran. Penyesuaian teknologi ini dapat mewujudkan ketakcekapan danmenyumbangkan kepada kemerosotan produktiviti total sekiranya tiada usaha dibuatuntuk menyediakan perkhidmatan sokongan berkualiti bagi membimbing petani ke

93

arah meningkatkan lagi kecekapan penggunaan teknologi moden. Kekuranganmaklumat pertanian dan kemudahan perkhidmatan sokongan telah dikenalpasti sebagaifaktor yang menyumbang ke arah kemerosotan produktiviti dan kecekapan petani{Aminah dan Narimah, 1998).

Ketakcekapan penggunaan input moden juga terbukti dari Jadual 3 di manapenggunaan baja dan jentera meningkat dengan pesat berbanding dengan peningkatanoutput. Keadaan ini mungkin mencerminkan penyalahgunaan sumber di manapertumbuhan pesat input tidak diikuti oleh pertumbuhan pesat output. Ketakcekapanpenggunaan teknologi baru juga boleh terjadi sekiranya petard tidak mempunyai masayang mencukupi untuk menyesuaikan diri dengan teknologi tersebut. Dalam kajiankecekapan yang dilakukan Huang (1971) di tiga kawasan penanaman padi, beliau dapatidengan tempoh masa yang mencukupi, ketakcekapan akan terhapus apabila petanidapat menyelaras kepada teknologi baru.Dari awal tahun 1960an dan sehingga tahun 1970an, kebanyakan negara sedangmembangun telah memberi subsidi baja, jentera dan kemudahan kredit kepada parapetani untuk menggalakkan penjenteraan dan pemodenan sektor pertanian. Namunbegitu, subsidi input juga telah dikenalpasti sebagai faktor penyumbang kepadaketakcekapan teknik dan peruntukan, kemerosotan produktiviti serta pembaziran input{Arnade, 1998). Dalam kajian Arnade (1998) terhadap sektor pertanian di negara sedangmembangun, beliau dapati ketakcekapan teknik di Brazil, India dan Pakistan semakinmeningkat disebabkan pemberian subsidi yang berlebihan.

Malaysia juga tidak terkecuali. Subsidi baja untuk penanaman padi telah muladiperkenalkan pada tahun 1951. Pada tahun 1979 skim subsidi baru diperkenalkan dimana baja percuma diberi kepada pesawah yang menanam kawasan sawah seluas 2.4hektar atau kurang. Bagi setiap hektar sehingga 2.4 hektar padi yang ditanami, pesawahakan mendapat sebanyak 309 kilogram baja percuma (Zaleha dan Mohd. Ariff, 1986).Dalam kajian mereka terhadap kesan baja percuma ke atas kecekapan ekonomi pesawahpadi, Zaleha dan Mohd. Ariff (1986) mendapati skim subsidi baja telah menggalakkanpesawah menggunakan baja secara tidak cekap dan melebihi dari jumlah yangsepatutnya.

Beberapa implikasi dasar dapat dilihat dari penemuan kajian ini. Kemerosotankecekapan pengeluaran dapat dikaitkan dengan ketakcukupan perkhidmatan sokongansektor pertanian. Peruntukan perkhidmatan sokongan telah dikurangkan dari 10.6peratus daripada jumlah peruntukan pembangunan sektor pertanian (RM241.6 jutadaripada RM2279.4 juta) dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kedua, 1971-1975 kepada hanya4.9 peratus (RM409.5 juta daripada RM8286.9 juta) dalam Rancangan Malaysia Ketujuh,1996-2000 (Malaysia, 1971 dan 1996). Oleh itu, pengurangan peruntukan terhadapperkhidmatan sokongan pertanian, yang meliputi kredit pertanian, penyelidikan danpembangunan dan perkhidmatan lain, memberikan kesan jangka panjangmengurangkan pertumbuhan produktiviti dan output pertanian.

94

Kejayaan aktiviti P&P dalam memperkenal dan menyebarkan teknologi baru untukmeninggikan produktiviti memerlukan sokongan dan penglibatan padu kakitangansokongan. Kakitangan sokongan haruslah terdiri daripada mereka yang terlatih danberkelayakan. Kekurangan kakitangan sokongan terlatih adalah ketara di Malaysia.Misalnya, pada tahun 2004 daripada 3,800 pegawai pertanian di Jabatan Pertanian, hanya420 adalah lepasan universiti dan 650 pemegang diploma. Manakala bakinya terdiridaripada juruteknik dengan kelulusan di peringkat sijil dari institut pertanian (NewStarits Times, 27 Jun 2004).

Pemberian subsidi telah dianggap sebagai sumber kemerosotan produktiviti danketakcekapan pengeluaran. Walau bagaimanapun, di Malaysia kebanyakan petani dapatmeneruskan kehidupan kerana kewujudan pelbagai jenis subsidi (Muhammad Ikmal,1998).Walaupun pengurangan pemberian subsidi dapat meningkatkan kecekapan danmengatasi pembaziran, namun penarikan pemberian subsidi sudah pasti menjejaskankehidupan petani miskin luar bandar. Bukti empirik menunjukkan penarikan pemberiansubsidi telah meninggikan kadar kemiskinan petani luar bandar (Muhammad Ikmal,1998; Firdausy, 1997).

Di sini kita menghadapi masalah tukar-ganti antara kecekapan dan kemiskinan. Masalahini mungkin dapat diatasi dengan mengintegrasikan operas! pertanian secara kecil-kecilan menjadikan syarikat perladangan besar-besaran, memperbaiki amalan pertanian,menggunakan sumber dan teknologi lebih berkualiti dan memperkenalkan kaedahpengurusan perladangan dan perkhidmatan sokongan yang lebih cekap. Bermula dariRancangan Malaysia Ketujuh (1996-2000), kerajaan telah mengambil langkah secaraberperingkat-peringkat mengurangkan unsur subsidi dalam input pertanian, namunkesan positif dari tindakan ini sudah pasti memerlukan masa.

JADUAL1Fungsi Pengeluaran Sektor Pertanian Malaysia, 1966-2000

Pembolehubah Pekali Statistik-tTanah 0.404 1.66Buruh 0.405 2.16Baja 0.011 0.18Jentera -0.004 -0.05Pemalar 3.293 1.27

^2 0.99Stat. Durbin-Watson 2.36

95

JADUAL 2Perubahan Struktur Ekonomi Malaysia, 1965-2000 (peratus)

Sektor Bahagian KDNK Bahagian Gunatenaga

1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000

PertanianPerlombonganPerkilanganPembinaanPerkhidmatan

31.59.010.44.145.0

30.86.3

13.43.945.6

22.810.020.04.642.6

18.79.8

26.93.641.0

10.55.737.54.841.5

522.8.3.

33

.1545.5

50.52.6

11.44.031.5

39.71.75.75.637.3

26.00.619.96.3

47.2

13.10.5

28.99.3

48.2

Sumber: Laporan Ekonomi, Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia, pelbagai terbitan.Rancangan Malaysia Kedua, 1971-1975.

JADUAL 3Kadar Pertumbuhan Purata Output dan Input Sektor Pertanian dan Penduduk Malaysia, 1966-2000 (peratus per tahun)

Tahun Output Tanah Buruh Baja Jentera Penduduk

1966-1970 8.23 2.19 0.94 14.39 13.32 2.661971-1975 7.02 0.21 1.46 6.58 4.10 2.461976-1980 5.50 1.57 0.40 12.98 8.27 2.341881-1985 3.19 2.38 -1.55 7.42 10.24 2.641986-1990 4.61 4.66 1.45 8.09 16.75 3.031991-1995 -0.56 2.16 -4.59 3.88 10.77 2.521996-2000 1.13 0.00 -1.14 5.64 0.00 2.461966-2000 4.04 1.87 -0.47 8.25 8.94 2.59

Sumber: Laporan Ekonomi, Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia, pelbagai terbitan.World Development- Indicators, 2003.

96

JADUAL 4Kadar Pertumbuhan Produktiviti Separa dan Total Sektor Pertanian Malaysia,1966-2000

Kadar Pertumbuhan Purata Produktiviti (peratus per tahun)

Tahun Tanah Buruh Total

1966-19701971-19751976-19801981-19851986-19901991-19951996-20001966-2000

5.866.793.980.910.01-2.671.132.18

7.335.465.234.943.174.242.294.59

6.446.004.182.551.34-0.130.922.94

Rajah 1 Indeks Output Sektor Pertanian Malaysia, 1966-2000(1966=100)

1966 1970

Tahun

1976 1988 1994 2000

97

Rajah 2 Indeks Input Sektor Pertanian Malaysia, 1966-2000(1966=200)

1966 1970

Tahun

1976 1988 1994 2000

Rajah 3 Indeks Produktiviti Buruh, Tanah dan Total Sektor Pertanian Malaysia, 1966-2000(1966=200)

Produklivili TanahProduktiwti BuruhProduktivifi Total

1966 1970

Tahun

1976 1982 1988 1994 2000

98

APENDIKS 1

Indeks Produktiviti Separa dan Total Sektor PertanianMalaysia, 1966-2000

Tahun Produktiviti Tanah Produktiviti Buruh Produktiviti Total

1966 100 100 1001967 108 113. 1101968 111 118 1141969 120 133 1261970 125 132 1281971 132 137 1341972 135 140 1371973 154 155 1521974 164 163 1621975 174 172 1711976 195 190 1901977 199 191 1921978 202 186 1901979 218 198 2021980 210 220 2091981 220 229 2191982 231 244 2321983 213 243 2191984 217 249 2251985 218 279 2361986 212 283 2341987 224 292 2441988 221 303 2451989 220 331 2541990 218 325 2521991 215 335 2531992 213 370 2621993 205 371 2551994 195 386 2491995 190 399 2501996 199 418 2601997 199 426 2611998 190 427 2481999 195 429 2522000 201 447 261

99

RUJUKAN

Aminah A & Narimah 1.1998. "Gender Roles in Malaysian Agriculture: Implicationsfor Extension Planning," in Journal of International Agricultural and ExtensionEducation, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring: 17-25.

Arnade, C. 1998. "Using a Programming Approach to Measure International AgriculturalEfficiency and Productivity," in Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol. 49, No.l,Winter: 67-84.

Bank Dunia. 1993. "The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy." WorldBank: Policy Research Reports, July.

______. 2003. World Development Indicators, Washington, DC.Barker, R., Gabler, E. & Winkelmann D. 1981. "Long-Term Consequences of Technical

Change on Crop Yield Stability: The Case of Cereal Grain," in Valdes, A. (eds.)Food Security for Developing Countries. Colorado: Westview Press.

Crosson, P. R. 1955. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. Baltimore &London: The John Hopkins Press

_____. 1970. Agricultural Development and Productivity, Lessons from the ChileanExperience. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins Press.

Firdausy, C. M. 1997. "Effects of the Subsidy Removal of Fertilizer on Rural Poverty inNorth Sulawesi, Indonesia," in International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 24,No. 1:207-222.

Hayarni Y. & Ruttan V. W. 1971. "Agricultural Development: An InternationalPerspective." London: John Hopkins Press.

Huang, Y. 1971. "Allocation Efficiency in a Developing Agricultural Economic inMalaya," in American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol. 53, No. 3, August: 514-516.

Kendrick, J. W. 1966. Understanding Productivity. Baltimore: The John Hopkins UniversityPress.

Mad Nasir, S. Abdul Aziz, A. R. & Mohd Arief, H. 1989. "Productivity and Sourcesof Growth in Malaysian Agriculture, 1960-1986," inMalaysian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, Vol. 6, December: 35-51.

_____. 1971. Rancangan Malaysia Pertama, 1971-1975. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

.. 1981. Rancangan Malaysia Keempat, 1981-1986. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

.. 1986. Rancangan Malaysia Kelima, 1986-1990. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

.. 1991. Rancangan Malaysia Keenam, 1991-1995. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

100

____. 1996. Rancangan Malaysia Ketujuh, 1996-2000. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

.. 2001. Rancangan Malaysia Kelapan, 2001-2005. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

Muhammad Ikmal, S. 1988. "Inequality, Public Expenditure and Malaysia's NationalRice Policy." in Kajian Malaysia, Vol. 6, No.2: 65-85.

Mya Than. 1988. Growth Pattern of Burmese Agriculture: A Productivity Approach.Occasional Paper Series, No. 81. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Pazim, O. 2001. "Agrarian Reforms and Agricultural Productivity: Malaysia." ACountry Paper Report of the APO Study on Agrarian Reforms and AgriculturalProductivity, Sri Lanka, 28 May- 2 June.

Sanders, J. & Ruttan, V. 1978. "Biased of Choice of Technology in Brazillian Agriculture."in Binswanger, P. and W. Ruttan (eds.) Induced Innovation: Technology, Institutionsand Development, Baltimore Merss: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Yamada, S. A. 1975. Comparative Analysis of Asian Agricultural Productivities and GrowthPatterns. Productivity Series No.10. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.

Zaleha M. N. & Mohd Ariff H. 1986. "The Impact of Free Fertilizer Subsidy Scheme onEconomic Efficiency of Paddy Farmers in West Malaysia," in Malaysian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1, December: 12-29.

101

JURNAL PRODUKTIVITIISSN: 0127-8223

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

COPYRIGHTArticle submitted to the journal should be original contributions and should no beunder consideration for any other publication at the same time. Authors submittingarticles for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existingcopyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. Forease of dissemination and to ensure proper policing of use, papers and contributionbecome the legal copyright of the publisher unless otherwise agreed.

Submissions should be sent to:

CHIEF EDITORDirector of PJV DivisionNational Productivity CorporationP.O.Box 64, Jalan Sultan46904 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Enquiries and submission can be forwarded to must@npc.org. my

EDITORIAL OBJECTIVESTo provide those involved in research and practice in productivity and qualitymatters with ideas, research findings, case examples and discussion on productivityand quality related fields.

EDITORIAL SCOPEThe journal draws on insight and contributions from academicians and practitioners,who are interested in knowledge, and discussing ideas, issues and challenges inproductivity and quality related matters. Contributors should always spell out thepractical implication of their work for those involved in productivity and qualityenhancement.

THE REVIEWING PROCESSEach paper is reviewed by the Editor and based on their recommendations the Editorthen decides whether the paper should be accepted as is, revised or rejected,

• Accepted, meaning that is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorialamendments, which can be managed during the editorial process;

* Revised, meaning that it is potentially suitable for publication, but needs somefurther work, or;

• Rejected, meaning that it is unsuitable for publication (often because it does notfit with the editorial objectives of the journal).

MANUSCRIPT REQUIREMENTManuscript should be written in English/Bahasa Melayu and should not be more than6500 words in length or not more than 25 pages {including appendices and references).Using Microsoft word (. *doc) format and Times New Roman 12 font, typewritten onone side of A4 paper only, double-spaced, leaving top and left hand margin at least 2.5cm. All authors should be shown and author's details must be printed on a separatesheet and the author should not be identified anywhere else in the article. A title of notmore than eight words should be provided. A brief autobiographical note should besupplied including full name, affiliation, e-mail address and full international contactdetails. Authors must supply an abstract of 100-150 words. Up to six keywords shouldbe included which encapsulate the principal subject covered by the article.

Where there is a methodology, it should be clearly described under separate heading.Heading must be short, clearly defined and not numbered. Notes or endnotes shouldbe used only if absolutely necessary and must be identified in the text by consecutivenumbers, enclosed in square brackets and listed at the end of the article.

Figures, charts and diagrams should be kept to a minimum. They must be black andwhite with minimum shading and numbered consecutively using Arabic numerals witha brief title and labeled axes. In the text, the position of figure should be shown typingon a separate line the words "take in Figure 2". Good quality originals must be provided.

Tables should be kept to a minimum. They must be numbered consecutively with romannumerals and a brief title. In the text, the position of the table should be shown bytyping on a separate line the word "take in Table IV).

Photos and illustrations must be supplied as good quality black and white originalhalf tones with captions. Their position should be shown in the text by typing on aseparate line the words "take in Plate 2".

References to other publications should be complete and in APA style. They shouldcontain full bibliographical details and journal titles should not be abbreviated. Formultiple citations in the same year use a, b, c immediately following the year ofpublication. Reference should be shown within the text by giving the author's last namefollowed by a comma and year of publication all in round brackets, e.g. (Porter, 1974).At the end of the article should be a reference list in alphabetical orders as follows:

(a) For books.Surname, initials and year of publication, title, publisher, place of publication,e.g. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitivetheory, Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

(b)For articlesSurname, initials, year "title", journal, volume, number, pages, e.g. Bandura,A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Medford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. (1985).Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy, Journalof consulting and clinical Psychology, 53, and 406-414.

Electronic sources should include the URL of the electronic site at which theymay be found as follows:Abubakr S., liles, P. (2000). Is continuance commitment beneficial toorganizations? Commitment-performance relationship: A new look [On-line]Available htpp:// www.emerald-library.com/brev/05015ebl.htm