When taking into account this wider perception of income, elasticity coefficients are calculated by applying a third and a fourth approaches (See Table 1). The third approach consists in calculating the labour elasticity coefficient as a relative weight in GDP of the sum of compensations of employees and net mixed income (presented as 1/3 of the sum of net operating surplus and net mixed income). A distinctive feature of this approach is that the relative significance of labour income is overestimated since total income of non-corporate enterprises is counted to it, which is also coupled with overestimation of the relative share of capital income as it is obtained as a residual value comprising all other components of the GDP income structure. The fourth approach implies a return to the fundamental model construction of the growth accounting concept by initially differentiating the relative share of capital income and presenting the weight of labour income as a residual value. Under this approach, labour income is identified with the sum of all other components of the GDP income structure outside the sum of net operating surplus and net mixed income. This way, the outcome is once again overestimating the relative weights of labour and capital incomes, respectively, due to the residual character of the income elasticity coefficient, as well as disregarding the fact that net mixed income includes incomes from labour. Thus, by means of the last two approaches the distortion in the measurement of the relative share of labour, conditioned by the different interpretations of net mixed income, is effectively dealt with. The next basic methodological issue of empirical analysis relates to the manner of measuring the growth of the labour