Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Qu’en est-il des externalités du capital des technologies de l’information?


Author Info

  • Harchaoui, Tarek M.

    (Division de l’analyse microéconomique)

  • Tarkhani, Faouzi

    (Division de l’analyse microéconomique)


We apply econometric techniques to Canadian and U.S. industry data to ascertain whether information technology capital gives rise to externalities. The results based on standard panel data techniques are compared to those that accommodate heterogeneous and dynamic panel data. Much like the literature, our results indicate the standard panel data method does not show a positive relationship between information technology capital and output. This reflects the difficulty of this technique to accommodate the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of the data considered in this study. In contrast, the dynamic panel data method shows a positive long term impact of inputs. Our results suggest the presence of important externalities ascribed to information technology in the United States, reflecting the leadership of this country in this area. In contrast, in Canada, the elasticity of information technology capital services is close to the share of this input provided by the growth accounting framework. In addition, the parametric results generally support the constant returns to scale hypothesis for Canada at the aggregate level, thereby making sense of the growth accounting framework. Nous appliquons des techniques économétriques aux données par industrie des économies canadiennes et américaines pour examiner s’il existe des externalités associées à la composante technologies de l’information de l’intrant capital. Les résultats issus de la technique conventionnelle de données en panel sont comparés à ceux issus de la méthode d’estimation des données en panel hétérogènes et dynamiques. Comme pour les résultats de la littérature économique, nous trouvons que la méthode conventionnelle des données en panel ne permet pas de montrer un lien positif entre l’intrant capital des technologies de l’information et la production. Ceci traduit l’incapacité de cette technique à rendre compte, à la fois, du caractère hétérogène des données et de l’aspect dynamique du phénomène considéré ici. La méthode dynamique des données en panel permet, en revanche, de trouver un impact positif et significatif de long terme des intrants. Les résultats confirment la présence d’importantes externalités associées aux technologies de l’information pour les États-Unis, reflétant ainsi le rôle de chef de file de ce pays dans ce domaine. Au Canada, en revanche, l’élasticité associée au capital des technologies de l’information est proche de la pondération issue du cadre de la comptabilité de la croissance. De plus, les résultats paramétriques ne permettent pas, dans l’ensemble, de rejeter l’hypothèse de rendements constants au niveau agrégé pour le Canada, justifiant ainsi le bien-fondé du modèle de comptabilité de la croissance.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Société Canadienne de Science Economique in its journal L'Actualité économique.

Volume (Year): 81 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (Mars-Juin)
Pages: 231-253

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:81:y:2005:i:1:p:231-253

Contact details of provider:
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Related research



References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 2002. "Information technology and productivity: where are we now and where are we going?," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2002-29, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  2. Banerjee, Anindya, 1999. " Panel Data Unit Roots and Cointegration: An Overview," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 607-29, Special I.
  3. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2000. "What's Driving the New Economy: The Benefits of Workplace Innovation," NBER Working Papers 7479, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Pedroni, Peter, 1999. " Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 653-70, Special I.
  5. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
  6. Dale Jorgenson & Mun Ho & Kevin Stiroh, 2003. "Growth of US Industries and Investments in Information Technology and Higher Education," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 279-325.
  7. Dale W. Jorgenson & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2000. "Raising the Speed Limit: US Economic Growth in the Information Age," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 261, OECD Publishing.
  8. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Smith, Ron, 1995. "Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 79-113, July.
  9. S Black & L Lynch, 1997. "How to Compete: The Impact of Workplace Practices and Information Technology on Productivity," CEP Discussion Papers dp0376, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  10. Pasaran, M.H. & Im, K.S. & Shin, Y., 1995. "Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 9526, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  11. Kaddour Hadri, 2000. "Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 3(2), pages 148-161.
  12. Kevin J. Stiroh, 2001. "Information technology and the U.S. productivity revival: what do the industry data say?," Staff Reports 115, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  13. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin Hitt, 1996. "Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 541-558, April.
  14. Trajtenberg, M. & Bresnahan, T.F., 1992. "General Purpose Technologies: "Engines of Growth"," Papers 16-92, Tel Aviv.
  15. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2000. "Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 23-48, Fall.
  16. Tarek M. Harchaoui & Faouzi Tarkhani, 2005. "Whatever happened to Canada-US economic growth and productivity performance in the information age?," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2005(1), pages 127-165.
  17. Sabourin, David & Baldwin, John R. & Smith, David, 2003. "Impact of Advanced Technology Use on Firm Performance in the Canadian Food Processing Sector," Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series 2003012e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Centre for the Study of Living Standards, 2005. "What Explains the Canada-US ICT Investment Intensity Gap?," CSLS Research Reports 2005-06, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.


This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


Access and download statistics


When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:81:y:2005:i:1:p:231-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bruce Shearer).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.