IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v81y2005i1p231-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Harchaoui, Tarek M.

    (Division de l’analyse microéconomique)

  • Tarkhani, Faouzi

    (Division de l’analyse microéconomique)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Harchaoui, Tarek M. & Tarkhani, Faouzi, 2005. "Qu’en est-il des externalités du capital des technologies de l’information?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 81(1), pages 231-253, Mars-Juin.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:81:y:2005:i:1:p:231-253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/012843ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2004. "What's driving the new economy?: the benefits of workplace innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(493), pages 97-116, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
    5. Peter Pedroni, 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(S1), pages 653-670, November.
    6. Dale W. Jorgenson & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2000. "Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 31(1), pages 125-236.
    7. Oliner, Stephen D. & Sichel, Daniel E., 2003. "Information technology and productivity: where are we now and where are we going?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 477-503, July.
    8. Tarek M. Harchaoui & Faouzi Tarkhani, 2006. "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.
    9. Kevin J. Stiroh, 2002. "Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1559-1576, December.
    10. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2001. "How To Compete: The Impact Of Workplace Practices And Information Technology On Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(3), pages 434-445, August.
    11. Kaddour Hadri, 2000. "Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 3(2), pages 148-161.
    12. 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.
    13. Dale W. Jorgenson & Mun S. Ho & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2005. "Growth of US Industries and Investments in Information Technology and Higher Education," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 403-478, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. 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 653-670, Special I.
    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. 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.
    17. 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 607-629, Special I.
    18. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimelis, Sophia P. & Papaioannou, Sotiris K., 2011. "ICT growth effects at the industry level: A comparison between the US and the EU," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 37-50, March.
    2. Oliner, Stephen D. & Sichel, Daniel E. & Stiroh, Kevin J., 2008. "Explaining a productive decade," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 633-673.
    3. Breitung, Jörg & Pesaran, Mohammad Hashem, 2005. "Unit roots and cointegration in panels," Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies 2005,42, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    4. Sangjoon Jun, 2006. "The Nexus between IT Investment and Banking Performance in Korea," Global Economic Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 67-96.
    5. Young Bong Chang & Vijay Gurbaxani, 2012. "The Impact of IT-Related Spillovers on Long-Run Productivity: An Empirical Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 868-886, September.
    6. Maria Elena Bontempi & Roberto Golinelli, 2012. "The effect of neglecting the slope parameters’ heterogeneity on dynamic models of corporate capital structure," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(11), pages 1733-1751, November.
    7. Elsadig Ahmed & Rahim Ridzuan, 2013. "The Impact of ICT on East Asian Economic Growth: Panel Estimation Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 4(4), pages 540-555, December.
    8. Apergis, Nicholas & Payne, James E., 2010. "Energy consumption and growth in South America: Evidence from a panel error correction model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1421-1426, November.
    9. Apergis, Nicholas & Payne, James E., 2011. "The renewable energy consumption-growth nexus in Central America," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 343-347, January.
    10. Apergis, Nicholas & Payne, James E., 2009. "Energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from the Commonwealth of Independent States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 641-647, September.
    11. Takashi Nagahata & Yumi Saita & Toshitaka Sekine & Towa Tachibana, 2004. "Equilibrium Land Prices of Japanese Prefectures: A Panel Cointegration Analysis," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 04-E-9, Bank of Japan.
    12. Carlos Alberto Barreto Nieto & Jacobo Campo Robledo, 2012. "Relación a largo plazo entre consumo de energía y PIB en América Latina: Una evaluación empírica con datos panel," Revista Ecos de Economía, Universidad EAFIT, October.
    13. Jayaraman, T.K. & Lau, Evan, 2009. "Does external debt lead to economic growth in Pacific island countries," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 272-288.
    14. Apergis, Nicholas & Payne, James E., 2010. "A panel study of nuclear energy consumption and economic growth," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 545-549, May.
    15. Jeetendra Khadan & Amrita Deonarine, 2019. "Testing the Inter-temporal Budget Constraint for Small States," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1176-1183.
    16. António Afonso & Christophe Rault, 2010. "What do we really know about fiscal sustainability in the EU? A panel data diagnostic," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 145(4), pages 731-755, January.
    17. Ghulam MOHEY-UD-DIN* & Muhammad Wasif SIDDIQI**, 2017. "GDP FLUCTUATIONS AND LONG-RUN ECONOMIC GROWTH: A Study of Selected South Asian Countries," Pakistan Journal of Applied Economics, Applied Economics Research Centre, vol. 27(1), pages 41-66.
    18. Cumhur Erdem & Saban Nazlioglu, 2013. "Determinants of new vehicle registrations in EU countries: a panel cointegration analysis," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 287-298, April.
    19. Md zulquar Nain & Sai sailaja Bharatam & Bandi Kamaiah, 2017. "Electricity consumption and NSDP nexus in Indian states: a panel analysis with structural breaks," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1581-1601.
    20. Anindya Banerjee & Massimiliano Marcellino & Chiara Osbat, 2005. "Testing for PPP: Should we use panel methods?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 77-91, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.