IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/10625.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Comin

Abstract

In this paper I evaluate the contribution of R&D investments to productivity growth. The basis for the analysis are the free entry condition and the fact that most R&D innovations are embodied. Free entry yields a relationship between the resources devoted to R&D and the growth rate of technology. Since innovators are small, this relationship is not directly affected by the size of R&D externalities, or the presence of aggregate diminishing returns in R&D after controlling for the growth rate of output and the interest rate. The embodiment of R&D-driven innovations bounds the size of the production externalities. The resulting contribution of R&D to productivity growth in the US is smaller than three to five tenths of one percentage point. This constitutes an upper bound for the case where innovators internalize the consequences of their R&D investments on the cost of conducting future innovations. From a normative perspective, this analysis implies that, if the innovation technology takes the form assumed in the literature, the actual US R&D intensity may be the socially optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Comin, 2004. "R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth," NBER Working Papers 10625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:10625
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10625.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know about Unit Roots," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 141-220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Edmund S. Phelps, 1962. "The New View of Investment: A Neoclassical Analysis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 76(4), pages 548-567.
    3. Charles I. Jones, 2002. "Sources of U.S. Economic Growth in a World of Ideas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 220-239, March.
    4. Norrbin, Stefan C, 1993. "The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry: A Contradiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 1149-1164, December.
    5. Diego Comin, 2004. "R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 391-421, December.
    6. Jones, Charles I & Williams, John C, 2000. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-85, March.
    7. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    8. M. Ishaq Nadiri, 1993. "Innovations and Technological Spillovers," NBER Working Papers 4423, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    10. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring the Social Return to R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135.
    11. Pakes, Ariel & Schankerman, Mark A., 1978. "The Rate of Obsolescence of Knowledge, Research Gestation Labs, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources," Working Papers 78-13, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    12. Helios Herrera & Enrique Schroth, 2003. "Profitable Innovation Without Patent Protection: The Case of Derivatives," Working Papers 0302, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    13. Kortum, Samuel, 1993. "Equilibrium R&D and the Patent-R&D Ratio: U.S. Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 450-457, May.
    14. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "The Search for R&D Spillovers," NBER Chapters,in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 251-268 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Susanto Basu, 1996. "Procyclical Productivity: Increasing Returns or Cyclical Utilization?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(3), pages 719-751.
    16. Mehra, Rajnish & Prescott, Edward C., 1985. "The equity premium: A puzzle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 145-161, March.
    17. Ariel Pakes & Mark Schankerman, 1984. "The Rate of Obsolescence of Patents, Research Gestation Lags, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 73-88, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Nadiri, M.I., 1993. "Innovations and Technological Spillovers," Working Papers 93-31, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    19. Franklin M. Fisher & David Levhari & Eytan Sheshinski, 1969. "On the Sensitivity of the Level of Output to Savings: Embodiment and Disembodiment: A Clarificatory Note," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 83(2), pages 347-348.
    20. R. C. O. Matthews, 1964. ""The New View of Investment": Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(1), pages 164-172.
    21. E. S. Phelps & M. E. Yaari, 1964. ""The New View of Investment": Reply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(1), pages 172-176.
    22. Nancy L. Stokey, 1995. "R&D and Economic Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(3), pages 469-489.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jones, Charles I & Williams, John C, 2000. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-85, March.
    2. Diego Comin, 2004. "R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 391-421, December.
    3. Sener, Fuat, 2008. "R&D policies, endogenous growth and scale effects," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 3895-3916, December.
    4. Bucci, Alberto & Parello, Carmelo Pierpaolo, 2009. "Horizontal innovation-based growth and product market competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 213-221, January.
    5. Alberto Bucci, 2005. "Product Market Competition, R&D Effort and Economic Growth," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1011, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.
    6. Pessoa, Argentino, 2010. "R&D and economic growth: How strong is the link?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 152-154, May.
    7. Tiago Sequeira, 2012. "Facts and distortions in an endogenous growth model with physical capital, human capital and varieties," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 11(3), pages 171-188, December.
    8. Alvarez-Pelaez, Maria J. & Groth, Christian, 2005. "Too little or too much R&D?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 437-456, February.
    9. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    10. Marios Zachariadis, 2003. "R&D, innovation, and technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 566-586, August.
    11. Wang, Vey & Lai, Chung-Hui, 2010. "Franchise Fee, Tax/Subsidy Policies and Economic Growth," MPRA Paper 27745, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Tinn, K & Vourvachaki, E, 2012. "Can overpricing of technology stocks be good for welfare? Positive spillovers vs. equity market losses," Working Papers 12192, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    13. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring the Social Return to R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135.
    14. Zeng, Jinli & Zhang, Jie, 2007. "Subsidies in an R&D growth model with elastic labor," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 861-886, March.
    15. Bettina Büttner, 2006. "Effectiveness versus Efficiency: Growth-Accelerating Policies in a Model of Growth without Scale Effects," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7, pages 297-316, August.
    16. Bettina Büttner, 2006. "Effectiveness versus Efficiency: Growth‐Accelerating Policies in a Model of Growth without Scale Effects," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(3), pages 297-316, August.
    17. Wang, David Han-Min & Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang & Liu, Hong-Quan, 2013. "Heterogeneous effect of high-tech industrial R&D spending on economic growth," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1990-1993.
    18. Volker Grossmann & Thomas M. Steger & Timo Trimborn, 2016. "Quantifying Optimal Growth Policy," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 18(3), pages 451-485, June.
    19. Lin, Hwan C., 2016. "The switch from patents to state-dependent prizes for technological innovation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 193-223.
    20. Gómez, Manuel A., 2011. "Duplication externalities in an endogenous growth model with physical capital, human capital, and R&D," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 181-187.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O40 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General
    • E10 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:10625. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.