IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v88y2012i281p214-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population Growth and Endogenous Technological Change: Australian Economic Growth in the Long Run

Author

Listed:
  • RAJABRATA BANERJEE

Abstract

The Australian growth experience appears to be a three-act phenomenon, with higher per capita income and living standards before 1890 and after 1940, disconnected by a 50-year period of no trend improvement in between. This paper examines the roles of technological progress and population growth in Australian productivity growth over the past two centuries. The empirical results confirm that while population growth had a negative effect, innovative activity had a positive effect on productivity growth. Furthermore, the estimates strongly support the Schumpeterian growth hypothesis, which predicts that productivity growth is driven by the levels of research intensity in the economy.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Rajabrata Banerjee, 2012. "Population Growth and Endogenous Technological Change: Australian Economic Growth in the Long Run," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(281), pages 214-228, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:88:y:2012:i:281:p:214-228
    DOI: j.1475-4932.2011.00784.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2011.00784.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jakob Madsen, 2008. "Semi-endogenous versus Schumpeterian growth models: testing the knowledge production function using international data," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Matteo Cervellati & Uwe Sunde, 2005. "Human Capital Formation, Life Expectancy, and the Process of Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1653-1672, December.
    3. Greasley, David & Oxley, Les, 2007. "Patenting, intellectual property rights and sectoral outputs in Industrial Revolution Britain, 1780-1851," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 340-354, August.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters,in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. MacKinnon, James G & Haug, Alfred A & Michelis, Leo, 1999. "Numerical Distribution Functions of Likelihood Ratio Tests for Cointegration," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 563-577, Sept.-Oct.
    6. Madsen, Jakob B. & Saxena, Shishir & Ang, James B., 2010. "The Indian growth miracle and endogenous growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 37-48, September.
    7. Madsen, Jakob B., 2007. "Are there diminishing returns to R&D?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 161-166, May.
    8. Robert E. Lucas, 2009. "Trade and the Diffusion of the Industrial Revolution," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-25, January.
    9. Sullivan, Richard J., 1989. "England's Age of invention: The acceleration of patents and patentable invention during the industrial revolution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 424-452, October.
    10. Pietro Peretto & Sjak Smulders, 2002. "Technological Distance, Growth And Scale Effects," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 603-624, July.
    11. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    12. Ian W. Mclean, 2004. "Australian Economic Growth in Historical Perspective," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(250), pages 330-345, September.
    13. Charles I. Jones, 1995. "Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 495-525.
    14. Les Oxley & David Greasley, 1998. "Vector autoregression, cointegration and causality: testing for causes of the British industrial revolution," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(10), pages 1387-1397.
    15. Peter Howitt, 1999. "Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R & D Inputs Growing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(4), pages 715-730, August.
    16. Johansen, Soren, 1988. "Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(2-3), pages 231-254.
    17. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    18. Sullivan, Richard J., 1990. "The Revolution of Ideas: Widespread Patenting and Invention During the English Industrial Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 349-362, June.
    19. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    20. Gary D. Hansen & Edward C. Prescott, 2002. "Malthus to Solow," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1205-1217, September.
    21. Crafts, Nicholas & Mills, Terence C., 2009. "From Malthus to Solow: How did the Malthusian economy really evolve?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 68-93, March.
    22. David Greasley & Les Oxley, 1998. "A Tale of Two Dominions: Comparing the Macroeconomic Records of Australia and Canada Since 1870," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 51(2), pages 294-318, May.
    23. Jakob Madsen & James Ang & Rajabrata Banerjee, 2010. "Four centuries of British economic growth: the roles of technology and population," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 263-290, December.
    24. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Goodfriend, Marvin & McDermott, John, 1995. "Early Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 116-133, March.
    26. James B. Ang & Rajabrata Banerjee & Jakob B. Madsen, 2010. "Innovation, Technological Change And The British Agricultural Revolution," CAMA Working Papers 2010-11, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    27. Joonkyung Ha & Peter Howitt, 2007. "Accounting for Trends in Productivity and R&D: A Schumpeterian Critique of Semi-Endogenous Growth Theory," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(4), pages 733-774, June.
    28. Oxley, Les & Greasley, David, 1995. "A Time-Series Perspective on Convergence: Australia, UK and USA since 1870," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 71(214), pages 259-270, September.
    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. Rajabrata Banerjee & Martin Shanahan, 2016. "The Contribution of Wheat to Australian Agriculture from 1861 to 1939," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 125-150, July.
    2. Banerjee, Rajabrata & Roy, Saikat Sinha, 2014. "Human capital, technological progress and trade: What explains India's long run growth?," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 15-31.
    3. Amavilah, Voxi Heinrich, 2014. "Knowledge = Technology + Human Capital and the Lucas and Romer Production Functions," MPRA Paper 58847, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. John Foster, 2016. "The Australian growth miracle: an evolutionary macroeconomic explanation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 871-894.
    5. repec:bla:ozechr:v:57:y:2017:i:3:p:264-290 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. John Foster, 2015. "The Australian Multi-Factor Productivity Growth Illusion," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 48(1), pages 33-42, March.
    7. Rajabrata Banerjee & John K. Wilson, 2016. "Roles of Education in Productivity Growth in Australia, 1860–1939," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 92(296), pages 47-66, March.
    8. Amavilah, Voxi Heinrich, 2014. "Human Knowledge and a Commonsensical Measure of Human Capital: A Proposal," MPRA Paper 57670, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Banerjee, Rajabrata, 2011. "The US-UK productivity gap in the twentieth century: a race between technology and population," MPRA Paper 30889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. David Greasley & Jakob B. Madsen, 2017. "The Rise and Fall of Exceptional Australian Incomes Since 1800," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 57(3), pages 264-290, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O4 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:bla:ecorec:v:88:y:2012:i:281:p:214-228. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.