IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i5p1728-1742.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Compulsory Schooling Affect Innovation? Evidence from the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Corey A. DeAngelis
  • Angela K. Dills

Abstract

Objective U.S. states adopted compulsory schooling laws between 1852 and 1929. This is the first study to empirically test the historical relationship between the adoption of state‐level compulsory schooling laws and measures of innovation and entrepreneurship such as the number of patents per capita and output per worker. Methods We use difference‐in‐difference and event study methods to estimate the effects of these laws. Results Our results suggest that the adoption of compulsory schooling in the United States reduced patents per capita and output per worker over time. Conclusion Compulsory schooling laws may have reduced innovation and productivity by reducing home education in favor of formal schooling or by changing the nature of formal schooling.

Suggested Citation

  • Corey A. DeAngelis & Angela K. Dills, 2020. "Does Compulsory Schooling Affect Innovation? Evidence from the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1728-1742, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1728-1742
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12832
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12832?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ioannis Bournakis & Dimitris Christopoulos & Sushanta Mallick, 2018. "Knowledge Spillovers And Output Per Worker: An Industry‐Level Analysis For Oecd Countries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 1028-1046, April.
    2. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker than Others?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 83-116.
    3. Jalles, João Tovar, 2010. "How to measure innovation? New evidence of the technology-growth linkage," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 81-96, June.
    4. Andersson, Roland & Quigley, John M. & Wilhelmsson, Mats, 2009. "Urbanization, productivity, and innovation: Evidence from investment in higher education," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 2-15, July.
    5. Adriana Lleras-Muney & Allison Shertzer, 2015. "Did the Americanization Movement Succeed? An Evaluation of the Effect of English-Only and Compulsory Schooling Laws on Immigrants," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 258-290, August.
    6. Chad Turner & Robert Tamura & Sean Mulholland, 2013. "How important are human capital, physical capital and total factor productivity for determining state economic growth in the United States, 1840–2000?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 319-371, December.
    7. Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1802-1820, December.
    8. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    9. Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, 2008. "Mass Secondary Schooling and the State: The Role of State Compulsion in the High School Movement," NBER Chapters, in: Understanding Long-Run Economic Growth: Geography, Institutions, and the Knowledge Economy, pages 275-310, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Paul Beaudry & Fabrice Collard & David A. Green, 2005. "Changes in the World Distribution of Output Per Worker, 1960-1998: How a Standard Decomposition Tells an Unorthodox Story," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(4), pages 741-753, November.
    11. Nathan Goldschlag & Alex Tabarrok, 2018. "Is regulation to blame for the decline in American entrepreneurship?," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 5-44.
    12. Corey A. DeAngelis, 2019. "Does Private Schooling Affect Noncognitive Skills? International Evidence Based on Test and Survey Effort on PISA," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(6), pages 2256-2276, October.
    13. I. P. L. Png, 2017. "Law and Innovation: Evidence from State Trade Secrets Laws," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 167-179, March.
    14. Lott, John R, Jr, 1990. "An Explanation for Public Provision of Schooling: The Importance of Indoctrination," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 199-231, April.
    15. Petra Moser, 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    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. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Wang, Fuhao & Chang, Yu-Fang, 2023. "Towards net-zero emissions: Can green bond policy promote green innovation and green space?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    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. Su, Zhongfeng & Wang, Chenfeng & Peng, Mike W., 2022. "Intellectual property rights protection and total factor productivity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3).
    2. Anna Valero, 2021. "Education and economic growth," CEP Discussion Papers dp1764, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Truger, Achim & Wieland, Volker, 2019. "Den Strukturwandel meistern. Jahresgutachten 2019/20 [Dealing with Structural Change. Annual Report 2019/20]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201920.
    4. Moshe Hazan & David Weiss & Hosny Zoabi, 2019. "Women's Liberation as a Financial Innovation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(6), pages 2915-2956, December.
    5. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    6. Davide Fiaschi & Andrea Mario Lavezzi & Angela Parenti, 2020. "Deep and Proximate Determinants of the World Income Distribution," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 677-710, September.
    7. Georges Daw, 2022. "Determinants of Wealth Disparities in the EU: A Multi-scale Development Accounting Investigation," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(2), pages 211-254, June.
    8. Zhang, Xiaobei & Wang, Xiaojun, 2021. "Measures of human capital and the mechanics of economic growth," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ganau, 2022. "Institutions and the productivity challenge for European regions," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-25.
    10. Li, Jing, 2014. "The influence of state policy and proximity to medical services on health outcomes," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-109.
    11. Cao, Xiaping & Leng, Tiecheng & Goh, Jeremy & Malatesta, Paul, 2020. "The innovation effect of dual-class shares: New evidence from US firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 347-357.
    12. Gancia, Gino & Bonfiglioli, Alessandra, 2008. "North-South trade and directed technical change," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 276-295, December.
    13. Ruba Abdullah Aljarallah, 2020. "The Economic Impacts of Natural Resource Dependency in Gulf Countries," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(6), pages 36-52.
    14. Anderton, Robert & Di Lupidio, Benedetta & Jarmulska, Barbara, 2020. "The impact of product market regulation on productivity through firm churning: Evidence from European countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 487-501.
    15. Bibhudutta Panda, 2017. "Schooling and productivity growth: evidence from a dual growth accounting application to U.S. states," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 193-221, December.
    16. Guiso, Luigi & Zingales, Luigi & Sapienza, Paola, 2010. "Civic Capital as the Missing Link," CEPR Discussion Papers 7757, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. İrem Güçeri & Marko Köthenbürger & Martin Simmler, 2020. "Supporting Firm Innovation and R&D: What is the Optimal Policy Mix?," EconPol Policy Reports 20, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    18. Tica Josip & Šikić Luka, 2019. "Endogenous Convergence and International Technological Diffusion Channels," South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 14(2), pages 34-53, December.
    19. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2020. "Innovation Strategies and Productivity Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Pakistan," GLO Discussion Paper Series 466, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    20. Alvina Sabah Idrees & Saima Sarwar, 2021. "State effectiveness, property rights and entrepreneurial behaviour as determinants of National Innovation," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 392-423, September.

    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:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1728-1742. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.