IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijsepp/v41y2014i10p956-974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sector size, technical change and stability in the USA (1957-2006): a Schumpeterian approach

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Konstantakis
  • Panayotis G. Michaelides
  • Theofanis Papageorgiou

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to investigate two famous postulates of the Schumpeterian doctrine and its implications for the US economy. Design/methodology/approach - – Analytically, the authors investigate whether sector size matters for sectoral: technological change and stability, as expressed through the relevant quantitative measures and variables. To this end, the authors test a number of relevant models that express the various forms of this relationship. More precisely, the authors use panel data for the 14 main sectors of economic activity in the USA over the period 1957-2006, just before the first signs of the US and global recession made their appearance. Findings - – The results seem to be in line with the Schumpeterian postulate that market size matters for technological change and economic stability, for the US economy (1957-2006). Clearly, further research would be of great interest. Originality/value - – This work contributes to the literature in the following ways: first, it provides an extensive review of the literature on the subject and adopts two relevant methodological approaches. Second, based on these quantitative approaches, the paper offers a complete investigation of two famous postulates of the Schumpeterian theory for the US economy, and it is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to do so by sector of economic activity, in a panel data framework. Third, the paper uses a wide data set (1957-2006) to examine the US economy up until the first signs of the US and global economic recession made their appearance.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Konstantakis & Panayotis G. Michaelides & Theofanis Papageorgiou, 2014. "Sector size, technical change and stability in the USA (1957-2006): a Schumpeterian approach," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 41(10), pages 956-974, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:41:y:2014:i:10:p:956-974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/IJSE-07-2013-0165?utm_campaign=RePEc&WT.mc_id=RePEc
    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. Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Aamir Hashmi, 2007. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry," 2007 Meeting Papers 362, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Jochen Streb, 1999. "How to Win Schumpeterian Competition: Technological Transfers in the German Plastics Industry from the 1930s to the 1970s," Working Papers 811, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    3. Marianne Baxter & Robert G. King, 1999. "Measuring Business Cycles: Approximate Band-Pass Filters For Economic Time Series," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 575-593, November.
    4. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    6. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1991. " The Econometrics of the General Equilibrium Approach to Business Cycles," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(2), pages 161-178.
    7. Link, Albert N, 1980. "Firm Size and Efficient Entrepreneurial Activity: A Reformulation of the Schumpeter Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(4), pages 771-782, August.
    8. Fisher, Franklin M & Temin, Peter, 1973. "Returns to Scale in Research and Development: What Does the Schumpeterian Hypothesis Imply ?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(1), pages 56-70, Jan.-Feb..
    9. William S. Comanor, 1967. "Market Structure, Product Differentiation, and Industrial Research," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 639-657.
    10. Edwin Mansfield, 1964. "Industrial Research and Development Expenditures: Determinants, Prospects, and Relation to Size of Firm and Inventive Output," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72, pages 319-319.
    11. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Ding Ding & Per Thulin, 2018. "The knowledge spillover theory of intrapreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 1-30, June.
    12. Marios Zachariadis, 2003. "R&D, innovation, and technological progress: a test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 566-586, August.
    13. Hodrick, Robert J & Prescott, Edward C, 1997. "Postwar U.S. Business Cycles: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Aghion, P. & Tirole, J., 1993. "On the Management of Innovation," Working papers 93-12, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    15. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2016. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 192-208, March.
    16. Raymond Wladimir & Mohnen Pierre & Palm Franz & Schim van der Loeff Sybrand, 2009. "Innovative Sales, R&D and Total Innovation Expenditures: Panel Evidence on their Dynamics," Research Memorandum 028, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    17. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization,in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107 Elsevier.
    18. Ikenberry, G. John, 1986. "The irony of state strength: comparative responses to the oil shocks in the 1970s," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(01), pages 105-137, December.
    19. Blundell, Richard & Bond, Stephen, 1998. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 115-143, August.
    20. Lutz Kilian & Cheolbeom Park, 2009. "The Impact Of Oil Price Shocks On The U.S. Stock Market," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1267-1287, November.
    21. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
    22. Richard Ericson & Ariel Pakes, 1995. "Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empirical Work," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82.
    23. Donald J. Smythe, 2010. "A Schumpeterian view of the Great Merger Movement in American manufacturing," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 4(2), pages 141-170, June.
    24. F. M. Scherer, 1967. "Research and Development Resource Allocation Under Rivalry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 359-394.
    25. Evens Salies, 2010. "A Test of the Schumpeterian Hypothesis in a Panel of European Electric Utilities," Chapters,in: Innovation, Economic Growth and the Firm, chapter 6 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    26. Christodoulakis, Nicos & Dimelis, Sophia P & Kollintzas, Tryphon, 1995. "Comparisons of Business Cycles in the EC: Idiosyncracies and Regularities," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 62(245), pages 1-27, February.
    27. Dhawan, Rajeev, 2001. "Firm size and productivity differential: theory and evidence from a panel of US firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 269-293, March.
    28. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    29. Pierre Danthine, Jean & Donaldson, John B., 1993. "Methodological and empirical issues in real business cycle theory," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-35, January.
    30. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-652, Special I.
    31. Lucas, Robert E., 1977. "Understanding business cycles," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 7-29, January.
    32. Cohen, Wesley M & Levin, Richard C & Mowery, David C, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 543-565, June.
    33. Choi, In, 2001. "Unit root tests for panel data," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 249-272, April.
    34. Audretsch, David B. & Lehmann, Erik E., 2005. "Does the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship hold for regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1191-1202, October.
    35. Nicholas, Tom, 2003. "Why Schumpeter was Right: Innovation, Market Power, and Creative Destruction in 1920s America," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(04), pages 1023-1058, December.
    36. Greene, William H., 1990. "A Gamma-distributed stochastic frontier model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 141-163.
    37. Richard Levin & Peter C. Reiss, 1984. "Tests of a Schumpeterian Model of R&D and Market Structure," NBER Chapters,in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 175-208 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    38. Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
    39. Link, Albert N, 1981. "Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing: Additional Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1111-1112, December.
    40. E J Malecki, 1980. "Growth and Change in the Analysis of Rank—Size Distributions: Empirical Findings," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 12(1), pages 41-52, January.
    41. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1962. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 155-173.
    42. Degner, Harald & Streb, Jochen, 2010. "Foreign patenting in Germany: 1877 - 1932," FZID Discussion Papers 21-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    43. Joon-Woo Nahm, 2001. "Nonparametric quantile regression analysis of R&D-sales relationship for Korean firms," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 259-270.
    44. Fiorito, Riccardo & Kollintzas, Tryphon, 1994. "Stylized facts of business cycles in the G7 from a real business cycles perspective," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 235-269, February.
    45. Philippe Aghion & Jean Tirole, 1994. "The Management of Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 1185-1209.
    46. Scherer, F M, 1992. "Schumpeter and Plausible Capitalism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1416-1433, September.
    47. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    48. Judson, Ruth A. & Owen, Ann L., 1999. "Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 9-15, October.
    49. Nelson, Charles R. & Plosser, Charles I., 1982. "Trends and random walks in macroeconmic time series : Some evidence and implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 139-162.
    50. 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.
    51. Morton I. Kamien & Nancy L. Schwartz, 1976. "On the Degree of Rivalry for Maximum Innovative Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 245-260.
    52. E J Malecki, 1980. "Growth and change in the analysis of rank - size distributions: empirical findings," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 12(1), pages 41-52, January.
    53. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology; Schumpeter; Stability; Cycles;

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • N1 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations

    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:eme:ijsepp:v:41:y:2014:i:10:p:956-974. 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: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: http://www.emeraldinsight.com .

    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.