IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mcb/jmoncb/v39y2007i4p733-774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for Trends in Productivity and R&D: A Schumpeterian Critique of Semi-Endogenous Growth Theory

Author

Listed:
  • JOONKYUNG HA
  • PETER HOWITT

Abstract

This paper argues that long-run trends in R&D and TFP are more supportive of fully endogenous "Schumpeterian" growth theory than they are of semi-endogenous growth theory. The distinctive prediction of semi-endogenous theory that sustained TFP growth requires sustained growth of R&D input is not supported by co-integration tests and forecasting exercises, as TFP growth has been stationary even though the growth rate of R&D input has fallen three-fold since the early 1950s. In contrast, the prediction of Schumpeterian theory that sustained TFP growth requires a sustained fraction of GDP to be spent on R&D is not contradicted by similar tests. Copyright 2007 The Ohio State University.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:mcb:jmoncb:v:39:y:2007:i:4:p:733-774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    2. Howard Pack, 1994. "Endogenous Growth Theory: Intellectual Appeal and Empirical Shortcomings," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 55-72, Winter.
    3. Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Growth: With or Without Scale Effects?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 139-144, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 347-374, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    7. Coe, David T. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "International R&D spillovers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 859-887, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Peretto, Pietro F, 1998. "Technological Change and Population Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 283-311, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Edward C. Prescott & Stephen L. Parente, 1999. "Monopoly Rights: A Barrier to Riches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1216-1233, December.
    12. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & David Mayer-Foulkes, 2005. "The Effect of Financial Development on Convergence: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(1), pages 173-222.
    13. Basu, Susanto & Fernald, John G. & Shapiro, Matthew D., 2001. "Productivity growth in the 1990s: technology, utilization, or adjustment?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 117-165, December.
    14. Robert J. Gordon, 2002. "Technology and Economic Performance in the American Economy," NBER Working Papers 8771, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz & Luis A. Rivera-Batiz, 2018. "Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Francisco L Rivera-Batiz & Luis A Rivera-Batiz (ed.), International Trade, Capital Flows and Economic Development, chapter 1, pages 3-32, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Corriveau, L., 1991. "Entrepreneurs, Growth and Cycles," Working Papers 9109e, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
    17. Pietro Peretto & Sjak Smulders, 2002. "Technological Distance, Growth And Scale Effects," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 603-624, July.
    18. Alwyn Young, 1998. "Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 41-63, February.
    19. Segerstrom, Paul S, 1998. "Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1290-1310, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Dinopoulos, Elias & Thompson, Peter, 1998. "Schumpeterian Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 313-335, December.
    22. Howitt, Peter & Aghion, Philippe, 1998. "Capital Accumulation and Innovation as Complementary Factors in Long-Run Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130, June.
    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. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    2. James B. Ang & Jakob B. Madsen, 2011. "Can Second-Generation Endogenous Growth Models Explain the Productivity Trends and Knowledge Production in the Asian Miracle Economies?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1360-1373, November.
    3. Minniti, Antonio & Venturini, Francesco, 2017. "The long-run growth effects of R&D policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 316-326.
    4. 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.
    5. Christopher Laincz & Pietro Peretto, 2006. "Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: an error of aggregation not specification," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 263-288, September.
    6. Volker Grossmann & Thomas Steger, 2007. "Growth, Development, and Technological Change," CESifo Working Paper Series 1913, CESifo.
    7. Christopher A. Laincz & Pietro F. Peretto, 2004. "Scale Effects, An Error of Aggregation Not Specification: Empirical Evidence," DEGIT Conference Papers c009_037, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    8. Steven Bond-Smith, 2019. "The unintended consequences of increasing returns to scale in geographical economics," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1904, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    9. Steven Bond-Smith & Philip McCann & Les Oxley, 2018. "A regional model of endogenous growth without scale assumptions," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 5-35, January.
    10. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    11. Hélène Latzer & Kiminori Matsuyama & Mathieu Parenti, 2018. "The market Size Effect in Endogenous Growth Reconsidered," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 18032, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    12. 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.
    13. Gray, Elie & Grimaud, André, 2016. "Using the Salop Circle to Study Scale Effects in Schumpeterian Growth Models: Why Inter-sectoral Knowledge Diffusion Matters," TSE Working Papers 16-676, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    14. Funk, Peter, 2008. "Entry and growth in a perfectly competitive vintage model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 211-236, January.
    15. Gray, Elie & Grimaud, André, 2014. "The Lindahl equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models: Knowledge diffusion, social value of innovations and optimal R&D incentives," TSE Working Papers 14-469, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. 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.
    17. A. Minniti & F. Venturini, 2014. "R&D Policy and Schumpeterian Growth: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers wp945, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. 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.
    19. Elie Gray & André Grimaud, 2016. "The Lindahl equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 101-142, March.
    20. Ang, James B., 2010. "Financial Reforms, Patent Protection, and Knowledge Accumulation in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1070-1081, August.

    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:mcb:jmoncb:v:39:y:2007:i:4:p:733-774. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2879 .

    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-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2879 .

    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.