Embodied Technological Change, Learning-by-Doing and the Productivity Slowdown
The productivity slowdown faced by the US economy since the first oil shock has been associated with a rise in the decline rate of the relative price of equipment and a reduction in the rate of disembodied technical change. We build up a growth model in which learning-by-doing is the engine of both embodied and disembodied technological progress. A change in the relative efficiency of learning-by-doing from the consumption to the investment sector is shown to imply a technological reassignment consistent with the above mentioned evidence. This result derives from the interaction between the obsolescence costs inherent to embodiment and the learning-by-doing engine.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|Date of creation:||2002|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Badia Fiesolana, Via dei Roccettini, 9, 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy|
Web page: http://www.eui.eu/ECO/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Romer, Paul M, 1986.
"Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
- David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
- Hsieh, Chang-Tai, 2001. "Endogenous growth and obsolescence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 153-171, October.
- Andreas Hornstein & Per Krusell, 1996. "Can Technology Improvements Cause Productivity Slowdowns?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1996, Volume 11, pages 209-276 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Greenwood, J. & Hercowitz, Z. & Krusell, P., 1996.
"Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change,"
RCER Working Papers
420, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Greenwood, Jeremy & Hercowitz, Zvi & Krusell, Per, 1997. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 342-362, June.
- Greenwood, J. & Hercowitz, Z. & Krusell, P., 1995. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9510, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Boucekkine, Raouf & del Rio, Fernando & Licandro, Omar, 1999.
"The Importance of the Embodied Question Revisited,"
Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales)
1999026, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Boucekkine, Raouf & Del Rio, Fernando & Licandro, Omar, 2000. "The importance of the embodied question revisited," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 0001, CEPREMAP.
- Raouf Boucekkine & Fernando del Río & Omar Licandro, "undated". "The importance of the embodied question revisited," Working Papers 99-13, FEDEA.
- Krusell, Per, 1998. "Investment-Specific R&D and the Decline in the Relative Price of Capital," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 131-141, June.
- Hercowitz, Zvi, 1998. "The 'embodiment' controversy: A review essay," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 217-224, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eui:euiwps:eco2002/12. 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: (Anne Banks)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.