IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Effects of Biased Technological Change on Total Factor Productivity. Empirical Evidence from a Sample of OECD Countries

Listed author(s):
  • Cristiano Antonelli

    (Department of Economics, University of Turin - University of Turin)

  • Francesco Quatraro

    ()

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Technological change is far from neutral. The empirical analysis of the rate and direction of technological change in a significant sample of 12 major OECD countries in the years 1970-2003 confirms the strong bias of new technologies. The paper implements a novel methodology to identify and disentangle the effects of the direction of technological change upon total factor productivity (TFP) and shows how the introduction of new and biased technologies affects the actual levels of TFP according to the relative local endowments. The empirical evidence confirms that the introduction of biased technologies enhances TFP when its direction matches the characteristics of local factor markets so that locally abundant inputs become more productive. When the direction of technological change favours the intensive use of production factors that are locally scarce, the actual increase of TFP is reduced.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00727618/document
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by HAL in its series Post-Print with number halshs-00727618.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2010
Publication status: Published in Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer Verlag, 2010, 35, pp.361-383
Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00727618
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00727618
Contact details of provider: Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as
in new window


  1. Francesco Quatraro, 2009. "Innovation, structural change and productivity growth: evidence from Italian regions, 1980--2003," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(5), pages 1001-1022, September.
  2. Thomas Orwell Armstrong & Michael Goetz & Karen Leppel, 2000. "Technological Change Bias In The U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utility Industry Following Potential Deregulation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 559-572.
  3. Zvi Griliches & Jacques Mairesse, 1995. "Production Functions: The Search for Identification," NBER Working Papers 5067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2006. "Localized technological change and factor markets: constraints and inducements to innovation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 224-247, June.
  5. 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.
  6. Daron Acemoglu, 1998. "Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1055-1089.
  7. Bailey, Alastair & Irz, Xavier & Balcombe, Kelvin, 2004. "Measuring productivity growth when technological change is biased--a new index and an application to UK agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 285-295, December.
  8. 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.
  9. Gustavo Crespi & Chiara Criscuolo & Jonathan Haskel, 2008. "Productivity, exporting, and the learning-by-exporting hypothesis: direct evidence from UK firms," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(2), pages 619-638, May.
  10. D. W. Jorgenson & Z. Griliches, 1967. "The Explanation of Productivity Change," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 249-283.
  11. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2008. "Innovation Platforms And The Governance Of Knowledge: Evidence From Italy And The Uk," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 699-716.
  12. Cristiano Antonelli, 2006. "Diffusion as a Process of Creative Adoption," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 211-226, 03.
  13. Daron Acemoglu & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2001. "Productivity Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 563-606.
  14. 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.
  15. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  16. Douglas Gollin, 2002. "Getting Income Shares Right," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 458-474, April.
  17. Francesco Caselli & Wilbur John Coleman II, 2006. "The World Technology Frontier," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 499-522, June.
  18. Carl J. Dahlman & Jorma Routti & Pekka Ylä-Anttila, 2006. "Finland as a Knowledge Economy : Elements of Success and Lessons Learned," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 7138, December.
  19. Fisher-Vanden, Karen & Jefferson, Gary H., 2008. "Technology diversity and development: Evidence from China's industrial enterprises," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 658-672, December.
  20. Adriana Di Liberto & Francesco Pigliaru & Roberto Mura, 2008. "How to measure the unobservable: a panel technique for the analysis of TFP convergence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 343-368, April.
  21. Bernard, Andrew B & Jones, Charles I, 1996. "Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1216-1238, December.
  22. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco, 2008. "Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 447-460, June.
  23. Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2007. "ROBUSTNESS OF PRODUCTIVITY ESTIMATES -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 529-569, 09.
  24. Paul A. David, 2005. "THE TALE OF TWO TRAVERSES Innovation and Accumulation in the First Two Centuries of U.S. Economic Growth," Macroeconomics 0502019, EconWPA.
  25. Kenneth Carlaw & Stephen Kosempel, 2004. "The sources of total factor productivity growth: Evidence from Canadian data," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 299-309.
  26. Felipe, Jesus & McCombie, J. S. L., 2001. "Biased Technical Change, Growth Accounting, and the Conundrum of the East Asian Miracle," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 542-565, September.
  27. Ian Keay, 2000. "Canadian manufacturers' relative productivity performance, 1907-1990," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 1049-1068, November.
  28. Dale W. Jorgenson, 1995. "Productivity, Volume 1: Postwar US Economic Growth," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262100495, July.
  29. 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.
  30. Nelson, Richard R, 1973. "Recent Exercises in Growth Accounting: New Understanding or Dead End?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 462-468, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00727618. 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: (CCSD)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.