IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ICT Investment and Economic Growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a Unique Case? A Comparative Study of Nine OECD Countries


  • Alessandra Colecchia
  • Paul Schreyer


Investment in information technologies has by no means been confined to the United States and yet, average European or Japanese growth experience has been quite different. The paper compares the impact of ICT capital accumulation on output growth in Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The analysis uses a newly compiled database of investment in ICT equipment and software based on the System of National Accounts 1993 (SNA93). Over the past two decades, ICT contributed between 0.2 and 0.5 percentage points per year to economic growth, depending on the country. During the second half of the 1990s, this contribution rose to 0.3 to 0.9 percentage points per year. The paper shows that, despite differences between countries, the United States has not been alone in benefiting from the positive effects of ICT capital investment on economic growth nor was the United States the sole country to experience an acceleration of these ... Investissement en TIC et croissance économique dans les années 1990 : Les États-Unis représent-ils un cas unique ? Une comparaison de neuf pays membres de l'OCDE L’investissement dans les technologies de l’information n’a pas été confiné aux États-Unis, toutefois la croissance en Europe et au Japon est assez différent. On trouvera dans ce papier une comparaison de l'incidence de l'accumulation de capital de TIC sur la performance économique en Allemagne, en Australie, au Canada, aux États-Unis, en Finlande, en France, en Italie, au Japon et au Rouyame-Uni. Cette étude fait usage d’une nouvelle base de données sur l'investissement en logiciel et en équipement de TIC, fondée sur le Système de comptabilité nationale de 1993 (SCN 93). Au cours des 20 dernières années, les TIC ont contribué à la croissance économique entre 0.2 et 0.5 point de pourcentage par an, selon le pays. Au cours des 5 dernières années (1995-2000), cette contribution a atteint des valeurs annuelles comprises entre 0.3 et 0.9 point. On montre que, malgré les différences qui existent entre les pays, les États-Unis n’ont pas été les seuls a beneficier de l'incidence positive ...

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra Colecchia & Paul Schreyer, 2001. "ICT Investment and Economic Growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a Unique Case? A Comparative Study of Nine OECD Countries," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2001/7, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:stiaaa:2001/7-en

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Carmichael, Jeffrey, 1981. "The Effects of Mission-Oriented Public R&D Spending on Private Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(3), pages 617-627, June.
    2. Goolsbee, Austan, 1998. "Does Government R&D Policy Mainly Benefit Scientists and Engineers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 298-302, May.
    3. Bronwyn Hall, 1992. "R&D Tax Policy During the Eighties: Success or Failure?," NBER Working Papers 4240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Henri Capron, 1997. "Public support to business R&D: a survey and some new quantitative evidence," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6283, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    6. Switzer, Lorne, 1984. "The Determinants of Industrial R&D: A Funds Flow Simultaneous Equation Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 163-168, February.
    7. Klette, T.J. & Moen, J. & Griliches, Z., 1999. "Do Subsidies to Commercial R&D Reduce Market Failures? Microeconometric Evaluation Studies," Papers 16/99, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
    8. Levy, David M., 1990. "Estimating the impact of government R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 169-173, February.
    9. Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1987. "The Effect of Government Funding on Private Industrial Research and Development: A Re-assessment," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 97-104, September.
    10. Paul A. David & Bronwyn H. Hall, "undated". "Heart of Darkness: Public-Private Interactions Inside the R&D Black Box," Working Papers 99024, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    11. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    12. Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1984. "The Relationship between Federal Contract R&D and Company R&D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 73-78, May.
    13. Nickell, Stephen J, 1981. "Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1417-1426, November.
    14. Holemans, Benni & Sleuwaegen, Leo, 1988. "Innovation expenditures and the role of government in Belgium," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 375-379, December.
    15. Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
    16. Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David E, 1992. "On the Estimation of Panel-Data Models with Serial Correlation When Instruments Are Not Strictly Exogenous," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, January.
    17. John Scott, 1984. "Firm versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity," NBER Chapters,in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 233-248 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Pierre Mohnen, 1999. "Tax Incentives: Issue and Evidence," CIRANO Working Papers 99s-32, CIRANO.
    19. Hall, Bronwyn & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 449-469, April.
    20. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Fier, Andreas, 2001. "Do R&D subsidies matter? Evidence for the German service sector," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-19, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Bart van Ark & Robert Inklaar & Robert H. McGuckin, 2002. "'Changing Gear' - Productivity, ICT and Services Industries: Europe and the United States," Economics Program Working Papers 02-02, The Conference Board, Economics Program.
    2. B.K. Atrostic & Sang V. Nguyen, 2002. "Computer Networks and U.S. Manufacturing Plant Productivity: New Evidence from the CNUS Data," Working Papers 02-01, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Jalava, Jukka & Pohjola, Matti, 2002. "Economic growth in the New Economy: evidence from advanced economies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 189-210, June.
    4. Benjamin David, 2012. "Modélisation non-linéaire de l'impact des TIC sur la productivité du travail," EconomiX Working Papers 2012-51, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    5. Stéphane CIRIANI & Pascal PERIN, 2015. "Current Perspectives on the Employment Impact of Digital Technologies," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(100), pages 145-163, 4th quart.
    6. Viitamo, Esa, 2003. "Knowledge-intensive Services and Competitiveness of the Forest Cluster," Discussion Papers 845, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    7. Hélène Baudchon, 2002. "The Aftermath of the "New Economy" Bust : a Case Study of Five OECD Countries," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2002-08, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    8. Gilbert Cette & Jimmy Lopez, 2012. "ICT demand behaviour: an international comparison," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 397-410, June.
    9. Nathalie Coutinet, 2006. "Définir les TIC pour mieux comprendre leur impact sur l'économie," Post-Print halshs-00199011, HAL.
    10. Abbas Valadkhani, 2003. "An Empirical Analysis of Australian Labour Productivity," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 273-291, September.
    11. Belorgey, Nicolas & Lecat, Remy & Maury, Tristan-Pierre, 2006. "Determinants of productivity per employee: An empirical estimation using panel data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 153-157, May.
    12. Cette, Gilbert & Fernald, John & Mojon, Benoît, 2016. "The pre-Great Recession slowdown in productivity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 3-20.
    13. Mughal, Mazhar & Diawara, Barassou, 2011. "Human capital and the adoption of information and communications technologies: Evidence from investment climate survey of Pakistan," Economics Discussion Papers 2011-21, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    14. Johanna Melka & Nanno Mulder & Laurence Nayman & Soledad Zignago, 2003. "Skills, Technology and Growth is ICT the Key to Success ? An Analysis of ICT Impact on French Growth," Working Papers 2003-04, CEPII research center.
    15. Paul Cavelaars, 2005. "Has the Tradeoff Between Productivity Gains and Job Growth Disappeared?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 45-64, February.
    16. Ignacio Hernando & Soledad Núñez, 2002. "The contribution of ICT to economic activity: a growth accounting exercise with Spanish firm-level data," Working Papers 0203, Banco de España;Working Papers Homepage.
    17. Hollenstein, Heinz, 2004. "Determinants of the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT): An empirical analysis based on firm-level data for the Swiss business sector," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 315-342, September.
    18. repec:dgr:rugggd:200363 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:oec:stiaaa:2001/7-en. 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: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.