IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The US-UK productivity gap in the twentieth century: a race between technology and population

  • Banerjee, Rajabrata

Recent developments in endogenous growth models have enabled researchers to reconsider some key events such as the take-off of the United States in the twentieth century. This paper investigates the roles played by innovative activity and population growth on comparative total factor productivity (TFP) growth between the US and the UK in the period 1870–2009. The study finds that the comparative lead in the US TFP was a race between innovative activity on the one hand and population growth on the other. While the first factor influenced TFP growth positively, the latter created a growth drag. Moreover, the findings strongly support the Schumpeterian hypothesis, where innovative activity has permanent growth effects in the long run.

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: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/30889/1/MPRA_paper_30889.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/30927/2/MPRA_paper_30927.pdf
File Function: revised version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 30889.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 12 May 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:30889
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

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. Jakob B. Madsen & Shishir Saxena & James B. Ang, 2008. "The Indian Growth Miracle And Endogenous Growth," CAMA Working Papers 2008-29, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  2. Peter Klenow & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 1997. "The Neoclassical Revival in Growth Economics: Has It Gone Too Far?," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, Volume 12, pages 73-114 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Sullivan, Richard J., 1990. "The Revolution of Ideas: Widespread Patenting and Invention During the English Industrial Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 349-362, June.
  4. Ang, James B. & McKibbin, Warwick J., 2007. "Financial liberalization, financial sector development and growth: Evidence from Malaysia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 215-233, September.
  5. Goodfriend, Marvin & McDermott, John, 1995. "Early Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 116-33, March.
  6. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-84, August.
  7. 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.
  8. Peter L. Rousseau & Richard Sylla, 2000. "Emerging Financial Markets and Early U.S. Growth," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0015, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
  9. Matteo Cervellati & Uwe Sunde, 2005. "Human Capital Formation, Life Expectancy, and the Process of Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1653-1672, December.
  10. Griliches, Zvi, 1990. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 1661-1707, December.
  11. repec:ner:tilbur:urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-89730 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Madsen, Jakob & Ang, James & Banerjee, Rajabrata, 2010. "Four Centuries of British Economic Growth: The Roles of Technology and Population," MPRA Paper 23510, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  13. Greasley, David & Oxley, Les, 2007. "Patenting, intellectual property rights and sectoral outputs in Industrial Revolution Britain, 1780-1851," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 340-354, August.
  14. James B. Ang & Rajabrata Banerjee & Jakob B. Madsen, 2010. "Innovation, Technological Change And The British Agricultural Revolution," CAMA Working Papers 2010-11, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  15. 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.
  16. Broadberry, S.N., 1992. "Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing During the Nineteenth Century," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 399, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  17. Ricardo J. Caballero & Adam B. Jaffe, 1993. "How High are the Giants' Shoulders: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, Volume 8, pages 15-86 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  18. Rajabrata Banerjee, 2012. "Population Growth and Endogenous Technological Change: Australian Economic Growth in the Long Run," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(281), pages 214-228, 06.
  19. Ang, James B., 2010. "Research, technological change and financial liberalization in South Korea," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 457-468, March.
  20. 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, 06.
  21. Madsen, Jakob B., 2007. "Are there diminishing returns to R&D?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 161-166, May.
  22. Robert E. Lucas, Jr., 2007. "Trade and the Diffusion of the Industrial Revolution," NBER Working Papers 13286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. Les Oxley & David Greasley, 1998. "Vector autoregression, cointegration and causality: testing for causes of the British industrial revolution," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(10), pages 1387-1397.
  24. 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.
  25. Broadberry, Stephen N. & Irwin, Douglas A., 2006. "Labor productivity in the United States and the United Kingdom during the nineteenth century," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 257-279, April.
  26. Peretto, P. & Smulders, J.A., 2002. "Technological distance, growth and scale effects," Other publications TiSEM bdce08a7-4ad9-4427-a99e-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  27. Broadberry, Stephen N, 1992. "Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long Run Data Show," CEPR Discussion Papers 708, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  28. Broadberry, Stephen & Ghosal, Sayantan, 2005. "Technology, organisation and productivity performance in services: lessons from Britain and the United States since 1870," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 437-466, December.
  29. Sullivan, Richard J., 1989. "England's Age of invention: The acceleration of patents and patentable invention during the industrial revolution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 424-452, October.
  30. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
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:pra:mprapa:30889. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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.