IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201703.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decentralization in Heterogeneous Regions: A Biased Technological Change Approach

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Regional heterogeneity plays a determinant role in both the decentralization and the biased technological change literature. Merging these perspectives, this paper offers a novel approach on how productivity of firms can be affected by public policies within centralized and decentralized political systems. The contribution of this paper is to develop a theoretical model that introduces the biased technological change concept instead of the traditional Total Factor Productivity (TFP) to evaluate policy outcomes. By doing so, we find that public policies may not always have the expected effect in terms of effciency. In our model, productivity and effciency will depend on the level of regional heterogeneity, the inter-regional spillovers and the relative amount of regional endowments. In particular, our point argues that if there is regional heterogeneity but no inter-regional spillovers a centralized policy can be effcient and that if regions are homogeneous in the presence of inter-regional spillovers, a decentralized strategy can be effcient too. Last, we find that there are cases that may reach no effcient outcomes, regardless the political system.

Suggested Citation

  • Feder, Christophe & Kataishi, Rodrigo Ezequiel, 2017. "Decentralization in Heterogeneous Regions: A Biased Technological Change Approach," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201703, University of Turin.
  • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2017dip/wp_3_2017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hikaru Ogawa & David E. Wildasin, 2009. "Think Locally, Act Locally: Spillovers, Spillbacks, and Efficient Decentralized Policymaking," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1206-1217, September.
    2. Marcus Berliant & Chia-Ming Yu, 2015. "Locational Signaling And Agglomeration," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 757-773, November.
    3. Heike Belitz & Alexander Eickelpasch & Anna Lejpras, 2010. "Technologieoffene Förderung: zentrale Stütze der Industrieforschung in Ostdeutschland," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(51/52), pages 2-10.
    4. Daron Acemoglu, 1998. "Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1055-1089.
    5. Cristiano Antonelli & Francesco Quatraro, 2010. "The effects of biased technological change on total factor productivity: empirical evidence from a sample of OECD countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 361-383, August.
    6. Marco Alderighi & Christophe Feder, 2014. "Political competition, power allocation and welfare in unitary and federal systems," Working Paper series 23_14, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    7. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    8. George W. Hammond & Mehmet S. Tosun, 2011. "The Impact Of Local Decentralization On Economic Growth: Evidence From U.S. Counties," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 47-64, February.
    9. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Daron Acemoglu, 2010. "When Does Labor Scarcity Encourage Innovation?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(6), pages 1037-1078.
    11. Bodman, Philip & Campbell, Harry & Le, Thanh, 2012. "Public investment, taxation, and long-run output in economies with multi-level governments," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 1603-1611.
    12. Wallace E. Oates & Wallace E. Oates, 2004. "An Essay on Fiscal Federalism," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 22, pages 384-414, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Oliver Lorz & Gerald Willmann, 2013. "Size versus scope: on the trade-off facing economic unions," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 247-267, April.
    14. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 2003. "Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2611-2637, December.
    15. Andersson, Martin & Johansson, Borje & Karlsson, Charlie & Loof, Hans (ed.), 2012. "Innovation and Growth: From R&D Strategies of Innovating Firms to Economy-wide Technological Change," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199646685, December.
    16. Maarten A. Allers & J. Bieuwe Geertsema, 2016. "The Effects Of Local Government Amalgamation On Public Spending, Taxation, And Service Levels: Evidence From 15 Years Of Municipal Consolidation," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 659-682, September.
    17. Daron Acemoglu, 2015. "Localised and Biased Technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz's New View, Induced Innovations, and Directed Technological Change," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 443-463, March.
    18. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Cristiano Antonelli & Francesco Quatraro, 2014. "The effects of biased technological changes on total factor productivity: a rejoinder and new empirical evidence," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 281-299, April.
    21. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1.
    22. Antonio Accetturo & Alberto Dalmazzo & Guido Blasio, 2014. "Skill Polarization In Local Labor Markets Under Share-Altering Technical Change," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 249-272, March.
    23. Cristiano Antonelli & Federico Barbiellini Amidei & Christophe Feder, 2017. "Directed technological change and productivity growth: the Italian evidence 1861-2010," International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(3), pages 238-255.
    24. Lockwood, Ben, 2005. "Fiscal Decentralization: A Political Economy Perspective," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 721, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    25. Roberta Capello & Camilla Lenzi, 2013. "Territorial Patterns of Innovation and Economic Growth in European Regions," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 195-227, June.
    26. Christophe Feder, 2018. "A measure of total factor productivity with biased technological change," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 243-253, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christophe Feder, 2018. "Smart Specialization Strategy and Directed Technological Change," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1428-1437.
    2. Feder, Christophe, 2018. "The effects of disruptive innovations on productivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-193.

    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. Feder, Christophe, 2018. "Decentralization and spillovers: A new role for transportation infrastructure," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 36-47.
    2. Antonelli, Cristiano & Feder, Christophe & Quatraro, Francesco, 2018. "Directed Technological Change and Technological Congruence: A New Framework for the Smart Specialization Strategy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201801, University of Turin.
    3. Cristiano Antonelli & Francesco Quatraro, 2014. "The effects of biased technological changes on total factor productivity: a rejoinder and new empirical evidence," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 281-299, April.
    4. Grafström, Jonas, 2021. "Ratio Working Paper No. 351: Knowledge Spillovers in the Solar energy sector," Ratio Working Papers 351, The Ratio Institute.
    5. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2016. "Technological congruence and the economic complexity of technological change," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 15-24.
    6. Jonas Grafström, 2018. "Divergence of renewable energy invention efforts in Europe: an econometric analysis based on patent counts," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(4), pages 829-859, October.
    7. Cristiano Antonelli & Giuseppe Scellato, 2015. "Firms size and directed technological change," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 207-218, January.
    8. Antonelli,Cristiano, 2013. "The economics of technological congruence," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201304, University of Turin.
    9. Cristiano Antonelli, 2016. "A Schumpeterian growth model: wealth and directed technological change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 395-406, June.
    10. Feder, Christophe, 2018. "The effects of disruptive innovations on productivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-193.
    11. Christophe Feder, 2018. "Smart Specialization Strategy and Directed Technological Change," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1428-1437.
    12. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "Invention and Diffusion in the Solar Power Sector," Ratio Working Papers 364, The Ratio Institute.
    13. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    14. Baicker, Katherine & Clemens, Jeffrey & Singhal, Monica, 2012. "The rise of the states: U.S. fiscal decentralization in the postwar period," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1079-1091.
    15. Lars P. Feld & Horst Zimmermann & Thomas Döring, 2003. "Föderalismus, Dezentralität und Wirtschaftswachstum," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 72(3), pages 361-377.
    16. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Tavares Antonio F., 2018. "Municipal amalgamations and their effects: a literature review," Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development, Sciendo, vol. 22(1), pages 5-15, March.
    18. Ligthart, Jenny E. & van Oudheusden, Peter, 2015. "In government we trust: The role of fiscal decentralization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 116-128.
    19. John Van Reenen & Rupert Harrison & Rachel Griffith, 2006. "How Special Is the Special Relationship? Using the Impact of U.S. R&D Spillovers on U.K. Firms as a Test of Technology Sourcing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1859-1875, December.
    20. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uto:dipeco:201703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: Piero Cavaleri or Marina Grazioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.