Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T16:02:36.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

R&D AND GROWTH: THE MISSING LINK?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2007

ROBERTO M. SAMANIEGO
ROBERTO M. SAMANIEGO
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The presumption that R&D is a key driver of economic growth is difficult to reconcile with empirical evidence. For example, in most studies, which identify technical change with total factor productivity (TFP), the link between TFP and measures of knowledge is found to be weak.

This paper shows that a reconciliation may be possible in a model where R&D contributes to growth through investment-specific technical change. Such a model predicts that the empirical link between knowledge and productivty would be weak even if the generation of knowledge is the predominant factor of economic growth. The paper also shows that estimates of the production function for knowledge using patent data may be biased.

Keywords

R&DIdeas'ProductionEndogenous GrowthPatent DataInvestment-Specific Technical Change
Type
ARTICLES
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , November 2007 , pp. 691 - 714
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdih Yasser and Frederick Joutz 2006 Relating the knowledge production function to total factor productivity. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 53, 242– 271.Google Scholar
Caballero Ricardo and Adam B. Jaffe 1993 How high are the giant's shoulders: An empirical assessment of knowledge spillovers and creative destruction in a model of economic growth. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 8, 15– 74. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cohen Wesley, Richard Nelson and John Walsh 2000 Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not). NBER working paper w7552.Google Scholar
Cooley Thomas F. and Edward C. Prescott 1995 Economic growth and business cycles. In Thomas F. Cooley (ed.), Frontiers of Business Cycle Research, 1– 30. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cummins Jason and Giovanni Violante 2002 Investment-specific technical change in the US (1947–2000): Measurement and macroeconomic consequences. Review of Economic Dynamics 5, 243– 284.Google Scholar
Fisher Jonas D.W. 2006 The dynamic effects of neutral and investment-specific technology shocks. Journal of Political Economy 114, 413– 451.Google Scholar
Greenwood Jeremy, Zvi Hercowitz and Per Krusell 1997 Long-run implications of investment-specific technological change. American Economic Review 87, 342– 362.Google Scholar
Greenwood Jeremy, Zvi Hercowitz and Per Krusell 2000 The role of investment-specific technological change in the business cycle. European Economic Review 44, 91– 115.Google Scholar
Greenwood Jeremy and Boyan Jovanovic 2001 Accounting for growth. In New Developments in Productivity Analysis, NBER Studies in Income and Wealth 63, 179–222. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Griliches Zvi 1986 Productivity, R&D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970's. American Economic Review 76, 141– 154.
Griliches Zvi 1990 Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28, 1661– 1707.Google Scholar
Hall Bronwyn H., Adam B. Jaffe and Manuel Trajtenberg 2000 Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look. NBER working paper w7741.Google Scholar
Harhoff Dietmar, Frederic M. Scherer and Katrin Vopel 2003 Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy 32, 1343– 1363.Google Scholar
Howitt Peter 1999 Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing. Journal of Political Economy 107, 715– 730.Google Scholar
Jones Charles 1995 R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 103, 759– 784.Google Scholar
Kortum Samuel and Josh Lerner 1998 Stronger protection or technological revolution: What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 48, 247– 304.Google Scholar
Krusell Per 1998 Investment-specific R&D and the decline in the relative price of capital. Journal of Economic Growth 3, 131– 141.Google Scholar
Lanjouw Jean and Mark Schankerman 1999 The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. NBER working paper w7345.Google Scholar
Leiva Fernando 2004 Pricing Patents Through Citations. Mimeo: University of Iowa.
Maddison Angus 1987 Growth and slowdown in advanced capitalist economies: Techniques of quantitative assessment. Journal of Economic Literature 25, 649– 698.Google Scholar
Nadiri M. Ishaq and Ingmar R. Prucha 1996 Estimation of the depreciation rate of physical and R&D capital in the U.S. total manufacturing sector. Economic Inquiry 34, 43– 56.Google Scholar
Pakes Ariel and Mark Schankerman 1984 The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In R&D, Patents, and Productivity, NBER conference report, 73– 88. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Porter Michael E. and Scott Stern 2000 Measuring the “Ideas” Production Function: Evidence from International Patent Output.” NBER working paper w7891.Google Scholar
Romer Paul 1990 Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98, S71– S101.Google Scholar
Samaniego Roberto 2006 Organizational capital, technology adoption and the productivity slowdown. Journal of Monetary Economics 53, 1555– 1569.Google Scholar
Wilson Daniel J. 2002 Is embodied technology the result of upstream R&D? Industry-level evidence. Review of Economic Dynamics 5, 285– 317.Google Scholar