Banerjee, Rajabrata (2011): The US-UK productivity gap in the twentieth century: a race between technology and population.
Download (753Kb) | Preview
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.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||The US-UK productivity gap in the twentieth century: a race between technology and population|
|Keywords:||endogenous growth; productivity gap; technology; population|
|Subjects:||O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General
O - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General
|Depositing User:||Rajabrata Banerjee|
|Date Deposited:||13. May 2011 02:45|
|Last Modified:||12. Feb 2013 18:58|
Abramovitz, M. (1986), ‘Catching up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind’, Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385–406.
Abramovitz, M. and David, P.A. (1996), ‘Convergence and Deferred Catch-Up: Productivity Leadership and the Waning of American Exceptionalism’, in R. Landau, T. Taylor and G. Wright, (Eds.), The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Stanford, Stanford University Press. pp. 21–62.
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1998), Endogenous Growth Theory, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Ang, J.B. (2008), ‘Research, Technological Change and Financial Liberalization in South Korea’, Journal of Macroeconomics, 32(1), 457–468.
Ang, J.B., Banerjee, R. and Madsen, J.B. (2010), ‘Innovation, Technological Change and the British Agricultural Revolution’, CAMA Working Papers 2010–11, Australian National University, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis.
Ang, J.B. and Madsen, J.B. (2011), ‘Can Second-Generation Endogenous Growth Models Explain the Productivity Trends and Knowledge Production in the Asian Miracle Economies?’, Review of Economics and Statistics (forthcoming).
Ang, J.B. and McKibbin, W.J. (2007), ‘Financial Liberalization, Financial Sector Development and Growth: Evidence from Malaysia’, Journal of Development Economics, 84(1), 215–233.
Banerjee, R. (2011), ‘Population Growth and Endogenous Technological Change: Australian Economic Growth in the Long Run’, CRMA Working Paper Number: 02–2011, University of South Australia, Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis.
Boehm, K. and Silberston, A. (1967), The British Patent System: Administration, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Broadberry, S. and Ghosal, S. (2005), ‘Technology, Organisation and Productivity Performance in Services: Lessons from Britain and the United States since 1870’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16(4), 437–466.
Broadberry, S.N. (1993), ‘Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long-Run Data Show’, Journal of Economic History, 53(4), 772–795.
Broadberry, S.N. (1994), ‘Comparative Productivity in British and American Manufacturing during the Nineteenth Century’, Explorations in Economic History, 31(4), 521–548.
Broadberry, S.N. (1998), ‘How Did the United States and Germany Overtake Britain? A Sectoral Analysis of Comparative Productivity Levels, 1870–1990’, Journal of Economic History, 58(2), 375–407.
Broadberry, S.N. and Irwin, D.A. (2006), ‘Labor Productivity in the United States and the United Kingdom during the Nineteenth Century’, Explorations in Economic History, 43(2), 257–279.
Caballero, R.J. and Jaffe, A.B. (1993), ‘How High Are the Giants’ Shoulders: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth’, NBER Working Papers 4370, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Capie, F. and Webber, A. (1982), A Monetary History of the United Kingdom, 1870–1982: Data, Sources, Methods, Great Britain, Unwin Hyman.
Carter, S.B., Gartner, S.S., Haines, M.R., Olmstead, A.L., Sutch, R. and Wright, G. (Eds.) (2006) Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennial Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cervellati, M. and Sunde, U. (2005), ‘Human Capital Formation, Life Expectancy, and the Process of Development’, American Economic Review, 95(5), 1653–1672.
Denison, E.F. (1967), Why Growth Rates Differ: Postwar Experience in Nine Western Countries, Washington DC, Brookings Institution.
Feinstein, C.H. (1972), National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom 1855–1965, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Galor, O. and Weil, D.N. (2000), ‘Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and Beyond’, American Economic Review, 90(4), 806–828.
Goodfriend, M. and McDermott, J. (1995), ‘Early Development’, American Economic Review, 85(1), 116–133.
Greasley, D. and Oxley, L. (2007), ‘Patenting, Intellectual Property Rights and Sectoral Outputs in Industrial Revolution Britain, 1780–1851’, Journal of Econometrics, 139(2), 340–354.
Griliches, Z. (1990), ‘Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1661–1707.
Ha, J. and Howitt, P. (2007), ‘Accounting for Trends in Productivity and R&D: A Schumpeterian Critique of Semi-Endogenous Growth Theory’, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 39(4), 733–774.
Habakkuk, H.J. (1962), American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, G.D. and Prescott, E.C. (2002), ‘Malthus to Solow’, American Economic Review, 92(4), 1205–1217.
Howitt, P. (1999), ‘Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R & D Inputs Growing’, Journal of Political Economy, 107(4), 715–730.
Huberman, M. (2004), ‘Working Hours of the World Unite? New International Evidence of Worktime, 1870–1913’, Journal of Economic History, 64(4), 964–1001.
Jones, C.I. (1995), ‘R & D-Based Models of Economic Growth’, Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 759–784.
Kendrick, J.W. (1961), Productivity Trends in the United States, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Klenow, P.J. and Rodriguez-Clare, A. (1997), ‘The Neo-Classical Revival in Growth Economics: Has It Gone Too Far?’, NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 12, 73–103.
Kortum, S.S. (1997), ‘Research, Patenting, and Technological Change’, Econometrica, 65(6), 1389–1419. Lucas, R.E. (2007), ‘Trade and the Diffusion of the Industrial Revolution’, NBER Working Paper No. W13286.
Kortum, S.S. (2009), ‘Trade and the Diffusion of the Industrial Revolution’, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 1(1), 1–25.
Maddison, A. (1995), Monitoring the World Economy 1820–1992, Paris, OECD.
Madsen, J.B. (2007), ‘Are There Diminishing Returns to R&D?’, Economics Letters, 95(2), 161–166.
Madsen, J.B. (2008), ‘Semi-Endogenous Versus Schumpeterian Growth Models: Testing the Knowledge Production Function Using International Data’, Journal of Economic Growth, 13(1), 1–26.
Madsen, J.B. (2009), ‘Trade Barriers, Openness, and Economic Growth’, Southern Economic Journal, forthcoming.
Madsen, J.B., Ang, J.B. and Banerjee, R. (2010a), ‘Four Centuries of British Economic Growth: The Roles of Technology and Population’, Journal of Economic Growth, 15(4), 263–290.
Madsen, J.B., Saxena, S. and Ang, J.B. (2010b), ‘The Indian Growth Miracle and Endogenous Growth’, Journal of Development Economics, 93(1), 37–48.
Mitchell, B.R. (1988), British Historical Statistics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, R.R. and Wright, G. (1992), ‘The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective’, Journal of Economic Literature, 30(4), 1931–1964.
Oxley, L. and Greasley, D. (1998), ‘Vector Autoregression, Cointegration and Causality: Testing for Causes of the British Industrial Revolution’, Applied Economics, 30(10), 1387–1397.
Peretto, P. and Smulders, S. (2002), ‘Technological Distance, Growth and Scale Effects’, Economic Journal, 112(481), 603–624.
Romer, P.M. (1996), ‘Why, Indeed, in America? Theory, History, and the Origins of Modern Economic Growth’, American Economic Review, 86(2), 202–206.
Rosenberg, N. (1981), ‘Why in America?’, in O. Mayr and R.C. Post (Eds.), Yankee Enterprise, the Rise of the American System of Manufacturers, Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution Press. Reprinted in Exploring the Black Box, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Rousseau, P.L. and Sylla, R. (2005), ‘Emerging Financial Markets and Early US Growth’, Explorations in Economic History, 42(1), 1–26.
Schmookler, J. (1966), Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press,
Segerstrom, P.S. (1998), ‘Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects’, American Economic Review, 88(5), 1290–1310.
Sullivan, R.J. (1989), ‘England’s “Age of Invention”: The Acceleration of Patents and Patentable Invention During the Industrial Revolution’, Explorations in Economic History, 26(4), 424–452.
Sullivan, R.J. (1990), ‘The Revolution of Ideas: Widespread Patenting and Invention during the English Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Economic History, 50(2), 349–362.
Vamvakidis, A. (2002), ‘How Robust Is the Growth–Openness Connection? Historical Evidence’, Journal of Economic Growth, 7, 57–80.
van Ark, B. (1990), ‘Comparative Levels of Manufacturing Productivity in Postwar Europe: Measurement and Comparisons’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, 52(4), 343–374.
Available Versions of this Item
- The US-UK productivity gap in the twentieth century: a race between technology and population. (deposited 13. May 2011 02:45) [Currently Displayed]