Semi-endogenous versus Schumpeterian growth models: a critical review of the literature and new evidence

Herzer, Dierk (2020): Semi-endogenous versus Schumpeterian growth models: a critical review of the literature and new evidence.

Abstract

Several studies have tested semi-endogenous versus Schumpeterian growth models using different methodological approaches. This paper critically reviews these studies including their approaches and provides new evidence on this issue, by analyzing both time-series data from the United States and panel data from 19 OECD countries over the period 1980-2014. The review finds much support for Schumpeterian growth theory, but shows that all studies reviewed have several limitations, including conceptual problems associated with the use of the number/stock of patents as a measure of the flow/stock of knowledge, the possibility of spurious regressions due to non-stationary data, potential mismeasurement of R&D inputs due to possible interpolation and deflation errors, misspecification problems that can arise in difference models when variables are cointegrated, and potential spurious rejections of the unit root hypothesis for R&D intensity when the lag length in unit root tests is too small. The present study avoids these limitations and finds strong evidence in favor of semi-endogenous growth.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: semi-endogenous growth models, Schumpeterian growth models, R&D, TFP, unit roots, cointegration
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General

References

Abdih, Y., Joutz, F., 2006. Relating the knowledge production function to total factor productivity: an endogenous growth puzzle. IMF Staff Papers, 53, 242–27.

Ang, J.B., 2010a. Financial reforms, patent protection and knowledge accumulation in India. World Development, 38, 1070-1081.

Ang, J.B., 2010b. Research, technological change and financial liberalization in South Korea. Journal of Macroeconomics, 32, 457-468.

Ang, J.B., 2014. Innovation and financial liberalization. Journal of Banking and Finance, 47, 214-229.

Ang, J.B., 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, 93, 1360-1373.

Ang, J.B., Madsen, J.B., 2015. What drives ideas production across the world? Macroeconomic Dynamics, 19, 2015, 79-115.

Ang, J.B., Madsen, J.B., 2016. Finance-led growth in the OECD since the nineteenth century: How does financial development transmit to growth? Review of Economics and Statistics, 98, 552-572.

Barcenilla-Visús, S., López-Pueyo, C., Sanaú-Villarroya, J., 2014. Semi-endogenous versus fully endogenous growth theory: A sectoral approach. Journal of Applied Economics, 17, 1-30.

Barlevy, G., ‎2007. On the cyclicality of research and development. American Economic Review, 97, 1131-1164.

Bekiros, S., Sjö, B., Sweeney, R.J., 2018. Pitfalls in cross-section studies with integrated regressors: A survey and new developments. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32, 1045-1073.

Bond-Smith, S., 2019. The decades-long dispute over scale effects in the theory of economic growth. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33, 1-29.

Cette, G., Koehl, L., Philippon, T., 2020. Labor share. Economics Letters, 188, 108979

Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T.J., and James Stock, J., 1996. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64, 813-836.

Engle, R.E., Granger, C.W.J., 1987. Cointegration and error-correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251-276.

Fedderke, J.W., Liu, Y., 2017. Schumpeterian and semi-endogenous productivity growth explanations. Economics of Transition, 25, 111-137.

Furman, J.L., Porter, M.E., Stern, S., 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899-933.

Gengenbach, C., Urbain, J.-P., Westerlund, J., 2016. Error correction testing in panels with common stochastic trends. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31, 982-1004.

Ha, J., 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, 733-77.

Haldrup, N., 1998. An econometric analysis of I(2) variables. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12, 595-650.

Hall, A., 1994. Testing for a unit root in time series with pretest data-based model selection. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 12, 461-470.

Hansen, B.E., 1992. Tests for parameter instability in regressions with 1(1) processes. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 321-335.

Howitt, P., 1999. Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 715-730.

Hu, M.-C., Mathews, J.A., 2005. National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research Policy, 34, 1322-1349.

Johansen, S., 1988. Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 231-254.

Jones, C.I., 1995a. R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 759-784.

Jones, C.I., 1999. Growth: with or without scale effects? American Economic Review, 89, 139-144.

Jones, C.I., 2002. Sources of U.S. economic growth in a world of ideas. American Economic Review, 92, 220-39.

Jones, C.I., 2016. The facts of economic growth. In: Taylor, J.B., Uhlig, H. (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, Saint Louis: Elsevier Science & Technology, 3-69.

Kao, C., 1999. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90, 1-44.

Kao, C., Chiang, M., 2000. On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 179-222.

Karabarbounis, L., Neiman, B., 2014. The global decline of the labor share. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 61-103.

Kortum, S., 1997. Research, patenting, and technological change. Econometrica, 65, 1389–1419.

Laincz, C.A., Peretto, P.F., 2006. Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: an error of aggregation not specification. Journal of Economic Growth, 11, 263-288.

Luintel, K.B., Khan, M., 2009. Heterogeneous ideas production and endogenous growth: an empirical investigation. Canadian Journal of Economics, 42, S.1176-1205.

Luintel, K.B., Khan, M., 2017. Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries. Research Policy, 46, 1738-1754.

Madsen, J., 2008. Semi-endogenous versus Schumpeterian growth models: testing the knowledge production function using international data. Journal of Economic Growth, 13, 1-26.

Madsen, J.B., Saxena, S., Ang, J.B., 2010a. The Indian growth miracle and endogenous growth. Journal of Development Economics, 93, 37-48.

Madsen, J.B., Ang, J.B., Banerjee, R., 2010b. Four centuries of British economic growth: the roles of technology and population. Journal of Economic Growth, 15, 263-290.

Minniti, A., Venturini, F., 2017. The long-run growth effects of R&D policy. Research Policy, 46, 316-326.

Neves, P.C., Sequeira, T., 2018. Spillovers in the production of knowledge: A meta-regression analysis. Research Policy, 47, 750-767.

Ng, S., Perron, P., 2001. Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica, 69, 1519-1554.

Pedroni, P., 1999. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 653-670.

Peretto, P., 1998. Technological change and population growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 3, 283-311.

Perron, P., Qu, Z., 2006. A simple modification to improve the finite sample properties of Ng and Perron's unit root tests. Economics Letters, 12-19.

Pesaran M.H., 2004. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series no. 1229, CESifo Group, Munich.

Pesaran, M.H., 2007. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.

Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., Smith, R.J., 2001. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326.

Phillips, P., Hansen, B., 1990. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. Review of Economic Studies, 57, 99-125.

Phillips, P., Ouliaris, S., 1990. Asymptotic properties of residual based tests for cointegration. Econometrica, 58, 165-93.

Saunoris, J.W., Payne, J.E., 2011. An empirical note on R&D growth models with regional implications. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 41, 16-21.

Sedgley, N., Elmslie, B., 2010. Reinterpreting the Jones critique: A time series approach to testing and understanding idea driven growth models with transitional dynamics. Journal of Macroeconomics, 32, 103-117.

Segerstrom, P.S., 1998. Endogenous growth without scale effects. American Economic Review, 88, 1290-1310.

Stewart, C., 2011. A note on spurious significance in regressions involving I(0) and I(1) variables. Empirical Economics, 41, 565-571.

Stock, J.H.,Watson, M.W., 1993. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61, 783-820.

Ulku, H., 2007. R&D, innovation and output: Evidence from OECD and non-OECD countries. Applied Economics, 39, 291-307.

Venturini, F., 2011. Looking into the black box of Schumpeterian growth theories: An empirical assessment of R&D races. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia, Finanza e Statistica, Quaderno n. 94, Università di Perugia.

Venturini, F., 2012a. Product variety, product quality, and evidence of Schumpeterian endogenous growth: A note. Economics Letters, 117, 74-77.

Venturini, F., 2012b. Looking into the black box of Schumpeterian growth theories: An empirical assessment of R&D races. European Economic Review, 56, 1530-1545.

Young, A., 1998. Growth without scale effects. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 41-63.