Innovation and Income Inequalities: Comparing Entrepreneurial State and Standard Welfare Policies

Castellacci, Fulvio (2024): Innovation and Income Inequalities: Comparing Entrepreneurial State and Standard Welfare Policies.

Abstract

Innovation fosters economic growth and the long-run dynamics of national economies. However, recent literature shows that innovation is also a source of increasing income inequalities. Public policies face thus an important trade-off between efficiency and equity effects of innovation. What are the possible policy strategies to address this trade-off? The paper presents a model in which innovations can be developed by both private firms and public companies. Technological change increases the profit share in the long-run, exacerbating income inequalities between firms’ owners, employed workers, and the unemployed. I empirically calibrate the model for the US economy and carry out a simulation analysis to investigate the effects of different policies aimed at reducing the inequality effects of innovation. Specifically, the analysis compares two distinct policy strategies: one is based on a standard economic policy approach that increases taxes to finance welfare spending; the other is based on a new approach – the Entrepreneurial State – in which the profits of innovations developed by public R&D companies are used to finance welfare programs. The results point out the advantages and drawbacks of different strategies and show that the optimal policy strategy largely depends on the policy maker’s preferences regarding the income distribution.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Innovation; income inequalities; labor share; public policies; Entrepreneurial State; public R&D.
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; 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; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General

References

Acemoglu, D. and Lensman, T. (2023): “Regulating transformative technologies”, mimeo.

Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2018): “The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment”, American Economic Review, 108(6): 1488-1542.

Adler, M. and Fleurbaey, M. (2016): The Oxford Handbook of Well-being and Public Policy, Oxford University Press.

Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A. and Blundell, R. (2019): “Innovation and top income inequality”, Review of Economic Studies, 86: 1-45.

Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L.F., Patterson, C. and Van Reenen, J. (2020): “The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135 (2): 645-709.

Benassi, M., and Landoni, M. (2019) State-owned enterprises as knowledge-explorer agents, Industry & Innovation, 26(2): 218-241.

Berg, A., Buffie, E. and Zanna, L. (2018): “Should we fear the robot revolution? (The correct answer is yes)”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 97: 117-148.

Berg, A., Bounader, L., Gueorguiev, N., Miyamoto, H., Moriyama, K., Nakatani, R. and Zanna, L. (2021): “For the benefit of all: Fiscal policies and equity-efficiency trade-offs in the age of automation”, IMF Working Paper, WP/21/187.

Card, D., Kluve, J. and Weber, A. (2010): “Active labour market policy evaluations: A meta-analysis”, The Economic Journal, 120: F452–F477.

Cardoso, D., Carvalho, L., Tadeu Lima, G., Nassif-Pires, L., Rugitsky, F. and Sanches, M. (2023): “The multiplier effects of Government expenditures on social protection: A multi-country analysis”, FEA/USP Working Paper Series, 2023-11.

Castellacci, F. (2023): “Innovation and social welfare: A new research agenda”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 37: 1156–1191.

Costinot, A. and Werning, I. (2023): “Robots, trade, and Luddism: A sufficient statistic approach to optimal technology regulation”, The Review of Economic Studies, 90(5): 2261–2291.

Dawid, H. and Neugart (2023): “Effects of technological change and automation on industry structure and (wage-)inequality: Insights from a dynamic task-based model”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 33: 35-63.

Dosi, G., Lamperti, F., Mazzucato, M., Napoletano, M. and Roventini, A. (2023): “Mission-oriented policies and the ‘Entrepreneurial State’ at work: An agent-based exploration”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 104650.

Girma S., Gong Y., Görg H. (2009): “What Determines Innovation Activity in Chinese State-owned Enterprises? The Role of Foreign Direct Investment, World Development, 37: 866–873.

Grossman, G. and Oberfield, E. (2022): “The elusive explanation for the declining labor share”, Annual Review of Economics, 14: 93-124.

Guerreiro, J., Rebelo, S. and Teles, P. (2022): “Should robots be taxed?”, The Review of Economic Studies, 89(1): 279–311.

Hillman, A. (1982): “Declining Industries and Political-Support Protectionist Motives”, American Economic Review, 72(5): 1180-1187.

Huang, C., Liai, C. and Peretto, P. (2023): “Public R&D, Private R&D and Growth: A Schumpeterian Approach”, mimeo.

Jacobs, B. and Thuemmel, U. (2022): “Optimal linear income taxes and education subsidies under skill-biased technical change”, International Tax and Public Finance, in press.

Jaimovich, N., Saporta-Eksten, I. and Yedid-Levi, Y. (2021): “The macroeconomics of automation: Data, theory, and policy analysis”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 122: 1-16.

ILO, IMF, OECD and WB (2015): “Income inequality and labour income share in G20 countries: Trends, impacts and causes”, Joint Meeting with the G20 Finance Ministers, Ankara, September 2015.

Lin, J. Cai, F. and Li, Z. (2001): State-owned enterprise reform in China, Chinese University Press, Hong Kong.

Loebbing, J. (2019): “Redistributive income taxation with directed technical change”, Proceedings. Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association, 112: 1-97.

Madsen, J. and Strulik, H. (2020): “Technological change and inequality in the very long run”, European Economic Review, 129, 103532.

Madsen, J., Minniti, A. and Venturini, F. (2021): “Wealth Inequality in the Long Run: A Schumpeterian Growth Perspective”, The Economic Journal, 131 (633): 476–497.

Mazzucato, M. (2013): The Entrepreneurial State. Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths, Penguin Books.

Meissner, D., Sarpong, D. and Vonortas, N. (2019): “Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Innovation in State Owned Enterprises: Implications for Technology Management and Industrial Development’”, Industry & Innovation, 26(2): 121-126.

Peltzman, S. (1976): “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation”, Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2): 211-240.

Peretto, P. (2007): “Corporate taxes, growth and welfare in a Schumpeterian economy”, Journal of Economic Theory, 137 (1): 353-382.

Piacquadio, P. (2017): “A fairness justification of utilitarianism”, Econometrica, 85(4): 1261–1276.

Prettner, K. and Strulik, H. (2020): “Innovation, automation, and inequality: Policy challenges in the race against the machine”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 116: 249-265.

Tavani, D. and Zamparelli, L. (2020): “Growth, income distribution, and the ‘entrepreneurial state’”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30: 117-141.

Thuemmel, U. (2022): “Optimal taxation of robots”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 1-37.