Growth Accounting and Endogenous Technical Change

Angus C., Chu and Guido, Cozzi (2016): Growth Accounting and Endogenous Technical Change.

Abstract

This study examines the validity of two conventional approaches to growth accounting under endogenous technical change. We find that the traditional approach to growth accounting, pioneered by Solow (1957), is consistent with the lab-equipment specification for technological progress, whereas the more recent approach, proposed by Hayashi and Prescott (2002) and Kehoe and Prescott (2002), is consistent with the knowledge-driven specification. We develop a unified approach to growth accounting, which in essence takes a weighted average of the Solow approach and the Hayashi-Kehoe-Prescott approach. We show that our unified approach is consistent with a more general specification for technological progress under which the degree of capital intensity in the innovation process determines the relative weight placed on the two approaches. Finally, we apply our unified approach to data of the Chinese economy to explore the quantitative importance of capital accumulation on economic growth in China.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: growth accounting; endogenous technical change; capital accumulation
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity

References

Aghion, P., and Howitt, P., 1992. A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction, Econometrica, 60, 323-351.

Aghion, P., and Howitt, P., 2007. Capital, Innovation, and Growth Accounting. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 79-93.

Barro, R., 1999. Notes on Growth Accounting. Journal of Economic Growth, 4, 119-37.

Brandt, L., Hsieh, C.-T., and Zhu, X., 2008. Growth and Structural Transformation in China. In China's Great Economic Transformation, edited by Brandt, L., and Rawski, T., 683-728. Cambridge University Press.

Dinopoulos, E., and Thompson, P., 1998. Schumpeterian Growth without Scale Effects. Journal of Economic Growth, 3, 315-335.

Grossman, G., and Helpman, E., 1991. Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 43-61.

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, 733--774.

Hayashi, F., and Prescott, E., 2002. The 1990s in Japan: A Lost Decade. Review of Economic Dynamics, 5, 206-235.

Howitt, P., 1999. Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R&D Inputs Growing. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 715-730.

Jones, C., 1995. Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 495-525.

Kehoe, T., and Prescott, E., 2002. Great Depressions of the Twentieth Century. Review of Economic Dynamics, 5, 1-18.

Laincz, C., and Peretto, P., 2006. Scale Effects in Endogenous Growth Theory: An Error of Aggregation not Specification. Journal of Economic Growth, 11, 263-288.

Peretto, P., 1998. Technological Change and Population Growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 3, 283-311.

Rivera-Batiz, L., and Romer, P., 1991. Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 531-555.

Romer, P., 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-102.

Segerstrom, P., Anant, T.C.A. and Dinopoulos, E., 1990. A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle. American Economic Review, 80, 1077-91.

Solow, R. 1957. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312--320.

Young, A., 1998. Growth without Scale Effects. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 41-63.

Zhu, X., 2012. Understanding China's Growth: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 103-24.