An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Inequality and Innovation in a Schumpeterian Framework

Hatipoglu, Ozan (2008): An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Inequality and Innovation in a Schumpeterian Framework.

Abstract

I empirically investigate the non-linear relationship between inequality and innovation in a Schumpeterian setup where growth is expressed by the rate of innovations. In this framework income distribution plays a role in determining the dynamic market sizes for innovators and therefore is a major determinant of growth. By using two new cross-country inequality data sets, I find support for an inverted U-shaped relationship between inequality and innovative activities. This result is robust to two common inequality definitions and several parametric and non-parametric estimation procedures.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: inequality, innovation, patents
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O15 - Human Resources ; Human Development ; Income Distribution ; Migration; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

References

Acemoglu, D., 1998. Why do technologies complement skills? Direct technical change and wage inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113, 1055 - 1090. Acemoglu, D., 2002. Technical change, inequality and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature XL, 7-12. Aghion,P., 2002. Schumpeterian growth theory and the dynamics of income inequality. Econometrica 70, 855-882. Aghion, P., Howitt, P., 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60, 323 351. Aghion, P. , Howitt, P., Harris, C., Vickers, J., 2001. Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Review of Economic Studies 28, 467-92. Aghion, P. , Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., 2005. Competition and innovation: an inverted U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120, 701-728. Aghion, P., Caroli, E., Garcia-Penalosa (1999). Inequality and economic growth: the perspective of the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature 37, 1615-60. Ai, C. ,Chen, X., 2003. Efficient estimation of models with conditional moment restrictions containing unknown functions. Econometrica 71, 1795-1843. Allen, S., 2001. Technology and the wage structure. Journal of Labor Economics 19, 440-483. Arellano, M., 2003. Panel Data Econometrics, Oxford University Press , New York. Arellano, M. and Bover,O., 1995. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics 68, 29-51. Atkinson, A., 1997. Bringing income distribution from the cold. Economic Journal. 107, 297-321. Atkinson, A., Brandolini, A., 2001. Promise and pitfalls in the use of secondary data-Sets: income inequality in OECD countries as a case study. Journal of Economic Literature 34, 771-799. Banerjee A. V., Duflo E., 2003. Inequality and growth: what can the data say? Journal of Economic Growth 8, 267-299. Barro, R.,2000. Inequality and growth in a panel of countries. Journal of Economic Growth 5, 87--120. Barro, R. J., and Lee, J. W., 1996. International measures of schooling years and schooling quality. American Economic Review 86, 218-23. Barro, R. J., Lee, J.W., 1997. Data Set for a Panel of 138 Countries. Data set available on disk from authors. Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M.E., Stillman, S., 2003. Instrumental variables and GMM: estimation and testing. Stata Journal 3, 1-31. Benhabib, J., 2003. The trade-off between inequality and growth. Annals of Economics and Finance 4, 329-345. Blundell, R., Bond, S., 2000. GMM estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions. Econometric Reviews, 19, 321--40. Blundell, R., Bond,S., 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 87,115-43. Blundell, R., Bond, S., Windmeijer, F., 2000. Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator, in: B. Baltagi (Ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15. JAI Press, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 53-91. Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A.H., 1996. Determinants of Innovation: A Micro-Econometric Analysis of Three Alternative Innovation Output Indicators" in A.H. Kleinknecht (Ed.),Determinants of Innovation: The Message from New Indicators, Macmillan Press, London, pp 99-124. Carol, G., Hanan, T.M., 2000. The Demography of Organizations and Industries, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.Y. Chong, A., Zanforlin, L., 2002. Technology and epidemics. IMF Staff Papers 49, 426-455. Deininger, K. and Squire, L. (1998)"New Ways Looking at Old Issues: Inequality and Growth," Journal of Development Economics, 57, 259 - 287. Doornik, J.A., Arellano, M. ,Bond, S., 2002. Panel data estimation using DPD for Ox. http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Users/Doornik. Easterly, W., Levine,R.,1999. It's not factor accumulation: stylized facts and growth models. World Bank Economic Review, 15, 177-219. Faria, L.A., 2002. Mergers and the market for organization capital. Working Paper, University of Chicago. Fellner, W. ,1951. The influence of market structure on technological progress. Quarterly Journal of Economics 65, 556-77. Foellmi, R. and Zweimüller, J. (2006). 'Income distribution and demand-induced innovations', Review of Economic Studies, vol 73(4), pp. 941 - 960. Forbes, K. 2000. A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth. American Economic Review 90, 869-887. Galbraith, J., Kum, H., 2003. Estimating the Inequality of Household Incomes: Filling Gaps and Fixing Problems in Deininger&Squire Data Set. UTIP Working Paper 22. Geroski, P.A., 1990. Innovation, technological opportunity, and market structure. Oxford Economic Papers 42, 586-602. Geroski P.A., Walters, R., 1995. Innovative activity over business cycle. The Economic Journal 105, 916-28. Griliches, Z. 1990"Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey", Journal of Economic Literature, 28,1661-1707. Hausman, J.A. and Newey, W., 1995. Nonparametric estimation of exact consumers surplus and deadweight loss. Econometrica 63, 1445-1476. Heston, A., Summers, R., Aten, B., Penn World Table Version 6.2, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, September 2006. Jovanovic B., Rousseau, P. 2001. Mergers and technological change, 1885-1998. Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Paper 01-W16. Keller, W., 2001. International technology diffusion. NBER Working Paper 8573. Kuznets, S., 1955. Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review 45, 1-28. Lach, S. 1995. "Patents and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level: A First Look", Economics Letters, 49, 101-108 Levin, R., Reiss, P., 1984. Tests of a Schumpeterian model of R&D and market structure in: Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 175-208 Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A.,Vishny, R.1989. Income distribution, market size, and industrialization. Quarterly Journal of Economics 103, 537 - 564. Panizza, U., 2002. Income inequality and economic growth: evidence from American data"Journal of Economic Growth 7, 25-41. Pavitt, K. 1985. "Patent Statistics as Indicators of Innovative Activities: Possibilities and Problems." Scientometrics 7, 77--99. Piva ,M., Vivarelli, M. 2006. Is demand-pulled innovation equally important in different groups of firms? Iza Discussion Papers 1982. Robinson, J., 1996. Root-n consistent semi-parametric regressions. Econometrica 56 , 931-954. Statistiques De Proprietre De Industrielle, 2000. World Intellectual Property Organization, CD-ROM. Sedgley, N. H., 2006. A Time Series Test of Innovation-Driven Endogenous Growth. Economic Inquiry 44, 318-332. UTIP-UNIDO, University of Texas Inequality Project, http://utip.gov.utexas.edu. Windmeijer, F.,2000. A finite sample correction for the variance of linear two-step GMM estimators. Institute for Fiscal Studies, Working Paper 00/19. Weinhold, D. and Nair-Reichert, U. 2006. Innovation, Inequality and Intellectual Property Rights. Working Paper. Zweimuller, Y., 2000. Schumpeterian entrepreneurs meet Engel's law: the impact of inequality on innovation-driven growth. Journal of Economic Growth 50, 185 - 206