R&amp;D, innovations, and total factor productivity growth in British manufacturing

Sterlacchini, Alessandro

doi:10.1080/758516020

Cited by 66 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been used to show that the relationship between innovative activity and firm size is largely U-shaped, and that smaller firms show greater innovative activity than they do formal R&D activity (Pavitt et al 1987). A couple of the papers surveyed below (Geroski 1989 andSterlacchini 1989) make use of this database, but it has not been exploited extensively in the analysis of innovation and productivity.…”

Section: Innovation -The Concept and Its Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation and Productivity

Hall¹

2011

232

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Innovation -The Concept and Its Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation and Productivity

Hall¹

2011

232

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The problem is much more complicated when we remlize that we do not deal with one closed industry, but with a whole array of firms and industries which Wolf and Nsdiri (1987), and also partially in Strelacchini (1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Search for R&D Spillovers

Griliches¹

1991

668

472

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technical change ia the reault of conscious economic investments and explicit decisions by many different economic units.2. Unless there are significant externalities, apillovers, or other sources of social increasing returns, it is unlikely that economic growth can proceed at a constant, undiminished rate into the future. The first observation is not new. It has been articulated by Criliches (1957, 1958. and 1964), Mansfield (1968), Schisookier (1966), Schultz (1954 and many others. The second point, the importance of externalities for growth theory and for the explanation of productivity growth is the driving force behind the research effort to be surveyed here. Whether R&D spillovere will allow us to escape the fate of disinishing returns, depends on their empirical magnitude, which is indeed the topic of this psper.Before we turn to it, however, we need to stake a brief detour into taxonomy.Both publicly supported snd privately funded R&D produces ideas and information ahout new materials or compounds, about new ways of arranging or using them, end shout new ways of designing new good or services for the 1 satisfaction of potential wants of consumers and producers. Often the idea or compound are embodied in a new product or range of products. In that case, the social returns to the particular stream of R&D expenditures can be measured by the sum of the producer and consumer surplus generated by it. Consider, for

show abstract

“…Griliches and Lichtenberg (1984) and Sterlacchini (1989) find evidence of a decline in the externality effects of R&D, while Scherer (1982a) accepts this hypothesis on aggregate data but rejects it on disaggregated data. Englander, Evenson and Hanazaki (1988) accept it on disaggregated data but not with grate significance.…”

Section: Comparisons With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 87%

The Impact of R&D and Technology Diffusion on Productivity Growth

Sakurai

Ioannidis

Papaconstantinou

1996

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

29764 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origineComplete document available on OLIS in its original format 2 STI Working Papers SeriesThis Working Papers series of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry of the OECD is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies prepared by staff in the Directorate or by outside consultants working on OECD projects. The papers included in the series are of a technical and analytical nature and deal with issues of data, methodology and empirical analysis in the areas of work of DSTI. The Working Papers are generally available only in their original language -English or Frenchwith a summary in the other.Comment on the papers is invited, and should be sent to Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.The opinions expressed in these papers are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its Member countries. Copyright OECD, 1996Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, Cedex 16, France. 3The Impact of R&D and Technology Diffusion on Productivity Growth: Evidence for 10 OECD Countries in the 1970s and 1980sNorihisa Sakurai*, Evangelos Ioannidis**, George Papaconstantinou** This paper examines the empirical evidence on the impact of performed R&D and of embodied R&D on productivity performance in 10 major OECD countries (the G7 countries, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands) over the last two decades. Industry-level performed R&D and embodied R&D variables were constructed from an input-output model developed in a previous paper on technology diffusion. The productivity variables used in this paper are Divisia growth indexes of TFP which were consistently estimated by an input-output based growth accounting procedure. The aggregate TFP estimates showed some recovery in the 1980s in most countries and notably in the United States, where most of this recovery was in manufacturing. The results from pooled regressions across countries and across industries during the 1970s and 1980s indicate that the rates of return of both R&D variables are positively significant and increasing in the 1980s. The estimated rate of return of direct R&D for manufacturing is about 15% on average across the countries and no significant difference is observed between the two decades. However, the rate of rerun of direct R&D varies across the countries: in the 1970s Japan showed the highest return (40%) but in the 1980s it was highest in Italy (50%) and Canada (30%). On the other hand, embodied R&D is an important source for productivity growth in services, pointing to very high social returns of the flows of capital-embodied technology into this sector: on average across the countries it was about 130% in the 1970s and 190% in the 1980s. The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) cl...

show abstract

R&D, innovations, and total factor productivity growth in British manufacturing

Cited by 66 publications

References 10 publications

Innovation and Productivity

Innovation and Productivity

The Search for R&D Spillovers

The Impact of R&D and Technology Diffusion on Productivity Growth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About