Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 117–135 | Cite as

R&D and productivity: A broad cross-section cross-country look

  • Bart Verspagen
Article

Abstract

The empirical literature on R&D and productivity has shown that there is indeed a positive influence of R&D investment on output growth. However, the exact relation depends to a large extent on the approach chosen (i.e., functional form). Because most studies concentrate on a limited number of countries or sectors and use their own specific methodology, comparison is difficult. This paper aims at providing a broad overview of cross-country and cross-sector differences in the relation between (direct) R&D and output growth, using a common methodology, so that comparison is easier. The functional form used is a translog production function, which is applied to data for 15 manufacturing sectors and 9 principal OECD countries.

Keywords

R&D and productivity JEL-codes: O30, O40, O57 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abernathy, W. (1978).The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry, Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J. (1962). “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing.”Review of Economic Studies, 29, pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
  3. Baily, M.N., and R.J. Gordon. (1988). “The Productivity Slowdown, Measurement Issues, and the Explosion of Computer Power.”Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, pp. 347–431.Google Scholar
  4. Coe, D.T., Helpman, E. (1993). “International R&D Spillovers.” NBER Working Paper No. 4444.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. (1989). “Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D.”Economic Journal, 99, pp. 569–596.Google Scholar
  6. Cuneo, P., and J. Mairesse. (1984). “Productivity and R&D at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing.” In Z. Griliches (ed.),R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dosi, G. (1988). “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation.”Journal of Economic Literature, 26, pp. 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  8. Dosi, G., C. Freeman, R.R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete, (eds.). (1988).Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  9. Griliches, Z. (ed.). (1971).Price Indexes and Quality Change. Studies in New Methods of Measurement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Griliches, Z. (1979). “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth.”The Bell Journal of Economics, 10, pp. 92–116.Google Scholar
  11. Griliches, Z. (ed.). (1984).R&D Patents and Productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Griliches, Z. (1990). “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey.”Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. XXVIII, no. 4, pp. 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  13. Griliches, Z. (1991). “The Search for R&D Spillover.” NBER Working Paper No. 3768.Google Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z., and J. Mairesse. (1984). “Productivity and R&D at the Firm Level.” In Z. Griliches (ed.).R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, B.H., and J. Mairesse, (1992). “Exploring the Relationship Between R&D and Productivity in French Manufacturing Firms.” NBER Working Paper No. 3956.Google Scholar
  16. Kamien, M.I., and N.L. Schwartz. (1982).Market Structure and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Katsoulacos, Y. (1986).The Employment Effect of Technical Change. A Theoretical Study of New Technology and the Labor Market. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
  18. Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.). (1992).National Systems of Innovation: An Analytical Framework, London. Pinter.Google Scholar
  19. Mairesse, J., and M. Sassenou. (1991). “R&D and Productivity: A Survey of Econometric Studies at the Firm Level.” NBER Working Paper No. 3666.Google Scholar
  20. Mohnen, p. (1992).The Relationship Between R&D and Productivity Growth in Canada and Other Major Industrialized Countries. Economic Council of Canada: Ottawa.Google Scholar
  21. Nadiri, M.I., and I.R. Prucha. (1992).Sources of Growth of Output and Convergence of Productivity in Major OECD Countries. Paper presented at the AEA conference, Anaheim CA, January 1993.Google Scholar
  22. Nadiri, I.M. (1993). “Innovations and Technological Spillovers.” NBER Working Paper No. 4423.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter. (1982).An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, R.R. (ed.). (1993). “National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study.” Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  25. Romer, P.M. (1990). “Endogenous Technological Change.”Journal of Political Economy, 92, 2, pp. S71-S102.Google Scholar
  26. Schankerman, M. (1981). “The Effects of Double-Counting and Expensing on the Measured Returns to R&D.”The Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 454–458.Google Scholar
  27. Scherer, F.M. (1982). “Inter-Industry Technology Flows and Productivity Measurement.”Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 627–634.Google Scholar
  28. Scherer, F.M. (1998). “Inter-Industry Technology Flows in the United States.”Research Policy, 11, pp. 227–245Google Scholar
  29. Scherer, F.M., and D. Ross. (1990).Industrial Market Structure and Econmic Performance. Third Edition, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  30. Verspagen, B. (1992a).Uneven Growth Between Interdependent Economies. An Evolutionary View on Technology Gaps, Trade and Growth. Maastricht: UPM.Google Scholar
  31. Verspagen, B. (1992b). “Endogenous Innovation in Neo-Classical Growth Models: A Survey.”Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 631–662.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Verspagen
    • 1
  1. 1.Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and TechnologyMaastricht

Personalised recommendations