Atlantic Economic Journal

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 283–297 | Cite as

Is Slow Economic Growth the ‘New Normal’ for Europe?

Article

Abstract

This paper considers future European growth prospects in the light of a new productivity paradox, namely, the co-existence of a productivity slowdown and exciting new technologies. Several potential explanations are reviewed. It is argued that while some are unpersuasive it is too soon to be sure which carry the most weight. This has the implication that while the slowdown is real, it is not necessarily permanent. A key, hotly disputed issue is the future economic impact of technological progress on which forecasts differ dramatically. Supply-side reform could have a strong positive effect, but this is not likely to happen.

Keywords

Growth projections Productivity paradox Supply-side policy Technological progress 

JEL

E24 N14 O47 

References

  1. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2006). Appropriate growth theory: A unifying framework. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4, 269–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Bergeaud, A., Boppart, T., Klenow, P. J., & Li, H. (2017). Missing growth from creative destruction. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Research Working Paper #4. Available at: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/.
  3. Ahmad, N., & Schreyer, P. (2016). Are GDP and productivity measures up to the challenges of the digital economy? International Productivity Monitor, 30, 4–27.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, D., & Cingano, F. (2014). Public policy and resource allocation: Evidence from firms in OECD countries. Economic Policy, 78, 253–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antolin-Diaz, J., Drechsel, T. and Petrella, I. (2017). Tracking the slowdown in long-run GDP growth, Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(2), 343–356.Google Scholar
  6. Arntz, M., Gregory, T. and Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation in OECD countries: A comparative analysis”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 189. doi:10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en.
  7. Bakker, G., Crafts, N. and Woltjer, P. (2015). A vision of the growth process in a technologically progressive economy: The United States, 1899–1941. University of Warwick CAGE Working Paper No 257. Available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/257-2015_crafts.pdf.
  8. Barnes, S., Bouis, R., Briard, P., Dougherty, S. and Eris, M. (2011). The GDP impact of reform: A simple simulation framework. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 834. doi:10.1787/5kgk9qjnhkmt-en.
  9. Bartelsman, E. J. (2013). ICT, reallocation and productivity. European Economy Economic Papers No. 486.Google Scholar
  10. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Byrne, D. and Corrado, C. (2017a). ICT prices and ICT services: What do they tell us about productivity and technology? Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Paper No. 2017-015.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, D. and Corrado, C. (2017b). Accounting for innovation in consumer digital services. Paper presented to NBER conference on measuring and accounting for innovation in the 21st century: Washington DC.Google Scholar
  13. Byrne, D. M., Oliner, S. D., & Sichel, D. E. (2013). Is the information technology revolution over? International Productivity Monitor, 25, 20–36.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, D., Fernald, J. and Reinsdorf, M B. (2016). Does the United States have a productivity slowdown or a measurement problem? Brookings papers on economic activity (Spring), 109–157.Google Scholar
  15. Caballero, R. J., Cowan, K. N., Engel, E. M., & Micco, A. M. (2013). Effective labor regulation and microeconomic flexibility. Journal of Development Economics, 101, 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cette, G., & Lopez, J. (2012). ICT demand behaviour: An international comparison. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crafts, N. (2004). Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth accounting perspective. Economic Journal, 114, 338–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crafts, N. (2012). British relative economic decline revisited: The role of competition. Explorations in Economic History, 49, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crafts, N. and Mills, T. C. (2017). Trend TFP growth: Forecasts versus outcomes. University of Warwick CAGE Working Paper No. 329. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/329-2017_crafts.pdf
  20. David, P. A. (1991). Computer and dynamo: The modern productivity paradox in a not-too-distant mirror. In OECD, Technology and productivity: The challenge for economic policy (pp. 315–347). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  21. Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S. and Miranda, J. (2017). Declining dynamism, allocative efficiency and the productivity slowdown. Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Paper No. 2017-019.Google Scholar
  22. Eggertsson, G. B. (2008). Great expectations and the end of the depression. American Economic Review, 98, 1476–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Encaoua, D. (2009). Nature of the European technology gap: Creative destruction or industrial policy? In D. Foray (Ed.), The new economics of technology policy (pp. 281–314). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Feldstein, M. S. (2017). Underestimating the real growth of GDP, personal income and productivity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frontier Economics (2014), Rates of return to investment in science and innovation, London.Google Scholar
  27. Furceri, D., & Mourougane, A. (2012). The effect of financial crises on potential output: New empirical evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 34, 822–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon, R. J. (2016). The rise and fall of American growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenspan, A. (2000). Technology and the economy. Speech to the Economic Club of New York, January 13. http://federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2000/200001132.htm
  30. Hansen, A. H. (1939). Economic progress and declining population growth. American Economic Review, 29, 1–15.Google Scholar
  31. Havik, K., McMorrow, K., Orlandi, F., Planas, C., Raciborski, R., Röger, W., Rossi, A., Thum-Thysen, A. and Vandermeulen, V. (2014). The production function methodology for calculating potential growth rates and output gaps. European Economy Economic Papers No. 535.Google Scholar
  32. Johansson, A., Heady, C., Arnold, J., Brys, B. and Vartis, L. (2008). Taxation and economic growth. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 620. http://doi.org/10.1787/241216205486.
  33. Meltzer, A. H. (2003). A history of the Federal Reserve: Vol. 1, 1913–1951. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mortensen, D. T., & Pissarides, C. A. (1999). Unemployment responses to ‘skill-biased’ technology shocks: The role of labour market policy. Economic Journal, 109, 242–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nicoletti, G. and Scarpetta, S. (2005). Regulation and economic performance: Product market reforms and productivity in the OECD. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 460. doi:10.1787/726517007575.
  36. OECD (2012). OECD economic outlook 2012 issue 1. doi:10.1787/eco_outlook-v2012-1-en.
  37. OECD (2014a). OECD economic outlook 2014 issue 1. doi:10.1787/eco_outlook-v2014-1-en.
  38. OECD (2014b). Employment Protection Statistics. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EPL_C
  39. OECD (2014c). Product market regulation statistics. doi:10.1787/pmr-data-en.
  40. OECD (2014d). Tax-benefit models. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages.htm
  41. OECD (2016a). Education at a glance. doi:10.1787/eag-2016-en.
  42. OECD (2016b). Main science and technology indicators. doi:10.1787/msti-v2016-2-en.
  43. Ollivaud, P., & Turner, D. (2015). The effect of the global financial crisis on OECD potential output. OECD Journal Economic Studies, 2014(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ollivaud, P., Guillemette, Y. and Turner, D. (2016). “Links between weak investment and the slowdown in productivity and potential output growth across the OECD”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1304. doi:10.1787/5jlwvz0smq45-en.
  45. Oulton, N., & Sebastia-Barriel, M. (2017). Effects of financial crises on productivity, capital and employment. Review of Income and Wealth, 63, S90–S112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation (2017). CBT Database. http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/faculty-research/tax/publications/data
  47. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2014). Recovery from financial crises: Evidence from 100 episodes. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 104(5), 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Summers, L. (2014). U.S. economic prospects: Secular stagnation, hysteresis, and the zero lower bound. Business Economics, 49(2), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Syverson, C. (2017). Challenges to mismeasurement explanations for the U.S. productivity slowdown. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. The Conference Board (2016), The conference board total economy database, May 2016, http://www.conference-board.org/data/economy database/
  51. United States Congressional Budget Office (2016), An update to the budget and economic outlook, 2016-2026, August 2016, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/51908

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CAGEUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations