Abstract
This paper analyzes the effect of productivity shocks originating from other countries on economic growth in the home country. Traditionally, productivity shocks have been considered as driving forces of economic growth in their home countries. However, productivity improvements occur both at home and overseas. In liberalized global markets, economic growth is, in theory, also attributable to productivity shocks from other countries. Using data from 18 countries, we show that numerous countries benefit from productivity spillovers. Nevertheless, their impacts on the economy differ according to the origin of the economic shocks. On the one hand, US shocks are rather pervasive and affect many economies and regions, regardless of their development stage. On the other hand, shocks from other country groups exert less influence over foreign economies. Thus, homogeneous effects of productivity spillovers across countries, which are often assumed in previous studies using the standard panel data and spatial models, are inappropriate. The mixed results from previous global analyses, particularly using macroeconomic data, are attributable to such heterogeneous effects of productivity shocks.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Submission Declaration and Verification
This paper is no under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Notes
- 1.
The inexplicit treatment of spillover effects in empirical studies is attributable to the standard statistical approach, such as panel data estimation methods, that often use common time dummies to capture cross-sectional dependence across countries.
- 2.
Spatial models are designed to estimate homogeneous effects across countries while often making a priori assumption about the importance of neighbors (i.e., spatial weights).
- 3.
See Jones (2016) for a comprehensive survey on empirical results.
- 4.
These factors may not be mutually exclusive.
- 5.
See these studies about economic theories to link between international spillovers and economic growth.
- 6.
Though Switzerland is not part of the EU and the UK will soon exit from the EU, they are included in this group for geographical proximity and historical links with the EU.
- 7.
- 8.
Several robustness checks were also conducted by leaving out some variables as foreign variables for countries that are less integrated with other countries in terms of trade. However, the main findings of the paper are not affected.
- 9.
R&D shocks to the EU and non-OECD countries (results not showed here, but available on request) actually also have no significant effect on the GDP of their own countries.
References
Arora, V., & Athanasios, V. (2005). How much do trading partners matter for economic growth. IMF Staff Papers, 52(1), 24–40.
Barrios, S., & Eric, S. (2002). Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers: Evidence from the spanish experience. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 138, 459–481.
Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39, 859–887.
Coe, D. T., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. (1997). North-south R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 107, 134–149.
Comin, D., & Bart, H. (2010). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 100, 2031–2059.
Dees, S., Holly, S., Pesaran, M. H., & Smith, L. (2007). Long run macroeconomic relations in the global economy. Economics—The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 1(3), 1–20.
Ertur, C., & Koch, W. (2007). Growth, technological interdependence and spatial externalities: Theory and evidence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(6), 1033–1062.
Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 373–399.
Girma, S. (2005). Absorptive capacity and productive spillovers from FDI: A threshold regression analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67, 281–306.
Gorg, H., & Strobl, E. (2001). Multinational companies and productivity spillovers: A meta-analysis. Economic Journal, 111, 723–739.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hall, R., & Charles, I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 83–116.
Ho, C.-Y., Wang, W., & Yu, J. (2013). Growth spillover through trade: A spatial dynamic panel data approach. Economics Letters, 120(3), 450–453.
Johansen, S. (1992). Cointegration in partial systems and the efficiency of single-equation analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 52(3), 389–402.
Jones, C. (2016). The facts of economic growth. In Handbook of macroeconomics (Vol. 2, pp. 3–69). Elsevier.
Keller, W. (2002). Trade and the transmission of technology. Journal of Economic Growth, 7, 5–24.
Keller, W., & Yeaple, S. R. (2013). The gravity of knowledge. American Economic Review, 103, 1414–1444.
Koop, G., Perasan, H., & Potter, S. (1996). Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. Journal of Econometrics, 74(1), 119–147.
Leybourne, S., Kim, T., & Newbold, P. (2005). Examination of some more powerful modifications of the Dickey-Fuller test. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 26, 355–369.
Lin, M., & Kwan, Y. K. (2016). FDI technology spillovers, geography, and spatial diffusion. International Review of Economics & Finance, 43, 257–274.
Lucas, R. E, Jr. (1993). Making a miracle. Econometrica, 61(2), 251–272.
Lucas, R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42.
Mankiw, N., David, R., & David, N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 407–437.
Miller, B., & Atkinson, R. (2014). Raising European productivity growth through ICT. Washington, D.C.: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Mincer, J. A. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. Number minc74-1 in NBER Books. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Pantula, S. G., Gonzalez-Farias, G., & Fuller, W. A. (1994). A comparison of unit-root test criteria. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 12, 449–459.
Park, H., & Fuller, W. (1995). Alternative estimators and unit root tests for the autoregressive process. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 16, 415–429.
Pesaran, M., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2000). Structural analysis of vector error correction models with exogenous I(1) variables. Journal of Econometrics, 97(2), 293–343.
Pesaran, M. H., Schuermann, T., & Weiner, M. (2004). Modeling regional interdependencies using a global error-correcting macroeconomic model. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22, 129–162.
Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics Letters, 58, 17–29.
Raut, L. (1995). R&d spillover and productivity growth: Evidence from Indian private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 48, 1–23.
Sims, C. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica, 48(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912017
Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94.
Ventura, J. (1997). Growth and interdependence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 57–84.
Weil, D. (2009). Economic growth (2nd ed.). Boston: Person Education.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Gabriel Cordoba for the research assistance. This research was initiated when Khan was visiting Tohoku University. A financial support for travel expenses was provided by the Japan Investment Advisers Association.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 GIRF and SGIRF
The generalized impulse-response functions (GIRFs) was introduced by Koop et al. (1996) and further developed by Pesaran and Shin (1998). Let us consider the model obtained during the solution of the GVAR, expressed in terms of the country-specific errors given by Eq. (14). The GIRFs are based on the definition:
where \(I_{t-1}\) is the information set at time \(t-1\), \(\sigma _{ii,ll}\) is the diagonal element of the variance covariance matrix \(\Sigma _u\) corresponding to the lth equation in the ith country, and h is the horizon. GIRFs are invariant to the ordering of variables, and they allow for correlation of the error terms (the error terms are not orthogonal).
The structural generalized impulse-response functions (SGIRFs) used in this paper allows ordering of variables to one country. As the USA is the largest and the most dominant economy in this model, it is ordered first and its variables are ordered in the way mentioned in Sect. 4.1. The SGIRFs are invariant to the ordering of other countries and their variables. Let us consider the \(VARX^*(p_1,q_1)\) model for the USA.
Let \(V_{1,t}\) be structural shocks given by \(V_{1,t}=P_1u_{1,t}\), where \(P_1\) is the \(k_1\times k_1\) matrix of coefficients to be identified. The identification conditions using the triangular approach of Sims (1980) require \(\Sigma _{v,1}={\mathrm{Cov}}(v_{1,t})\) to be diagonal and \(P_1\) to be lower triangular. Let \(Q_1\) be the upper Cholesky factor of \({\mathrm{Cov}}(u_{1,t})=\Sigma _{u,1}=Q^{'}_1 Q_1\) so that \(\Sigma _{v,1}=P_1\Sigma _{u,1} P^{'}_1\) with \(P_1=(Q^{'}_1)^{-1}\) Under this orthogonalization scheme, \({\mathrm{Cov}}(v_{i,t})=I_{k_0}\)
Pre-multiplying the GVAR model in Eq. (14) by
It follows that
where \(v_t=(v'_{1t}, u'_{1t}, \ldots , u'_{Nt})\) and
with
By using the definition of the generalized impulse responses with respect to structural shocks given by
it follows that for a structurally identified shock, \(v_{lt}\) such as a US trade shock the SGIRF is given by
where \(\varrho _l =(0,0,\ldots ,0,1,0,\ldots 0)'\) is a selection vector with unity as the lth element in the case of a country-specific shock, \(\Sigma _v\) is the covariance matrix of structural shocks, and \(P'_{G_1} G_1\) is defined by the identification scheme used to identify the shocks.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Khan, N.S., Nagayasu, J. (2021). Productivity Spillovers in the Global Market. In: Dufrénot, G., Matsuki, T. (eds) Recent Econometric Techniques for Macroeconomic and Financial Data. Dynamic Modeling and Econometrics in Economics and Finance, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54252-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54252-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54251-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54252-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)