Skip to main content

Productivity Spillovers in the Global Market

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recent Econometric Techniques for Macroeconomic and Financial Data

Part of the book series: Dynamic Modeling and Econometrics in Economics and Finance ((DMEF,volume 27))

  • 741 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Submission Declaration and Verification

This paper is no under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Notes

  1. 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. 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. 3.

    See Jones (2016) for a comprehensive survey on empirical results.

  4. 4.

    These factors may not be mutually exclusive.

  5. 5.

    See these studies about economic theories to link between international spillovers and economic growth.

  6. 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. 7.

    The WS test exploits the time reversibility of a stationary autoregressive process in order to increase their power performance. Many authors like Leybourne et al. (2005) and Pantula et al. (1994) show evidence of superior performance of the WS test as compared to the ADF test.

  8. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrios, S., & Eric, S. (2002). Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers: Evidence from the spanish experience. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 138, 459–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39, 859–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, D. T., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. (1997). North-south R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 107, 134–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comin, D., & Bart, H. (2010). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 100, 2031–2059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertur, C., & Koch, W. (2007). Growth, technological interdependence and spatial externalities: Theory and evidence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(6), 1033–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girma, S. (2005). Absorptive capacity and productive spillovers from FDI: A threshold regression analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67, 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorg, H., & Strobl, E. (2001). Multinational companies and productivity spillovers: A meta-analysis. Economic Journal, 111, 723–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C.-Y., Wang, W., & Yu, J. (2013). Growth spillover through trade: A spatial dynamic panel data approach. Economics Letters, 120(3), 450–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (1992). Cointegration in partial systems and the efficiency of single-equation analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 52(3), 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2016). The facts of economic growth. In Handbook of macroeconomics (Vol. 2, pp. 3–69). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W. (2002). Trade and the transmission of technology. Journal of Economic Growth, 7, 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W., & Yeaple, S. R. (2013). The gravity of knowledge. American Economic Review, 103, 1414–1444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koop, G., Perasan, H., & Potter, S. (1996). Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. Journal of Econometrics, 74(1), 119–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M., & Kwan, Y. K. (2016). FDI technology spillovers, geography, and spatial diffusion. International Review of Economics & Finance, 43, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E, Jr. (1993). Making a miracle. Econometrica, 61(2), 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankiw, N., David, R., & David, N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 407–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B., & Atkinson, R. (2014). Raising European productivity growth through ICT. Washington, D.C.: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J. A. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. Number minc74-1 in NBER Books. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., & Fuller, W. (1995). Alternative estimators and unit root tests for the autoregressive process. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 16, 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics Letters, 58, 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raut, L. (1995). R&d spillover and productivity growth: Evidence from Indian private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 48, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventura, J. (1997). Growth and interdependence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil, D. (2009). Economic growth (2nd ed.). Boston: Person Education.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Nagayasu .

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:

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{GIRF}} (y_t;u_{i,l,t};h)=E(y_{t+h}|u_{i,l,t}=\sqrt{\sigma _{ii,ll}},I_{t-1}) - E(y_{t+h}|I_{t-1}) \end{aligned}$$
(17)

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.

$$\begin{aligned} y_{1,t}=a_{1,0}+a_{1,1}t+\sum \limits _{j=1}^p \alpha _{1,j}y_{1,t-j}+\sum \limits _{j=1}^q \beta _{1,j} y^*_{1,t-j}+u_{1,t} \end{aligned}$$
(18)

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

$$ P^{1}_{G_{1}}= \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} P_0 &{} 0 &{} 0 &{} 0\\ 0 &{} I_{k_1} &{} 0 &{} 0 \\ 0 &{} 0 &{} \ddots &{} 0 \\ 0 &{} 0 &{} 0 &{} I_{k_n} \end{array} \right] $$

It follows that

$$\begin{aligned} P^{1}_{G_1} G_1 y_t= P^{1}_{G_1} G_1 y_{t-1}+ \cdots + P^{1}_{G_1} G_p y_{t-p}+ v_t \end{aligned}$$
(19)

where \(v_t=(v'_{1t}, u'_{1t}, \ldots , u'_{Nt})\) and

$$ \Sigma _v={\mathrm{Cov}}(v_t)= \left[ {\begin{array}{cccccc} V(v_{1t}) &{} {\mathrm{Cov}}(v_{1t},u_{1t}) &{} . &{} . &{} . &{} {\mathrm{Cov}}(v_{1t}, u_{Nt})\\ {\mathrm{Cov}}(u_{1t},v_{1t}) &{} V(u_{1t}) &{} . &{} . &{} . &{} {\mathrm{Cov}}(u_{1t},u_{Nt}) \\ \vdots &{} \vdots &{} &{} &{} &{} \vdots \\ {\mathrm{Cov}}(u_{Nt},v_{1t}) &{} {\mathrm{Cov}}(u_{Nt},u_{1t}) &{} . &{} . &{} . &{} V(u_{Nt}) \end{array} } \right] $$

with

$$ V(v_{1t})=\Sigma _{v,11}=P_1 \Sigma _{u,11} P^{1}_1\text { and }{\mathrm{Cov}}(v_{1t},u_{jt})={\mathrm{Cov}}(P_1 u_{1t}, u_{jt})=P_0 \Sigma _{u_{1j}} $$

By using the definition of the generalized impulse responses with respect to structural shocks given by

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{SGIRF}} (y_t;v_{l,t};h)=E(y_{t+h}|I_{t-1}\varrho '_{l} v_{t}=\sqrt{\varrho '_{l} \Sigma _v \varrho _l,}) - E(y_{t+h}|I_{t-1}) \end{aligned}$$
(20)

it follows that for a structurally identified shock, \(v_{lt}\) such as a US trade shock the SGIRF is given by

$$ {\mathrm{SGIRF}} (y_t;v_{l,t};h)=\frac{\varrho _j A_n {(P_{G_1} G_1)}^{-1} \Sigma _v \varrho _l}{\sqrt{\varrho _{l} \Sigma _v \varrho _l}},\, h=0,1,2,; j=1,2,\ldots ,k $$

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

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics