Assessment of Innovation Intensity: the Case of USA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2018-1-22Keywords:
innovation activity, productivity, investment, technology, research and development, macrolevel, USAAbstract
In the literature, some categories and terms related to technological progress and innovation activity are often considered as synonyms or differences between them are not completely clear. Therefore, the author attempts to distinguish these terms and to link them as well. The measurement and assessment of the innovation intensity is based on the ratio of investment efforts and consequent indicators productivity trends. The better this ratio is, the higher the innovation activity is. I propose two methods based on this approach. The first method supposes the measurement of the innovation intensity via the decomposition of the productivity gain into the factors that generate it. These factors are the dynamics of capital productivity and the capital-labour ratio (in logarithms). Thus, the assessment of the innovation intensity is a part of the productivity gain, which is due to the capital productivity dynamics. The second method is based on the special parameter, which characterizes the investment potential of growth. This potential is the need for investments to increase in productivity of single intensity. Calculations based on US statistics since the early 1960s illustrate the role of the innovation factor in certain quantitative assessments. In general, for the period 1961-2014, about 3/4 of the productivity gain is due to the capital-labour ratio growth, and only % results from the capital productivity growth. In 1981-2000, about a half of the productivity gain was due to the innovation factor. This innovation factor is investments in breakthrough technologies. Furthermore, I found out that for a very long period, the investment rate alone had very little effect on the significant changes in the growth productivity rates. At the same time, from the beginning of the 1980s, a reduction in the relative demand for investment with almost the same investment allowed to stop the threatening tendency of reducing the productivity growth rates. The obtained results can be useful for the development of the Russian investment strategy, because the intensification of innovation activity is a basic condition for expanding investment activity.References
Van Ark, B., O’Makhoni, M. & Timmer, M. (2009). Otstavanie Evropy ot SShA po rostu proizvoditel’nosti: tendentsii i prichiny [The Productivity Gap between Europe and the United States: Trends and Causes]. Ekonomicheskiy zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [The HSE Economic Journal], 13(1), 35–58. (In Russ.)
Bessonov, V. A., Gimpelson, V. E., Kuzminov, Ya. I. & Yasin, E. G. (2009). Proizvoditelnost i faktory dolgosrochnogo razvitiya rossiyskoy ekonomiki. Dokl. k X Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. GU VShE po problemam razvitiya ekonomiki i obshchestva, M., 7–9 apr. 2009 g. [Productivity and factors of long-term development of the Russian economy. The report to the X SU HSE International scientific conference on the problems of development of economy and society. Moscow, 7–9 April, 2009]. SU HSE. Moscow: SU HSE Publ., 66. (In Russ.)
Voskoboynikov, I. B. & Gimpelson, V. E. Rost proizvoditelnosti truda, strukturnye sdvigi i neformalnaya zanyatost v rossiyskoy ekonomike. Seriya WP3 Problemy rynka truda [Increase in productivity of work, structural shifts and informal employment in the Russian economy]. Retrieved from: https://www.hse.ru/data/2015/07/17/1085497876/WP3_2015_04_FFF.pdf (date of access: 10.01.2017). (In Russ.)
Baltserovich, L. & Zhonts, A. M. (Eds). (2016). Zagadki ekonomicheskogo rosta. Dvizhushchie sily i krizisy — sravnitelnyy analiz [Riddles of economic growth. Driving forces and crises — the comparative analysis]. Moscow: Mysl Publ., 512. (In Russ.)
Khelpman, E. (2011). Zagadka ekonomicheskogo rosta [Riddles of economic growth]. Moscow: Institut Gaydara Publ., 240. (In Russ.)
Fedorov, V. P. (2012). Innovatsionnoye razvitie ekonomiki. Mezhdunarodnyy opyt i problemy Rossii [Innovative development of economy. International experience and problems of Russia]. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 352. (In Russ.)
Barro, R. J. & Lee, J. W. (1994). Sources of Economic Growth. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 40, 1–46.
Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.
Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.
Solow, R. M. (1962). Technical Progress, Capital Formation, and Economic Growth. American Economic Review, 52(2), 76–86.
Zaytsev, A. (2016). Mezhstranovyye razlichiya v proizvoditelnosti truda: rol kapitala, urovnya tekhnologiy i prirodnoy renty [International differences in labor productivity: Role of capital, technological level and resource rent]. Voprosy Ekonomiki [Problems of Economic Transition], 9, 67–93. (In Russ.)
Battisti, M., Del Gatto, M. & Parmeter, C. F. (2014). Labor productivity growth: disentangling technology and capital accumulation. Retrieved from: http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/repec/WP2014–02.pdf (date of access: 10.01.2017).
Jorgenson, D. W., & Nishimizu, M. (1978). U.S. and Japanese Economic Growth, 1952–1974: An International Comparison. The Economic Journal, 88(352), 707–726.
Bernard, A. B. & Jones, C. I. (1996). Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement Across Industries and Countries. American Economic Review, 86(5), 1216–1238.
Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83–116.
Kumar, S. & Russell, R. R. (2002). Technological Change, Technological Catch-up, and Capital Deepening: Relative Contributions to Growth and Convergence. American Economic Review, 92(3), 527–548.
Caselli, F. (2005). Accounting for Cross-Country Income Differences. Handbook of Economic Growth, 1(SUPPL. PART A), 679–741.
Henderson, D. J. & Russel, R. R. (2005). Human capital and convergence: A production-frontier approach. International Economic Review, 46(4), 1167–1205.
Los, B. & Timmer, M. P. (2005). The appropriate technology explanation of productivity growth differentials: An empirical approach. Journal of Development Economics, 77, 517–531.
Jerzmanowski, M. (2007). Total factor productivity differences: Appropriate technology vs. efficiency. European Economic Review, 51, 2080–2110.
Maasoumi, E., Racine, J. & Stengos, T. (2007). Growth and convergence: A profile of distribution dynamics and mobility. Journal of Econometrics, 136(2), 483–508.
Timmer, M. P., Inklaar, R., O’Mahony, M., & van Ark, B. (2010). Economic Growth in Europe: A Comparative Industry Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press, 310. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762703.
Filippetti, A. & Peyrache, A. (2015). Labour Productivity and Technology Gap in European Regions: A Conditional Frontier Approach. Regional Studies, 49(4), 532–554.
Henderson, D. J., Papageorgiou, C. & Parmeter, C. F. (2013). Who benefits from financial development? New methods, new evidence. European Economic Review, 63(C), 47–67.
Dal Bianco, S. (2016). Going clubbing in the eighties: convergence in manufacturing sectors at a glance. Empirical economics, 50(2), 623–659.
Goffe, N. & Monusova, G. (2017). Proizvoditelnost truda: sotsialno-ekonomicheskie predposylki rosta [Labour Productivity: Social and Economic Prerequisites for Growth]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya [World Eсonomy and International Relations], 61(4), 37–49. (In Russ.)
Suslov, V. I., Ibragimov, N. M., Talysheva, L. P. & Tsyplakov, A. A. (2005). Ekonometriya: ucheb. posobie [Econometrics: textbook]. Novosibirsk: SO RAN Publ., 744. (In Russ.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Boris Leonidovich Lavrovsky
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
