1932

Abstract

What quantitative lessons can we learn from models of endogenous technical change through innovative investments by firms for the impact of changes in the economic environment on the dynamics of aggregate productivity in the short, medium, and long run? We present a unifying model that nests several canonical models in the literature and characterize both their positive implications for the transitional dynamics of aggregate productivity and their welfare implications in terms of two sufficient statistics. We review the current state of measurement of these two sufficient statistics and discuss the range of positive and normative quantitative implications of our model for a wide array of counterfactual experiments, including the link between a decline in the entry rate of new firms and a slowdown in the growth of aggregate productivity. We conclude with a summary of the lessons learned from our analysis to help direct future research aimed at building models of endogenous productivity growth that are useful for quantitative analysis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025523
2019-08-02
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/11/1/annurev-economics-080218-025523.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025523&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D 2009. Introduction to Modern Economic Growth Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  2. Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Alp H, Bloom N, Kerr W 2018. Innovation, reallocation, and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 108:3450–91
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Acemoglu D, Cao D 2015. Innovation by entrants and incumbents. J. Econ. Theory 157:255–94
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aghion P, Akcigit U, Howitt P 2014. What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory. Handbook of Economic Growth 2 P Aghion, S Durlauf515–63 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aghion P, Akcigit U, Howitt P 2015. The Schumpeterian growth paradigm. Annu. Rev. Econ. 7:557–75
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aghion P, Howitt P 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–51
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Akcigit U 2017. Economic growth: the past, the present, and the future. J. Political Econ. 125:1736–47
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Akcigit U, Hanley D, Serrano-Velarde N 2013. Back to basics: basic research spillovers, innovation policy and growth NBER Work. Pap. 19473
  9. Akcigit U, Kerr WR 2018. Growth through heterogeneous innovations. J. Political Econ. 126:1374–443
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Alon T, Berger D, Dent R, Pugsley B 2017. Older and slower: the startup deficit's lasting effects on aggregate productivity growth NBER Work. Pap. 23875
  11. Atkeson A, Burstein AT 2010. Innovation, firm dynamics, and international trade. J. Political Econ. 118:433–84
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Atkeson A, Burstein AT 2018. Aggregate implications of innovation policy Staff Rep. 459, Fed. Reserve Bank Minneapolis, Minn.
  13. Barro RJ, Furman J 2018. The macroeconomic effects of the 2017 tax reform. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 49:257–345
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bloom N, Jones CI, Reenen JV, Webb M 2017. Are ideas getting harder to find NBER Work. Pap. 23782
  15. Comin D, Gertler M 2006. Medium-term business cycles. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:523–51
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Corrado C, Goodridge P, Haskel J 2011. Constructing a price deflator for R&D: calculating the price of knowledge investments as a residual Tech. Rep. 11-03, Econ. Prog., Conf. Board, New York
  17. Corrado C, Hulten C, Sichel D 2009. Intangible capital and U.S. economic growth. Rev. Income Wealth 55:661–85
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cullen JB, Gordon R 2006. Tax reform and entrepreneurial activity. Tax Policy Econ. 20:41–71
    [Google Scholar]
  19. De Loecker J, Eeckhout J 2017. The rise of market power and the macroeconomic implications NBER Work. Pap. 23687
  20. Decker R, Haltiwanger J, Jarmin R, Miranda J 2014. The role of entrepreneurship in US job creation and economic dynamism. J. Econ. Perspect. 28:3–24
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dinopoulos E, Thompson P 1998. Schumpeterian growth without scale effects. J. Econ. Growth 3:313–35
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Edmond C, Midrigan V, Xu DY 2018. How costly are markups? NBER Work. Pap. 24800
  23. Fernald JG, Jones CI 2014. The future of US economic growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:44–49
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferraro D, Ghazi S, Peretto P 2017. Implications of tax policy for innovation and aggregate productivity growth Res. Pap. 2017-11, Duke Innov. Entrep. Initiat., Duke Univ., Durham, NC
  25. Garcia-Macia D, Klenow P, Hsieh CT 2016. How destructive is innovation? NBER Work. Pap. 22953
  26. Gentry WM, Hubbard RG 2005. “Success taxes,” entrepreneurial entry, and innovation. Innov. Policy Econ. 5:87–108
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Giroud X, Rauh J 2015. State taxation and the reallocation of business activity: evidence from establishment-level data NBER Work. Pap. 21534
  28. Griliches Z 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J. Econ. 10:92–116
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Grossman GM, Helpman E 1991. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  30. Ha J, Howitt P 2007. Accounting for trends in productivity and R&D: a Schumpeterian critique of semi-endogenous growth theory. J. Money Credit Banking 39:733–74
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Howitt P 1999. Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing. J. Political Econ. 107:715–30
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jaimovich N, Rebelo S 2017. Nonlinear effects of taxation on growth. J. Political Econ. 125:265–91
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones CI 2002. Sources of U.S. economic growth in a world of ideas. Am. Econ. Rev. 92:220–39
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jones CI 2005. Growth and ideas. Handbook of Economic Growth 1 P Aghion, SN Durlauf1063–111 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Karahan F, Pugsley B, Sahin A 2016. Demographic origins of the startup deficit Tech. Rep., Fed. Reserve Bank New York
  36. Klette TJ, Kortum S 2004. Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. J. Political Econ. 112:986–1018
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kortum SS 1997. Research, patenting, and technological change. Econometrica 65:1389–420
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lentz R, Mortensen DT 2008. An empirical model of growth through product innovation. Econometrica 76:1317–73
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lentz R, Mortensen DT 2016. Optimal growth through product innovation. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 19:4–19
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Luttmer EGJ 2007. Selection, growth, and the size distribution of firms. Q. J. Econ. 122:1103–44
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Luttmer EGJ 2011. On the mechanics of firm growth. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78:1042–68
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McGrattan ER, Prescott EC 2005. Taxes, regulations, and the value of U.S. and U.K. corporations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 3:757–96
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nobel Comm 2018. Economic growth, technological change, and climate change: scientific background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2018. Tech. Rep., R. Swed. Acad. Sci., Stockholm
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Peretto PF 1998. Technological change and population growth. J. Econ. Growth 3:283–311
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Peretto PF 2007. Corporate taxes, growth and welfare in a Schumpeterian economy. J. Econ. Theory 137:353–82
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Peters M 2016. Heterogeneous markups, growth and endogenous misallocation Unpublished manuscript, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT
  47. Segerstrom PS 1998. Endogenous growth without scale effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 88:1290–310
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Young A 1998. Growth without scale effects. J. Political Econ. 106:41–63
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025523
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025523
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error