structural change and growth: country patterns and policy conclusions michael peneder (wifo)

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 18 views
of 18

Please download to get full document.

View again

Description
structural change and growth: country patterns and policy conclusions michael peneder (wifo) IIS conference ‘ on the future of economic policy ‘, october 24 th - 26 th 2002, stanford university related papers to download at: http://www.wifo.ac.at/Michael.Peneder. purpose
Share
Transcript
structural change and growth:country patterns and policy conclusions michael peneder (wifo) IIS conference ‘on the future of economic policy‘, october 24th - 26th 2002, stanford university related papers to download at: http://www.wifo.ac.at/Michael.Peneder purpose empirical and policy oriented validation of the meso-macro link in economic development outline I. schumpeterian development II. harberger´s visualisation III. panel growth regressions IV. invitation to a new policy perspective schumpeterian development theoretical considerations neoclassical growth theory: exclusive macro-economic focus with strong homogeneity assumptions: no variety in industrial structure; endogenous growth theory: includes models of „creative destruction“ with separate research sector; preoccupation with steady states: portrays economy as merely „scaled-up“; schumpeterian view: entrepreneurial innovation as disequilibrating force driving long-term development: qualitative transformations and structural change; schumpeterian development gdp p.c / share of high tech manufacturing‘85, ‘92, ‘99 schumpeterian development: gdp p.c / share of business services‘92, ‘99 harberger´s visualisation Lorenz-type curves: concentration vs. even distribution of contributions to aggregate growth; metaphor: „mushrooms vs. yeasts“ stands for schumpeterian vs. neoclassical growth outcome: - contributions to aggregate growth vary; - time pattern: periods of pronounced structural change and low aggregate growth are often succeeded by evenly distributed and high growth; creative destruction and the new economy boom of the 90s
  • panel growth regressions
  • data: 28 OECD countries; 1990 to 2000;
  • dependent variable:
  • (a) GDP/head (PPP) (b) DGDP/head (PPP)
  • explanatory variables control for:
  • demography (lPOP, lPOPWA)
  • country-specific business cycle effects (EMR, EMRt-1)
  • gross fixed capital investment (lINVTt-1, D lINVT)
  • time dummies (global business cycle)
  • convergence effects: endogenously lagged variable in (b)
  • plus variables onindustrial structure:
  • value-added share of service industries (SOTSt-1; SOBSt-1)
  • relative export shares (XSR): tdit-1,Dtdi;
  • relative import shares (MSR): tdit-1,
  • income levels LSDV 1991 - 2000 growth arellano- bond (2step) 1990 - 2000 empirical validation standard variables are largely consistent; positive structural effects for technology driven manufacturing and business services: - direct effects (differential growth); - producer related spillovers; - user related spillover;  variations in industrial structure had a significant impact on aggregate income and growth in the 1990s ! policy implications to say “industrial structure matters“ does not imply “industries are a good target for policy intervention“ besides informational problems, specialisation patterns are highly persistent and based upon processes of self-organisation; the relevant question is, how to enable schumpeterian development , or “what functions must an economic system achieve to enable structural change and growth?“ a brief characterisation of system dynamics three pillars of dynamic structural policy policy conclusions invitation to experiment with a different view on policy: + an explicit dynamic legitimation; + broad outcomes similar to criterion of “market failure“, but closer to policy practice; + stresses interdependency, instead of isolated rationales; major problem & open questions: lack of a precise optimisation criterion (such as the welfare function); - how to achieve selectivity? - how to define priorities? - do we need a dynamic welfare (“progress“) function? - and many more ...
  • example 1: industry life cycles differential impact of economic policy depending on patterns of industrial dynamics (e.g. by Afuah-Utterback or Klepper): phase I - emergence of a novel business:
  • r&td and start up policies; liberalisation phase II - accumulation race:
  • complementary institutions; education & training; local clusters / global networks phase III - intense selection:
  • economic integration; competition policies
  • example 2: subsidiarity very stylized; manifold interdependencies, but might help to better understand the allocation of political responsibilities between local and global levels of power: priorities for (supra-)national level: fair rules of selection economic integration, harmonisation, liberalisation; competition policy; priorities for local & regional levels: innovation and learning education & training; complementary institutions; etc. typical overlap: - networking activities, R&D co-operation, etc. - infrastructure policies, etc.; Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, january, 2001. table of contents: entrepreneurial competition (c) the organization of knowledge (t) intangible investments & human resources (e) competitive performance of European industry (e) sectoral specialisation and industrial location (t) competitiveness policy (c) c..conceptual; t..theoretical, e..empirical
    Related Search
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks