Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
InnovaTion, InvesTment and ImiTation: How Information and Communication Technology Affected European Productivity Performance Bart Los and Marcel Timmer, University of Groningen (Faculty of Economics, Groningen Growth and Development Centre) This project is funded by the European Commission, Research Directorate General as part of the 6th Framework Programme, Priority 8, "Policy Support and Anticipating Scientific and Technological Needs". 1 End of European catch-up process Labour productivity (EU as % of U.S.) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2 Slowdown in most countries GDP per hour growth, 1980-1995 and 1995-2004 4.0 % per year 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 ES IT NL PT DE DK BE 1980-1995 FR UK AT US SE GR FI 1995-2004 3 ICT as a GPT • ICT as GPT (see David, AER 1990; Brynjolfsson & Hitt, JEPersp 2000; Hall & Trajtenberg 2004 NBER) • Europe has exhausted imitation in old technologies, and is lagging in application of new ICT-based innovations (Aghion and Howitt 2006, JEEA). • Divergence is possible. Degree to which imitation can lead to productivity gains depends on technology operated (“appropriate technology”, Basu & Weil, QJE, 1998) • Traditional growth accounting findings: Total Factor Productivity growth in market services in US, but not in Europe (see Jorgenson, Ho and Stiroh 2005; Triplett and Bosworth 2004; Inklaar, O’Mahony and Timmer, RIW, 2003; Timmer & Van Ark, OxEP 2005.) 4 This paper • • TFP should be divided into pure technological change (“innovation”) and efficiency changes (“imitation”) through estimation of global production frontier. (see Los & Timmer, JDevE 2005, Timmer and Los, JPA 2005) ICT capital is a critical input Questions • How many years are European countries lagging behind in ICT? • How efficient are European countries in using “old-vintage” ICT? • Does this differ for various sectors? • How much of European growth is due to innovation and how much due to imitation? 5 Falling behind, catching up or leapfrogging? US’04 GDP/ hour GE’04? US’00 GE’00 ICT/hour 6 Frontier Estimation • Data Envelopment Analysis on 1 output (GDP) and 3 inputs (labour, IT and non-IT), assuming CRS (Färe et all, 1994, AER) • Non-parametric approach with very few restrictions on production technology • Advantage is flexible functional form, which allows for localized technological change • DEA with intertemporal dataset, to avoid technological regress. – Frontier for year y based on all observations from 1980 up to y – First frontier for 1990. 7 Frontier estimation (1) country 2000 GDP/ hour Input/hour 8 Frontier estimation (2) frontier 2000 GDP/ hour Input/hour 9 Frontier estimation (3) country 2004 GDP/ hour Input/hour 10 Frontier estimation (4) frontier 2004 GDP/ hour Input/hour 11 Data - Fourteen countries: EU-15 (minus Luxembourg and Ireland), and U.S. - GDP (at PPP), total hours worked and capital stocks for 1980-2004 - Harmonised Capital stock estimates for six assets, using Perpetual Inventory Method, aggregated into two groups: Non-IT and IT capital Non-IT: machinery, transport equipment and non-residential buildings; IT: office and computing equipment, communication equipment and software. - All data from The Conference Board and Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Total Economy Database, May 2006, (www.ggdc.net) (Updated from Timmer & Van Ark, OxEP, 2005) 12 Lagging ICT stocks in Europe ICT stock per hour worked, 1995 3000 (US$ per hour) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 PT GR ES NL FR UK IT FI BE AT DK DE SE US 13 Frontier Results 1990 GDP per hour worked ($) 37 35 33 1990 31 29 27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) Frontier points include UK (80,97,88), US (89, 90), DK (80, 85, 86), France (80, 90) 14 Frontier Results 1995 GDP per hour worked ($) 37 35 33 1990 1995 31 29 27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) New Frontier points include UK (95), US (94, 95), DK (95) 15 Frontier Results 2000 GDP per hour worked ($) 37 35 33 1990 1995 2000 31 29 27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) New Frontier points include US (98,99,00), UK (97, 00), DK (96,00) 16 Frontier Results 2004 GDP per hour worked ($) 37 35 1990 1995 2000 2004 33 31 29 27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) New Frontier points include Fr (04), US (04), DK (02,04) 17 European countries in 2004: GDP per hour worked ($) 38 UK FR 33 US DK BE,SW NL 28 DE AT FI IT Pr 23 Es Gr 18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) frontier country 2004 18 ICT Lags ..…. GDP per hour worked ($) 38 UK FR 33 US DK BE,SW NL 28 DE AT FI IT Pr 23 Es Gr 18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) country 2004 US 1980-2003 19 But some have succesfully imitated, or even innovated GDP per hour worked ($) 38 UK FR 33 US DK BE,SW NL 28 DE AT FI IT Pr 23 Es Gr 18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICT stock per hour worked ($) frontier 2004 country 2004 20 Efficiency scores Denmark France UK USA Belgium Sweden Germany Netherlands Austria Finland Italy Portugal Spain Greece 1990 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.89 0.76 0.94 0.99 0.77 0.65 1995 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.86 0.90 1.00 0.88 0.75 0.94 0.92 0.74 0.62 2000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.72 0.65 2004 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.68 0.65 21 European manufacturing is innovating GDP per hour worked ($) 45 FI FR US NL 40 DE 35 DK AT UK IT 30 25 0.04 0.14 0.24 0.34 0.44 0.54 ICT stock per hour worked ($) frontier 2000 country 2000 22 Main findings and road ahead • Global production frontier is driven by investment in ICT capital goods • European countries lag US in application of ICT technology (4 to 16 years) • Some countries are succesful imitators (FR, UK, DK), but others face divergence (IT, PT, ES) • Different pattern at industry level: innovation in manufacturing in some countries 23 Main findings and road ahead • Industry-level analysis, in particular services: EUKLEMS data project • Explanation of divergence in terms of “Imitation” (inefficiency model) including regulation and skilled labour supply as determinants 24