Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:20:16.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neutral, Investment-Specific Technical Progress and the Productivity Slowdown

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Fernando del Rio Iglesias
Fernando del Rio Iglesias*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Get access

Summary

In this article I show that a permanent possitive shock on the rate of investment-specific technical progress might cause, at least in the short run, a fall of the growth rate of both output per capita and total factor productivity, as measured by the Solow residual. Several simulations are performed which show that the extent of the Productivity Slowdown drastically depends on the elasticity of the marginal cost of producing a unit of capital good with respect to the rate of investment-specific technical progress.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, je montre qu’un choc positif permanent sur le taux de progrès technique spécifique à l’investissement peut provoquer, au moins à court terme, une chute du taux de croissance à la fois du produit par tête et de la productivité totale des facteurs, telle qu’elle est mesurée par le résiduel de Solow. Nous réalisons une série de simulations qui montre que l’amplitude du Ralentissement de la Productivité dépend énormément de l’élasticité du coût marginal de production d’une unité de bien capital relativement au taux de progrès technique spécifique à l’investissement.

Keywords

Neutral and Investment-Specific Technical ProgressTotal Factor ProductivityProductivity SlowdownO30O40O30O40
Type
I. Macroeconomics and National Accounting
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 68 , Special Issue 1-2: The New Economy: Implications and Viability , 2002 , pp. 37 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2002 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Antonio Rodriguez-Sampaio and Mikel Pérez-Nievas for their help.

References

Gordon, R. J. (1990), The Measurement of Durable Goods Prices, Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. J. (1999), Has the “New Economy” Rendered the Productivity Slowdown Obsoleste?, Northwestern University, mimeo.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. J. (2000a), “Interpreting the “One Big Wave” in U. S. Long-Term Productivity Growth”, NBER Working Paper, 7752.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. J. (2000b), “Does the “New Economy” Measure Up to the Great Inventions of the Past?”, NBER Working Paper, 7833.Google Scholar
Gort, M., Greenwood, J. and Rupert, P. (1999), “Measuring the Rate of Technological Progress in Structures”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 2, 207–230.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z. and Krusell, P. (1997): “Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change”, American Economic Review, 87, 342–362.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. and Jovanovic, B. (1998), “Accounting for Growth”, NBER Working Paper, 6647.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. and Yorukoglu, M. (1997), “1974”, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 46, 49–95.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. (1996), “The Dicovery of the Residual: A Historical Note”, Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1324–1330.Google Scholar
Hercowitz, Z. (1998), “The ‘Embodiment controversy: A Review Essay”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 41, 217–224.Google Scholar
Hulten, Ch. R (1992), “Growth Accounting with Technical Change is Embodied in Capital”, American Economic Review, 82, 964–980.Google Scholar
Hulten, Ch. R. (1996), “Quality Change in capital goods and its Impact on Economic Growth”, NBER Working Paper, 5569.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, D. W. (1966), “The Embodiment Hypotesis”, Journal of Political Economy, 74, 1–17.Google Scholar
Kortum, S. (1997), “1974: A Comment”, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 46, 97–105.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (2001), “Productivity Growth and the New economy”, NBER Working Papers, 8096.Google Scholar
Solow, R. (1960): “Investment and Technological Progress” in Arrow, K. Karlin, S. and Suppes, P. (eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences 1959, 89–104. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Wolff, E. N. (1985), “The Magnitude and Causes of the Recent Productivity Slowdown in the U.S.”, in Baumol, W. and McClennan, K., eds., Productivity growth and U.S. competitveness. New York: Oxford University Press, 29–57.Google Scholar
Wolff, E. N. (1996), “The Productivity Slowdown:The Culprit at Last? Follow-Up on Hulten and Wolff’, The American Economic Review, 86, 5, 1239–1252.Google Scholar