IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v32y2022i2d10.1007_s00191-022-00768-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Radical technologies, recombinant novelty and productivity growth: a cliometric approach

Author

Listed:
  • Marianna Epicoco

    (Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA)

  • Magali Jaoul-Grammare

    (Université de Strasbourg, Université de Lorraine, BETA, CNRS)

  • Anne Plunket

    (RITM, Université Paris Saclay)

Abstract

Using inventions with a high degree of recombinant novelty as proxy for radical technologies, this work provides a long-run quantitative analysis of the relationship between radical technologies and productivity growth. The empirical analysis is based on a cliometric approach and relies on Granger’s causality to test the sign and direction of causality between the flow of radical technologies and productivity levels, in the USA between 1920 and 2000. At the aggregate level, results show that radical technologies cause a temporary acceleration of productivity growth and explain a considerable part of productivity variations. At technology-field level, the analysis indicates that productivity growth is driven by a few technological fields, mainly concentrated in science based sectors and in the sectors of specialized suppliers of capital equipment. Finally, with respect to the controversial issue of the endogeneity of radical technologies, at the aggregate level we find no causal relationship running from productivity to radical technologies, suggesting that these are exogenous. However, at technology-field level, we find a few endogenous technologies. Most of these are “demand-driven” as their flow increases when productivity grows, but they have no impact on productivity. Only in one technological field, the flow of radical technologies increases when productivity decreases and, at the same time, has a positive impact on productivity. This latter case may explain why technological revolutions and the whole process of long-run economic development are partly endogenous.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianna Epicoco & Magali Jaoul-Grammare & Anne Plunket, 2022. "Radical technologies, recombinant novelty and productivity growth: a cliometric approach," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 673-711, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:32:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s00191-022-00768-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-022-00768-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-022-00768-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-022-00768-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schot, Johan & Kanger, Laur, 2018. "Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1045-1059.
    2. André Lorentz & Tommaso Ciarli & Maria Savona & Marco Valente, 2016. "The effect of demand-driven structural transformations on growth and technological change," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 219-246, March.
    3. Marcel P. Timmer & Robert Inklaar & Mary O'Mahony & Bart van Ark, 2011. "Productivity and Economic Growth in Europe: A Comparative Industry Perspective," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 21, pages 3-23, Spring.
    4. Silverberg, Gerald & Lehnert, Doris, 1993. "Long waves and 'evolutionary chaos' in a simple Schumpeterian model of embodied technical change," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 9-37, June.
    5. Bakker, Gerben & Crafts, Nicholas & Woltjer, Pieter, 2015. "A vision of the growth process in a technologically progressive economy: the United States, 1899-1941," Economic History Working Papers 64779, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    6. Kenneth I. Carlaw & Richard G. Lipsey, 2006. "Gpt-Driven, Endogenous Growth," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 155-174, January.
    7. Marianna Epicoco, 2021. "Technological Revolutions and Economic Development: Endogenous and Exogenous Fluctuations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1437-1461, September.
    8. Bergeaud, A. & Cette, G. & Lecat, R., 2015. "Productivity trends from 1890 to 2012 in advanced countries," Rue de la Banque, Banque de France, issue 07, June..
    9. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    10. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    11. Fulvio Castellacci, 2010. "Structural Change And The Growth Of Industrial Sectors: Empirical Test Of A Gpt Model," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 56(3), pages 449-482, September.
    12. Pier Paolo Saviotti & Andreas Pyka, 2013. "The co-evolution of innovation, demand and growth," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 461-482, July.
    13. Marianna Epicoco, 2021. "Technological Revolutions and Economic Development : Endogenous and Exogenous Fluctuations," Post-Print hal-03588838, HAL.
    14. Helpman, Elhanan & Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1994. "A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technologies," CEPR Discussion Papers 1080, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    16. Réka Juhász & Mara P. Squicciarini & Nico Voigtländer, 2020. "Technology Adoption and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Industrialization in France," NBER Working Papers 27503, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    18. Dosi, Giovanni & Fagiolo, Giorgio & Roventini, Andrea, 2010. "Schumpeter meeting Keynes: A policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1748-1767, September.
    19. Alessandro Caiani & Antoine Godin & Stefano Lucarelli, 2015. "Innovation and Finance: A Stock Flow Consistent Analysis of Great Surges of Development," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & John Foster (ed.), The Evolution of Economic and Innovation Systems, edition 127, pages 401-430, Springer.
    20. Antonelli, Cristiano & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2010. "Recombinant knowledge and growth: The case of ICTs," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 50-69, March.
    21. Sims, Christopher A, 1980. "Macroeconomics and Reality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-48, January.
    22. Baumann, Julian & Kritikos, Alexander S., 2016. "The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1263-1274.
    23. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (ed.), 1991. "Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in Cointegration," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283393.
    24. Elliott, Graham & Rothenberg, Thomas J & Stock, James H, 1996. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 813-836, July.
    25. Deborah Strumsky & José Lobo & Sander van der Leeuw, 2012. "Using patent technology codes to study technological change," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 267-286, April.
    26. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    27. Eckstein, Zvi & Schultz, T. Paul & Wolpin, Kenneth I., 1984. "Short-run fluctuations in fertility and mortality in pre-industrial Sweden," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 295-317, December.
    28. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    29. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    30. Harberger, Arnold C, 1998. "A Vision of the Growth Process," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 1-32, March.
    31. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques, 1995. "Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 263-293, January.
    32. Coad, Alex & Segarra, Agustí & Teruel, Mercedes, 2016. "Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 387-400.
    33. Francesco Crespi & Mario Pianta, 2008. "Demand and innovation in productivity growth," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(6), pages 655-672.
    34. Engle, Robert & Granger, Clive, 2015. "Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 39(3), pages 106-135.
    35. Claude Diebolt, 2016. "Cliometrica after 10 years: definition and principles of cliometric research," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 10(1), pages 1-4, january.
    36. Frederic Scherer, 1984. "Using Linked Patent and R&D Data to Measure Interindustry Technology Flows," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 417-464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    37. Schaefer, Andreas & Schiess, Daniel & Wehrli, Roger, 2014. "Long-term growth driven by a sequence of general purpose technologies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 23-31.
    38. Claude Diebolt & Harald Hagemann, 2019. "Mixing history of economic thought with cliometrics: room for debates on economic growth," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 654-658, July.
    39. Antonin Bergeaud & Gilbert Cette & Rémy Lecat, 2016. "Productivity Trends in Advanced Countries between 1890 and 2012," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 62(3), pages 420-444, September.
    40. Bogliacino, Francesco & Pianta, Mario, 2011. "Engines of growth. Innovation and productivity in industry groups," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 41-53, February.
    41. Keijl, S. & Gilsing, V.A. & Knoben, J. & Duysters, G., 2016. "The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1061-1074.
    42. Alfred H. Conrad & John R. Meyer, 1958. "The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South: Reply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(5), pages 442-442.
    43. Arthur, W. Brian, 2007. "The structure of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 274-287, March.
    44. Sam Arts & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(6), pages 1215-1246.
    45. Granger, C. W. J., 1980. "Testing for causality : A personal viewpoint," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 329-352, May.
    46. Hasan, Iftekhar & Tucci, Christopher L., 2010. "The innovation-economic growth nexus: Global evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1264-1276, December.
    47. Crafts, N. F. R., 1995. "Exogenous or Endogenous Growth? The Industrial Revolution Reconsidered," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 745-772, December.
    48. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    49. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    50. Morris, Diego M., 2018. "Innovation and productivity among heterogeneous firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1918-1932.
    51. Bruneau, C., 1996. "Analyse econometrique de la Causalite: Un Bilan de la Litterature," Papers 9612, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    52. Carlota Perez, 2010. "Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 185-202, January.
    53. Johansen, Soren, 1988. "Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(2-3), pages 231-254.
    54. Pier Saviotti & Andreas Pyka, 2004. "Economic development by the creation of new sectors," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-35, January.
    55. Marc Gruber & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2013. "Knowledge Recombination Across Technological Boundaries: Scientists vs. Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 837-851, April.
    56. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. Giorgi & A. Plunket & F. Starosta De Waldemar, 2024. "Inter-regional highly skilled worker mobility and technological novelty," Documents de Travail de l'Insee - INSEE Working Papers 2024-05, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marianna Epicoco & Magali Jaoul-Grammare & Anne Plunket, 2020. "Technological novelty and productivity growth: a cliometric approach," Working Papers of BETA 2020-37, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Marianna Epicoco, 2021. "Technological Revolutions and Economic Development: Endogenous and Exogenous Fluctuations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1437-1461, September.
    3. Jean-Daniel Boyer & Magali Jaoul-Grammare & Sylvie Rivot, 2017. "Prix du blé, régulations et croissance économique : L’analyse cliométrique permet-elle de trancher le débat sur les bleds des années 1750?," Working Papers of BETA 2017-29, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. John D. Levendis, 2018. "Time Series Econometrics," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-98282-3, December.
    5. Claude Diebolt & Magali Jaoul-Grammare & Faustine Perrin, 2020. "Scolarisation de masse des garçons et des filles. Financement public de l’instruction primaire et croissance économique en France au XIXème siècle," Working Papers of BETA 2020-51, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Brea, Edgar, 2024. "The yin yang of AI: Exploring how commercial and non-commercial orientations shape machine learning innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    7. François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.
    8. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. David Greasley & Les Oxley, 2010. "Cliometrics And Time Series Econometrics: Some Theory And Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 970-1042, December.
    10. José Lobo & Deborah Strumsky, 2019. "Sources of inventive novelty: two patent classification schemas, same story," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 19-37, July.
    11. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    12. Claude DIEBOLT & Magali Jaoul-Grammare, 2024. "Gendered Study Choice and Prestige of Professions: France in the Long 20th Century," Working Papers of BETA 2024-37, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    13. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2018. "Technology and Economic Development: The Schumpeterian Legacy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 136-153, March.
    14. Magali JAOUL-GRAMMARE, 2014. "Prestige social des professions et substituabilité des filières universitaires en France au XXème siècle," Economies et Sociétés (Serie 'Histoire Economique Quantitative'), Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), issue 49, pages 1309-1333, Août.
    15. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry," Post-Print hal-02613665, HAL.
    16. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2003. "Time-series Econometrics: Cointegration and Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2003-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    17. Charles G. Renfro, 2009. "The Practice of Econometric Theory," Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, Springer, number 978-3-540-75571-5.
    18. Pezzoni, Michele & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    19. Chien-Chiang Lee & Chun-Ping Chang, 2006. "The Long-Run Relationship Between Defence Expenditures And Gdp In Taiwan," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 361-385.
    20. Michele Cincera & Ela Ince, 2019. "Types of Innovation and Firm performance," Working Papers TIMES² 2019-032, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Radical technologies; Recombinant novelty; Productivity growth; Cliometrics; Granger’s causality; Technological revolutions; Long-run economic development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O40 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General
    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
    • N12 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - U.S.; Canada: 1913-

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:32:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s00191-022-00768-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.