IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/002672/4335.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ICT R&D in regional analysis with Rhomolo

Author

Listed:
  • Wojtek Szewczyk
  • Andries Brandsma
  • Ben Gardiner
  • Anna Sabadash

Abstract

This study aims to analyse the impact of increased ICT R&D public spending on the European economy using the regional RHOMOLO model. The theoretical motivation for this research stems from ongoing discussion on the complementarity and substitutability between public and private R&D spending, and on the impact of R&D investment on growth and employment. We aim to contribute to this discussion by looking at the ICT sector and by providing theoretical and empirical evidence of the effect of the increased public ICT R&D on private ICT R&D, and its economic impact on economy as a whole. The policy background for the study, as formulated by the recently adopted Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), re-emphasises the importance of ICT for boosting European performance and competiveness. DAE, a part of Europe 2020 strategy1, identifies areas where ICT can contribute toward European development and sets relevant targets. The target with respect to ICT R&D is a doubling of public expenditure on ICT research in ways which leverage equivalent increases in private spending on ICT R&D. With this study we expect to provide theoretical and empirical reasoning for this policy initiative.For the purpose of this study we will draw a distinction between two types of R&D input by separating ICT R&D and non-ICT R&D components. Such a division of the aggregate R&D expenditure brings two important benefits. First, the division allows for a consideration of the specific mode of impact of ICT R&D. The specificity of ICT R&D relates to it's pervasiveness across the economy (as a General Purpose Technology) and implies that any innovation resulting from ICT R&D expenditure will benefit many downstream industries, which is not necessarily the case for other types of R&D innovations. Second, accounting for the current regional distribution of ICT R&D expenditure will allow for allocation of the assumed growth of ICT R&D across regions with further, model consistent, economic implications. In the paper we will provide theoretical grounds for such a division by elaborating on the nature of innovation production and utilization. We will build our empirical analysis using the RHOMOLO (CGE) model. The RHOMOLO model is a spatial general equilibrium model with inter-regional trade and location choice based on microeconomics, using utility and production functions with substitution between inputs. The model has a detailed geographical dimension (NUTS2). In the model the R&D expenditure is an important factor affecting semi-endogenous technical change, along with technological knowledge and human capital stocks, and it is through this mechanism that most of the competitiveness benefits are expected to take place.

Suggested Citation

  • Wojtek Szewczyk & Andries Brandsma & Ben Gardiner & Anna Sabadash, 2012. "ICT R&D in regional analysis with Rhomolo," EcoMod2012 4335, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:002672:4335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/DAE_NUTS2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    3. Juraj Stancik, 2012. "A Methodology for Estimating Public ICT R&D Expenditures in the EU," JRC Research Reports JRC69978, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Olsson, Ola, 2001. "Why Does Technology Advance in Cycles?," Working Papers in Economics 38, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    2. Keiichi Kishi, 2015. "Dynamic analysis of wage inequality and creative destruction," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Дементьев В.Е., 2013. "Структурные Факторы Технологического Развития," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 49(4), pages 33-46, октябрь.
    4. Alexandre Almeida & António Figueiredo & Mário Rui Silva, 2011. "From Concept to Policy: Building Regional Innovation Systems in Follower Regions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 1331-1356, July.
    5. Stadler, Manfred, 2015. "Innovation, industrial dynamics and economic growth," University of Tübingen Working Papers in Business and Economics 84, University of Tuebingen, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, School of Business and Economics.
    6. Beaudreau, Bernard C., 2005. "Engineering and economic growth," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 211-220, June.
    7. Gray, Elie & Grimaud, André, 2016. "Using the Salop Circle to Study Scale Effects in Schumpeterian Growth Models: Why Inter-sectoral Knowledge Diffusion Matters," TSE Working Papers 16-676, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Kemnitz, Alexander & Knoblach, Michael, 2020. "Endogenous sigma-augmenting technological change: An R&D-based approach," CEPIE Working Papers 02/20, Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
    9. Jakub Growiec & Ingmar Schumacher, 2013. "Technological opportunity, long-run growth, and convergence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 323-351, April.
    10. Thomas Strobel, 2010. "Institutions and Innovations as Sources of Productivity Growth Cross-Country Evidence," ifo Working Paper Series 87, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    11. Bretschger, Lucas, 2005. "Economics of technological change and the natural environment: How effective are innovations as a remedy for resource scarcity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 148-163, August.
    12. Nathalie Chusseau & Michel Dumont & Joël Hellier, 2008. "Explaining Rising Inequality: Skill‐Biased Technical Change And North–South Trade," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 409-457, July.
    13. Óscar Afonso & Elena Sochirca & Pedro Cunha Neves, 2022. "Robots and Humans: The Role of Fiscal and Monetary Policies in an Endogenous Growth Model," CEF.UP Working Papers 2201, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    14. Petsas Iordanis, 2015. "General Purpose Technologies and their Implications for International Trade," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 47(1), pages 7-35, September.
    15. Jie Cai & Nan Li, 2019. "Growth Through Inter-sectoral Knowledge Linkages," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(5), pages 1827-1866.
    16. Zagler, Martin, 2002. "Services, innovation and the new economy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 337-355, September.
    17. Jakub Growiec, 2019. "The Hardware–Software Model: A New Conceptual Framework of Production, R&D, and Growth with AI," Working Paper series 19-18, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    18. Tassey, Gregory, 2005. "The disaggregated technology production function: A new model of university and corporate research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 287-303, April.
    19. Orlando Gomes, 2005. "Knowledge creation and technology difusion: a framework to understand economic growth," Revista de Analisis Economico – Economic Analysis Review, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business, vol. 20(2), pages 41-61, December.
    20. Comin, Diego & Mulani, Sunil, 2009. "A theory of growth and volatility at the aggregate and firm level," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1023-1042, November.

    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:ekd:002672:4335. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.html .

    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.