Technological progress spillover effect in Lithuanian manufacturing industry

• Authors: Mantas Markauskas , Asta Baliute

Abstracts

EN

Research background: Various methods for technological progress assessment and evaluation exist in the context of economic development. Each of the methods possesses distinct advantages and disadvantages in analysis of technological progress fluctuations. For most neoclassical growth theories, technological progress measures are included as exogenous variables, thus excluding evaluation of factors influencing technological progress variation throughout time. Purpose of the article: The aim of this article is to offer improvements on classical technological progress evaluation methodologies for manufacturing industries, separating effect of intersectoral technological progress spillover effect from internal factors influencing technological progress growth and perform analysis in the case of Lithuanian manufacturing industry. Methods: Earlier research papers used linear time series regression and vector autoregression methods to assess technological progress values and define equations explaining effect of different manufacturing level indicators on technological progress measure growth. This research paper uses results of previously mentioned methods and performs simulation analysis applying agent-based modelling framework. Findings & value added: The conducted vector autoregression analysis has showed that two variables which influence technological progress most significantly are labor productivity measure and gross profit value. Sensitivity analysis emphasizes that effect of these two variables on technological progress growth is substantially different. Increase in gross profit value affects technological progress growth for wider range of sectors from Lithuanian manufacturing industry (15 out of 18 analyzed sectors? technological progress measure values are affected by changes in gross profit, while changes in labor productivity influence technological progress values in the case of 9 sectors). Rising gross profit values also produce intersectoral technological progress spillover effect more significantly, while growth in labor productivity measure has stronger effect on technological progress fluctuations for sectors which are able to exploit this effect. Presented research suggests improved methodology for intersectoral technological progress spillover effect assessment in the context of manufacturing industries.

Keywords

EN

technological progress; agent-based modelling; intersectoral technological progress spillover; manufacturing industry; economic development

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Gospodarczych
• Journal: Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 783-806

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Mantas Markauskas

• Kaunas University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000000343286195

author

Asta Baliute

• Kaunas University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000000293735449

References

• Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2009). The economics of growth. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.
• Alcouffe, A., & Kuhn, T. (2004). Schumpeterian endogenous growth theory and evolutionary economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(2), 223?236. doi: 10.1007/s00191-004-0205-0.
• Apa, R., De Noni, I., Orsi, L., & Sedita, S. R. (2018). Knowledge space oddity: how to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions. Research Policy. 47, 1700?1712. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06 .002.
• Awokuse, T. O. (2006). Export-led growth and the Japanese economy: evidence from VAR and directed acyclic graphs. Applied Economics, 38(5), 593?602. doi: 10.1080/00036840600619594.
• Benos, N., Karagiannis, S., & Karkalakos, S. (2015). Proximity and growth spillovers in European regions: the role of geographical, economic and technological linkages. Journal of Macroeconomics, 43, 124?139. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2014 .10.003.
• Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2013). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Econometrica, 81(4), 1347?1393. doi: 10.3982/ECTA9466.
• Bharadwaj, S., Clark, T., & Kulviwat, S. (2005). Marketing, market growth, an endogenous growth theory: inquiry into the causes of market growth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 347?359. doi: 10.1177/009207030 5276324.
• Chu, A. C., Cozzi, G., Furukawa, Y., & Liao, C.-H. (2017). Inflation and economic growth in a Schumpeterian model with endogenous entry of heterogeneous firms. European Economic Review, 98, 392?409. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.201 7.07.006.
• Comin, D. (2010). Total factor productivity. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.). Economic growth. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/978023 0280823_32.
• Crespi, G., & Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and productivity: evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development, 40(2), 273?290. doi: 10.1016/j .worlddev.2011.07.010.
• Crooks, A. T., & Heppenstall, A. J. (2012). Introduction to agent-based modelling. In A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, L. M. See & M. Batty (Eds.). Agent-based models of geographical systems. Dordrecht: Springer, 85?105.
• Dieppe, A., & Mutl, J. (2013). International R&D spillovers: technology transfer vs. R&D synergies. European Central Bank Working Paper Series, 1504.
• Englmann, F. C. (1994). A Schumpeterian model of endogenous innovation and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4, 227?241. doi: 10.1007/BF0123 6370.
• Fagerberg, J. (2000). Technological progress, structural change and productivity growth: a comparative study. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(4), 393?411. doi: 10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00025-4.
• Galor, O., & Tsiddon, D. (1997). Technological progress, mobility, and economic growth. American Economic Review, 87(3), 363?382.
• Greenwood, J., & Seshadri, A. (2004). Technological progress and economic transformation. NBER Working Paper, 10765. doi: 10.3386/w10765.
• Hu, J., Wang, Z., Lian, Y., Huang, Q. (2018). Environmental regulation, foreign direct investment and green technological progress - evidence from Chinese manufacturing industries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(2), 221. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020221.
• Hulten, C. R. (2001). Total factor productivity: a short biography. In Ch. R. Hulten, E. R. Dean & M. J. Harper (Eds.). New developments in productivity analysis. University of Chicago Press, 1?54.
• Iwasaki, I., & Tokunaga, M. (2016). Technology transfer and spillovers from FDI in transition economies: a meta-analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(4), 1086?1114. doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2016.10.005.
• Janssen, M. A. (2005). Agent-based modelling. In J. Proops & P. Safonov (Eds.). Modelling in ecological economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publising, 155?172.
• Lafi, M. (2018). Foreign affiliates and technology spillovers in the French manufacturing sector: an analysis using panel data. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(5), 229?242.
• Lopez-Pueyo, C., Barcenilla, S. & Sanau, J. (2008). International technological spillovers and manufacturing productivity: a panel data analysis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19(2), 152?172. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2007 .12.005.
• Lin, J., Yu, Z., Wei, Y. D., & Wang, M. (2017). Internet access, spillover and regional development in China. Sustainability, 9(6), 1?18. doi: 10.3390/su9060 946.
• Markauskas, M., & Baliute, A. (2020). Modelling technological progress evaluation: case of Lithuanian manufacturing industry. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 11(6), 1?11. doi: 10.36941/mjss-2020-0058.
• Markauskas, M., & Saboniene, A. (2019). Evaluation of technological progress measures: case of Lithuanian manufacturing industry. In Proceedings of IAC 2019 in Budapest. Budapest: Czech Institute of Academic Education, 104?111.
• Mitze, T., Naveed, A., & Ahmad, N. (2016). International, intersectoral, or unobservable? Measuring R&D spillovers under weak and strong cross-sectional dependence. Journal of Macroeconomics, 50, 259?272. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro .2016.10.002.
• Naveed, A., & Ahmad, N. (2016) Technology spillovers and international borders: a spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 31(4), 441?461. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2016.1188669.
• Shan, J. (2005). Does financial development ?lead' economic growth? A vector auto-regression appraisal. Applied Economics, 37(12), 1353?1367. doi: 10.1080 /00036840500118762.
• Solow, R. M. (1999). Neoclassical growth theory. In J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.). Handbook of macroeconomics, 1, Elsevier, 637?667. doi: 10.1016/S15 74-0048(99)01012-5.
• Sredojevic, D., Cvetanovic, S., & Boskovic, G. (2016). Technological changes in economic growth theory: neoclassical, endogenous, and evolutionary-institutional approach. Economic Themes, 54(2), 177?194. doi: 10.1515/etheme s-2016-0009.
• Van den Berg, H. (2012). Explaining neoclassical economists? pro-growth agenda: does the popular Solow growth model bias economic analysis? International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 3(1), 40?62. doi: 10.1504/IJPE E.2012.047472.
• Verspagen, B., & Loo, I. D. (1999). Technology spillovers between sectors and over time. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 215?235. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(98)00046-8.
• Wang, M., & Wong, M. C. S. (2016). Effects of foreign direct investment on firm-level technical efficiency: stochastic frontier model evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Atlantic Economic Journal, 44(3), 335?361. doi: 10.1007 /s11293-016-9509-3.
• Wei, Y., & Liu, X. (2006). Productivity spillovers from R&D, exports and FDI in China?s manufacturing sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 544?557. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400209.
• Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998?2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285?298. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012.
• Yang, Z., Shao, S., Yang, L., & Liu, J. (2017). Differentiated effects of diversified technological sources on energy-saving technological progress: empirical evidence from China's industrial sectors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 1379?1388. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.072.
• Zhao, X., Lin, D., & Hao, T. (2019). A new discussion on the relationship between M&A and innovation in an emerging market: the moderating effect of post-acquisition R&D investment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(12), 1447?1461. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1627310.
• Zhou, G., & Luo, S. (2018). Higher education input, technological innovation, and economic growth in China. Sustainability, 10(8), 2615. doi: 10.3390/su1008 2615.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24136/eq.2021.029

Biblioteka Nauki

22444309