Rethinking Growth The Schumpeterian Perspective...Country-specific productivity breaks Reformers...
Transcript of Rethinking Growth The Schumpeterian Perspective...Country-specific productivity breaks Reformers...
Rethinking Growth The Schumpeterian Perspective
Philippe Aghion May 10th, 2017 LUISS University, Rome
Peter Howitt
Joseph Schumpeter
Schumpeterian growth theory
• Long-run growth driven by innovations
• Innovations result from entrepreneurial activities motivated by prospect of innovation rents
• Creative destruction: new innovations displace old technologies
Ufuk Akcigit
Competition and growth: theoretical prediction
Competition and growth: empirical relationship
Richard Blundell
Competition, growth and distance to frontier
Competition and growth: the inverted-U relationship
Outline
• Introduction
•Growth enigmas
• “Next”
Growth enigmas
• The middle income trap
• The debate on secular stagnation
• Innovation, inequality, and social mobility
Argentinian versus US per capita GDP
Frontier innovation vs catch up growth
Enhancing productivity growth in advanced countries
- Liberalization of product market
- Investment in higher education
- Liberalization of labor market
Enhancing productivity growth in emerging market economies
• Foster technology transfers
• Reallocate factors
• Improve management practices
Long run growth effect of1000$ per-person spending on education
Fabrizio Zilibotti EEA Presidential Address
Growth enigmas
• The middle income trap
• The debate on secular stagnation
• Innovation, inequality, and social mobility
Secular stagnation?
• Gordon and the fruit-bearing tree approach
• Summers and the keynesian approach
Two productivity growth waves
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Tren
d of p
rodu
ctivit
y gr
owth
rate
United States:HP filtering of Productivity growth with λ=500
Total factor Productivity Labor Productivity
Secular stagnation?
• Dale Jorgenson
• Missing Growth
• Europe
Sweden versus Japan
Country-specific productivity breaks
Reformers
Netherlands: Wassenaard agreement, 1982 • TFP growth : 1977-1983 0,5 %, 1983-2002 1,5 %
Canada, reforms initiated in early 1990s • TFP growth: 1974-1990 0,3 %, 1990-2000 1,1 %
Australia, reforms initiated in early 1990s • TFP growth: 1971-1990 0,4 %, 1990-2002 1,4 %
Sweden, reforms initiated in early 1990s • TFP growth: 1976-1992 0,4 %, 1992-2008 1,9 %
Growth enigmas
• The middle income trap
• The debate on secular stagnation
• Innovation, inequality and social mobility
0
5
10
15
20
25
301
91
8
19
20
19
22
19
24
19
26
19
28
19
30
19
32
19
34
19
36
19
38
19
40
19
42
19
44
19
46
19
48
19
50
19
52
19
54
19
56
19
58
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
Per
cen
tile
Sh
are
U.S. Top 1% U.S. Top 0.1%
US Top 1%
US Top 0.1%
Income shares at the very top over last 100 years: US top 1% increases from 9% in 1978 to 22% in 2012
Source: Atkinson, Piketty & Saez; High Income Database
Two main ideas
• Different measures of inequality which must be looked at differently • Top income inequality, “Gini”, social mobility
• Innovation is a source of top income inequality which differs from other sources (entry barriers,..) • *Steve Jobs* versus *Carlos Slim*
Why innovation differs from other sources of top 1% increase?
• Generates growth (we know)
• But in addition, *we* show that: • Innovation generates temporary rents (imitation and creative destruction)
• Innovation enhances social mobility (creative destruction)
• Innovation does not increase broad inequality
Innovation and Top Income Inequality
Philippe Aghion (LSE)
Ufuk Akcigit (Chicago)
Antonin Bergeaud (LSE)
Richard Blundell (UCL)
David Hemous (Zurich)
By contrast, lobbying…
• Increases top income inequality
• Increases inequality at large
• Reduces social mobility
• Does not enhance growth
Lobbying VS Top1% (USA)
Lobbying VS GINI (USA)
Looking ahead
Growth meets development
• Hsieh and Klenow
• Akcigit, Alp and Peters
Link between the age and the size of firms
Distribution of firms productivity
Becoming an inventor
Becoming an inventor
• Akcigit, Toivanen, Vaananen (Finland)
• Bell, Chetty, Jaravel, Van Reenen (US)
Introduction
• Basic questions: 1. What determines who become inventors?
2. Income mobility of inventors versus non-inventors?
Probability of Becoming and Inventor: IQ
Probability of Becoming and Inventor
Probability of Becoming and Inventor
Probability of Becoming and Inventor
Probability of Becoming and Inventor
Conclusion
• We have proposed a new theory but also a new way to do growth theory, through continuous dialogue with micro-data
• Our purpose was both, to better understand the growth process and also to rethink growth policy
• Addressing growth enigmas is useful, not only to satisfy our scientific curiosity, but also for society