Article thumbnail

Growth and Technological Leadership in US Industries: A Spatial Econometric Analysis at the State Level, 1963-1997

By Valerien O. Pede, Raymond J.G.M. Florax and Henri L.F. de Groot


For several decades, cross-country analyses have dominated the literature on economic growth. Recently, these analyses have been extended to include sectoral variation as well as spatial variation across sub-national regions. This paper investigates economic growth and potential determinants of the process of catch-up to technology leaders for several economic sectors, using data for the lower 48 US states from 1963 through 1997. We analyze the potential influence of factors such as human capital, and geographical distance to the technology leader. A spatially explicit growth model in which technological progress is endogenously determined is used to model productivity growth in nine US industries, ranging from mining to government, and including a combined sector of totals. The results indicate that none of the sectors exhibits ó-convergence, but they all show strong evidence of â-convergence with a convergence club pattern that is apparent for the wholesale/retail sector. The catch-up effect to the technology leader dominates the growth process in almost all sectors, and it works through the interaction with human capital.regional economic growth, convergence, industry level, technological leadership, spatial econometrics, Industrial Organization, C21, I23, O33, R12,

OAI identifier:
Downloaded from

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles


  1. (2001). Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries: Comments” American Economic Review 91:1160–1167. 22 Table 1: Productivity Levels and Variation across States.
  2. (2001). Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries: Reply,” American Economic Review 91:1168–1169.
  3. (1995). Economic Growth”
  4. (1999). European Regional Growth: Do Sectors Matters?”
  5. F u e n t e , A . , X . V i v e s , J . D o l a d o a n d R . F a ini 1995. “Infrastructure and Education as Instruments of Regional Policy: Evidence from Spain” Economic Policy 10:11–51.
  6. (1963). Louisiana Wyoming North Dakota California Texas Mining
  7. (1991). Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models” Geographic Analysis 23:110–131.
  8. (2002). Regional Convergence: Evidence from a New Stateby-State Capital Stock Series” Review of Economics and Statistics 84:316–323.
  9. Sectors Beta Standard Rate of Error Convergence Mining -0.3810***
  10. (1995). Small Sample Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Regression Models.
  11. Table 3: Average Annual Growth Rate and Variation across States (percent), 1963–1997. All States Sectors Average Coefficient of Variation Mining
  12. (1994). The Role of Human Capital in Economic Development: Evidence from Aggregate Cross-Country Data”
  13. (2006). The Role of Knowledge Externalities in the Spatial Distribution of Economic Growth: A Spatial Econometric Analysis for US Counties, 1969–2003” Working paper,
  14. (2003). What Have We Learnt from the Convergence Debate?”