"The Productivity Convergence Debate: A Theoretical and Methodological Reconsideration"

Two fundamental issues have been ignored in the convergence debate which are addressed in this paper. First, there has been little attention paid to the development of a general model able to explain convergence a divergence. Second, in the rush to put data to a convergence hypothesis, researchers have failed to consider certain methodological procedures with respect to the treatment of capital. To remedy this problem we use an input-output approach to measure catch-up. To address the theoretical lacunae we present case studies of Portugal and Japan, two countries which by 1959 had attained the threshold level of development required to join the “convergence- club”, but which, for various historical (path-dependent) reasons, have diverged rapidly from each other in the period since the late 1950’s.

Institutions, Innovation and Economic Growth

This article contributes to the growth literature by developing a formal growth model that provides the basis for studying institutions and technological innovation and examining how human capital and institutional constraints affect the transitional and steady state growth rates of output. The model developed in this article shows that the reason that growth models a-la-Romer (1990) generate endogenous growth is the use of a set of restrictive and unrealistic assumptions regarding the role of institutions in the economy. The baseline model developed in this article shows that the long-run growth of the economy is intrinsically linked to institutions and suggests that an economy with institutions that retard or prevent the utilization of newly invented inputs will experience low levels and low growth rates of output. The model also predicts that countries with institutional barriers that prevent or restrict the adoption of newly invented technologies will allocate a relative small share of human capital in the R&D sector. Moreover, both the baseline and the extended version of the model suggest that sustainable growth in human capital, not an increase in the stock of human capital, generates a growth effect.Institutions; innovation; human capital; economic growth

Do Institutions Impact Innovation?

This paper contributes to the literature on institutions and economic growth by conducting an empirical examination on the links between innovation and institutions. Using cross-country data and the instrumental variable method, this study finds that institutional arrangements explain much of the variation on patent production across countries. We find evidence that control of corruption, market-friendly policies, protection of property rights and a more effective judiciary system boost an economy’s rate of innovation. Most of the previous literature on institutional and economic performance finds a positive association between institutions and levels of income and between institutions and the transitional growth rates of per capita income; however an unambiguous empirical association between institutions and the steady state growth has not yet been established. Based on the theoretical model developed by Tebaldi and Elmslie (2006), which shows that the impacts of institutions on innovation spillover to the growth rate of GDP per capita, this paper shows evidence of a growth effect through innovation, i.e., institutions have a growth effect on income because institutional quality affects an economy’s rate of innovation, the engine of economic growth. Moreover, this study finds that controlling for institutional quality; geographic-related variables are not significant in explaining patent production. This paper also finds evidence to support the idea that in the long-run human capital accumulation is an important variable in shaping institutions.Institutions, innovation, economic growth

Free Trade in a World of Internationally Mobile Technology: The Orthodoxy Then and Now

In a recent paper, Kemp and Shimomura extend the basic Heckscher-Ohlin model to show that no country has an incentive to hoard its technology. This basic result is not new. It was first shown by William Ellis in 1825. Ellis extended Ricardo's model to obtain the same free trade result. The history behind these similar theoretical developments is remarkably similar. These writers were responding to increased debates over the benefits of free trade when technologies are mobile between countries. The most widely accepted theoretical models of the time were extended so that policy discussions could be grounded in a strong theoretical base.Free Trade; Heckscher Ohlin; Technology; Trade

Institutions, Innovation and Economic Growth

This article contributes to the growth literature by developing a formal growth model that provides the basis for studying institutions and technological innovation and examining how human capital and institutional constraints affect the transitional and steady state growth rates of output. The model developed in this article shows that the reason that growth models a-la-Romer (1990) generate endogenous growth is the use of a set of restrictive and unrealistic assumptions regarding the role of institutions in the economy. The baseline model developed in this article shows that the long-run growth of the economy is intrinsically linked to institutions and suggests that an economy with institutions that retard or prevent the utilization of newly invented inputs will experience low levels and low growth rates of output. The model also predicts that countries with institutional barriers that prevent or restrict the adoption of newly invented technologies will allocate a relative small share of human capital in the R&D sector. Moreover, both the baseline and the extended version of the model suggest that sustainable growth in human capital, not an increase in the stock of human capital, generates a growth effect

Do Institutions Impact Innovation?

This paper contributes to the literature on institutions and economic growth by conducting an empirical examination on the links between innovation and institutions. Using cross-country data and the instrumental variable method, this study finds that institutional arrangements explain much of the variation on patent production across countries. We find evidence that control of corruption, market-friendly policies, protection of property rights and a more effective judiciary system boost an economy’s rate of innovation. Most of the previous literature on institutional and economic performance finds a positive association between institutions and levels of income and between institutions and the transitional growth rates of per capita income; however an unambiguous empirical association between institutions and the steady state growth has not yet been established. Based on the theoretical model developed by Tebaldi and Elmslie (2006), which shows that the impacts of institutions on innovation spillover to the growth rate of GDP per capita, this paper shows evidence of a growth effect through innovation, i.e., institutions have a growth effect on income because institutional quality affects an economy’s rate of innovation, the engine of economic growth. Moreover, this study finds that controlling for institutional quality; geographic-related variables are not significant in explaining patent production. This paper also finds evidence to support the idea that in the long-run human capital accumulation is an important variable in shaping institutions

Do Institutions Impact Innovation?

This paper contributes to the literature on institutions and economic growth by conducting an empirical examination on the links between innovation and institutions. Using cross-country data and the instrumental variable method, this study finds that institutional arrangements explain much of the variation on patent production across countries. We find evidence that control of corruption, market-friendly policies, protection of property rights and a more effective judiciary system boost an economy’s rate of innovation. Most of the previous literature on institutional and economic performance finds a positive association between institutions and levels of income and between institutions and the transitional growth rates of per capita income; however an unambiguous empirical association between institutions and the steady state growth has not yet been established. Based on the theoretical model developed by Tebaldi and Elmslie (2006), which shows that the impacts of institutions on innovation spillover to the growth rate of GDP per capita, this paper shows evidence of a growth effect through innovation, i.e., institutions have a growth effect on income because institutional quality affects an economy’s rate of innovation, the engine of economic growth. Moreover, this study finds that controlling for institutional quality; geographic-related variables are not significant in explaining patent production. This paper also finds evidence to support the idea that in the long-run human capital accumulation is an important variable in shaping institutions

The Productivity of Convergence Debate: A Theoretical and Methodological Reconsideration

While the debate over whether and why convergence between national productivity rates between countries over time has occurred is a lively one, the discussion has largely ignored two issues: the development of a generalized theoretical model of cross-country growth patterns that could explain convergence or divergence, and disregard of alternative, well-established methodologies to measure convergence in favor of the mainstream, neoclassical model, which is argued to have problems with respect to the "operationalization of the concept of capital." Elmslie and Milberg attempt to remedy the situation by first providing an examination of the convergence debate based on an input-output analysis, and then employing an historical/institutionalist framework to explain the current wide disparities in the rates of convergence found between two countries—Japan and Portugal—that had, at one point in time, been on a similar convergence paths but that experienced two different futures.

Prevalence and architecture of de novo mutations in developmental disorders.

The genomes of individuals with severe, undiagnosed developmental disorders are enriched in damaging de novo mutations (DNMs) in developmentally important genes. Here we have sequenced the exomes of 4,293 families containing individuals with developmental disorders, and meta-analysed these data with data from another 3,287 individuals with similar disorders. We show that the most important factors influencing the diagnostic yield of DNMs are the sex of the affected individual, the relatedness of their parents, whether close relatives are affected and the parental ages. We identified 94 genes enriched in damaging DNMs, including 14 that previously lacked compelling evidence of involvement in developmental disorders. We have also characterized the phenotypic diversity among these disorders. We estimate that 42% of our cohort carry pathogenic DNMs in coding sequences; approximately half of these DNMs disrupt gene function and the remainder result in altered protein function. We estimate that developmental disorders caused by DNMs have an average prevalence of 1 in 213 to 1 in 448 births, depending on parental age. Given current global demographics, this equates to almost 400,000 children born per year