Intangible Capital, Barriers to Technology Adoption and Cross-Country Income Differences

I add intangible capital to a variant of the neoclassical growth model and study the implications of this extension for cross-country income differences. I calibrate the parameters associated with intangible capital by using new estimates of investment in intangibles by Corrado et al. [2006]. I find that the addition of intangible capital significantly improves the model's ability to account for cross-country income differences. Specifically, when intangible capital is added to the model, the required TFP ratio to explain observed income differences falls from 4.05 to 2.97. I also study variants of the model with endogenous and exogenous barriers to accumulation of technology capital, which consists of intangible capital and a fraction of physical capital that embodies technology. The addition of endogenous barriers, for reasonable parameter values, has a very small positive effect on the ability of the model to account for income differences. The addition of exogenous barriers suggests that huge cross-country differences in such barriers are needed to generate the observed income differences.Cross-country Income Differences; Intangible Capital; Technology Adoption

A note on the transitional behavior of the saving rate in the neo-classical growth model (the Cobb-Douglas case)

In this short note I clarify two features of Figure 2.3 in Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004). The figure, as it appeared in the first and second editions of the book, is confusing if not wrong. I hope this note will serve as a corrigendum to the figure.Transition dynamics; Saving rate; Neo-classical growth model

Intangible Capital and International Income Differences

I add intangible capital to a variant of the neoclassical growth model and study the implications for cross-country income differences. I calibrate the parameters associated with intangible capital by using new estimates of investment in intangibles by Corrado et al. (2006). When intangible capital is added to the model, the TFP elasticity of output increases from 2.14 to 2.64. This finding implies that the addition of intangible capital increases the ability of the neoclassical growth model to explain international income differences by more than a factor of two.International Income Differences; Intangible Capital

A note on the transitional behavior of the saving rate in the neo-classical growth model (the Cobb-Douglas case)

In this short note I clarify two features of Figure 2.3 in Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004). The figure, as it appeared in the first and second editions of the book, is confusing if not wrong. I hope this note will serve as a corrigendum to the figure

Market Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry

We study the relationship between market structure and innovation in the global automobile industry from 1982 to 2004 using the dynamic industry framework of Ericson and Pakes (1995). Firms optimally choose a continuous level of innovation in a strategic and forward-looking manner, while anticipating the possibility of future mergers. We show that our estimated model predicts the data well and that changes in the modeling assumptions have a predictable effect on the key dynamic parameter -- the cost of innovation. In terms of the relationship between market structure and innovation, we find that: (1) At the firm level, there is a weakly positive relationship between a firm's price-cost margin and its innovation intensity; (2) There is no relationship between competition and innovation at the industry level in the steady state. As the industry goes through a consolidation phase, the relationship is negative if competition is measured by the inverse of markups and positive if it is measured by the inverse of concentration; (3) A key determinant of a firm's innovation intensity is its relative position in the industry in terms of knowledge stock.

Replication data for: Competition and Innovation: The Inverted-U Relationship Revisited

N/

AUTOREGRESSIVE CONDITIONAL SKEWNESS

Master'sMASTER OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

Intangible Capital, Barriers to Technology Adoption and Cross-Country Income Differences

I add intangible capital to a variant of the neoclassical growth model and study the implications of this extension for cross-country income differences. I calibrate the parameters associated with intangible capital by using new estimates of investment in intangibles by Corrado et al. [2006]. I find that the addition of intangible capital significantly improves the model’s ability to account for cross-country income differences. Specifically, when intangible capital is added to the model, the required TFP ratio to explain observed income differences falls from 4.05 to 2.97. I also study variants of the model with endogenous and exogenous barriers to accumulation of technology capital, which consists of intangible capital and a fraction of physical capital that embodies technology. The addition of endogenous barriers, for reasonable parameter values, has a very small positive effect on the ability of the model to account for income differences. The addition of exogenous barriers suggests that huge cross-country differences in such barriers are needed to generate the observed income differences