Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:10:43.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NOTE ON SKILL-STRUCTURE SHOCKS, THE SHARE OF THE HIGH-TECH SECTOR, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH DYNAMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2016

Pedro Mazeda Gil ,
Oscar Afonso  and
Paulo B. Vasconcelos
Pedro Mazeda Gil*
Affiliation:
University of Porto and CEF.UP
Oscar Afonso
Affiliation:
University of Porto and CEF.UP
Paulo B. Vasconcelos
Affiliation:
University of Porto and CMUP
*
Address correspondence to: Pedro Mazeda Gil, Faculty of Economics and CEF.UP, University of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias, 4200-464, Porto, Portugal; e-mail: pgil@fep.up.pt.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By means of an endogenous growth model of directed technical change with vertical and horizontal R&D, we study a transitional-dynamics mechanism that is consistent with the changes in the shares of the high- versus the low-tech sectors found in recent European data. Under the hypothesis of a positive shock in the proportion of high-skilled labor, the technological-knowledge bias channel leads to unbalanced sectoral growth with a noticeable shift of resources across sectors. A calibration exercise suggests that the model is able to account for up to from 50 to about 100 percent of the increase in the share of the high-tech sector observed in the data from 1995 to 2007. However, the model predicts that the dynamics of the share of the high-tech sector has no significant impact on the dynamics of the economic growth rate.

Keywords

Industry DynamicsHigh TechLow TechDirected Technical ChangeEconomic Growth
Type
Notes
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 20 , Issue 7 , October 2016 , pp. 1906 - 1923
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D. and Zilibotti, F. (2001) Productivity differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2), 563–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afonso, O. and Thompson, M. (2011) Costly investment, complementarities and the skill premium. Economic Modelling 28, 2254–2262.Google Scholar
Barro, R. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004) Economic Growth, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barro, R.J. and Lee, J.-W. (2010) A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010. NBER working paper 15902, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Brito, P. (2004) Local Dynamics for Four-Dimensional Models: A Complete Characterization. Mimeo, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Eicher, T. and Turnovsky, S. (2001) Transitional dynamics in a two-sector non-scale growth model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25, 85–113.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010) Europe 2020—A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Discussion paper, Communication from the Commission.Google Scholar
Geroski, P. (1995) What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization 13, 421–440.Google Scholar
Gil, P.M., Afonso, O., and Vasconcelos, P. (2015) Skill-structure shocks, the share of the high-tech sector and economic growth dynamics. FEP Working Papers 554, 1–47.Google Scholar
Gil, P.M., Brito, P., and Afonso, O. (2013) Growth and firm dynamics with horizontal and vertical R&D. Macroeconomic Dynamics 17 (7), 1438–1466.Google Scholar
Hatzichronoglou, T. (1997) Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification. OECD/STI working paper 2, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Johansson, B., Karlsson, C., Backman, M., and Juusola, P. (2007) The Lisbon Agenda from 2000 to 2010. CESIS Electronic working paper, 106, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
King, R.B. (2000) Beyond the Quartic Equation, Modern Birkhauser reprint ed. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Ngai, R. and Pissarides, C. (2007) Structural change in a multi-sector model of growth. American Economic Review 97 (1), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar