Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:11:39.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological Shocks and IT Revolutions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Raouf Boucekkine ,
David de la Croix  and
Yiannis Vailakis
Raouf Boucekkine
Affiliation:
IRES, Université catholique de Louvain
David de la Croix
Affiliation:
FNRS and IRES, Université catholique de Louvain
Yiannis Vailakis
Affiliation:
IRES, Université catholique de Louvain
Get access

Summary

We investigate and interpret some of the properties of a multi-sectoral growth model with endogenous embodied technical change in the light of the ongoing debate on the viability of an IT based growth regime. In particular, we illustrate the two main views of the 1995-2000 IT boom in the USA. If it only comes from productivity gains in the production of hardware and/or softwares, and even though these gains are permanent, the story could be just one of temporary massive capital deepening and no long term growth effect. In contrast, if this boom relies on productivity gains in R&D, there is room for a permanent IT growth regime associated with a permanent accumulation of both hardware and software.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous étudions et interprétons les propriétés d’un modèle de croissance multi-sectoriel avec progrès technique incorporé à la lumière du débat actuel sur la viabilité d’un régime de croissance tiré par les technologies de l’information. En particulier, nous illustrons deux interprétations concurrentes du boom de l’économie américaine dans la période 1995-2000. Si ce boom ne découle que de gains de productivité dans les secteur du hardware et/ou du software, alors l’épisode 1995-2000 pourrait se résumer à une accumulation massive de capital (notamment de hardware et de software) sans effet permanent sur la croissance. Au contraire, si le boom provient de gains de productivité durables en R&D, alors un régime de croissance permanent tiré par les technologies de l’information est possible, associé à une accumulation permanente de hardware et de software.

Keywords

Information technologyVintage capitalEmbodied technological progressEndogenous growthE22E32O40C63Technologies de l’informationGénération de capitalProgrès technique incorporéCroissance endogèneE22E32O40C63
Type
I. Macroeconomics and National Accounting
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 68 , Special Issue 1-2: The New Economy: Implications and Viability , 2002 , pp. 75 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2002 

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.)

Footnotes

*

The financial support of the ARC program “Growth and Incentive Design” is gratefully acknowledged.

**

IRES, Université catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu, 3, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. E-mail : boucekkine@ires.ucl.ac.be.

***

E-mail : delacroix@ires.ucl.ac.be.

References

Boucekkine, R. and de la Croix, D. (2001), “Information technologies, embodiment and growth”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Boucekkine, R., del Rio, F. and Licandro, O. (1999), “The Importance of the Embodied Question Revisited”, Discussion Paper 99–26, IRES-Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
del Río, F. (1999), Competencia Monopolística en Modelos de Generaciones Solapadas y Progreso Técnico Incorporado en Modelos de Generaciones de Capital, Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. (2000), “Does the “New Economy” Measure up to the Great Inventions of the Past?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, 49–74.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. (1999), “Has the “New Economy” Rendered the Productivity Slowdown Obsolete?”, Mimeo, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. (1990), The Measurement of Durable Goods Prices, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z. and Krusell, P. (1997), “Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change”, American Economic Review 87, 342–362.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J., and Yorukoglu, M. (1997), “1974” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 46, 49–95.Google Scholar
Juillard, M. (1996), “DYNARE, a Program for the Resolution of Nonlinear Models with Forward-Looking Variables. Release 2.1”, CEPREMAP.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, D. and Stiroh, K. (1999), “Information Technology and Growth”, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89, 109–115.Google Scholar
Krusell, P. (1998), “Investment-Specific R&D and the Decline in the Relative Price of Capital”, Journal of Economic Growth 3, 131–141.Google Scholar
Quah, D. (1999), “The Weightless Economy in Growth”, The Business Economist 30, 40–53.Google Scholar
Rivera-Batiz, L. and Romer, P. (1991), “Economic integration and endogenous growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 531–556.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1987), “Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization”, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 77, 56–72.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy 98, S71–S102.Google Scholar
Segerstrom, P. (1990), “Intel Economics”, Mimeo, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden.Google Scholar
Solow, R. (1960), “Investment and Technological Progress” in Arrow, K. Karlin, S. and Suppes, P., Eds., Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences 1959, Stanford University Press, 89–104.Google Scholar
Whelan, K. (2000), “Computers, Obsolescence, and Productivity”, Mimeo, Federal Reserve Board, Division of Research and Statistics.Google Scholar