The production recipes approach to modeling technological innovation: An application to learning by doing
Introduction
According to neoclassical theory, a production plan is merely a point in input–output space. The neoclassical theory has been extended to accommodate intertemporal features such as the variability over time of factor supplies, uncertainty about the production process, and uncertainty about prices. The neoclassical theory of production is not, however, fully dynamic since it does not provide a microeconomic basis for explaining technological evolution due to (for example) learning by doing, education and training, research and development, or technology transfer.
In this regard, macroeconomics is ahead of its microeconomic foundations. In his celebrated article on learning by doing, Arrow (1962) accounts for the observed fact that unit production costs can fall even in the absence of capital accumulation and R&D effort. Arrow attributes the increased productivity to learning by doing on the shop floor by production workers and managers. Arrow models learning by doing as a positive macroeconomic production externality: increases in ‘manufacturing experience’ – as measured (for example) by cumulative gross investment – lead to increased productivity. Several other macro models of technological progress are based on some production externality. See, for example, Shell (1967), Clemhout and Wan (1970), Stokey (1988), Romer (1990), and Lucas (1993).
Another class of (not unrelated) macro models of technological evolution is based on non-conventional factors of production. Uzawa (1965) introduced in a simple growth model human capital, the stock of which can be increased by devoting resources to education. In the hands of Lucas (1988), Caballe and Santos (1993) and others, this human-capital model (with clearly modelled externalities) has become a staple for analyzing productivity growth. Shell 1966, Shell 1967, Shell 1973 and Romer 1986, Romer 1990 introduced into growth theory the macro variable technological knowledge. The Shell–Romer theory combines technological knowledge (or the stock of patents) with production externalities and increasing returns to scale to analyze the role of industrial organization in growth, the dependence of growth on initial conditions, and other important macro problems.1
Macroeconomic models based on production externalities and/or nonconventional inputs have been useful in raising important issues about public policy toward technology and in explaining observed increases in aggregate output, but the inadequacy of the microeconomic foundations of these models is a serious problem for the theory of production. In the present paper, we put forward some key elements of a microeconomic theory of technological evolution. To the existing (or currently available) technologies of neoclassical production theory, we add nascent technologies, which include both undiscovered technologies and forgotten technologies.2
The reader might be skeptical about any modeling of undiscovered technologies. While existing technologies can be verified by current engineering practice, undiscovered technologies cannot. On the other hand, practicing production engineers and business managers are not reluctant to base important business decisions on forecasts of technological progress in the firm's manufacturing operations. In fact, one of the most reliable analytic tools in production management is the engineering experience curve (or learning curve), which projects existing unit production costs for a given product into its future unit production costs. Among production engineers, marketing managers, business executives, and even corporate directors, empirical learning curves are far better known and more frequently used than are empirical production functions or empirical cost functions.
The most important new idea in the present paper is in our description of the production plan. To the usual input–output specification, we add a description of the underlying engineering recipe employed. Describing how one recipe is related to another then should allow one to build models that suggest which types of technologies are likely to be uncovered in the course of ordinary shop floor operations (learning by doing), which R&D programs are most likely to be successful, which types of technologies are ripe for transfer from one firm (or economy) to another, and so forth. Inspiration for our production recipes approach can be found in Nelson and Phelps (1966) and Nelson and Winter (1982). Inspiration for the nascent technology approach can be found in the separate and distinct works of Shell (1973) and Kauffman (1988).
We assume that a production recipe is described by a vector of basic production operations such as heating, mixing, stirring, shaping, boxing, internal factory transportation, and so forth. For given outputs, the input requirements for each of the operations depends on the instruction (or setting) given for that operation and the instructions given for some of the other operations. Hence we allow for production externalities within the firm.3 These intrafirm production externalities4 are crucial to our analysis.
As a specific application of our (more general) production recipes approach (along with our nascent technology approach), we construct a simple model of shop-floor learning by doing. The modeled interrelationships among the recipes (and hence the technologies) are relatively sophisticated. Other aspects of the model are relatively simple. We assume that the firm employs a single input to produce a single output and that, for a given fixed recipe, this process entails constant returns to scale. We also assume that the firm's output stream is predetermined. We allow for deviations from the currently reigning technology, but we assume that such production trials (or errors) are not directly controlled by the firm. We assume that a newly discovered recipe is either accepted or rejected merely on the basis of current cost efficiency relative to that of the reigning technology.
These strong assumptions allow us to employ a variant of Kauffman's NK model5 to analyze the dynamics of manufacturing costs. The NK model was originally designed for analyzing asexual biological evolution. In the evolutionary biology interpretation, it is assumed that the ‘fitness’ of a creature can be represented by a scalar. The corresponding assumptions for learning by doing are the single output, the single input, and constant returns to scale, which together allow the scalar ‘fitness’ to be replaced by the scalar ‘current technological efficiency’ (the inverse of current unit production cost). In the first interpretation, it is assumed that genetic changes occur at random and that fitter creatures immediately replace less fit ones. In the present interpretation, the corresponding assumptions are that shop-floor trials take place at random and that the reigning recipe is replaced by the new recipe if and only if the new recipe is more efficient in the short run, i.e. recipe selection is myopic.
In Section 2, we introduce nascent technologies and production recipes. In Section 3, we use the recipes model to construct a model of learning by doing. In Section 4, we review the existing empirical literature on engineering experience curves. In Section 5, we do the comparative dynamics for the model of learning by doing, and relate the predictions of this model to the observations. By correctly choosing the basic parameters of the model, we are able to match the basic statistics and important qualitative phenomena from observed experience curves – including the mean progress ratios (an inverse measure of the slope of the experience curve) and their standard deviations, plateauing (runs without improvements), curvature bias, and sensitivity to the length of the production run. In Section 6, we provide a summary and our conclusions.
Section snippets
Neoclassical production theory
The neoclassical economic theory of production6 is a reduced-form model of existing technological possibilities. Each firm is endowed with a technology set – a set of technologically feasible input–output combinations. These technology sets are assumed to be fixed parameters of the neoclassical economy.
A simple example with one input and one output is described in Fig. 1. A neoclassical
Hardware, software, and strategy
We performed our computations26 on a Dell Dimension XPS Pro 200 PC with a Pentium Pro 200 MHz processor running Windows 95 (ver.4.00.950 B). The core program used in our simulations was written by Bennett Levitan, building on work by William Macready and Terry Jones. We performed our regressions, computed the summary statistics, and generated the plots with SPSS Windows ver. 7.5 and
Summary and conclusions
To account for the effects of technological evolution, macroeconomists rely on models with interfirm production externalities and non-conventional factors of production (such as human capital and technological knowledge). In this regard, macro has gone beyond its micro foundations. Our primary goal for this paper is to suggest a general micro approach for modeling technological evolution, viz. to provide an explicit description of the engineering recipe and then to model both the relationship
For further reading
Bahk and Gort, 1993
Acknowledgements
We dedicate this paper to Ken Arrow and Bob Solow. We gratefully acknowledge the research support of the Santa Fe Institute and the following at Cornell University: National Science Foundation Grant SES-9012780, the Thorne Fund, the Center for Analytic Economics, and the Center for Applied Mathematics. We have benefitted from the good advice and thoughtful comments of many colleagues including: Ken Arrow, Yves Balasko, Will Baumol, Larry Blume, Michael Cohen, Guido Cozzi, Avinash Dixit, Rick
References (65)
Patents, learning by doing, and market structure in the chemical processing industries
International Journal of Industrial Organization
(1987)On the mechanics of economic development
Journal of Monetary Economics
(1988)- Abernathy, W.J., Wayne, K., 1974. Limits of the learning curve. Harvard Business Review, September–October...
- Aghion, P., Howitt, P., 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory, MIT Press,...
Reliability of progress curves in airframe production
Econometrica
(1963)- et al.
Learning curves in manufacturing
Science
(1990) The economic implications of learning by doing
Review of Economic Studies
(1962)- Arrow, K.J., Hahn, F., 1971. General Competitive Analysis. Holden-Day, San Francisco,...
- Auerswald, P., 1999. Organizational learning, intrafirm externalities and industry evolution. Ph.D. Thesis, University...
- et al.
Decomposing learning by doing in new plants
Journal of Political Economy
(1993)
Extension of the learning curve – some empirical results
Operational Research Quarterly
On endogenous growth with physical and human capital
Journal of Political Economy
Engineering production functions
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Experience curves as a planning tool
IEEE Spectrum
The manufacturing progress function
Journal of Industrial Engineering
Treating progress functions as a managerial opportunity
Academy of Management Review
Random economies with many interacting agents
Journal of Mathematical Economics
Cited by (104)
Entrepreneurial opportunity and related specialization in economic ecosystems
2022, Research PolicyGrowing through endogenous innovation cycles
2022, Journal of MacroeconomicsCitation Excerpt :Thus, we introduce the learning-by-doing effect in the full model. Unlike some famous growth studies that rely on the general learning-by-doing effect, which is an alternative to innovation in explaining economic growth (Romer, 1986 and Lucas, 1988), some recent studies find that the learning-by-doing effect also exists in the R&D sector, and they model it into R&D activities (Auerswald et al., 2000; Lee, 2012). Our model follows this approach: The learning-by-doing effect increases productivity when R&D firms develop new ideas and create new blueprints.
The influence of motivational factors on ongoing product design decisions
2021, Journal of Business ResearchDecision making on fitness landscapes
2017, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications