Abstract
The twentieth century was a period of exceptional growth, driven mainly by the increase in total factor productivity (TFP). Using a database of 17 OECD countries over the 1890–2013 period, this paper integrates production factor quality into the measure of TFP, namely by factoring the level of education of the working-age population into the measure of labor and the age of equipment in the measure of capital stock. We then estimate how the diffusion of technology impacts the growth of this newly measured TFP through two emblematic general purpose technologies, electricity and information and communication technologies (ICT). Using growth decomposition methodology from instrumental variable estimates, this paper finds that education levels contribute most significantly to growth, while the age of capital makes a limited, although significant, contribution. Quality-adjusted production factors explain less than half of labor productivity growth in the largest countries except for Japan, where capital deepening posted a very large contribution. As a consequence, the “one big wave” of productivity growth (Gordon in Am Econ Rev 89(2):123–128, 1999), as well as the ICT productivity wave for the countries which experienced it, remains only partially explained by quality-adjusted factors, although education and technology diffusion contribute to explain the earlier wave in the USA in the 1930s–1940s. Finally, technology diffusion, as captured through our two general purpose technologies, leaves unexplained between 0.6 and 1 percentage point of yearly growth, as well as a large proportion of the two twentieth-century technology waves. These results both support a significant lag in the diffusion of general purpose technologies and raise further questions on a wider view on growth factors, including changes in the production process, management techniques and financing practices. Measurement problems may also contribute to the unexplained share of growth.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All these figures come from sources that will be detailed below and are used throughout the paper.
Basu and Fernald (2002) show that imperfections and frictions in output and factor markets matter in the relation between aggregate technology and aggregate productivity. For example, with heterogeneous firm markups, the same resources may be valued differently in different uses. Then, “reallocating resources toward more socially valued uses raises aggregate productivity, without necessarily reflecting changes in technology.” Citation from page 964 of Basu and Fernald (2002). Edquist (2001) raises the question of the role of innovation policy with respect to technology diffusion.
“[T]he rise of China, India and other emerging economy countries, [is] likely [to] impl[y] rapid growth in world researchers for at least several decades.” Citation from page 48 of Fernald and Jones (2014).
The calculation starts with primary school and does not include kindergarten or any other type of education received before 6.
In our model, depreciation of each element of capital follows a geometric distribution where the probability of depreciation is \(\delta\). This distribution is memoryless, that is, the probability of depreciation is independent of the age of capital, and the average life expectancy of capital is then equal to \(\frac{1}{\delta }\).
In practice, we compute G by taking the average of the growth rate of GDP over 10 years. This relationship makes a strong assumption, but the initial stock of capital is computed years before 1890, which is the first year in this study. The empirical impact of this simplification is then of minor importance in the age of capital evaluation.
As raised in Psacharopoulos (1994), this return can be higher in other regions of the world (12.4 % in Latin America, 13.4 % in sub-Saharan Africa and 9.6 % in Asia).
Over the long run, the ratio of capital to output is very stable, as seen in Madsen (2010a). Such stability is consistent with the idea that the saving rate results from aggregated individual preferences that are quite constant over time.
A reverse impact could come from a learning by doing effect: firms may manage to use a capital vintage better as it ages. Our estimates encompass this effect, which appears not to be predominant.
The effect of the age of the capital stock on productivity is of course negative. We will, however, present the effect in absolute value terms in the following paragraphs to better relate it to the value of ε, which is positive.
The dependent variable shows very strong autocorrelation of degree one which disappears when looking at longer lags. We thus check that our results are still valid when autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity robust standard errors using the Newey–West variance estimator are implemented (of course this does not affect the coefficients).
For these columns and for all the others, we include time and country fixed effects and remove war periods.
Capital stock is constructed from investment which is included in GDP, so any measurement error in investment would impact both labor productivity and capital intensity.
The waves presented in Figs. 3 and 6 have been computed by removing the cyclical component of our time series using a HP filter with a coefficient of 500. The choice of this coefficient has been made to better capture 30-year-long business cycles, consistent with Norbert (2006). On these aspects, see Bergeaud et al. (2015).
When data were missing, we have interpolated them with the production of CO2 emissions from the Global Carbon Project.
When all countries are included (and when we only estimate the effect on electricity), the coefficients remain extremely stable.
Small variations in this starting date do not affect our results; we do, however, believe that 1905 is a good starting point at the end of the first industrial revolution since from Fig. 4 we can see that it is the beginning of the surge in electricity production in the USA. Results are also robust to starting the estimations in 1895 or 1913.
References
Abramovitz M, David P (1995) Convergence and deferred catch-up productivity leadership and the waning of American Exceptionalism. In: Landau R, Taylor T, Wright G (eds) Growth and development: the economics of the 21st century. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA
Acemoglu D (1998) Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality. Q J Econ 113(4):1055–1089
Acemoglu D (2002) Directed technical change. Rev Econ Stud 69(4):781–809
Angrist J, Krueger A (1991) Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings? Q J Econ 106(4):979–1014
Bakker, G, Crafts N, Woltjer P (2015) A vision of the growth process in a technologically progressive economy: the United States, 1899–1941. CAGE online working paper series 257. Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE)
Barro R (1991) Economic growth in a cross section of counties. Q J Econ 106(2):407–443
Barro R (2015) Convergence and modernization. Econ J 125:911–942
Barro R, Lee J-W (1993) International comparisons of educational attainment. J Monet Econ 32(3):363–394
Barro R, Lee J-W (2010) A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. NBER working papers 15902. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Barro RJ, Lee JW (2013) A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950– 2010. J Dev Econ 104:184–198
Barro R, Lee J-W (2015) Education matters: global schooling gains from the 19th to the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New York
Basu S, Fernald J (2002) Aggregate productivity and aggregate technology. Eur Econ Rev 46:963–991
Basu S, Fernald J (2007) Information and communications technology as a general-purpose technology: evidence from US industry data. Ger Econ Rev 8:146–173
Baumol W (1986) Productivity growth, convergence and welfare: what the long-run data show? Am Econ Rev 76:1072–1085
Benhabib J, Spiegel M (1994) The role of human capital in economic development evidence from aggregate cross-country data. J Monet Econ 34(2):143–173
Beretti P-A, Cette G (2009) Indirect ICT investment. Appl Econ Lett 16:1713–1716
Bergeaud A, Cette G, Lecat R (2015) GDP per capita over the 20th century in advanced countries. Working papers no 549, Banque de France
Bergeaud A, Cette G, Lecat R (2016) Productivity trends from 1890 to 2012 in advanced countries. Rev Income Wealth 62(3):420–444
Bils M, Klenow P (2000) Does schooling cause growth? Am Econ Rev 90(5):1160–1183
Bloom N, Lemos R, Sadun R, Scur D, Van Reenen J (2014) Jeea-Fbbva Lecture 2013: the new empirical economics of management. J Eur Econ Assoc 12(4):835–876
Bolt J, van Zanden JL (2014) The Maddison Project: collaborative research on historical national accounts. Econ Hist Rev 67(3):627–651
Bresnahan T, Trajtenberg M (1995) General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth? J Econom 65(1):83–108
Broadberry S, Crafts N (1990) Explaining Anglo-American productivity differences in the mid-twentieth century. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 52(4):375–402
Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2014) The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. Springer, New York
Card D (1999) The causal effect of education on earnings, chapter 30. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1801–1863
Cervellati, M, Murtin F, Sunde U (2013) Unified growth empirics: 1880–2000. Mimeo
Cette G, Kocoglu Y, Mairesse J (2009) Productivity growth and levels in France, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States in the twentieth century. NBER working paper no 15577
Cette G (2014) Does ICT remain a powerful engine of growth? Rev Econ Politique 124(4):473–492
Cette G, Lopez J (2012) ICT demand behaviour: an international comparison. Econ Innov New Technol 21(4):397–410
Cette G, Szpiro D (1989) Une interprétation du ralentissement de la productivité industrielle au moment du second choc pétrolier. Econ Prévision 87(1989–1):33–42
Cette G, Mairesse J, Kokoglu Y (2005) ICT and potential output growth. Econ Lett 87(2):231–234
Cette G, Clerc C, Bresson L (2015) Contribution of ICT diffusion to labour productivity growth: the United States, Canada, the Eurozone, and the United Kingdom, 1970–2013. Int Product Monit 28:81
Clark P (1979) Issues in the analysis of capital formation and productivity growth. Brookings Pap Econ Act 2:423–431
Cohen D, Soto M (2007) Growth and human capital: good data, good results. J Econ Growth 12(1):51–76
Comin D, Hobijn B (2009) The CHAT dataset. Harvard Business School working papers 10-035. Harvard Business School
Comin D, Hobijn B (2010) Technology diffusion and postwar growth. Working paper, no 11-027. Harvard Business School
Comin D, Mestieri M (2013) If technology has arrived everywhere, why has income diverged? TSE working papers 13-409. Toulouse School of Economics (TSE)
Comin D, Hobijn B, Rovito E (2006a) Five facts you need to know about technology diffusion. NBER working papers series, no 11928
Comin D, Hobijn B, Rovito E (2006b) World technology usage lags. NBER working papers series, no 12677
Crafts N (2002) The Solow productivity paradox in historical perspective. CEPR, Discussion Paper Series, no 3142, January
Crafts N, O’Rourke K (2013) Twentieth century growth. Oxford University Economic and Social History Series _117, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford
David PA (1990) The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 80:355–361
de la Fuente A (2011) Human capital and productivity. UFAE and IAE working papers 860.11. Unitat de Fonaments de l’Analisi Economica (UAB) and Institut d’Analisi Economica (CSIC)
Devereux P, Fan W (2011) Earnings returns to the British education expansion. Econ Educ Rev 30(6):1153–1166
Dickson M, Smith S (2011) What determines the return to education: an extra year or hurdle cleared? The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 11/256, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK
Eaton J, Kortum S (1999) International technology diffusion: theory and measurement. Int Econ Rev 40:537–570
Edquist C (2001) Innovation policy in the systems of innovation approach: some basic principles, chapter 3. In: Fischher M, Fröhlich J (eds) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 46–57
Ferguson R, Wascher W (2004) Distinguished lecture on economics in government: lessons from past productivity booms. J Econ Perspect 18(2):3–28
Fernald JG, Jones CI (2014) The Future of US Economic Growth. Am Econ Rev, Am Econ Assoc 104(5):44–49
Field A (2003) The most technologically progressive decade of the century. Am Econ Rev 93(4):1399–1413
Galor O (2005) From stagnation to growth: unified growth theory, chapter 4. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 1, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 171–293
Gittleman M, Ten Raa T, Wolff E (2003) The vintage effect in TFP growth: an analysis of the age structure of capital. NBER working papers 9768. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Goldin C, Katz LF (1997) Why the United States led in education: lessons from secondary school expansion, 1910 to 1940. NBER working papers 6144. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Goldin C, Katz LF (1998) Human capital and social capital: the rise of secondary schooling in America, 1910 to 1940. NBER working papers 6439, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Gordon R (1990) The measurement of durable goods prices. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Gordon R (1999) US economic growth since 1970: one big wave? Am Econ Rev 89(2):123–128
Gordon R (2012) Is US economic growth over? Faltering innovation confronts the six headwinds. NBER working papers 18315. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Gordon R (2013) US productivity growth: the slowdown has returned after a temporary revival. Int Product Monit 25:13–19
Gordon R (2014) The demise of US economic growth: restatement, rebuttal, and reflections. NBER working papers, no 19895. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Hall R, Jones C (1999) Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Q J Econ 114(1):83–116
Hanushek E, Ludger W (2012) Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Munich Reprints in Economics 20400, University of Munich, Department of Economics
Helpman E, Trajtenberg M (1998) Diffusion of general purpose technologies. In: Helpman E (ed) General purpose technologies and economic growth. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hulten CR (2000) Total factor productivity: a short biography. NBER working paper, no 7471
Jalava J, Pohjola M (2008) The roles of electricity and ICT in economic growth: case Finland. Explor Econ Hist 45:270–287
Jorgenson D (1963) Capital theory and investment behavior. Am Econ Rev 53(2):247–259
Jorgenson D (1966) The embodiment hypothesis. J Polit Econ LXXIV(1):1–17
Jorgenson D (2001) Information technology and the US economy. Am Econ Rev 91(1)
Jorgenson D, Griliches Z (1967) The explanation of productivity change. Rev Econ Stud 34:349–383
Jorgenson D, Stiroh K (2000) Raising the speed limit: US economic growth in the information age. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1(2000):125–211
Jovanovic B, Rousseau PL (2005) General purpose technologies, chapter 18. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 1B. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Kander A, Enflo K, Schön L (2007) In defense of electricity as a general purpose technology. Papers in innovation studies 2007/6. Lund University, CIRCLE—Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy
Klein R, Vella F (2009) Estimating the return to endogenous schooling decisions via conditional second moments. J Hum Resour 44(4):1047–1065
Krueger A, Lindahl M (2001) Education for growth: why and for whom? J Econ Lit 39(4):1101–1136
Kyriacou G (1991) Level and growth effects of human capital: a cross-country study of the convergence hypothesis. Working papers 91-26. C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University
Lipsey R, Carlaw K, Bekar C (2005) Economic transformations: general purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lucas R (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monet Econ 22(1):3–42
Maddison A (2001) The world economy: a millennium perspective. Development centre studies. Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Madsen J (2010a) Growth and capital deepening since 1870: is it all technological progress? J Macroecon 32:641–656
Madsen J (2010b) The anatomy of growth in the OECD since 1870. J Monet Econ 57(6):753–767
Madsen J (2014) Human capital and the world technology frontier. Rev Econ Stat 96(3):676–692
Madsen J, Farhadi M (2016) International technology spillovers and growth over the past 142 years: the role of genetic proximity. Economica. doi:10.1111/ecca.12202
Mairesse J (1977) Deux essais d’estimation du taux moyen de progrès technique incorporé au capital. In : Annales de l’INSEE, No 28, October–December, pp 41–76
Mairesse J (1978) New estimates of embodied and disembodied technical progress. In: Annales de l’INSEE, No 30–31, April–September, pp 681–720
Mairesse J, Pescheux J-M (1980) Fonction de production et mesure du capital: La robustesse des estimations. In : Annales de l’INSEE, No 38–39, April–September, pp 63–75
Mankiw G, Romer D, Weil David (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q J Econ 107(2):407–437
Mitchell B (1998a) The Americas, 1750–1993. International historical statistics, 4th edn. Stockton Press, New York
Morrisson C, Murtin F (2009) The Century of Education. J Hum Cap 3(1):1–42
Mincer J (1974) Schooling, Experience, and Earnings. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., MA, USA
Mitchell B (1998b) Europe, 1750–1993. International historical statistics, 4th edn. Stockton Press
Nelson R (1964) Aggregate production function and medium-range growth projections. Am Econ Rev 54(5):575–606
Norbert K (2006) Long waves of economic development and the diffusion of general-purpose technologies: the case of railway networks. HWWI Research Papers 1-1, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI)
Oliner S, Sichel D (2000) The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: is information technology the story? J Econ Perspect 14(4):3–22
Oliner S, Sichel D, Stiroh K (2007) Explaining a productive decade. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1(2007):81–152
Prados de la Escosura L (2015) Mismeasuring long-run growth: the bias from splicing national accounts—the case of Spain. Cliometrica (forthcoming)
Pritchett L (1996) Where has all the education gone? Policy research working paper series 1581. The World Bank
Psacharopoulos G (1994) Return to investment in education: a global update. World Dev 22(9):1325–1343
Sanchis T, Sanchis-Llopis JA, Esteve V, Cubel A (2015) Total factor productivity, domestic knowledge accumulation, and international knowledge spillovers in the second half of the twentieth century. Cliometrica 9:209–233
Snyder T (1993) 120 years of American education: a statistical portrait. US Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC
Solow Robert (1956) A contribution to the theory of growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94
Solow Robert (1957) Technical change and aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320
Solow R (1959) Investment and technical change. Math Methods Soc Sci 1:48–93
Solow R (1962) Technical progress, capital formation, and economic growth. Am Econ Rev Proc 52:76–86
Soto M (2002) Rediscovering education in growth regressions. OECD Development Centre working papers 202. OECD Publishing, OECD, Paris
Temple J (2001) Generalizations that aren’t? Evidence on education and growth. Eur Econ Rev 45(4–6):905–918
Topel R (1999) Labor markets and economic growth, chapter 44. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2943–2984
Trostel P, Walker I, Wooley P (2002) Estimates of the economic return to schooling for 28 countries. Labour Econ 9(1):1–16
van Ark B, Smits JP (2002) Technology regimes and growth in The Netherlands. An empirical record of two centuries. Working paper. Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen
van Leeuwen B, van Leeuwen-Li J (2014) Education since 1820. In: van Zanden JL et al (eds) How was life? Global well-being since 1820. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 88–101
Wolff E (1991) Capital formation and productivity convergence over the long term. Am Econ Rev 81(3):565–579
Wolff E (1996) The productivity slowdown: the culprit at last? Follow-up on Hulten and Wolff. Am Econ Rev 86(5):1239–1252
Acknowledgments
The views expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions they belong to. We wish to thank, without in any way holding responsible, Thierry Mayer for valuable advice concerning the construction of the instruments, Bas Van Leeuwen for advice on education data, and Nicholas Craft and John Fernald for their comments. We also thank two anonymous referees from the journal for their remarks.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Methodology for the evaluation of the contribution of ICT to labor productivity growth through capital deepening
Appendix 1: Methodology for the evaluation of the contribution of ICT to labor productivity growth through capital deepening
The evaluation of the contribution of ICT to hourly labor productivity growth, through capital deepening, is calculated by applying the growth-accounting methodology set out by Solow (1956, 1957). This contribution in year t, noted as \(CO_{t}^{ICT}\), is evaluated using the following relation:
where \(K_{t - 1}^{\text{ICT}}\) corresponds to the ICT capital installed at the end of year t − 1, \(N_{t}\) refers to total employment in year t and \(H_{t}\) designates the average annual hours worked per person per year t. The notation of the variables in lowercase corresponds to their natural log \(\left( {x = \ln \left( X \right)} \right)\), and the growth rate of a variable is approximated by the variation of its logarithm. The Δ symbol refers to the variation of a variable \(\left( {\Delta X_{t} = X_{t} - X_{t - 1} } \right)\).
The coefficient \(\alpha_{t, 2}^{\text{ICT}}\) is the Törnquist index of the coefficient \(\alpha_{t}\):
The coefficient \(\alpha_{t}^{\text{ICT}}\) corresponds to the share of capital remuneration in GDP:
where \(C_{t}^{\text{ICT}}\) corresponds to the user cost of capital, \(P_{{Y_{t} }}\) corresponds to the GDP deflator and \(Y_{t}\) refers to GDP in volume.
The user cost of ICT capital C is calculated employing the relation proposed by Jorgenson (1963):
where \(P^{\text{ICT}}\) corresponds to the investment price of ICT, i refers to the nominal interest rate and δ ICT designates the assumed invariant depreciation rate of ICT.
We have considered two alternative options for the nominal interest rate: 10-year government bond yields and a fixed rate of 10 %. The evaluation of both approaches is close to one another in the growth contribution calculation. In this study, we have used the 10-year government bond yields taken from the OECD’s main economic indicators.
The overall share of capital, α, is assumed to be invariant and the same for all countries, with α = 0.3. This means that to evaluate the overall capital deepening effect, we have assumed that \(\alpha_{t}^{\text{NICT}}\), the non-ICT capital share, is obtained, for each year t and country i observation, from the relation:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bergeaud, A., Cette, G. & Lecat, R. The role of production factor quality and technology diffusion in twentieth-century productivity growth. Cliometrica 12, 61–97 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-016-0149-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-016-0149-2
Keywords
- Productivity
- Total factor productivity
- Education
- Technological change
- Technology diffusion
- Global history