SLIDE 1
Rethinking Growth The Schumpeterian Perspective Philippe Aghion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Rethinking Growth The Schumpeterian Perspective Philippe Aghion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Rethinking Growth The Schumpeterian Perspective Philippe Aghion May 10th, 2017 LUISS University, Rome Peter Howitt Joseph Schumpeter Sc Schumpeterian growth th theory ry Long-run growth driven by innovations Innovations result from
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Joseph Schumpeter
SLIDE 4
Sc Schumpeterian growth th theory ry
- Long-run growth driven by innovations
- Innovations result from entrepreneurial activities motivated by
prospect of innovation rents
- Creative destruction: new innovations displace old technologies
SLIDE 5
Ufuk Akcigit
SLIDE 6
SLIDE 7
SLIDE 8
SLIDE 9
Competition and growth: theoretical prediction
SLIDE 10
Competition and growth: empirical relationship
SLIDE 11
Richard Blundell
SLIDE 12
Competition, growth and distance to frontier
SLIDE 13
Competition and growth: the inverted-U relationship
SLIDE 14
Outline
- Introduction
- Growth enigmas
- “Next”
SLIDE 15
Growth enigmas
- The middle income trap
- The debate on secular stagnation
- Innovation, inequality, and social mobility
SLIDE 16
Argentinian versus US per capita GDP
SLIDE 17
Frontier innovation vs catch up growth
SLIDE 18
Enhancing productivity growth in advanced countries
- Liberalization of product market
- Investment in higher education
- Liberalization of labor market
SLIDE 19
Enhancing productivity growth in emerging market economies
- Foster technology transfers
- Reallocate factors
- Improve management practices
SLIDE 20
SLIDE 21
SLIDE 22
Long run growth effect of1000$ per-person spending on education
SLIDE 23
Fabrizio Zil ilibotti EEA Presidential Address
SLIDE 24
SLIDE 25
Growth enigmas
- The middle income trap
- The debate on secular stagnation
- Innovation, inequality, and social mobility
SLIDE 26
Secular stagnation?
- Gordon and the fruit-bearing tree approach
- Summers and the keynesian approach
SLIDE 27
Two productivity growth waves
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Trend of productivity growth rate
United States: HP filtering of Productivity growth with λ=500 Total factor Productivity Labor Productivity
SLIDE 28
Secular stagnation?
- Dale Jorgenson
- Missing Growth
- Europe
SLIDE 29
SLIDE 30
SLIDE 31
Sweden versus Japan
SLIDE 32
Country-specific productivity breaks
- Reformers
- Netherlands: Wassenaard agreement, 1982
- TFP growth : 1977-1983 0,5 %, 1983-2002 1,5 %
- Canada, reforms initiated in early 1990s
- TFP growth: 1974-1990 0,3 %, 1990-2000 1,1 %
- Australia, reforms initiated in early 1990s
- TFP growth: 1971-1990 0,4 %, 1990-2002 1,4 %
- Sweden, reforms initiated in early 1990s
- TFP growth: 1976-1992 0,4 %, 1992-2008 1,9 %
SLIDE 33
Growth enigmas
- The middle income trap
- The debate on secular stagnation
- Innovation, inequality and social mobility
SLIDE 34
5 10 15 20 25 30 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Percentile Share U.S. Top 1% U.S. Top 0.1%
US Top 1% US Top 0.1%
Income shares at the very top over last 100 years: US top 1% increases from 9% in 1978 to 22% in 2012
Source: Atkinson, Piketty & Saez; High Income Database
SLIDE 35
Two main ideas
- Different measures of inequality which must be looked at differently
- Top income inequality, “Gini”, social mobility
- Innovation is a source of top income inequality which differs from
- ther sources (entry barriers,..)
- *Steve Jobs* versus *Carlos Slim*
SLIDE 36
Why innovation differs from other sources of top 1% increase?
- Generates growth (we know)
- But in addition, *we* show that:
- Innovation generates temporary rents (imitation and creative destruction)
- Innovation enhances social mobility (creative destruction)
- Innovation does not increase broad inequality
SLIDE 37
Innovation and Top Income Inequality
Philippe Aghion (LSE) Ufuk Akcigit (Chicago) Antonin Bergeaud (LSE) Richard Blundell (UCL) David Hemous (Zurich)
SLIDE 38
SLIDE 39
SLIDE 40
SLIDE 41
SLIDE 42
SLIDE 43
By contrast, lobbying…
- Increases top income inequality
- Increases inequality at large
- Reduces social mobility
- Does not enhance growth
SLIDE 44
Lobbying VS Top1% (USA)
SLIDE 45
Lobbying VS GINI (USA)
SLIDE 46
Looking ahead
SLIDE 47
Growth meets development
- Hsieh and Klenow
- Akcigit, Alp and Peters
SLIDE 48
Link between the age and the size of firms
SLIDE 49
Distribution of firms productivity
SLIDE 50
Becoming an in inventor
SLIDE 51
Becoming an in inventor
- Akcigit, Toivanen, Vaananen (Finland)
- Bell, Chetty, Jaravel, Van Reenen (US)
SLIDE 52
In Introduction
- Basic questions:
1. What determines who become inventors? 2. Income mobility of inventors versus non-inventors?
SLIDE 53
SLIDE 54
SLIDE 55
SLIDE 56
SLIDE 57
Probability of Becoming and In Inventor: IQ IQ
SLIDE 58
Probability of Becoming and In Inventor
SLIDE 59
Probability of Becoming and In Inventor
SLIDE 60
Probability of Becoming and In Inventor
SLIDE 61
Probability of Becoming and In Inventor
SLIDE 62
SLIDE 63
SLIDE 64
SLIDE 65
SLIDE 66
SLIDE 67
SLIDE 68
SLIDE 69
SLIDE 70
Conclusion
- We have proposed a new theory but also a new way to do growth
theory, through continuous dialogue with micro-data
- Our purpose was both, to better understand the growth process and
also to rethink growth policy
- Addressing growth enigmas is useful, not only to satisfy our scientific