L ECTURE 6 Knowledge, technology transfer and convergence.
-
Upload
milton-kerry-carter -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
2
Transcript of L ECTURE 6 Knowledge, technology transfer and convergence.
ISSUES DISCUSSED TODAY
The non-rival (and potentially public) nature of technological knowledge and its impact.
Industrial Revolution and Science – engagement rather than marriage.
The characteristics of modern technological progress.
Technology transfer, catch-up and convergence over the last 150 years.
WAS THERE AN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN BRITAIN? Recent research in economic history says
Perhaps, but… The classical period of the I R 1780-1830 was
’…a period of incubation in which the groundwork to future growth was laid’ (Joel Mokyr) meaning that
Intellectual and institutional preconditions were created for future growth but initially the growth record was not that impressive.
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL ENLIGHTENMENT Science had little impact on Industrial
Revolution technology. Exception: steam engine. See early steam
engines on www.econ.ku.dk/europe
The European Enlightenment of the 18th century paved the way for 19th century science based technologies and products.
It was a uniquely European experience.
OLD SCHOOL VIEW ‘The Industrial Revolution marked a radical
break with the past’. ‘Low or insignificant growth rates were
replaced by substantially higher rates in many (all?) sectors’.
‘A large number of sectors became part of the modern economy.’
‘Science became increasingly important as a source of technological change.’
NEW VIEW Growth rates were (just a little) higher than
in the past but initially (1760-1800) only slightly higher.
The modern sector was limited to a few initially small dynamic sectors, such as the cotton industry.
Water mills remained an important energy source in industry.
Science played a minor role in the advancement of technological knowledge until mid 19th century but the knowledge-base increased.
Innovations relied on skilled workers and mechanics.
OLD AND NEW ESTIMATES
Revised estimates Dean & Cole
TFP National product Per head National product Per head
1700-1760 0.69 0.31 0.66 0.45
1760-1780 0.14* 0.70 0.01 0.65 -0.04
1780-1801 0.14* 1.32 0.35 2.06 1.08
1801-1831 0.41 1.97 0.52 3.06 1.61
Table 6.1. TFP growth and new and old estimates of national product growth in Britain during the Industrial Revolution. Per cent per year.
WHY DO NEW AND OLD ESTIMATES DIFFER? It’s the index number problem, stupid! We need to estimate the growth in
constant prices. To do so we need quantities of goods
produced and prices. Choice of base year affects results. Fast growing sectors usually
experience falling relative prices. As a consequence an early base year
implies higher growth than later base year.
COTTON AND BEER: AN EXAMPLE Cotton grows from 10 to 100 units between
1770 to 1800 Beer from 25 to 50 units Cotton price falls from 1 to 0.5 Beer price is constant at 1 Increase in output in 1770 prices is 150/35
=4.3 times Increase in output in 1800 prices is 100/30
=3.3 times
PANEL A: BEER AND COTTON AGAIN Assume the cotton industry output
increases by 150 percent between 1780 and 1830 and that beer output increases by 75 percent.
Assume furthermore that the weight of cotton in industrial output is 30 per cent in 1780 and 75 percent in 1830.
With 1830 sector weights total output grows with
0.75*150 +0.25*75 = 131 per cent, but with 1780 weights only by 97 per cent (0.3*150 + 0.7*75)
WHAT SCIENCE DOES TO PRODUCTION Saves resources per unit produced: is there a
labour saving bias? Eases the constraints of nature. Improves quality of products. Introduces new products and production
processes. Widens the resource base for industrial use.
SAVING RESOURCES PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION Bob Allen maintains that Industrial Revolution
occurred in Britain because of uniquely high wages and cheap energy.
Check Bob Allen’s Tawney lecture at www.econ.ku.dk/europe/videos.html
Labour saving bias is in textile manufacturing.
Relative factor prices can influence the ‘technology bias’, but technological progress seems to be neutral in the long run.
NITROGEN FIXING: EASING THE CONSTRAINTS OF NATURE
The limiting factor in agriculture is nitrogen in the form of nitrates.
Bacteria can help fixing nitrogen but the process is slow.
Haber-Bosch introduced an industrial method to produce ammonia and nitrates from nitrogen, early 20th century.
Basis for the spectacular increases in yields in the 20th century.
QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS: LIGHT AND CALCULATION Quality improvement is difficult to
measure but ignoring it tends to give a downward bias to real income estimates.
Price of light has fallen with 3 to 4 percent relative to conventional estimates of price of light.
Cost reduction in calculations with modern computers compared to manual is approximately
7 times 10 to the power of 13!!!!!!!
NEW PRODUCTS
Internal combustion motor The electrical motor – thank you Hans
Christian Ørsted for the initial discoveries. The telephone, the camera, wireless
communication etc. The 19th century gave the first half of the
20th century (almost) everything. The welfare effect of new products is an
unexplored area.
WIDENING THE RESOURCE BASE
New steelmaking processes (Gilchrist Thomas) made it possible to exploit phosphorous rich iron ore.
‘Pulp fiction’ needs cheap paper made from wood which changed the resource supply for a 1000 year old production process.
Nuclear energy, wind and wave energy.
THE PECULIAR NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE Technological knowledge is a non-rival good
and becomes a public good when patent restrictions are lifted.
It can be easily diffused. Patent protection keeps the knowledge in the
public domain but raises access cost only over a limited period.
Were intellectual property rights stimulating R&D? Probably more than inventors wanted to admit.
THE CONDITIONS FOR CATCH-UP
Poor countries can grow faster than rich for three distinct reasons:
1. A possibility to imitate and borrow existing best practice technology from high-tech economies.
2. Structural change: Transfer of resources (labour) from low productivity sectors to high productivity sectors.
3. Low initial capital/labour ratios make for initially higher investments and growth.
‘THE ADVANTAGE OF BACKWARDNESS’
Technological gap makes poor countries grow faster than richer if they adopt new technologies.
The institutional conditions for absorption and use of new technologies must be present,
which historically has been linked to openness to trade and foreign investment,
and high scores on educational attainment and political and legal order.
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN FIGURES 6.2-6.4 -convergence: if initially poor the nation will grow
faster than initially rich nations. What is the expected slope of the regression line? Identify under-performers and overachievers and
analyze the causes. Reconstruction effects: France and Germany. Latecomers: Spain and Greece. Why is the slope positive in the Interwar years? What are the costs of being a Tiger economy, that is a
late-comer in the catch-up process? On the horizontal axis: GDP per head in constant 1990
international dollars. On the vertical axis: Annual rate of growth of GDP per head. (To get to per cent multiply by 100, for example 0.014 means 1.4 per cent.
INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INITIAL INCOME AND GROWTH
AustriaBelgium
BulgariaCzechoslovakia
Denmark
France
Hungary
GermanyGreece Italy
Ireland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Romania
RussiaSpain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia
y = 0.0144-0,0000137x
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
THE 1914-1950 PERIOD WAS AN ERA OF CLOSED ECONOMIES: NO CONVERGENCE
Austria Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia Denmark
Finland
France
Hungary
GermanyGreece ItalyIreland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Poland
Romania
USSR
Spain
Sweden Switzerland
United KingdomYugoslavia
Albania
y = 2E-06x + 0.0054
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
THE EXPECTED RELATIONSHIP RETURNS IN THE GOLDEN AGE.
AustriaBulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Finland France
Hungary
Germany
Greece
Italy
NorwayPoland
Romania
USSR
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom
BelgiumIreland
Netherlands
Portugal
Sweden
Yugoslavia
y = -3E-06x + 0,05010,02
0,025
0,03
0,035
0,04
0,045
0,05
0,055
0,06
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
WHY DID BRITAIN NOT KEEP ITS INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP? Low domestic investments in human and
physical capital. Industrial relations not helpful to
technology absorption: Low total factor productivity growth.
Relatively high interest rates were hurting manufacturing but service sector did well in late 19th century.
Financial institutions might have neglected profit opportunities in new technologies? (More about that in Lecture 7).
Tables from Angus Maddison coming up.
THE DYNAMIC DISADVANTAGE OF AN EMPIRE UK had favourable access to colonies
and dominions. Most of the empire was composed of
low income economies with weak demand for sophisticated new products.
UK Export/Import ratio low (high) in dynamic (traditional) new sectors (= R.C.A).
A rank 1 means highest and 16 lowest sectoral X/M.
- CONVERGENCE STORIES - convergence means falling dispersion of
income across nations. -convergence is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for - convergence. Scandinavia converges to US but only after
1950. Germany becomes a core industrial economy
before 1914 with science based technologies. Argentina starts well but spoils its future by
bad politics. Reconstruction effects in Italy, France and
Germany. Spain is a latecomer. Closed economy inertia!
THREE - CONVERGENCE CLUBS IN EUROPE Early followers: Germany, France, Benelux
and Scandinavia. Italy almost made it into this club.
Golden age catch up: Portugal, Greece, Spain.
Late followers: Ireland (!) and the former socialist economies.
The 1990s: The Empire strikes back!
THE CELTIC TIGER SLEPT IN THE GOLDEN AGE!
Czechoslovakia, Italy and Ireland had about the same per capita income in 1950 and Ireland and Italy the same in year 2000.
Italy was growing fast during most of the period.
Ireland’s much admired catch up started much later.
The fact that the Irish and the Italians now share about the same income does not hide the fact that the Irish lost in the 1950s and 1960s!
Czechoslovakia started its catch up only in the early 21st century.
CONCLUSION Science based technologies are largely a post
1850 phenomenon. Catch up to leading economies is conditional
on an adequate institutional set up: openness, bank depth, a scientific community, technology friendly industrial relations.
The start of the convergence processes varied mostly because of institutional factors.
Early advantages can be spoilt by bad policies as Argentina shows over and over again.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
If no source is given the full details are disclosed in my An Economic History of Europe.
Slide 10 was published in N.F.R. Crafts, British Economic Growth during the Industrial Revolution, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1985.
Slides 27, 28 and 30 were published in Angus Maddison, Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.