THE HYPOTHESIS OF INNOVATION-BASED ECONOMIC GROWTH: A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 11, 1 - 16, 20.04.2015

Murat Çetin

Öz

Theoretically, the innovation-based growth hypothesis suggests that there is a positive linkage between innovation and economic growth. R&D plays a major role in innovation, raising productivity and increasing economic growth. In this study, this hypothesis is tested empiricially. The paper examines the causal relationship between R&D expenditures and economic growth. We apply our methodology, based on the standart Granger and Toda-Yamamoto tests for causality, to time-series data covering the period 1981-2008 for nine European countries. In consideration of standart Granger causality test, our empirical findings clearly exhibit that R&D expenditures cause GDP in the cases of Finland, France and Spain. The results also indicate that GDP causes R&D expenditures in Denmark and there is no causality between variables in other countries. On the other hand, the results of Toda-Yamamoto test imply that there is no causality between R&D expenditures and GDP in Holland, Ireland and Italy. However, there is bidirectional causality in Finland and France. Empirical results also indicate that there is a causal relationship between variables running from R&D expenditures to GDP for Austria, while the direction of causality is from GDP to R&D expenditures for Denmark, Spain and Portugal. Consequently, this study provides further evidence supporting the hypothesis for some European countries

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation, R&D expenditures, Economic growth, Causality

YENİLİK ODAKLI EKONOMİK BÜYÜME HİPOTEZİ: BİR NEDENSELLİK İLİŞKİSİ

Öz

Teorik olarak yenilik odaklı büyüme hipotezi, yenilik ile ekonomik büyüme arasında pozitif bir ilişkinin olduğunu kabul eder. AR-GE yeniliklerde, verimlilik ve ekonomik büyümenin artırılmasında temel bir rol oynar. Çalışmada bu hipotez ampirik olarak test edilmektedir. Bu makale, AR-GE harcamaları ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini inceler. Metodoloji, standart Granger ve Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testlerine dayanır ve 1981-2009 periyoduna yönelik dokuz AB ükesini içerir. Standart Granger nedensellik testleri dikkate alındığında, ampirik bulgular Finlandiya, Fransa ve İspanya örneğinde AR-GE harcamalarının GSYİH’ya neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Danimarka ekonomisinde GSYİH AR-GE harcamalarına neden olurken, diğer ülkelerde nedensellik ilişkisi söz konusu değildir. Diğer taraftan Toda-Yamamoto test sonuçları ise Hollanda, İrlanda ve İtalya’da AR-GE harcamaları ile GSYİH arasında bir nedensellik ilişkisinin olmadığını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte Finlandiya ve Fransa’da çift yönlü nedenselliğe rastlanmıştır. Ampirik sonuçlar Avusturya için AR-GE harcamalarından GSYİH’ya doğru, Danimarka, İspanya ve Portekiz için GSYİH’dan AR-GE harcamalarına doğru bir nedensellik ilişkisini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, bazı AB ülkeleri için hipotezi destekleyici kanıtlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yenilik, AR-GE harcamaları, Ekonomik büyüme, Nedensellik

Kaynakça

• AGHION, P. ve P. HOWITT (1992), “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction”, Econometrica, 60 (2), 323-351.
• AHMAD, J. S. ve S. M. ALERASOUL (2009), “R&D and Economic Growth: New Evidence from Some Developing Countries”, Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(4), 3464-3469.
• AIGINGER, K. ve M. FALK (2005), “Explaining Differences in Economic Growth among OECD Countries”, Empirica, 32, 19-43.
• ANTONELLI, C. (2009), “The Economics of Innovation: From the Classical Legacies to the Economics of Complexity”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(7), 611-646.
• ARROW, K. J. (1962), “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155-173.
• ASHEIM, B.T. (2001), “Localiced Learning, Innovation and Regional Clusters”, in Cluster Policies-Cluster Development?, Edited by Age Mariussen, Stockholm, Nordregio Report, 39-58.
• BIRSDALL, N. ve C. RHEE (1993), “Does Research and Development Contribute to Economic Growth in Developing Countries?”, Policy Research Working Paper 1221, Washington, D.C., The World Bank (November).
• CONTE, A. (2006), “The Evolution of the Literature on Technological Change over Time: A Survey”, Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, 107, 1-74.
• DICKEY, D. A. ve W. A. FULLER (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for an Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49, 1057-1072.
• DINOPOULOS, E. ve F. ŞENER (2007), “New Directions in Schumpeterian Growth Theory”, http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/dinopoulos/pdf/ schumpeterian growth.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 27.02.2011.
• DOLADO, J.J. ve H. LUTKEPOHL (1996), “Making Wald Tests Work for Cointegrated VAR Systems”, Econometric Reviews, 15(4), 369-386.
• EATON, J. ve S. KORTUM (1996), “Trade in Ideas: Patenting and Productivity in the OECD”, Journal of International Economics, 40, 251-278.
• EUROSTAT http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/ home/, Erişim Tarihi: 12.05.2010.
• FABRICANT, S. (1954), Economic Progress and Economic Change, 34th Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research (New York: NBER)
• FELDMAN, M. (2004), “Significance of Innovation”, Paper prepared for the Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies”, 1-14. http://www.competeprosper.ca/
• images/uploads/Feldman_WIM_ Summary_ 2005. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 25.03.2011.
• FRAUMENI, B. M. ve S. OKUBO (2004), “R&D in the National Income and Product Accounts: A First Look at its Effect on GDP”, Paper presented at the CRIW Conference, Measuring Capital in the New Economy. Washington, D.C., Ap-ril 2003.
• GOEL, R. K. ve R. RAM (1994), “Research and Development Expenditures and Economic Growth: A Cross-country Study”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 42, 403-411.
• GRANGER, C.W.J. (1969), “Investigating Causal Relation by Econometric and Cross-Sectional Method”, Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.
• GRIFFITH, R., REDDING, S. ve J. Van REENEN (2000), “Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries”, The Institute of Fiscal Studies Working Paper, W00/2, London.
• GRILICHES, Z. (1992), “The Search for R&D Spillovers”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29-47.
• GROSSMAN, G.M. ve E. HELPMAN (1991), Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• GROSSE, T. G. (2008), “What’s Next for the Lisbon Strategy?”, The Institute of Public Affairs, 3, 1-11.
• HOWITT, P. (1999), “Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R&D Inputs Growing”, Journal of Political Economy, 107, 715-730.
• HSE (2007), The Implications of R&D off-shoring on the innovation capacity of EU firms, Helsinki School of Helsinki.
• HSIAO, C. (1981), “Autoregressive Modeling and Money-Income Causality Detection”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 7(1), 85-106.
• LEBEL, P. (2008), “The Role of Creative Innovation in Economic Growth: Some International Comparisons”, Journal of Asian Economics, 19(4), 334-347.
• MANSFIELD, E. (1972), “Contribution of Research and Development to Economic Growth of the United States”, Papers and Proceedings of a Colloquim on Research and Development and Economic Growth Productivity, National Science Foundation, Washington DC.
• OECD (2003), The Sources of Economic Growth in the OECD Countries. OECD. Paris.Available at: http://www1.oecd.org/publications/ebook/1103011E.PDF (Last accessed 10th September 2005)
• OECD (2005a), Innovation Policies: Innovation in the Business Sector. OECD, Paris.
• OECD (2005b), Oslo Manual, Guidelines Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, Third Edition, Paris: OECD.
• RAJEEV, K., GOEL, J. E. ve R. RAM (2008), “R&D Expenditures and U.S. Economic Growth: A Disaggregated Approach”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 30, 237-250.
• ROMER, P. M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
• ROMER, P. M. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102.
• SOLOW, R. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65-94.
• SOLOW, R. (1957), “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312-320.
• SWAN, T. W. (1956), “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation”, Economic Record, 32(63), 334-361.
• TODA, H. Y. ve T. YAMAMOTO (1995), “Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes”, Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250.
• UNITED NATIONS STATISTICS DIVISION, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/
• databases.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 23.01.2010
• YANRUI, W. (2010), “Innovation and Economic Growth in China”, Business School The University of Western Australia, Discussion paper 10.10, 1-30.
• YUEN, P. H., POH, K. W. ve H. T. MUN (2009), “The Impact of R&D on the Singapore Economy: An Empirical Evaluation”, The Singapore Economic Review, 54(1), 1-20.
• ZACHARIADIS, M. (2003), “R&D, Innovation, and Technological Progress: A test of the Schumpeterian Framework without Scale Effects”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 36(3), 566-5