Vol. 16 No. 4 (2021)

Articles

Technological progress spillover effect in Lithuanian manufacturing industry

Published 10-12-2021

Mantas Markauskas
Kaunas University of Technology

Asta Baliute
Kaunas University of Technology

Abstract

Research background: Various methods for technological progress assessment and evaluation exist in the context of economic development. Each of the methods possesses distinct advantages and disadvantages in analysis of technological progress fluctuations. For most neoclassical growth theories, technological progress measures are included as exogenous variables, thus excluding evaluation of factors influencing technological progress variation throughout time.

Purpose of the article: The aim of this article is to offer improvements on classical technological progress evaluation methodologies for manufacturing industries, separating effect of intersectoral technological progress spillover effect from internal factors influencing technological progress growth and perform analysis in the case of Lithuanian manufacturing industry.

Methods: Earlier research papers used linear time series regression and vector autoregression methods to assess technological progress values and define equations explaining effect of different manufacturing level indicators on technological progress measure growth. This research paper uses results of previously mentioned methods and performs simulation analysis applying agent-based modelling framework.

Findings & value added: The conducted vector autoregression analysis has showed that two variables which influence technological progress most significantly are labor productivity measure and gross profit value. Sensitivity analysis emphasizes that effect of these two variables on technological progress growth is substantially different. Increase in gross profit value affects technological progress growth for wider range of sectors from Lithuanian manufacturing industry (15 out of 18 analyzed sectors? technological progress measure values are affected by changes in gross profit, while changes in labor productivity influence technological progress values in the case of 9 sectors). Rising gross profit values also produce intersectoral technological progress spillover effect more significantly, while growth in labor productivity measure has stronger effect on technological progress fluctuations for sectors which are able to exploit this effect. Presented research suggests improved methodology for intersectoral technological progress spillover effect assessment in the context of manufacturing industries.

Keywords

technological progress, agent-based modelling, intersectoral technological progress spillover, manufacturing industry, economic development

PDF

References

  1. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2009). The economics of growth. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Alcouffe, A., & Kuhn, T. (2004). Schumpeterian endogenous growth theory and evolutionary economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(2), 223?236. doi: 10.1007/s00191-004-0205-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0205-0
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Apa, R., De Noni, I., Orsi, L., & Sedita, S. R. (2018). Knowledge space oddity: how to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions. Research Policy. 47, 1700?1712. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06 .002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.002
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Awokuse, T. O. (2006). Export-led growth and the Japanese economy: evidence from VAR and directed acyclic graphs. Applied Economics, 38(5), 593?602. doi: 10.1080/00036840600619594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600619594
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Benos, N., Karagiannis, S., & Karkalakos, S. (2015). Proximity and growth spillovers in European regions: the role of geographical, economic and technological linkages. Journal of Macroeconomics, 43, 124?139. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2014 .10.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2014.10.003
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2013). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Econometrica, 81(4), 1347?1393. doi: 10.3982/ECTA9466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA9466
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Bharadwaj, S., Clark, T., & Kulviwat, S. (2005). Marketing, market growth, an endogenous growth theory: inquiry into the causes of market growth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 347?359. doi: 10.1177/009207030 5276324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305276324
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Chu, A. C., Cozzi, G., Furukawa, Y., & Liao, C.-H. (2017). Inflation and economic growth in a Schumpeterian model with endogenous entry of heterogeneous firms. European Economic Review, 98, 392?409. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.201 7.07.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.07.006
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Comin, D. (2010). Total factor productivity. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.). Economic growth. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/978023 0280823_32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280823_32
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Crespi, G., & Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and productivity: evidence from six Latin American countries. World Development, 40(2), 273?290. doi: 10.1016/j .worlddev.2011.07.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.010
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Crooks, A. T., & Heppenstall, A. J. (2012). Introduction to agent-based modelling. In A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, L. M. See & M. Batty (Eds.). Agent-based models of geographical systems. Dordrecht: Springer, 85?105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8927-4_5
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Dieppe, A., & Mutl, J. (2013). International R&D spillovers: technology transfer vs. R&D synergies. European Central Bank Working Paper Series, 1504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2194327
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Englmann, F. C. (1994). A Schumpeterian model of endogenous innovation and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4, 227?241. doi: 10.1007/BF0123 6370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01236370
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Fagerberg, J. (2000). Technological progress, structural change and productivity growth: a comparative study. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(4), 393?411. doi: 10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00025-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00025-4
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Galor, O., & Tsiddon, D. (1997). Technological progress, mobility, and economic growth. American Economic Review, 87(3), 363?382.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Greenwood, J., & Seshadri, A. (2004). Technological progress and economic transformation. NBER Working Paper, 10765. doi: 10.3386/w10765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w10765
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Hu, J., Wang, Z., Lian, Y., Huang, Q. (2018). Environmental regulation, foreign direct investment and green technological progress - evidence from Chinese manufacturing industries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(2), 221. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020221
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Hulten, C. R. (2001). Total factor productivity: a short biography. In Ch. R. Hulten, E. R. Dean & M. J. Harper (Eds.). New developments in productivity analysis. University of Chicago Press, 1?54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226360645.003.0001
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Iwasaki, I., & Tokunaga, M. (2016). Technology transfer and spillovers from FDI in transition economies: a meta-analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(4), 1086?1114. doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2016.10.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2016.10.005
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Janssen, M. A. (2005). Agent-based modelling. In J. Proops & P. Safonov (Eds.). Modelling in ecological economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publising, 155?172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781958667.00015
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Lafi, M. (2018). Foreign affiliates and technology spillovers in the French manufacturing sector: an analysis using panel data. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(5), 229?242.
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Lopez-Pueyo, C., Barcenilla, S. & Sanau, J. (2008). International technological spillovers and manufacturing productivity: a panel data analysis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19(2), 152?172. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2007 .12.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2007.12.005
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Lin, J., Yu, Z., Wei, Y. D., & Wang, M. (2017). Internet access, spillover and regional development in China. Sustainability, 9(6), 1?18. doi: 10.3390/su9060 946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060946
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Markauskas, M., & Baliute, A. (2020). Modelling technological progress evaluation: case of Lithuanian manufacturing industry. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 11(6), 1?11. doi: 10.36941/mjss-2020-0058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/mjss-2020-0058
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Markauskas, M., & Saboniene, A. (2019). Evaluation of technological progress measures: case of Lithuanian manufacturing industry. In Proceedings of IAC 2019 in Budapest. Budapest: Czech Institute of Academic Education, 104?111.
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Mitze, T., Naveed, A., & Ahmad, N. (2016). International, intersectoral, or unobservable? Measuring R&D spillovers under weak and strong cross-sectional dependence. Journal of Macroeconomics, 50, 259?272. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro .2016.10.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2016.10.002
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Naveed, A., & Ahmad, N. (2016) Technology spillovers and international borders: a spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 31(4), 441?461. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2016.1188669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2016.1188669
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Shan, J. (2005). Does financial development ?lead' economic growth? A vector auto-regression appraisal. Applied Economics, 37(12), 1353?1367. doi: 10.1080 /00036840500118762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500118762
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Solow, R. M. (1999). Neoclassical growth theory. In J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.). Handbook of macroeconomics, 1, Elsevier, 637?667. doi: 10.1016/S15 74-0048(99)01012-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0048(99)01012-5
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Sredojevic, D., Cvetanovic, S., & Boskovic, G. (2016). Technological changes in economic growth theory: neoclassical, endogenous, and evolutionary-institutional approach. Economic Themes, 54(2), 177?194. doi: 10.1515/etheme s-2016-0009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ethemes-2016-0009
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Van den Berg, H. (2012). Explaining neoclassical economists? pro-growth agenda: does the popular Solow growth model bias economic analysis? International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 3(1), 40?62. doi: 10.1504/IJPE E.2012.047472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPEE.2012.047472
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Verspagen, B., & Loo, I. D. (1999). Technology spillovers between sectors and over time. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 215?235. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(98)00046-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(98)00046-8
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Wang, M., & Wong, M. C. S. (2016). Effects of foreign direct investment on firm-level technical efficiency: stochastic frontier model evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Atlantic Economic Journal, 44(3), 335?361. doi: 10.1007 /s11293-016-9509-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-016-9509-3
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Wei, Y., & Liu, X. (2006). Productivity spillovers from R&D, exports and FDI in China?s manufacturing sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 544?557. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400209
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998?2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285?298. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.012
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Yang, Z., Shao, S., Yang, L., & Liu, J. (2017). Differentiated effects of diversified technological sources on energy-saving technological progress: empirical evidence from China's industrial sectors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 1379?1388. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.072
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Zhao, X., Lin, D., & Hao, T. (2019). A new discussion on the relationship between M&A and innovation in an emerging market: the moderating effect of post-acquisition R&D investment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(12), 1447?1461. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1627310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1627310
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Zhou, G., & Luo, S. (2018). Higher education input, technological innovation, and economic growth in China. Sustainability, 10(8), 2615. doi: 10.3390/su1008 2615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082615
    View in Google Scholar

Similar Articles

1-10 of 470

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.