Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. The Impact of Trade on Technological Change and Long-Run Growth

verfasst von : Dr. Patricia Hofmann

Erschienen in: The Impact of International Trade and FDI on Economic Growth and Technological Change

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

International Trade Theory and Growth Economics have always exhibited a parallel evolution. This can be seen best with New Trade Theory and New Economic Growth Theory both shifting their modelling focus to the Dixit-Stiglitz framework of monopolistic competition at the end of the 1980s. Needless to say that the overlap of these disciplines, the study of the ‘impact of international trade on technological change and economic growth’, applies these tools as well. The major works that emerged from this line of research are the seminal contributions of Grossman and Helpman (1991a), Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991a) and Young (1991). Also the ‘quality ladder approaches’ to endogenous economic growth, that mainly highlighted the Schumpeterian innovation-rent destroying effect of competition (seminal to this are Aghion and Howitt (1992) and Grossman and Helpman (1991a)), are often consulted when talking about the effects of international liberalisation on growth. The main conclusion from this line of argumentation is that trade openness fosters competition and thus entails negative effects for innovation and growth.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel International Trade, FDI and Economic Growth: Terms, Interdependencies and Research Focus
Nächstes Kapitel The Impact of FDI on Technological Change and Long-Run Growth
Fußnoten
1
See also Grossman and Helpman (1995) and Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991b).
 
2
Indeed the term ‘International Openness’ instead of ‘Trade Openness’ should more appropriately be used since most of the discussed effects prevail equally for internationalisation via FDI and multinational enterprise activities.
 
3
E.g. Gilbert and Newbery (1982) and Fudenberg and Tirole (1986).
 
4
For more detailed derivations of all aspects that are inhered from the baseline Melitz (2003) model, it is again referred to Hofmann (2009).
 
5
Often called CES- or Dixit-Stiglitz-Agreggator.
 
6
These fixed market entry costs are for example expenditures for market research or product adjustment to local requirements. Helpman et al. (2004) talk about costs of forming a distribution and service network in the domestic as well as in the foreign market.
 
7
Melitz (2003) does not propose a concrete distribution. However, most authors use a Pareto distribution in order to reduce the analytical complexity of heterogeneous firms models. It also gives a distribution of firm productivity levels that is close to reality (Gustafsson and Segerstrom 2010).
 
8
With the individual productivity level \( {\varphi_i} \), unit labour requirement is \( {\varphi_i}^{-1 } \).
 
9
To show this, simply draw two linear profit functions, one steeper and with a more negative ordinate intercept representing HT.
 
10
More details on her empirical finding are discussed in Sect. 3.4.
 
11
This holds as well for the ‘ideal-variety’ interpretation.
 
12
Note that for a given time period \( t \), the final good production function \( Y \) exhibits constant returns to scale with positive but decreasing marginal products of both input factors, production labour \( {L_Y} \) and capital Q. B is a proportionality factor.
 
13
Compare also his Romer (1986) model.
 
14
As Bernard of Chartres’ twelfth century metaphor ‘Standing on the shoulders of past giants’ implies.
 
15
The ‘knowledge-driven’ model.
 
16
These thoughts are even more important in the context of FDI and MNE since such knowledge spillovers are found to be heavily localised (Jaffe et al. 1993). This will be elaborated in more detail in Chap.​ 4.
 
17
There are studies distinguishing between different kinds of destinations, i.e. developed or developing. See the survey by Wagner (2011).
 
18
Learning-by-doing occurs in the context of industrial trade and growth a second time, but in a more negative manner. The basic idea in Young (1991) is that learning-by-doing processes create comparative advantages as time goes by which cannot develop when a country is exposed to trade too early. It might be the case that for a given point in time, the trade structure is determined by given comparative advantages that are different from those that would have prevailed some years later when keeping the economy closed up to then. As trade is opened too early, the country sticks for all time to this ‘wrong’ trade pattern.
 
19
For details on the solving procedure it is referred to Acemoglu (2009).
 
20
Equally, \( a=\alpha \). Final good production is Cobb-Douglas. Note again that intermediates are good but no perfect substitutes as the additive separability of the production function suggests. An increase in the amount of a single intermediate variety has no influence on the marginal product of other varieties.
 
21
See standard microeconomic textbooks e.g. Mas-Colell et al. (1995).
 
22
Time index omitted for short.
 
23
Unel (2010) assumes the final good to be non-durable. With \( {\varphi_i}^{-1 } \) being unit investment requirement, \( q/\varphi \) units of the final good must be invested to produce \( q \) units of an intermediate.
 
24
Compare (3.3) and (3.10). Mind the difference to Melitz (2003) and Bustos (2011): wages are not used as numeraire but final product prices. No fixed costs of production are introduced at this stage since variety development is explicitly modelled.
 
25
For a detailed derivation see Hofmann (2009).
 
26
Mind again that the need of externalities for endogenous growth is due to the usage of the non-accumulable factor labour in variety development. This is the knowledge-driven specification of R&D also used in Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991a). In an earlier version of his model, Unel also provides a lab-equipment specification without knowledge spillovers.
 
27
Note that there is no exogenous shock or exit probability as in Melitz (2003). See Gustafsson and Segerstrom (2010) for a justification and discussion.
 
28
As in Melitz (2003) \( {\varphi_{pr }}:=inf\left\{ {{\varphi_i}:v({\varphi_i})\ge 0} \right\} \).
 
29
Equally, it is the present discounted value of the stream of average profits, with average profits \( \bar{\pi}=\pi \left( {\tilde{\varphi}\left( {{\varphi_{pr }}} \right)} \right) \).
 
30
See the appendix in Unel (2010).
 
31
As in Melitz (2003) and in Bustos (2011), the entry threshold for the domestic market \( {\varphi_{pr }} \) is higher for the open economy case as compared to the closed economy case.
 
32
Closest to Unel (2010) is the Coe-Helpman specification in Baldwin and Robert-Nicoud (2008) where spillovers are a function of the fraction of imported varieties.
 
33
It resembles an AK growth model specification.
 
34
Melitz (2003): \( \varphi_{pr}^x=inf\left\{ {{\varphi_i}:{\varphi_i}\geq {\varphi_{pr }}\cap {\pi^x}({\varphi_i})\geq 0} \right\} \).
 
35
Taking them as given.
 
36
Mind that with \( \psi <1 \), knowledge spillovers are not ruled out but just reduced. In particular, the ‘standing-on-the-shoulder’ effect \( (\psi >0) \) and the ‘fishing-out-the-pool-of-ideas’ effect \( (\psi <0) \) is still viable (Gustafsson and Segerstrom 2010).
 
37
\( G\left( \varphi \right)=1-{{\left( {{\varphi_{min }}/\varphi } \right)}^k} \).
 
38
Gustafsson and Segerstrom (2010) prove that also the share of labour in R&D is not affected by trade.
 
39
Note again the jump in per capita income in \( {t_0} \).
 
40
One also speaks of vertical innovation in contrast to horizontal innovation.
 
41
The rate of long-run growth is proportional to the rate of innovation in these models.
 
42
I.e. the final good is considered both as consumption and as capital good.
 
43
Aghion and Howitt (2005) assume \( h \) to be a concave function of \( z \).
 
44
Technically, it ensures the technology gap to be 2 at most.
 
45
For comparability to the next paragraph a slightly different representation is used than in Aghion and Howitt (2005).
 
46
\( {s_0}+{s_1}+{s_2}=1 \). \( j=2 \) is not taken into account since there is no purposeful innovation in this sector.
 
47
Which also comprises the creation of new markets. More on these concepts can be found in Geroski (2003).
 
48
See again Table 3.1 for productivity levels at the beginning and the end of period \( t \).
 
49
\( {s_0}+{s_1}+{s_2}=1 \).
 
50
\( u\left( {Q(t)} \right)=\ln {Q_t} \); \( u\left( {Y(t)} \right)=\ln {Y_t} \).
 
51
Navas and Licandro (2011) assume Cournot competition but show how the results change when using Bertrand competition and highlight the suitability of the former market assumption to elaborate the pro-competitive effects of trade.
 
52
Monopolistic competitive models of trade feature both scale effects and no-scale effects through trade. Compare e.g. Krugman (1979) with Krugman (1980).
 
53
With no export market entry costs, this means a reduction of variable trade costs to zero here.
 
54
Peretto (2003) provides another model where also with Bertrand competition the effects of trade liberalisation on welfare and growth are positive.
 
55
In fact a survey on surveys could be written. The most well-known are Edwards (1993), WTO (1998), Giles and Williams (2000a, b), Berg and Krueger (2003), Baldwin (2003), Lopez (2005), Greenaway and Kneller (2005), and Rodriguez (2007).
 
56
The listing of the empirical contributions of the trade and growth nexus here does not claim to capture all existing studies on this topic since the literature is too extensive for this. Instead, contributions are selected by importance and by actuality.
 
57
See most notably the contributions of Andrew B. Bernard and J. Bradford Jensen and their co-authors. Surveys of firm differences within sectors are e.g. given in Bernard et al. (2007) and Tybout (2003).
 
58
See the Melitz (2003) model that is introduced in Sect. 2.1 but also Helpman et al. (2004), Bernard et al. (2003) or Melitz and Ottaviano (2008).
 
59
Theoretically, the openness of an economy is defined as ‘[…]the degree to which nationals and foreigners can transact without artificial (that is, governmentally imposed) costs (including delays and uncertainty) that are not imposed on transactions among domestic citizens[…]’ (Berg and Krueger 2003, p. 5).
 
60
Different implementations are used. The export-led-growth literature typically looks at X/GDP. Others look at (X + M)/(GO + X + M) where GO is gross output (Alexandre et al. 2009). Alcala and Ciccone (2004) use (X + M)/(GDP in PPP-dollars) as the measure of ‘real openness’. Further alternatives are summarised in Squalli and Wilson (2006, Table 1). For a comprehensive critic see Rodrik et al. (2004).
 
61
Others are the ‘Average Black Market Premium’, the index of ‘Trade Freedom’ calculated by the Heritage Foundation, the ‘IMF’s Trade Restrictiveness Index’, the ‘Average Coverage of Non-Tariff Barriers’, the ‘Index of Import Distortions’ estimated by Wolf (1993), or the MAcMaps (Market Access maps) system of the Geneva-based International Trade Center (ITC). For details see Edwards (1998), IMF (2005) and Krishna (2009).
 
62
In this index also FDI flows and stocks as well as portfolio investments and income payments to foreign nationals are included. The sub-index ‘Economic Globalization’ of the ‘CSGR Globalization Index’ of the University of Warwick also includes the latter but does not contain policy distortion variables.
 
63
The terms of trade between primary commodities and manufactures has a negative deterministic trend (Prebisch 1950 and Singer 1950).
 
64
The earliest source is List (1841).
 
65
See Krueger (1978) and other volumes of the series ‘Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development’.
 
66
‘Liberalizing Foreign Trade,’ Vol. 1–7, Blackwell Publishing, 1986–1991, by Armeane M. Choksi, Michael Michaely and Demetris Papageorgiou.
 
67
Sachs (1987) questions this view by pointing out that ELG in East Asian Tigers was accompanied by import protection. See also Young (1995) for the contribution of factor accumulation in this growth process.
 
68
See also Greenaway et al. (2002) for a discussion.
 
69
See also Frankel and Rose (2000).
 
70
E.g. Rodrik et al. (2004) and Rodriguez (2007). See also Srinivasan and Bhagwati (1999).
 
71
Why this is an institutional aspect is explained in Clague et al. (1999). It is an indicator for the willingness to hold liquid financial assets via financial intermediates and thus is a proxy for secure property right.
 
72
Surveys on this topic are provided in Saggi (2002) and Keller (2004, 2009).
 
73
These are the pioneering contributions in the field.
 
74
Xu and Wang (1999) also concentrate on capital goods trade and find even a higher influence of imports on international R&D spillovers then the Coe and Helpman analyses.
 
75
See also Chap.​ 4.
 
76
As opposed to those relying on natural or primary resources.
 
77
Defined as the most productive state-industry in India.
 
78
See Nickell (1996).
 
79
Tybout (2000) points out that further work is needed on this topic and this statement is still valid.
 
80
For a comprehensive survey of LBE and related topics it is also referred to Wagner (2011) and Silva et al. (2010).
 
81
E.g. Bernard and Jensen (1999), Greenaway and Kneller (2004), Arnold and Hussinger (2005), and Van Biesebroeck (2003). Which other studies also find self-selection is indicated in Table 3.2.
 
82
Older version: Eaton et al. (2007).
 
83
They also use the plant’s age as Baldwin and Gu (2003), who also find evidence for LBE – particularly for younger plants.
 
84
Fernandes (2007) criticises that the dummy for the trade reform period cannot isolate the corresponding productivity gains as contemporaneous macroeconomic shocks are not controlled for. She adds that also the variation in protection across industries is ignored.
 
85
They also exhibit higher IT-intensities.
 
86
For further studies on the imports and productivity in general it is also referred to Wagner (2011).
 
Literatur
Acemoglu, D. (2009). Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aghion, P., & Griffith, R. (2005). Competition and growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.
Aghion, P. & Howitt, P. (2005). Growth with quality-improving innovations: An integrated framework. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (chap. 2, Vol. 1, pp. 67–110) Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Aghion, P., Howitt, P., Harris, C., & Vickers, J. (2001). Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Review of Economic Studies, 68, 467–492.
Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2003). Innovate to escape entry: Theory and micro-evidence, Working Paper, Harvard, UCL, and IFS.
Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2004). Entry and productivity growth: Evidence from microlevel panel data. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 265–276.
Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 701–728.
Aghion, P., Burgess, R., Redding, S. J., & Zilibotti, F. (2008). The unequal effects of liberalization: Evidence from dismantling the License Raj in India. American Economic Review, 98, 1397–1412.
Albornoz-Crespo, F., Calvo Pardo, H. F., Corcos, G., & Ornelas, E. (2010). Sequential exporting. CEPR Discussion Papers 8103, Centre for Economic Policy Research (C.E.P.R.).
Alcala, F., & Ciccone, A. (2004). Trade and productivity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 612–645.
Alexandre, F., Bação, P., Cerejeira, J., & Portela, M. (2009). Employment and exchange rates: The role of openness and technology. IZA Discussion Paper Series DP No. 4191, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Alvarez, R., & Lopez, R. (2005). Exporting and performance: Evidence from Chilean plants. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38, 1384–1400.
Amiti, M., & Konings, J. (2007). Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs, and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia. American Economic Review, 97, 1611–1638.
Amiti, M., & Wei, S.-J. (2006). Service offshoring and productivity: Evidence from the United States. NBER Working Paper 11926, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Anderson, J. E., & Neary, P. J. (2005). Measuring the restrictiveness of international trade policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arnold, J. M., & Hussinger, K. (2005). Export behavior and firm productivity in German manufacturing: A firm-level analysis. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 141, 219–243.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–173.
Atkeson, A., & Burstein, A. T. (2010). Innovation, firm dynamics, and international trade. Journal of Political Economy, 118, 433–484.
Baldwin, R. E. (2003). Openness and growth: What’s the empirical relationship? NBER Working Paper 9578, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Baldwin, J. R., & Gu, W. (2003). Export-market participation and productivity performance in Canadian manufacturing. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36, 634–657.
Baldwin, J. R., & Gu, W. (2004). Trade liberalization: Export-market participation, productivity growth, and innovation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 372–392.
Baldwin, R. E., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2008). Trade and growth with heterogeneous firms. Journal of International Economics, 74, 21–34.
Berg, A., & Krueger, A. O. (2003). Trade, growth, and poverty: A selective survey. IMF Working Papers 03/30, International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1995). Exporters, jobs, and wages in U.S. manufacturing: 1976–1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, 67–119.
Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, 47, 1–25.
Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (2004). Exporting and productivity in the USA. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 343–357.
Bernard, A. B., Eaton, J., Jensen, J. B., & Kortum, S. (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. The American Economic Review, 93, 1268–1290.
Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B., Redding, S. J., & Schott, P. K. (2007). Firms in international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 105–130.
Bhagwati, J. (1988). Protectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloom, N., Draca, M., & Reenen, J. V. (2011). Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, IT and productivity. NBER Working Paper 16717, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Review of Economic Studies, 66, 529–554.
Bratti, M., & Felice, G. (2011) Are exporters more likely to introduce product innovations? Development Working Papers 306, Centro Studi Luca d’Ágliano, University of Milano.
Broda, C., & Weinstein, D. E. (2006). Globalization and the gains from variety. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 541–585.
Broda, C., Greenfield, J., & Weinstein, D. (2006). From groundnuts to globalization: A structural estimate of trade and growth. NBER Working Paper 12512, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Buono, I., Fadinger, H., & Berger, S. (2008). The micro dynamics of exporting: Evidence from French firms. MPRA Paper 12940, University Library of Munich.
Bustos, P. (2011). Trade liberalization, exports, and technology upgrading: Evidence on the impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinian firms. American Economic Review, 101, 304–340.
Cameron, G., Proudman, J., & Redding, S. (2005). Technological convergence, R&D, trade and productivity growth. European Economic Review, 49, 775–807.
Castellani, D. (2002). Export behavior and productivity growth: Evidence from Italian manufacturing firms. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 138, 605–628.
Clague, C., Keefer, P., Knack, S., & Olson, M. (1999). Contractintensive money: Contract enforcement, property rights, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Growth, 4, 185–211.
Clerides, S. K., Lach, S., & Tybout, J. R. (1998). Is learning by exporting important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 903–947.
Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39, 859–887.
Coe, D. T., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. W. (1997). North–south R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 107, 134–149.
Coe, D. T., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. W. (2009). International R&D spillovers and institutions. European Economic Review, 53, 723–741.
Damijan, J. P., & Kostevc, C. (2010). Learning from trade through innovation: Causal link between imports, exports and innovation in Spanish microdata. LICOS Discussion Papers 26410, LICOS – Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, K. U. Leuven.
De Loecker, J. (2007). Do exports generate higher productivity? Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of International Economics, 73, 69–98.
De Loecker, J. (2010). A note on detecting learning by exporting. NBER Working Papers 16548, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Disney, R., Haskel, J., & Heden, Y. (2003). Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing. Economic Journal, 113, 666–694.
Dixit, A. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. American Economic Review, 67, 287–308.
Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50, 133–162.
Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2004). Trade, growth, and poverty. Economic Journal, 114, F22–F49.
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38, 1091–1110.
Dreher, A., Gaston, N., & Martens, P. (2008). Measuring globalisation: Gauging its consequences. New York: Springer.
Eaton, J., Eslava, M., Kugler, M., & Tybout, J. (2007). Export dynamics in Colombia: Firm-level evidence. NBER Working Paper 13531, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Eaton, J., Eslava, M., Kugler, M., & Tybout, J. (2008). The margins of entry into export markets: Evidence from Colombia. In E. Helpman, D. Marin, & T. Verdier (Eds.), The organization of firms in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ederington, J., & Mccalman, P. (2007). The impact of trade liberalization on productivity within and across industries: Theory and evidence. Monash Economics Working Papers 24/07, Monash University, Department of Economics.
Ederington, J., & Mccalman, P. (2008). Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization. Journal of International Economics, 74, 422–440.
Edwards, S. (1993). Openness, trade liberalization, and growth in developing countries. Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 1358–1393.
Edwards, S. (1998). Openness, productivity and growth: What do we really know? The Economic Journal, 108, 383–398.
Falvey, R., Foster, N., & Greenaway, D. (2004). Imports, exports, knowledge spillovers and growth. Economics Letters, 85, 209–213.
Feenstra, R. C., Madani, D., Yang, T.-H., & Liang, C.-Y. (1999). Testing endogenous growth in South Korea and Taiwan. Journal of Development Economics, 60, 317–341.
Fernandes, A. M. (2007). Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries. Journal of International Economics, 71, 52–71.
Fernandes, A. M., & Isgut, A. E. (2005). Learning-by-doing, learning-by-exporting, and productivity: Evidence from Colombia. Policy Research Working Paper Series 3544, The World Bank.
Fernandes, A. M., & Paunov, C. (2010). Does trade stimulate innovation? Evidence from firm-product data. Working Paper 286, OECD Development Centre.
Flemming, J., & Götz, G. (1993). Externalitäten, Nichtkonvexitäten und endogener technischer Fortschritt. Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft, 44, 203–215.
Forlani, E. (2010). Irish firms’ productivity and imported inputs. CORE Discussion Papers 2010/15, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), Université Catholique de Louvain.
Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American Economic Review, 89, 379–399.
Fryges, H., & Wagner, J. (2008). Exports and productivity growth: First evidence from a continuous treatment approach. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 144, 695–722.
Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1986). A signal-jamming theory of predation. RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 366–376.
Funk, M. (2001). Trade and international R&D spillovers among OECD countries. Southern Economic Journal, 67, 725–736.
Geroski, P. (2003). Competition in markets and competition for markets. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 3, 151–166.
Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. G. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 72, 514–526.
Giles, J. A., & Williams, C. L. (2000a). Export-led growth: A survey of the empirical literature and some non-causality results, part I. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 9, 261–337.
Giles, J. A., & Williams, C. L. (2000b). Export-led growth: A survey of the empirical literature and some non-causality results, part II. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 9, 445–470.
Girma, S., Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2004b). Does exporting increase productivity? A microeconometric analysis of matched firms. Review of International Economics, 12, 855–866.
Goldberg, P. K., Khandelwal, A. K., Pavcnik, N., & Topalova, P. (2009). Trade liberalization and new imported inputs. American Economic Review, 99, 494–500.
Goldberg, P. K., Khandelwal, A. K., Pavcnik, N., & Topalova, P. (2010). Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth: Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1727–1767.
Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2004). Exporting and productivity in the United Kingdom. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 358–371.
Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2005). Exporting and productivity: Theory, evidence and future research. Singapore Economic Review, 50, 303–312.
Greenaway, D., Morgan, W., & Wright, P. (2002). Trade liberalisation and growth in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 67, 229–244.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991a). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991b). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35, 517–526.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1995). Trade wars and trade talks. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 675–708.
Gustafsson, P., & Segerstrom, P. (2010). Trade liberalization and productivity growth. Review of International Economics, 18, 207–228.
Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 83–116.
Hallak, J. C., & Levinsohn, J. (2004). Fooling ourselves: Evaluating the globalization and growth debate. NBER Working Paper 10244, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Hallward-Driemeier, M., Iarossi, G., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2002). Exports and manufacturing productivity in East Asia: A comparative analysis with firm-level data. NBER Working Paper 8894, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Harrison, A. E. (1994). Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform: Theory and evidence. Journal of International Economics, 36, 53–73.
Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94, 300–316.
Hirano, K., & Imbens, G. W. (2004). The propensity score with continuous treatments. In A. Gelman & X.-L. Meng (Eds.), Applied Bayesian modelling and causal inference from incomplete-data perspectives (pp. 73–84). West-Sussex: Wiley InterScience.
Hofmann, P. (2009). Die neue neue Außenhandelstheorie: das Melitz-Modell, Schriftenserie des Promotionsschwerpunkts “Globalisierung und Beschäftigung” 30/2009, University of Hohenheim.
IMF. (2005). Review of the IMF’s trade restrictiveness index, Background Paper to the Review of Fund Work on Trade, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Policy Development and Review Department.
Jaffe, A. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 75, 984–1002.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.
Jones, C. I. (1995). R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 759–784.
Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the death of the renaissance man: Is innovation getting harder? Review of Economic Studies, 76, 283–317.
Kao, C., & Chiang, M.-H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 179–222.
Kao, C., Chiang, M.-H., & Chen, B. (1999). International R&D spillovers: An application of estimation and inference in panel cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 691–709.
Kasahara, H., & Lapham, B. (2008). Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence. CESifo Working Paper 2240.
Kasahara, H., & Rodrigue, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87, 106–118.
Keller, W. (1998). Are international R&D spillovers trade-related? Analyzing spillovers among randomly matched trade partners. European Economic Review, 42, 1469–1481.
Keller, W. (2002b). Trade and the transmission of technology. Journal of Economic Growth, 7, 5–24.
Keller, W. (2004). International technology diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 752–782.
Keller, W. (2009). International trade, foreign direct investment, and technology spillovers. NBER Working Paper 15442, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Kortum, S. (1993). Equilibrium R&D and the patent-R&D ratio: U.S. evidence. American Economic Review, 83, 450–457.
Kortum, S. (1997). Research, patenting, and technological change. Econometrica, 65, 1389–1420.
Kraay, A. (1999). Exportations et Performances Economiques: Etude d’un Panel d’Entreprises Chinoises (Exports and economic performance: Evidence from a panel of Chinese enterprises). Revue d’Economie du Developpement, 2, 183–207.
Krishna, K. (2009). Background paper on the IMF’s trade restrictiveness index. MPRA Paper 21316, University Library of Munich.
Krishna, P., & Mitra, D. (1998). Trade liberalization, market discipline and productivity growth: New evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 56, 447–462.
Krueger, A. O. (1978). Foreign trade regimes and economic development: Liberalisation attempts and consequences. Lexington: Ballinger Press.
Krueger, A. O. (1998). Why trade liberalization is good for growth. The Economic Journal, 108, 1513–1522.
Krugman, P. R. (1979). Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics, 9, 469–479.
Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review, 70, 950–959.
Leamer, E. E. (1988). Measures of openness. In R. E. Baldwin (Ed.), Trade policy issues and empirical analysis (pp. 145–204). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, G. (2006). The effectiveness of international knowledge spillover channels. European Economic Review, 50, 2075–2088.
Lelarge, C., & Nefussi, B. (2008). Exposure to low-wage competition, activity changes and quality upgrading: An empirical assessment. Mimeo.
Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70, 317–341.
Lichtenberg, F. R., & Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. v. (1998). International R&D spillovers: A comment. European Economic Review, 42, 1483–1491.
List, F. (1841). Das nationale system der politischen Ökonomie. Stuttgart/Tübingen: Cotta.
Long, N. V., Raff, H., & Stähler, F. (2011). Innovation and trade with heterogeneous firms. Journal of International Economics, 84, 149–159.
Looikee, H., Nicita, A., & Olarreaga, M. (2009). Estimating trade restrictiveness indices. Economic Journal, 119, 172–199.
Lopez, R. A. (2005). Trade and growth: Reconciling the macroeconomic and microeconomic evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 623–648.
Macgarvie, M. (2006). Do firms learn from international trade? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 46–60.
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71, 1695–1725.
Melitz, M. J., & Ottaviano, G. I. P. (2008). Market size, trade, and productivity. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 295–316.
Navas, A., & Licandro, O. (2011). Trade liberalization, competition and growth. The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 11, 1–26.
Navas, A., & Sala, D. (2007), Technology adoption and the selection effect of trade. EUI Working Paper ECO 2007/58, Florence, European University Institute (EUI).
Nickell, S. J. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 724–746.
Nicoletti, G., & Scarpetta, S. (2003). Regulation, productivity and growth: OECD evidence. Economic Policy, 18, 9–72.
Noguer, M., & Siscart, M. (2005). Trade raises income: A precise and robust result. Journal of International Economics, 65, 447–460.
Olley, G. S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64, 1263–1297.
Pavcnik, N. (2002). Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvement: Evidence from Chilean plant. Review of Economic Studies, 69, 245–276.
Peretto, P. F. (2003). Endogenous market structure and the growth and welfare effects of economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 60, 177–201.
Prebisch, R. (1950). The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. New York: United Nations.
Rigobon, R., & Rodrik, D. (2004). Rule of law, democracy, openness, and income: Estimating the interrelationships. NBER Working Paper 10750, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Rivera-Batiz, L. A., & Romer, P. M. (1991a). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 531–555.
Rivera-Batiz, L. A., & Romer, P. M. (1991b). International trade with endogenous technological change. European Economic Review, 35, 971–1001.
Rodriguez, F. (2007). Openness and growth: What have we learned? Working Papers 51, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
Rodriguez, A. C. (2011). Within firm productivity gains from trade? Not always. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Mimeo.
Rodriguez, F., & Rodrik, D. (2001). Trade policy and economic growth: A sceptic’s guide to the cross-national evidence. In B. S. Bernanke & K. Rogoff (Eds.), NBER macroeconomics annual 2000 (Vol. 15, pp. 261–338). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rodrik, D. (1992). Closing the productivity gap: Does trade liberalization really help? In G. K. Helleiner (Ed.), Trade policy, industrialization, and development: New perspectives (chap. 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9, 131–165.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.
Romer, P. M. (1987). Growth based on increasing returns due to specialization. The American Economic Review, 77, 56–62.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.
Sachs, J. D. (1987). Trade and exchange rate policies in growth-oriented adjustment programs. In V. Corbo, M. Goldstein, & M. Kahn (Eds.), Growth-oriented adjustment programs. Washington, DC: IMF.
Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. (1995). Economic reform and the process of global integration. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 26, 1–118.
Saggi, K. (2002). Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. World Bank Research Observer, 17, 191–235.
Saxa, B. (2008). Learning-by-exporting or managerial quality? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Economie Internationale, 109–139.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Harper & Brothers.
Silva, A., Africano, A. P., & Afonso, Ó. (2010). Learning-by-exporting: What we know and what we would like to know. FEP Working Papers 364, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
Singer, H. W. (1950). The distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries. American Economic Review, 40, 473–485.
Squalli, J., & Wilson, K. (2006). A new approach to measuring trade openness. Zayed University Dubai, Mimeo.
Srinivasan, T. N., & Bhagwati, J. (1999). Outward-orientation and development: Are revisionists right. Working Papers 806, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
Teshima, K. (2008). Import competition and innovation at the plant-level: Evidence from Mexico. Mimeo.
The International Study Group on Exports and Productivity. (2007). Exports and productivity: Comparable evidence for 14 countries. Discussion Papers 07/41, University of Nottingham, GEP.
Traca, D. A. (2002). Imports as competitive discipline: The role of the productivity gap. Journal of Development Economics, 69, 1–21.
Trefler, D. (2004). The long and short of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. American Economic Review, 94, 870–895.
Tybout, J. R. (2000). Manufacturing firms in developing countries: How well do they do, and why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 11–44.
Tybout, J. R. (2003). Plant- and firm-level evidence on new trade theories. In E. K. Choi & J. Harrigan (Eds.), Handbook of international trade. Malden: Blackwell.
Unel, B. (2010). Technology diffusion through trade with heterogeneous firms. Review of International Economics, 18, 465–481.
Van Biesebroeck, J. (2003). Exporting raises productivity in Sub-Saharan African manufacturing plants. NBER Working Paper 10020, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Van Biesebroeck, J. (2005). Exporting raises productivity in Sub-Saharan African manufacturing firms. Journal of International Economics, 67, 373–391.
Wacziarg, R., & Welch, K. H. (2008). Trade liberalization and growth: New evidence. World Bank Economic Review, 22, 187–231.
Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firmlevel data. The World Economy, 30, 60–82.
Wagner, J. (2011). International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical studies since 2006. IZA Discussion Papers 5916, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Warner, A. (2003). Once more into the breach: Economic growth and integration. Working Papers 34, Center for Global Development.
Winkler, D. (2009). Services offshoring and its impact on the labor market – Theoretical insights, empirical evidence, and economic policy recommendations for Germany. Heidelberg: Springer/Physika-Verlag.
Winkler, D., Haddad, M., & Zeufack, A. (2011). The effects of exports on productivity and volatility: Evidence from Malaysian firm-level data. In M. Haddad & B. Shepherd (Eds.), Managing openness: Trade and outward–oriented growth after the crisis (pp. 145–153). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Wolf, H. C. (1993). Trade orientation measurement and consequences. Estudios de Economia, 20, 49–86.
World Bank. (1987). World development report 1987. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WTO. (1998). Annual report 1998. World Trade Organization (WTO). Geneva: WTO Publications.
Xu, B., & Wang, J. (1999). Capital goods trade and R&D spillovers in the OE. Canadian Journal of Economics, 32, 1258–1274.
Yasar, M., & Rejesus, R. M. (2005). Exporting status and firm performance: Evidence from a matched sample. Economics Letters, 88, 397–402.
Yasar, M., Nelson, C. H., & Rejesus, R. (2006). Productivity and exporting status of manufacturing firms: Evidence from quantile regressions. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 142, 675–694.
Young, A. (1991). Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 369–405.
Young, A. (1995). The tyranny of numbers: Confronting the statistical realities of the East Asian growth experience. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 641–680.
Franhel, J. A., & Rose, A. K. (2000). Estimating the effect of currency unions on trade and output. NBER Working Paper 7857, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Metadaten
Titel
The Impact of Trade on Technological Change and Long-Run Growth
verfasst von
Dr. Patricia Hofmann
Copyright-Jahr
2013
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch
The Impact of International Trade and FDI on Economic Growth and Technological Change

Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34580-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-34581-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2013

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34581-4_3

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise