×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Infrastructure and productivity: an extension to private infrastructure and it productivity. (English) Zbl 1247.91135
Summary: This paper incorporates both public and private infrastructure within the framework of a nonlinear production function. The theoretical model specifies a technological growth rate as a nonlinear function of government infrastructure and private infrastructure generated by the information sector of the economy-cable, wireless stations, satellites, internet facilities, broadcasting, etc. The time trend is included to capture the effect of all other variables. The empirical estimates generated by the model imply increasing returns to scale for the US economy in the last few years. The evaluation of the growth accounting equation implies that information technology was the largest contributing component to growth during the expansion of the 1990s.

MSC:
91B82 Statistical methods; economic indices and measures
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Dedrick, J.; Gurbaxani, V.; Kraemer, K., Information technology and economic performance: A critical review of the empirical evidence, (2003), Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University of California, Irvine
[2] Duggal, V.G., Saltzman, C., Klein, L., Infrastructure and productivity: a nonlinear approach. Journal of Econometrics 92, 47-74. · Zbl 0929.62114
[3] Harchaoui, T.M.; Tarkhani, F.; Jackson, C.; Armstrong, P., Information technology and economic growth in Canada and the US, Monthly labor review, 3-12, (2002)
[4] Intriligator, M.D.; Bodkin, R.G.; Hsiao, C., Econometric models, techniques, and applications, (1996), Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ
[5] Jorgenson, D.W.; Ho, M.S.; Stiroh, K.J., Projecting productivity growth: lessons from the US growth resurgence, Federal reserve bank of Atlanta economic review, 87, 15-44, (2002)
[6] Jorgenson, D.W.; Stiroh, K.J., Information technology and growth, American economic review paper and Proceedings, 89, 2, 109-115, (1999)
[7] Kiley, Computers and growth with frictions: aggregate and disaggregate evidence, Carnegie-rochester conference series on public policy, 55, 171-215, (2001)
[8] Landefeld, S.J.; Moulton, R.R.; Vojtech, C.M., Chained-dollar indexes: issues, tips on their use, and upcoming changes, Survey of current business, 8-16, (2003)
[9] Leff, N.H., Externalities, information costs, and social benefit – cost analysis for economic development: an example from telecommunications, Economic development and cultural change, 32, 255-276, (1984)
[10] McGuckin, R.H., Stiroh, K.J., 2000. Computers and productivity: are aggregation effects important? Working paper.
[11] Morrison, C., Berndt, E., 1991. Assessing the productivity of information technology equipment in US manufacturing industries. NBER Working Paper No. 3582, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, DC.
[12] Oliner, S.D.; Sichel, D.E., Information technology and productivity: where are we now and where are we going, Federal reserve bank of Atlanta economic review, 87, 15-43, (2002)
[13] Roach, S.S., 1987. An assessment of the productivity impact of information technologies. MIT Management in the 1990s. Working Paper No. 88-054, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
[14] Sichel, D.E., Computers and aggregate economic growth: an update, Business economics, April, 18-24, (1999)
[15] Stiroh, K.J., Computers and aggregate economic growth: an update, American economic review, 92, 5, (2002)
[16] Stiroh, K.J., Information technology and the US productivity revival: a review of the evidence, Business economics, 37, 1, 30-37, (2002)
[17] Triplett, J.E., The solow productivity paradox: what do computers do to productivity?, Canadian journal of economics, 32, 2, 309-334, (1999)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.