Effects of a blocking patent on R&D with endogenous survival activities

This study analyzes the effect of strengthening patent protection for innovation and economic growth by introducing a blocking patent into the endogenous growth model developed by Furukawa (Econ Lett 121(1):26–29, 2013a), which features survival activity of patent holders in the R&D sector with a variety-expansion model. Results show that strengthening patent protection can raise the economic growth rate and social welfare through an endogenous survival investment. Additionally, this study examines the effects of increasing subsidies for R&D. We find that increasing R&D subsidy rate can negatively affect economic growth and social welfare because of the investment for survival activities. This result shows the novel role of a blocking patent in determining innovation effects of R&D subsidies. Furthermore, we analyze the effect of patent breadth which is another patent instrument in this model on innovation and economic growth. Results show that the growth and welfare effects of the profit-division rule and the subsidy rate for R&D may vary with the size of patent breadth.     

Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?

This study develops an R&D-based growth model with vertical and horizontal innovation to shed some light on the current debate on whether patent protection stimulates or stifles innovation. We analyze the effects of patent protection in the form of blocking patents. We show that patent protection changes the direction of innovation by having asymmetric effects on vertical innovation (i.e., quality improvement) and horizontal innovation (i.e., variety expansion). Calibrating the model and simulating transition dynamics, we find that strengthening the effect of blocking patents stifles vertical innovation and decreases economic growth but increases social welfare due to an increase in horizontal innovation. In light of this finding, we argue that in order to properly analyze the growth and welfare implications of patents, it is important to consider their often neglected compositional effects on vertical and horizontal innovation.     

Finance and income inequality in Kazakhstan: evidence since transition with policy suggestions

Kazakhstan gained independence in 1990 and has undergone significant changes in economic, social and trade conditions since then. We analyse the effects of financial development on income inequality in Kazakhstan, incorporating economic growth, foreign investment, education and the role of democracy as the drivers. We establish that income inequality in Kazakhstan is impaired by financial development. In summary, we send three messages for policy purposes. First, strengthening financial sector is necessary to close the gap between ‘haves and have-nots’. Second, attracting FDI beyond the hydrocarbon sector is necessary to alleviate inequality. Finally, adaptation of education system to the new social and economic environment would help in improving income distribution.     

Patent protection, capital accumulation, and economic growth

In this paper, we investigate how strengthening patent protection affects economic growth in an endogenous growth model where both innovation and capital accumulation are the driving forces of economic growth. In this model, stronger patent protection raises the profit flow obtained by innovation but reduces the factor demand for capital. This process accelerates innovation but discourages capital accumulation, and because of the negative effect on economic growth through reducing capital accumulation, strengthening patent protection may then impede economic growth. This result contrasts with earlier studies where innovation is the sole driving force for economic growth. Moreover, in an open economy model where technologies are transferred and capital is imported from abroad, the strictest protection of patents enhances technology adoption from abroad but impedes capital accumulation, and thus, the relation derived between patent protection and output can be nonmonotone. In terms of implications, these findings may be able to partly explain the complex relation found by some empirical studies in this area.     

Income inequality and economic growth

Despite the extensive existing literature on income inequality and economic growth, there remains considerable disagreement on the effect of inequality on economic growth. Existing literatures find either a positive or a negative relationship. In this paper, we attempt to theoretically examine that relationship with a stochastic optimal growth model. We make the disagreement clear within a single model. We conclude (i) that both are possible – that is, higher inequality can retard growth in the early stage of economic development, and can encourage growth in a near steady state, (ii) that income redistribution by high income tax does not always reduce income inequality. Income inequality can be reduced by higher income tax in a near steady state, but it cannot be reduced in the early stage of economic development, and (iii) that two government polices – rapid economic growth and low income inequality – can be achieved by low income tax in the early stage of economic development, but both cannot be achieved simultaneously in a near steady state.     

Inequality and growth in the United States: is there asymmetric response at the state level?

A previous study that tried to assess the impact of economic growth on income inequality in the U.S. used state-level data and an ARDL panel model to conclude that economic growth worsens income inequality in the U.S. In this article, we use the same data set but an ARDL time-series model applied to each state in the U.S. to show that the above conclusion is only valid in 20 states. Additionally, we use a nonlinear ARDL approach to show that the effects are asymmetric in the short run as well as in the long run. Significant long-run asymmetric effects reveal that in 28 states both an increase and a decrease in real output have worsened income distribution.     

Income inequality and economic incentives: Is there an equity–efficiency tradeoff?

What is the basis and direction of relationship between income inequality and economic growth? The equity versus efficiency dictum which predicts a positive relationship between inequality, capital formation, and real GDP growth—emphasizes the importance of economic incentives. Subsequently, this was challenged by the incomplete markets and political outcomes theories, because of increasing empirical evidence of an inverse relationship between income inequality and economic growth. In this paper, we offer a further explanation of the basis and nature of the inequality–capital–growth relationship which emphasizes the divergence between savings and investment. For the United States over the period 1970–2006, we have found no empirical evidence for the support of the equity versus efficiency hypothesis—that economic incentives are necessary for capital accumulation and growth. In fact, it was discovered that in most cases, inequality has had little or no impact on movements in the US capital stock, net investment, and consequently, economic growth. Another interesting finding of this study was that inequality exhibits hysteresis—implying that any positive shock, such as the dot-com boom, can lead to persistent and enduring increases in inequality.     

GROWTH, POVERTY, AND INEQUALITY IN LATIN AMERICA: A CAUSAL ANALYSIS, 1970–94

Taking advantage of consistent poverty and income inequality data for 12 Latin American countries between 1970 and 1994, we analyze the determinants of changes in the incidence of urban and rural poverty and in Gini coefficients over spells of years, stressing in particular the role of aggregate income growth. We find that income growth reduces urban and rural poverty but not inequality. We also find that income growth is more effective in reducing urban poverty if the levels of inequality and poverty are lower, and the levels of secondary education higher. We show that there is an asymmetry in the impact of growth on poverty and inequality, with recession having strong negative effects on both poverty and inequality. Since growth does not reduce inequality, economic cycles create ratchet effects on the level of inequality. However, post-structural adjustment growth is quite effective at reducing poverty, particularly if inequality is low.     

Inequality,Redistribution, and the Financial Crisis: Evidence from Distributional National Accounts for Austria

In this paper, we provide novel findings regarding the distributional effects of the global financial and economic crisis and how redistribution operated during this time, using detailed data for Austria. We construct distributional national accounts for the period 2004–2016 by combining survey data, tabulated tax data, and detailed national accounts data. The comprehensive data set allows us to analyze the distribution of macroeconomic income growth across the income distribution and to explore the evolution of income inequality over time. Our results suggest that as the distribution of growth changed over time, this had considerable repercussions for inequality, which started to decline at the very beginning of the economic and financial crisis, but increased again after 2012. We find that capital income largely determined both the level and the dynamics of income inequality. Government spending was found to play a key role for redistributive effects across the income distribution. In particular, in-kind transfers redistributed pre-tax income to a large extent. Our results show further that individuals with lower educational levels and younger individuals faced negative growth in pre-tax income over the years and also benefited considerably from redistribution.     

Patent claims and economic growth

This study introduces a blocking patent on horizontal R&D into the endogenous growth model of Chu et al. (2012), which features a blocking patent on vertical R&D. Results show that strengthening patent protection on horizontal R&D promotes vertical innovation (quality improvement) but hinders horizontal innovation (variety expansion). This effect of a horizontal blocking patent on directionality of innovation is opposite to that of the vertical blocking patent analyzed by Chu et al. (2012). Results also show that under mild conditions, strengthening a blocking patent on horizontal innovation as well as on vertical innovation can increase economic growth and social welfare.     

经济增长、收入差距与农村贫困

我国经济转型过程中同时发生的居民收入增长和收入差距扩大对农村贫困减缓具有不同的影响。本文在住户调查数据的基础上,讨论了不同时期经济增长和收入差距对于农村贫困减缓的作用大小,估算了不同年份经济增长和收入差距的贫困减缓弹性,并根据Shapley分解讨论了分项收入对贫困程度的影响以及分项收入不均等性的贫困减缓弹性。     

Genetic distance,economic growth and top income shares: Evidence from OECD countries

The relationship between economic growth and income inequality remains a puzzle in the literature. The main problem has been finding a way to account for the endogeneity of growth. Using century-long data of 14 OECD countries, this study disentangles the growth–inequality relationship. In doing so, our main contribution is employing genetic and geographical distances as instruments for economic growth. The instruments are constructed on the premise that the growth of one country spills over to the others if they are connected through trade and other forms of exchange; however, the genetic and geographical distances between countries represent barriers to such spillovers. Using alternative specifications and measures, we find that growth reduces the inequality measured by top income shares. As capital share increases in the growth process and capital substitutes labour, inequality-reducing strength of growth declines. Another important finding is that the effect of growth on top income shares is more significant among the highest income groups.     

The effect of growth volatility on income inequality

This paper assesses the long-run effect of growth volatility on income inequality using a comprehensive panel of annual U.S. state-level data during the 1945 to 2004 period. Using the pooled mean group (PMG) estimator, we find evidence supporting the hypothesis that larger growth volatility positively and significantly associates with higher income inequality. Our key finding is robust to alternative lag structures, conditioning variables, inequality measures, volatility indicators, time periods, and panel estimators. Our key finding does change for asymmetric effects, where larger growth volatility positively and significantly associates with higher income inequality only for positive economic growth. The volatility effect proves positive, but insignificant, for negative economic growth.     

Political capitalism: The interaction between income inequality,economic freedom and democracy

We study the relationship between income inequality and economic freedom for a panel of 100 countries for the 1971–2010 period. Using a panel Granger non-causality approach, we reject the null hypothesis of Granger non-causality running from income inequality to economic freedom, but not vice versa. From a series of dynamic panel estimations we show that the effect of income inequality on economic freedom is negative and robust to the inclusion of additional controls. In particular, inequality is negatively associated with those components of economic freedom related to international trade, domestic market regulation as well as the rule of law and property rights protection. We argue that the negative effect of inequality on economic freedom is due to the economic elite converting its economic power into de facto political power to defend its economic interests; these interests run counter to economic freedom, discouraging innovation and competition as well as protecting the elite's rents. Finally, we show that economic freedom decreases with income inequality even in democratic countries, suggesting that democratic institutions do not prevent economic freedom from eroding. We argue that the latter finding corresponds to a system of political capitalism or captured democracy, where a powerful economic elite can nevertheless exercise de facto political power by cooperating with politicians and other decision-makers for their mutual benefit.     

What drives inequality and poverty in the EU? Exploring the impact of macroeconomic and institutional factors

Employing panel data techniques, we investigate the macroeconomic and institutional determinants of inequality and poverty in the EU over the period 1994–2008. We pay particular attention to the effects of macroeconomic environment, social protection and labour market institutions. The empirical analysis shows that the social transfers in cash, and principally the transfers that do not include pensions, exert a prominent impact on inequality and poverty. Also significant is the effect of the GDP per capita. The impact of employment on inequality and poverty is not empirically sound. The same holds for the labour market institutions; an exception is the union density, which appears conducive to a less dispersed personal income distribution. Importantly, the results support the view that the social protection system acts as a catalyst in determining the effectiveness of social spending and the distributive role of economic growth and employment.     

GROWTH,INEQUALITY, AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM: EVIDENCE FROM THE U.S. STATES

This article returns to the discussion of how income inequality affects economic growth. The main argument of the article is that economic freedom is likely to mediate the association between inequality and growth. In a panel of 300 observations from six 5‐year periods across the 50 U.S. states, I employ five different measures of inequality. The results show that across measures, the growth effects of inequality turn more positive with more economic freedom. The moderating effects are mainly driven by measures of public sector consumption. (JEL O11, O38, O43, P48)     

Patents and quality growth in OLG economy

This paper shows how heterogeneity in patent ownership across generations and lifecycle saving considerations qualitatively change the conventional implications of patent policy for quality growth. We study a close Overlapping Generations economy that grows through sequential quality improvements (“quality-ladder”), to show that for plausible values of the Inter-temporal Elasticity of Substitution (a) shorter patent length enhances growth (b) under exogenous innovation size loosening patent breadth protection spurs R&D investment and quality growth and (c) the effect of loosening lagging breadth protection on R&D investment and quality growth under endogenous innovation size depends on patents length. Our findings explore a new channel through which strong patents may hinder innovation and emphasize the importance of coordination in patent-policy across the different dimensions of the patents system.     

In search of thresholds in the household income inequality–growth relationship

This paper investigates the shape of the relationship between household income inequality and economic growth. More precisely we search for the existence of threshold values in this relationship by employing a dynamic panel smooth transition regression model to account for potential endogeneity problems. We find that there do exist threshold values (that are different for different groups of countries): below the threshold, household income inequality is growth enhancing, while above the threshold, inequality has a negative or no effect on economic growth.     

我国城镇居民收入分配差距的实证研究

笔者首先计算了几种度量收入分配差距的指标,从不同角度的分析得到了我国城镇居民收入分配差距不断扩大的结论;其次估计了我国城镇居民的基尼系数.通过计量经济模型,检验了高、中、低各阶层可支配收入与收入分配差距之间的关系,得出结论:增加中低收入阶层的可支配收入,遏制高收入阶层可支配收入,可以减小基尼系数,从而降低收入分配差距;进一步通过模型发现,我国发达地区的经济发展和收入分配差距呈现出倒U型规律,说明经济发展达到一定水平,收入分配差距有望缩小.     

ICT and income inequality: a cross-national perspective

The importance of information and communications technology (ICT) for economic growth and development is widely researched and seemingly well understood, but the effect of such investments on income inequality is less well documented. On the one hand, improvements in infrastructure are expected to expand economic opportunities for previously underserved populations. On the other hand, ICT growth may exacerbate inequality due to differential access and skill premiums. We use panel data from 109 countries during the period 2001–2014 to examine the empirical connection between ICT and income inequality in a cross-national context. Our results suggest that the effect of ICT on income inequality depends both on the specific type of ICT and on the measure of income inequality. In addition, the magnitude of ICT’s effect on income inequality is comparable to that of more traditional forms of economic infrastructure. Finally, we find that the association between ICT and income inequality is conditional on other economic and political characteristics.