| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Lundborg, Per, 1950, et al.
(author)
-
The Growth and Welfare Effects of International Mass Migration
- 2002
-
In: Journal of International Economics. - : Elsevier B.V. ; 56:1, s. 177-204
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We analyze the effects of immigration quotas on growth and welfare in North-South version of the quality ladders growth model. Quotas in the North increase the growth rate. However, they lower the static utility level and the discounted welfare of Northern workers. Also the discounted welfare of asset owners drops. Hence, unlike in the static migration model where the representative agent in the host country benefits from immigration, in our dynamic model, the representative agent loses despite a positive growth effect. Winners from immigration quotas are the immigrants and the remaining workers in the South.
|
|
| 3. |
- Minniti, A, et al.
(author)
-
A Schumpeterian growth model with random quality improvements
- 2013
-
In: Economic Theory. - : Springer Verlag (Germany). - 0938-2259 .- 1432-0479. ; 52:2, s. 755-791
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A common assumption in the Schumpeterian growth literature is that the innovation size is constant and identical across industries. This is in contrast with the empirical evidence which shows that: (1) innovation size is not identical across industries and (2) the size distribution of profit returns from innovation is highly skewed toward the low value side, with a long tail on the high value side. In the present paper, we develop a Schumpeterian growth model that is consistent with this evidence. In particular, we assume that when a firm innovates, the size of its quality improvement is the result of a random draw from a Pareto distribution. This enables us to extend the class of quality-ladder growth models to encompass firm heterogeneity. We study the policy implications of this new setup numerically and find that it is optimal to heavily subsidize RXX1D for plausible parameter values. Although it is optimal to tax RXX1D for some parameter values, this case only occurs when the steady-state rate of economic growth is very low.
|
|
| 4. |
- Segerstrom, Paul, et al.
(author)
-
Intellectual property rights, multinational firms and economic growth
- 2010
-
In: Journal of Development Economics. - : Elsevier. - 0304-3878. ; 92:1, s. 13-27
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper develops a model of North–South trade with multinational firms and economic growth in order to analyze formally the effects of stronger intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in developing countries. In the model, Northern firms invent new higher-quality products, multinational firms transfer manufacturing operations to the South and the Southern firms imitate products produced by multinational firms. It is shown that stronger IPR protection in the South (i.e., the adoption and implementation of the TRIPs agreement) leads to a permanent increase in the rate of technology transfer to the South within multinational firms, a permanent increase in R&D employment by Southern affiliates of Northern multinationals, a permanent decrease in the North–South wage gap, and a temporary increase in the Northern innovation rate.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Segerstrom, Paul S.
(author)
-
The Long-Run Growth Effects of R&D Subsidies
- 2000
-
In: Journal of economic growth (Boston, Mass.). - : Kluwer Academic Publishers. - 1573-7020 .- 1381-4338. ; 5:3, s. 277-305
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article presents a generalized version of Howitt's (1999) model of R&D-driven growth without scale effects and a complete characterization of the long- run growth effects of R&D subsidies. R&D subsidies can either promote or retard long-run economic growth, and surprisingly, the growth-retarding outcome occurs for a wide range of plausible parameter values. This article also presents a new intuitive explanation for why R&D subsidies can have long-run growth effects (both positive and negative).
|
|
| 8. |
- Segerstrom, Paul, et al.
(author)
-
The impact of trade liberalization on industrial productivity
- 2015
-
In: Journal of the European Economic Association. - : Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press (MIT Press) / Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy F. - 1542-4766 .- 1542-4766. ; 13:6, s. 1167-1179
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- An empirical finding by Trefler (2004, "The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement", American Economic Review, 94(4), 870-895) and others that industrial productivity increases more strongly in liberalized industries than in nonliberalized industries has been widely accepted as evidence for the Melitz (, "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity", Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725) model. We show that under fairly standard assumptions a multi-industry version of the Melitz model does not predict this relationship. Instead, it predicts the opposite relationship that industrial productivity increases more strongly in nonliberalized industries than in liberalized industries.
|
|
| 9. |
- Segerstrom, Paul
(author)
-
Trade and Economic Growth
- 2011
-
In: Palgrave handbook of international trade.
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 10. |
- Segerstrom, Paul, et al.
(author)
-
Trade liberalization and productivity growth
- 2010
-
In: Review of International Economics. - : Wiley: 24 months. - 0965-7576 .- 1467-9396. ; 18:2, s. 207-228
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper presents a trade model with firm-level productivity differences and R&D-driven growth. Trade liberalization causes the least productive firms to exit but also slows the development of new products. The overall effect on productivity growth depends on the size of intertemporal knowledge spillovers in R&D. When these spillovers are relatively weak, then trade liberalization promotes productivity growth in the short run and makes consumers better off in the long run. However when these spillovers are relatively strong, then trade liberalization retards productivity growth in the short run and makes consumers worse off in the long run.
|
|
