Contribution of Knowledge-Intensive Services to Economic Growth

  • Yumiko Kinoshita


In today’s economy, the service sectors comprise 65-75% of the economy in most advanced countries; however, fewer empirical and statistical studies have been performed with regard to the service sectors than manufacturing sectors to verify their impact on economic growth. In line with a recent trend in which services are becoming more knowledge-intensive, this paper focuses on Knowledge-intensive Service (KIS) activities, which produce and integrate existing service activities, and enhance knowledge production. The effect of KIS on macroeconomic indicators is examined in a Real Business Cycle (RBC) model with multiple regression analysis and simulation. According to these analyses, it is revealed that the trend of investment into KIS has a strong correlation with aggregate output and consumption, government expenditures, capital stock, and productivity, and that KIS output tends to grow in proportion to these macroeconomic trends. With further analysis, it is clarified that KIS activities contribute to capital deepening and productivity improvement. Therefore, it can be said that it is important to study KIS with regard to its impact on economic growth.

Key words

Knowledge-intensive Services (KIS) Labor-augmenting technology progress Real Business Cycle model (RBC) 

JEL Classification

L16 L86 L89 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Basu, S., Fernald, J., and Kimball, M. 2006. “Are Technology Improvements Contractionary?”, American Economic Review 96: 1418–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corrado, C., Hulten, C. and Sichel, D. 2006. “Intangible Capital and Economic Growth”, FEDS Working Paper No. 2006–24, Federal Reserve Board.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fisher, J.D.M. 2006. “The Dynamic Effects of Neutral and Investment-specific Technology Shocks”, Journal of Political Economy 114: 413–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fraumeni, B.M. 1997. “The Measurement of Depreciation in the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts”, Survey of Current Business, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.Google Scholar
  5. Gali, J. 1999. “Technology, Employment, and the Business Cycle: Do Technology Shocks Explain Aggregate Fluctuations”, American Economic Review 89: 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall, R. E. 1991. “Invariance Properties of Solow’s Productivity Residual”, NBER Working Paper No. 3034, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  7. Harper, M.J., Berndt, E.R., and Wood, D.O. 1989. “Rates of Return and Capital Aggregation Using Alternative Rental Prices” (in Jorgenson D.W. and Landau, R. -eds., Technology and Capital Formation), MIT Press, pp.331–372.Google Scholar
  8. Hayashi, F. and Prescott, E. 2002. “The 1990s in Japan: A Lost Decade”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 5: 206–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jorgenson, D.W., Ho, M.S. and Stiroh, K.J. 2003. “Lessons from the US growth resurgence”, Journal of Policy Modeling 25: 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGrattan, E.R. and Prescott, E.C. 2008. “Technology capital and the U.S. current account”, Staff Report No. 406, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miyagawa, T., Sakuragawa, Y., and Takizawa, M. 2006. “The impact of technology shocks on the Japanese business cycle—An empirical analysis based on Japanese industry data”, Japan and the World Economy 18: 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. OECD. 1996. Services: Measuring Real Annual Value Added.Google Scholar
  13. OECD. 2006. Innovation and Knowledge-Intensive Service Activities.Google Scholar
  14. Strassner, E.H., Medeiros, G.W. and Smith, G.M. 2005. Annual Industry Accounts: Introducing KLEMS Input Estimates for 1997–2003, Survey of Current Business, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis., [Accessed 8.25.2009]Google Scholar
  15. U. S. Census Bureau. 2003. 2002 NAICS Definitions: 541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,, [Accessed 8.25.2009]Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2003. Fixed Assets and Consumer Durable Goods in the United States, 1925–97, U. S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information StudiesThe University of TokyoBunkyo-ku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations