Advertisement

Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 665–695 | Cite as

European countries’ competitiveness and productive performance evolution: unraveling the complexity in a heterogeneity context

  • Areti Gkypali
  • Kostas Kounetas
  • Kostas TsekourasEmail author
Regular Article
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

This paper is developed around two major arguments. First, the European Country Specific Industrial Structures (CSIS) technology gap defined in a metafrontier framework, captures the productive performance of the examined European CSIS conditional on the country-specificities, and therefore mirrors the micro-component of country competitiveness. Second, the evolution patterns of technology gaps, incorporating a time varying and group specific path dependence process as well as the features of the corresponding growth curve, reflect the contribution of the micro-component on the foundational country competitiveness. We use a balanced panel dataset that includes thirteen industries from seventeen European countries industries covering an 8 year period and employ a two stage approach. First, we employ a metafrontier framework for the estimation of productive performance and, at a second stage, we adopt and further develop a Growth Mixture Autoregressive Latent Trajectory model. This empirical strategy allows for the identification of heterogeneous groups with respect to the evolution patterns and for the consideration of group specific and time varying path dependence of European CSIS technology gaps evolution patterns. Empirical findings confirm the existence of two distinct groups that, over time, become more divergent but also more concentrated around their center. Finally, empirical evidence suggests that the micro component of foundational competitiveness, captured by CSIS technology gaps evolution patterns, exerts a differential impact on EU country overall foundational competitiveness.

Keywords

Technology heterogeneity Foundational competitiveness Growth mixture autoregressive latent trajectory Group specific and time varying path dependence European countries 

JEL classification

C1 L6 L9 O4 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We owe special thanks to the Editors and two anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions. The paper has benefited from Dr. Nikos Chatzistamoulou who has provided excellent research assistance in a previous stage. We would like also to thank the participants of the Workshop “Explaining Economic Change”, 12 November 2014, Sapienza Università di Roma and of the Conference “Governace of a Complex World”, 1-3 July 2015, Universite Nice Sophia Antipolis for their useful comments. The usual caveat applies: all remaining errors are the authors’ only.

Funding

This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Thales. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund under Grant MIS 380232.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abramovitz M (1986) Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. J Econ Hist 46:385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2001) The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 91:1369–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Zilibotti F (2006) Distance to frontier, selection, and economic growth. J Eur Econ Assoc 4:37–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonelli C, Crespi F, andScellato G (2015) Productivity growth persistence: firm strategies, size and system properties. Small Bus Econ 45:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson AB, Stiglitz JE (1969) A new view of technological change. Econ J 79:573–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azariadis C, Drazen A (1990) Threshold externalities in economic development. Q J Econ 105:501–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baltes PB, Nesselroade JR (1979) Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Basu S, Weil DN (1998) Appropriate technology and growth. Q J Econ 113:1025–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Battese GE, Rao DSP, O'Donnell CJ (2004) A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J Prod Anal 21:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-David D (1996) Trade and convergence among countries. J Int Econ 40:279–298Google Scholar
  11. Bernard AB, Jones CI (1996) Comparing apples to oranges: productivity convergence and measurement across industries and countries. Am Econ Rev 86:1216–1238Google Scholar
  12. Bloom N, Van Reenen J (2007) Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Q J Econ 122:1351–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bogliacino F, Pianta M (2013) Innovation and demand in industry dynamics: R&D, new products and profits. In: Pyka A, Esben A (eds) Long term economic development. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bollen KA, Curran PJ (2004) Autoregressive latent trajectory (ALT) models: a synthesis of two traditions. Sociol Methods Res 32:336–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bollen KA, Zimmer C (2010). An overview of the autoregressive latent trajectory (ALT) model. In Longitudinal research with latent variables (pp. 153-176). Springer Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  16. Boltho A (1996) The assessment: international competitiveness. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 12:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bos JWB, Economidou C, Koetter M (2010) Technology clubs, R&D and growth patterns: evidence from EU manufacturing. Eur Econ Rev 54:60–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Caccomo JL (1996) Technological evolution and economic instability: theoretical simulations. J Evol Econ 6:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cantner U, Hanusch H (2001) Heterogeneity and evolutionary change: empirical conception, findings, and unresolved issues. In J. Foster and S. Metcalfe (eds.) Frontiers of Evolutionary Economics, 228–267Google Scholar
  20. Castellacci F (2007) Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth. Ind Corp Chang 16:1105–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Castellacci F (2008) Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Res Policy 37:978–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Castellacci F (2011) Closing the technology gap? Rev Dev Econ 15:180–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Castellacci F, Archibugi D (2008) The technology clubs: the distribution of knowledge across nations. Res Policy 37:1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Castellacci F, Los B, de Vries G (2014) Sectoral productivity trends: convergence islands in oceans of non-convergence. J Evol Econ 24:983–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Casu B, Ferrari A, Zhao T (2013) Regulatory reform and productivity change in Indian banking. Rev Econ Stat 95:1066–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Casu B, Ferrari A, Girardone C, Wilson JO (2016) Integration, productivity and technological spillovers: evidence for eurozone banking industries. Eur J Oper Res 255:971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clark S (2010) Mixture modeling with behavioral data. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  28. Crespi F, Pianta M (2008) Diversity in innovation and productivity in Europe. J Evol Econ 18:529–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. David PA (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 77:332–337Google Scholar
  30. David PA (1986) Understanding the economics of QWERTY: the necessity of history. In: Parker WN (ed) Economic history and the modern economics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Delgado M, Ketels C, Porter ME, Stern S (2012) The Determinants of National Competitiveness. NBER Working Paper No. 18249Google Scholar
  32. Dias JG, Vermunt JK (2006) Bootstrap methods for measuring classification uncertainty in latent class analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit 1120–1171Google Scholar
  34. Dosi G, Nelson RR (2010) Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Eur Bus Rev 1:51–127Google Scholar
  35. Dosi G, Soete L (1983) Technology gaps and cost-based adjustment: some explorations on the determinants of international competitiveness. Metroeconomica 35:197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dosi G, Lechevalier S, Secchi A (2010) Introduction: interfirm heterogeneity--nature, sources and consequences for industrial dynamics. Ind Corp Chang 19:1867–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Duarte M, Restuccia D (2010) The role of the structural transformation in aggregate productivity. Q J Econ 125:129–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Duncan SC, Duncan TE (1994) Modeling incomplete longitudinal substance use data using latent variable growth curve methodology. Multivar Behav Res 29:313–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Durlauf SN (1994) Path dependence in aggregate output. Ind Corp Chang 3:149–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Durlauf SN, Johnson PA, Temple J (2005) Growth econometrics. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth. Elsevier, North Holland, pp 555–667Google Scholar
  41. Durlauf SN, Kourtellos A, Tan CM (2008) Are any growth theories robust? Econ J 118:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fagerberg J (1996) Technology and competitiveness. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 12:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fagerberg J (2000) Technological progress, structural change and productivity growth: a comparative study. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 11:393–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fagerberg J, Srholec M (2016) Global dynamics, capabilities and the crisis. J Evol Econ 26:765–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fagerberg J, Srholec M (2017) Capabilities, economic development, sustainability. Camb J Econ 41:905–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fagerberg J, Srholec M, Knell M (2007) The competitiveness of nations: why some countries prosper while others fall behind. World Dev 35:1595–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Glaeser EL, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2004) Do institutions cause growth? J Econ Growth 9:271–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grosskopf S, Valdmanis V (1987) Measuring hospital performance: a non-parametric approach. J Health Econ 6:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Halkos GE, Tzeremes NG (2011) Modelling the effect of national culture on multinational banks performance: a conditional robust nonparametric frontier analysis. Econ Model 28:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hall P, Wylie R (2014) Isolation and technological innovation. J Evol Econ 24:357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hamaker EL (2005) Conditions for the equivalence of the autoregressive latent trajectory model and a latent growth curve model with autoregressive disturbances. Sociol Methods Res 33:404–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hayami Y (1969) Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. Am J Agric Econ 51:564–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hayami Y, Rutan VW (1970) Agricultural productivity differences among countries. Am Econ Rev 60:895–911Google Scholar
  54. Kasy M (2011) A nonparametric test for path dependence in discrete panel data. Econ Lett 113:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kelly M (2001) Linkages, thresholds, and development. J Econ Growth 6:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kneip A, Park BU, Simar L (1998) A note on the convergence of nonparametric DEA estimators for production efficiency scores. Econom Theory 14:783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kontolaimou A (2014) An efficiency analysis of European banks considering hierarchical technologies. Appl Econ Lett 21:692–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kontolaimou A, Tsekouras K (2010) Are the cooperatives the weakest link in European banking? A non-parametric metafrontier approach. J Bank Finance 34:1946–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kontolaimou A, Kounetas K, Mourtos I, Tsekouras K (2012) Technology gaps in European banking: put the blame on inputs or outputs? Econ Model 29:1798–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kounetas K, Mourtos I, Tsekouras K (2009) Efficiency decompositions for heterogeneous technologies. Eur J Oper Res 199:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Krugman PR (1985) Increasing returns and the theory of international trade. NBER 1752, National Bureau of Economic Research, IncGoogle Scholar
  62. Landesmann MA, Stehrer R (2001) Convergence patterns and switchovers in comparative advantage. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 12:399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lane PR (2012) The European sovereign debt crisis. J Econ Perspect 26:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lo Y, Mendell NR, Rubin DB (2001) Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrica 88:767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Los B, Timmer MP (2005) The ‘appropriate technology ‘explanation of productivity growth differentials: an empirical approach. J Dev Econ 77:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Martin R, Sunley P (2006) Path dependence and regional economic evolution. J Econ Geogr 6:395–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McLachlan G, Peel D (2005) Finite mixture models. John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle Scholar
  68. Melitz MC (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica (6):1695–1725Google Scholar
  69. Meredith W, Tisak J (1990) Latent curve analysis. Psychometrica 55:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Muthén B (2004) Latent variable analysis: growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In: Kaplan D (ed) Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp 345–368Google Scholar
  71. Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthén BO (2007) Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct Equ Model 14:535–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. O’Donnell CJ, Rao P, Battese G (2008) Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empir Econ 34:231–225Google Scholar
  73. Ou L, Chow SM, Ji l, Molenaar P (2016) (Re) evaluating the implications of the autoregressive latent trajectory model through likelihood ratio tests of its initial conditions. Multivar Behav Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1259980
  74. Pianta M (2014) An industrial policy for Europe. Working Papers 1401, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & PoliticsGoogle Scholar
  75. Pittau MG, Zelli R, Johnson PA (2010) Mixture models, convergence clubs and polarization. Rev Income Wealth 56:102–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Porter ME (2003) Building the microeconomic foundations of prosperity: findings from the microeconomic competitiveness index. In: Cornelius P (ed) The global competitiveness report 2002-2003. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  77. Posner MV (1961) International trade and technical change. Oxf Econ Pap 13:323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Quah DT (1996) Regional convergence clusters across Europe. Eur Econ Rev 40:951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rao DP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2003) Metafrontier functions for the study of inter-regional productivity differences. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Working Paper, 1Google Scholar
  80. Rodrik D, Subramanian A, Trebbi F (2004) Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. J Econ Growth 9:131–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Saviotti PP (1996) Technological evolution. Variety and the economy. Elgar, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  82. Shepard RW (1970) The theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  83. Simar L, Wilson PW (1998) Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Manag Sci 44:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simar L, Wilson PW (2000) A general methodology for bootstrapping in nonparametric frontier models. J Appl Stat 27:779–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simar L, Wilson PW (2007) Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi- parametric models of production processes. J Econ 136:31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Syverson C (2011) What determines productivity? J Econ Lit 49:326–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tsekouras K, Chatzistamoulou N, Kounetas K, Broadstock D (2016) Spillovers, path dependence and the productive performance of European transportation sectors in the presence of technology heterogeneity. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 102:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  89. World Economic Forum (2008) The global competitiveness report. GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Areti Gkypali
    • 1
  • Kostas Kounetas
    • 2
  • Kostas Tsekouras
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations