Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp 203–216 | Cite as

Time-varying causality between research output and economic growth in US

  • Roula Inglesi-Lotz
  • Mehmet Balcilar
  • Rangan Gupta
Article

Abstract

This main purpose of this paper is to investigate the causal relationship between knowledge (research output) and economic growth in US over 1981–2011. To overcome the issues of ignoring possible instability and hence, falsely assuming a constant relationship through the years, we use bootstrapped Granger non-causality tests with fixed-size rolling-window to analyze time-varying causal links between two series. Instead of just performing causality tests on the full sample which assumes a single causality relationship, we also perform Granger causality tests on the rolling sub-samples with a fixed-window size. Unlike the full-sample Granger causality test, this method allows us to capture any structural shifts in the model, as well as, the evolution of causal relationships between sub-periods, with the bootstrapping approach controlling for small-sample bias. Full-sample bootstrap causality tests reveal no causal relationship between research and growth in the US. Further, parameter stability tests indicate that there were structural shifts in the relationship, and hence, we cannot entirely rely on full-sample results. The bootstrap rolling-window causality tests show that during the sub-periods of 2003–2005 and 2009, GDP Granger caused research output; while in 2010, the causality ran in the opposite direction. Using a two-state regime switching vector smooth autoregressive model, we find unidirectional Granger causality from research output to GDP in the full sample.

Keywords

Research output Scientometrics Economic growth Causality 

References

  1. Andrews, D. W. K. (1993). Tests for parameter instability and structural change with unknown change point. Econometrica, 61, 821–856.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. W. K., & Ploberger, W. (1994). Optimal tests when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Econometrica, 62(6), 1383–1414.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Balcilar, M., Gupta, R., & Miller, S. M. (2013). Housing and the great depression. Working Paper No. 201308. Department of Economics, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
  4. Balcilar, M., Ozdemir, Z. A., & Arslanturk, Y. (2010). Economic growth and energy consumption causal nexus viewed through a bootstrap rolling window. Energy Economics, 32, 1398–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, A., Mumtaz, H., & Theodoridis, K. (2012). Forecasting UK GDP growth, inflation and interest rates under structural change: A comparison of models with time-varying parameters. Bank of England Working Papers 450, Bank of England.Google Scholar
  6. De Gooije, G., & Vidiella-i-Anguera, A. (2004). Forecasting threshold cointegrated systems. International Journal of Forecasting, 20, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Moya-Anegon, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (1999). Science in America Latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics, 46, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolado, J. J., & Lutkepohl, H. (1996). Making Wald tests work for cointegrated VAR systems. Econometric Reviews, 15(4), 369–389.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jacknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Fedderke, J. W. (2005). Technology, human capital and growth. Working Paper No. 27. School of Economics, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  11. Fedderke, J. W., & Schirmer, S. (2006). The R&D performance of the South African manufacturing sector, 1970–1983. Economic Change, 39, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granger, C. W. J. (1996). Can we improve the perceived quality of economic forecasts. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(5), 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groenewold, N., & Fraser, P. (1999). Time-varying estimates of CAPM betas. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 48, 531–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacker, R. S., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Test for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distribution: Theory and application. Applied Economics, 38(3), 1489–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen, B. E. (1992). Testing for parameter stability in linear models. Journal of Policy Modelling, 14(4), 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horowitz, J. L. (1994). Bootstrap-based critical values for the information matrix test. Journal of Econometrics, 61(2), 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inglesi-Lotz, R., Chang, T., & Gupta, R. (2013). Causality between research output and economic growth in BRICS countries. Working Paper 201337. Department of Economics, University of Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  18. Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Pouris, A. (2011). Scientometric impact assessment of a research policy instrument: The case of rating researchers on scientific outputs in South Africa. Scientometrics, 88, 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Pouris, A. (2013). The influence of scientific research output of academics on economic growth in South Africa: An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) application. Scientometrics, 95(1), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59, 1551–1580.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Kealey, T. (1996). The economic laws of scientific research. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  22. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, L.-C., Lin, P.-H., Chuang, Y.-W., & Lee, Y.-Y. (2011). Research output and economic productivity: A Granger causality test. Scientometrics, 89, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lundbergh, S., & Terasvirta, T. (2002). Forecasting with smooth transition autoregressive models. In M. P. Clements & D. F. Hendry (Eds.), A companion to economic forecasting (pp. 485–509). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Luukkonen, R., Saikkonen, P., & Terasvirta, T. (1988). Testing linearity against smooth transition autoregressive models. Biometrika, 75, 491–499.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of applied econometrics, 11, 601–618.Google Scholar
  28. Mantalos, P. (2000). A graphical investigation of the size and power of the Granger-causality tests in integrated-cointegrated VAR systems. Studies in Non-Linear Dynamics and Econometrics, 4, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mantalos, P., & Shukur, G. (1998). Size and power of the error correction model cointegration test. A bootstrap approach. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 60, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson, R. R., & Romer, P. M. (1996). Science, economic growth and public policy. Challenge, 39(2), 9–21.Google Scholar
  31. Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful. Research Policy, 20, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, P. C. (1987). Time series regression with a unit root. Econometrica, 55(2), 277–301.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75, 335–346.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Pouris, A., & Pouris, A. (2009). The state of science and technology in Africa (2000–2004): A scientometric assessment. International Journal of Scientometrics, 79, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price, D. S. (1978). Toward a model for science indicators. In Y. Elkana, G. J. Lederber, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Psaradakis, Z., Ravn, M. O., & Sola, M. (2005). Markov switching causality and the money—output relationship. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 665–683.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rothman, P., van Dijk, D., & Hans, P. (2001). Multivariate STAR analysis of money–output relationship. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 5, 506–532.MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schumpeter, J. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as innovation. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The social science view (pp. 51–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shelton, R. D. & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Bibliometric Evidence for funding trade-offs in national funding strategies. In 13th International conference on scientometrics and informetrics, Durban, July 2011. http://itri2.org/s/.
  42. Shukur, G., & Mantalos, P. (1997a). Size and power of the RESET test as applied to systems of equations: A boot strap approach. Working Paper 1997:3, Department of Statistics, University of Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  43. Shukur, G., & Mantalos, P. (1997b). Tests for Granger causality in integrated-cointegrated VAR systems. Working paper 1998:1, Department of Statistics, University of Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  44. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1996). Evidence on structural instability in macroeconomic time series relations. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 14, 11–30.Google Scholar
  45. Tamura, R. F. (1991). Fertility, human capital and the “Wealth of Nations”. Working Paper No. 91-17. University of Iowa, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  46. Terasvirta, T. (1998). Modelling economic relationships with smooth transition regressions. In A. Ullah & D. E. A. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of applied economic statistics (pp. 507–552). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  47. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225–250.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsay, R. S. (1998). Testing and modeling multivariate threshold models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93, 1188–1202.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Dijk, D., Terasvirta, T., & Franses, P. H. (2002). Smooth transition autoregressive models—A survey of recent developments. Econometric Reviews, 21, 1–47.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Vinkler, P. (2008). Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics, 74, 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roula Inglesi-Lotz
    • 1
  • Mehmet Balcilar
    • 2
  • Rangan Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsEastern Mediterranean UniversityFamagustaTurkey

Personalised recommendations