Is inequality good for innovation? This article addresses this question, using aggregated microeconomic data for 102 regions over the period 1995—2000 from the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) data set, complemented with Eurostat’s Regio data. Static and dynamic panel data specifications and Granger causality tests for panel data are used to assess the relationship between patents, included as a proxy for innovation and income inequality. The results indicate that, given existing levels of income inequality in European Union (EU), an increase in a region’s inequality favors innovation. In addition, geographic space is a key factor in explaining the heterogeneous association between innovation and inequality, and innovation is characterized by circular, cumulative, and intraregional spillover effects. The above findings are robust to changes in the definition of income distribution and across inequality measurements.
Acemoglu, D.1997a. Technology, unemployment and efficiency. European Economic Review41:525-33.
2.
---. 1997b. Training and innovation in an imperfect labour market . Review of Economic Studies64:445-64.
3.
Acs, Z.J., and A. Varga.2002. Geography, endogenous growth, and innovation . International Regional Science Review25:132-48.
4.
Ahn, S.C., and P. Schmidt.1995. Efficient estimation of models for dynamic panel data. Journal of Econometrics68:5-27.
5.
Anderson, T.W., and C. Hsiao.1981. Estimation of dynamic models with error components. Journal of the American Statistical Association76:598-606.
6.
Anselin, L., and S. Rey.1991. Properties of tests for spatial dependence in linear regression models. Geographical Analysis23:112-31.
7.
Arellano, M., and S. Bond.1991. Some tests of specification for panel data-Monte-Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Review of Economic Studies58:277-97.
8.
Arellano, M., and O. Bover.1995. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics68:29-51.
9.
Asheim, B.T.2000. Industrial districts: The contributions of Marshall and beyond. In The Oxford handbooκ of economic geography, eds. G. L. ClarkM. P. Feldman and M. S. Gertler.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
Audretsch, D.B., and M.P. Feldman.2004. Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In Handbooκ of regional and urban economics , eds. J. V. Henderson and J.-F. Thisse.Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland.
11.
Azariadis, C., and A. Drazen.1990. Threshold externalities in economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics105:501-26.
12.
Baltagi, B.H.2005. Econometric analysis of panel data. Chichester: John Wiley.
13.
Beenstock, M., and D. Felsenstein.2007. Spatial vector autoregressions. Spatial Economic Analysis2:167-96.
14.
Bertola, G.2000. Macroeconomics of distribution and growth. In Handbooκ of income distribution, chapter 9, eds. A. B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon.Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier.
15.
Bertola, G., R. Foellmi, and J. Zweimüller .2006. Income distribution in macroeconomic models. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Bianchi, P.1996. New approaches to industrial policy at the local level . In Local and regional response to global pressure: The case of Italy and its industrial districts, eds. F. CossentinoF. Pyke and W. Sengenberger.Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
17.
Blundell, R., and S. Bond.1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics87:115-43.
18.
Bound, J., and G.E. Johnson.1992. Changes in the structure of wages in the 1980s-An evaluation of alternative explanations. American Economic Review82:371-92.
19.
Breschi, S.2000. The geography of innovation: A cross-sector analysis. Regional Studies34:213-29.
20.
Breschi S., Lissoni F.2004. Knowledge networks from patent data: Methodological issues and research targets. In Handbooκ of Quantitative S&T Research, eds. Glänzel W., Moed H.,Schmoch U.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21.
Breusch, T.S., and A.R. Pagan.1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies47:239-53.
22.
Camagni, R.1991. Introduction: From the local ‘Milieu’ to innovation through cooperation networks. In Innovation networκs: Spatial Perspectives, ed. R. Camagni.London: Belhaven Press.
23.
Caniels, M.C.J.2000. Knowledge spillovers and economic growth: Regional growth differentials across Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dosi, G.1988. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation . Journal of Economic Literature26:1120-71.
26.
Easterly, W.R.2001. The middle class consensus and economic development. Journal of Economic Growth6:317-35.
27.
Eeckhout, J., and B. Jovanovic.2002. Knowledge spillovers and inequality . American Economic Review92:1290-307.
28.
Elhorst, P.J.2005. Models for dynamic panels in space and time: An application to regional unemployment in the EU. Paper prepared for Workshop on Spatial Econometrics, Kiel Institute for World Economics, Kiel, Germany, April 8-9.
29.
Erdil, E., and I.H. Yetkiner.2009. The Granger-Causality between health care expenditure and output: A panel data approach. Applied Economics41:511-18.
30.
Falkinger, J.1994. An Engelian model of growth and innovation with hierarchic consumer demand and unequal incomes. Ricerche Economiche48:123-39.
31.
Feldman, M.P.2000. Location and innovation: The new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration. In The Oxford handbooκ of economic geography, eds. G. L. ClarkM. P. Feldman and M. S. Gertler.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
Fischer, M.M., and C. Stirbock.2006. Pan-European regional income growth and club convergence. Annals of Regional Science40:693-721.
33.
Florax, R., H. Folmer, and S.J. Rey.2003. Specification searches in spatial econometrics: The relevance of Hendry’s methodology. Regional Science and Urban Economics33:557-79.
34.
Gertler, M.S.2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (There). Journal of Economic Geography3:75-99.
35.
Granger, C.W.J.1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrics37:424-38.
36.
Griliches, Z.1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators-A survey. Journal of Economic Literature28:1661-707.
Hansen, L.P.1982. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica50:1029-54.
39.
Hausman, J.A.1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica46:1251-71.
40.
Hood III, M.V., Q. Kidd, and I.L. Morris.2008. Two sides of the same coin? Employing Granger causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Political Analysis16:324-44.
41.
Hotz-Hart, B.2000. Innovation networks, regions, and globalization. In The Oxford handbooκ of economic geography, eds. G. L. ClarkM. P. Feldman and M. S. Gertler.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
Hurlin, C., and B. Venet.2001. Granger causality tests in panel data models with fixed coefficients. Working paper Eurisco 2001-09, University of ParisDauphine.
43.
Iacopetta, M.2008. Technological progress and inequality: An ambiguous relationship . Journal of Evolutionary Economics18:455-75.
44.
Jacobs, J.1970. The economy of cities. London: Cape.
45.
Jaffe, A.B.1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of research-and-development- Evidence from firms patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review76:984-1001.
46.
---. 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review79:957-90.
47.
Johnson, G.E.1997. Changes in earnings inequality: The role of demand shifts . Journal of Economic Perspectives11:41-54.
48.
Mirrlees, J.A.1971. Exploration in theory of optimum income taxation. Review of Economic Studies38:175-208.
49.
Moreno, R., R. Paci, and S. Usai.2005. Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in european regions. Environment and Planning A37:1793-812.
50.
Perotti, R.1996. Growth, income distribution, and democracy: What the data say. Journal of Economic Growth1:149-87.
51.
Pieroni, L., and F. Pompei.2008a. Evaluating innovation and labour market relationships: The case of Italy. Cambridge Journal of Economics32:325-47.
52.
---. 2008b. Labour market flexibility and innovation: Geographical and technological determinants. International Journal of Manpower29:216-38.
53.
Porter, M.E.1990. The competitive advantage of nations. London: Collier Macmillan.
54.
Rebelo, S.T.1991. Long-run policy analysis and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy99:500-21.
55.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., and R. Crescenzi.2008. Research and development, spillovers, innovation systems, and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Regional Studies42:51-67.
56.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., and V. Tselios.2010. Inequalities in income and education and regional economic growth in Western Europe. The Annals of Regional Science44:349-75.
57.
Rosenberg, N.1982. Inside the blacκ box: Technology and economics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Saint-Paul, G.2008. Innovation and inequality: How does technical progress affect worκers?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
Sargan, J.D.1958. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica26:393-415.
60.
Sattinger, M.1993. Assignment models of the distribution of earnings. Journal of Economic Literature31:831-80.
61.
Sombart, W.1913. Luxus and Kapitalismus. Munchen: Duncker and Humblot, 1922. English translation: Luxury and capitalism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
62.
Sonn, J.W., and M. Storper.2008. The increasing importance of geographical proximity in knowledge production: An analysis of US patent citations, 1975-1997 . Environment and Planning A40:1020-39.
63.
Sterlacchini, A.2008. R&D, higher education and regional growth: Uneven linkages amongEuropean regions. Research Policy37:1096-107.
64.
Tappeiner, G., C. Hauser, and J. Walde.2008. Regional knowledge spillovers: Fact or artifact? Research Policy37:861-74.
65.
Tselios, V.2009. Growth and convergence in income per capita and income inequality in the regions of the EU. Spatial Economic Analysis4:347-70.
66.
Van Stel, A.J., and H.R. Nieuwenhuijsen .2004. Knowledge spillovers and economic growth: An analysis using data of Dutch regions in the period 1987-1995 . Regional Studies38:393-407.
67.
Varga, A., L. Anselin, and Z.J. Acs.2005. Regional innovation in the US over space and time. In Spillovers and innovations: Space, environment, and the economy, eds. G. Maier and S. Sedlacek.Vienna: Springer-Verlag.
68.
Zweimüller, J.2000. Schumpeterian entrepreneurs meet Engel’s law: The impact of inequality on innovation-driven growth. Journal of Economic Growth5:185-206.
