During the past 20 years, advancements in telecommunications technologies have had a direct impact on firms, particularly in the service-related sectors, and the telecommunications infrastructure has become important to their production processes. These developments also have had an indirect effect on the overall economy of regions because of the externalities they generate. This article is an examination of the impact of telecommunications infrastructure on the service sectors’ output growth among the 48 contiguous U.S. states. The findings suggest that not every state receives the full benefits of its own telecommunications infrastructure. A state-by-state regression analysis shows the variation in returns on telecommunications investments across states. This variation may be due to the inefficient utilization of telecommunications infrastructure as a factor of production. Data envelopment analysis confirms that the states accruing significantly positive benefits are those in which businesses use the telecommunications infrastructure most efficiently.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, R. (1995). Creating climate for the information age: The Nebraska statewide telecommunications infrastructure plan. Lincoln: Nebraska Information Technology Commission.
2.
Aschauer, D. A. (1989). Does public capital crowd out private capital?Journal of Monetary Economics, 24, 171-188.
3.
Banker, R. D. , Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
4.
Bonnett, T. W. (1996). Telewars in the states telecommunications issues in a new era of competition. Washington, DC: Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors.
5.
Bottorff, P. , Latham, W., & Stapleford, J. (1993). The regulation of telecommunications and state economic growth (Working Paper No. 93-34). Newark: University of Delaware, College of Business and Economics.
6.
Convergence, competition, cooperation: The report of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Telecommunications Infrastructure Task Force. (1993, November 8). Madison: Wisconsin Department of Administration.
7.
Cooper, W. W. , Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2000). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references, and DEA-solver software. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
8.
Cronin, F. J. , Colleran, E. B., & Gold, M. A. (1997). Telecommunications, factor substitution and economic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15, 21-31.
9.
Cronin, F. J. , Gold, M. A., Mace, B. B., & Sigalos, J. L. (1994). Telecommunications and cost savings in educational services. Information Economics and Policy, 6, 53-75.
10.
Dholakia, R. R. , & Harlam, B. (1994). Telecommunications and economic development: Econometric analysis of the U.S. experience. Telecommunications Policy, 18, 470-477.
11.
Dinc, M. , Haynes, K. E., & Qiangsheng, L. (1998). A comparative evaluation of shift-share models and their extensions. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 4(2), 275-302.
12.
Greenstein, S. , & Spiller P. T. (1995). Modern telecommunications infrastructure and economic activity: An empirical investigation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 647-665.
13.
Greenwood, M. J. , & Hunt, G. L. (1986). Migration and employment change: Empirical evidence on the spatial and temporal dimensions of the linkage. Journal of Regional Science, 26, 223-234.
14.
Holtz-Eakin, D. , Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregression with panel data. Econometrica, 56(6), 1371-1395.
15.
Howe, L. , & Gardner, H. (1992). Telecom ’92: Connecting Idaho to the future. Boise: Idaho Department of Administration.
16.
Kansas Telecommunications Strategic Planning Committee . (1996). Connections to the future: A telecommunications strategic plan for Kansas. Topeka: The State of Kansas Planning Committee.
17.
Lall, S. , & Yilmaz, S. (2001). Regional economic convergence: Do policy instruments make a difference?Annals of Regional Science, 35, 151-166.
18.
Lehr, W. , & Kiessling, T. (1999). Telecommunication regulation in the United States and Europe: The case for centralized authority. In S. E. Gillett & I. Vogelsang (Eds.), Competition, regulation, and convergence: Current trends in telecommunications policy research (pp. 97-121). New Brunswick, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Loveridge, S. , & Selting, A. C. (1998). A review and comparison of shift-share identities. International Regional Science Review, 21(1), 37-58.
20.
Nadiri, M. I. , & Nandi, B. (1997). The changing structure of cost and demand for the U.S. telecommunications industry. Information Economics and Policy, 9, 319-347.
21.
Resende, M. (1999). Productivity growth and regulation in U.S. local telephony. Information Economics and Policy, 11, 23-44.
22.
Shin, R. T. , & Ying, J. S. (1992). Unnatural monopolies in local telephone. Rand Journal of Economics, 23(2), 171-183.
23.
State telephone regulation report. (1994). Arlington, VA: Capitol Publications.
24.
Teske, P. (1995). Introduction and overview. In P. Teske (Ed.), American regulatory federalism and telecommunications infrastructure (pp. 3-27). New Brunswick, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
U.S. General Accounting Office . (1996). Telecommunications initiatives taken by three states to promote increased access and investment (Report No. GAO/RCED 96-68). Washington, DC: Author.
26.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment . (1995). The technological reshaping of metropolitan America (Report No. OTA-ETI-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
27.
Washington Governor’s Telecommunications Policy Coordination Task Force . (1996). Building the road ahead: Telecommunications infrastructure in Washington. Olympia: Washington Department of Revenue.
28.
Yilmaz, S. , Haynes, K. E., & Dinc, M. (2001). The impact of telecommunications infrastructure investment on sectoral growth. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 7(3), 385-398.
29.
Yilmaz, S. , Haynes, K. E., & Dinc, M. (2002). Geographic and network neighbors: Spillover effects of telecommunications infrastructure. Journal of Regional Science, 42(2), 339-360.
