ICT Investment and Economic Growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a Unique Case? A Comparative Study of Nine OECD Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investment in information technologies has by no means been confined to the United States and yet, average European or Japanese growth experience has been quite different. The paper compares the impact of ICT capital accumulation on output growth in Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The analysis uses a newly compiled database of investment in ICT equipment and software based on the System of National Accounts 1993 (SNA93). Over the past two decades, ICT contributed between 0.2 and 0.5 percentage points per year to economic growth, depending on the country. During the second half of the 1990s, this contribution rose to 0.3 to 0.9 percentage points per year. The paper shows that, despite differences between countries, the United States has not been alone in benefiting from the positive effects of ICT capital investment on economic growth nor was the United States the sole country to experience an acceleration of these ... Investissement en TIC et croissance economique dans les annees 1990 : Les Etats-Unis represent-ils un cas unique ? Une comparaison de neuf pays membres de l'OCDE L’investissement dans les technologies de l’information n’a pas ete confine aux Etats-Unis, toutefois la croissance en Europe et au Japon est assez different. On trouvera dans ce papier une comparaison de l'incidence de l'accumulation de capital de TIC sur la performance economique en Allemagne, en Australie, au Canada, aux Etats-Unis, en Finlande, en France, en Italie, au Japon et au Rouyame-Uni. Cette etude fait usage d’une nouvelle base de donnees sur l'investissement en logiciel et en equipement de TIC, fondee sur le Systeme de comptabilite nationale de 1993 (SCN 93). Au cours des 20 dernieres annees, les TIC ont contribue a la croissance economique entre 0.2 et 0.5 point de pourcentage par an, selon le pays. Au cours des 5 dernieres annees (1995-2000), cette contribution a atteint des valeurs annuelles comprises entre 0.3 et 0.9 point. On montre que, malgre les differences qui existent entre les pays, les Etats-Unis n’ont pas ete les seuls a beneficier de l'incidence positive ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".