While I have yet to read the book, Gordon makes several similar arguments in an NBER working paper. The book claims more recent innovations are occurring mainly in entertainment, communication and information technologies, and presents these as simply less important (while making great play of the importance of radio, telephone and TV earlier). One issue is the extent to which he ignores all but a limited range of digital innovation low carbon energy, automated vehicles, new materials such as graphene, gene-based medicine etc. What I find odd about Gordon's argument is his insistence that there is a kind of competition between the good old days of 'great innovations' and today's innovations - which are necessarily different. Coyle finds this argument less convincing. The first is that future innovation will be slower or its effects less important.
For Gordon, it is foreseeable that the rapid progress made over the past 250 years will turn out to be a unique episode in human history.Ĭoyle zeros in on the two main mechanisms to which Gordon attributes the slowing of growth. In his view, the main technological and productivity-enhancing innovations that drove American growth in the early to mid 20th century - electricity, internal combustion engine, running water, indoor toilets, communications, TV, chemicals, petroleum - could only happen once, have run their course, and the prospects of future growth look uninspiring. Gordon's central argument will be familiar to readers of his work. Diane Coyle has reviewed Robert Gordon's new book (out late January), The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
