ESRI Discussion Paper Series No.41 IT JIP by June 2003 Economic and Social Research Institute Cabinet Office Tokyo, Japan
IT JIP 2003 6 *
IT 2003 IT 1 2 IT
(Abstract) Though the Japanese government has established several economic policies concerning the promotion of IT investment (including investment tax credit (ITC) from 2003 FY), there are few academic papers on IT investment in Japan. It is thus important to analyze empirically which factors affect IT investment and how ITC increases IT investment. Using the JIP (Japan Industry Productivity) database made by the project team on potential growth at ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute), our paper investigates several phases of IT investment in Japan. Trends on IT investment in Japan and other OECD countries are examined and IT investment functions are estimated by using panel data model and the instrumental variable method. The amount of IT investment in Japan is not so low when we compare it with that in the United States and other OECD countries. However, especially in the communications industry, the amount of IT investment in Japan is much less than that in the U.S. As for software investment in Japan, in-house software has stagnated since the first half of 1990 due to downsizing and outsourcing. The estimation results on investment function show that: 1) Coefficient on cost of capital is significantly negative, which means ITC is effective. 2) Coefficient on spillover effect is significantly positive, which means that an increase in IT investment in a specific industry stimulates IT investment in other industries. 3) Estimated increment on IT investment via ITC in 2003 is about 1 to 2 trillion yen. The results show that tax reduction, a demand-stimulating policy, increases IT investment via the decline of the cost of capital. However, in the long run, it is also important to determine whether IT investment contributes to increased productivity and growth of the economy. Both a demand-side and a supply-side analysis should be carried out to clarify the full significance of IT investment.
1 IT 1 2IT 3 21JIP IT 3 22 IT 4 23 5 24 6 3IT 7 31 7 32 9 33 10 34 11 35IT 12 4 13 IT 16 11 IT 16 12 16 121 16 122 17 123 17 124 18 125 19 21
1 IT IT 1 IT 1998 5 IT 2000 IT IT 2000 11 2001 5 IT e-japan 2003 IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT Mun and Nadiri (2002) IT IT IT IT IT IT IT 1980 Solow1987 IT 90 IT Jorgenson 2001, Jorgenson and Stiroh 2000 2002 2003 Economic Report of the President IT 2 2000 OECD IT 1 OECD ITInformation Technology ICTInformation and Communication Technology IT 2 2001 Nordhaus(2002) 2003 IT IT 1
Schreyer2000,Pilat and Lee 2001, Colecchia and Schreyer 2002 IT IT IT 3 1999 2001 IT Jorgenson2001 Lichtenberg 1995Brynjolfson and Hitt 1996 1998Matsudaira2000 2002Miyagawa et al.2002 IT IT IT IT IT 2003 IT IT IT 2002 IT IT JIPJapan Industry Productivity IT JIP SNA ( 2 ) 84 37 IT JIP BEABureau of Economic Analysis IT 3 IT IT R&D IT IT IT IT 3 2001 2002 2
R&D 2003 IT 1 2 IT 2IT 21JIP IT IT IT IT IT JIP JIP SNA 84 1970 98 2003 IT IT JIP JIP 37 IT IT IT IT JIP 22 IT IT IT JIP 14 15 18 19 20 21 31 IT Bureau of Economic Analysis 4 1 IT IT JIP 68SNA SNA 93SNA 4 3
22 IT IT 1 1970 98 IT 12.4 3.2 IT 1970 2.8 98 31.4 IT 28 19.6 15.8 8.7 98 44 23 33 IT 1990 90 80 19.1 90 7.8 91 3 95 2002 2003 90 IT 90 IT 5 Jorgenson2001 IT IT 6 2 7 90 9.5 5 1990 90 IT 90 2.9 6 IT Colecchia and Schreyer2002 4
7 1.5 70 98 4.3 90 8 23 IT JIP 3 JIP IT 1970 98 90 90 90 IT 90 IT IT 20 28 20 4 IT 1998 IT 1 IT 5 IT IT 30 6 30 1 IT 1 119 166 7 2001 8 Colecchia and Schreyer2002 OECD IT IT IT Harmonized price index IT 90 2.8 5
IT 6 22 IT 9 IT IT 24 JIP 93SNA 10 SNA 7 7 1970 74.1 98 90 5.7 9.7 1990 8 9 IT IT Miyagawa et al.2002 IT 2 Miyagawa et al.2002 IT 1970 80 IT 3 11 Miyagawa et al.2002 IT JIP IT IT 2002 10 11 10 2002 6
IT 9 IT GDP 1980 90 2 IT Colecchia and Schreyer2002OECD JIP 93SNA IT IT 3IT 31 JIP IT I it = const + a1ccit + a2yit + a3rcom it + a4 ITSPit + a5. RD + ε (1) it it I IT LNIT 2 Jorgenson(1963)Hall and Jorgenson(1967) (K*) Y K* = γ (2) CC γ 2 7
JIP CC it 1 z p it IT, it = { λitr + (1 uit)(1 λit) i + δ 1 u P it y, it i p ( p. IT, it IT, it )} (3) z u p IT IT λ r i δit Y JIP RCOM JIP IT IT ITSP p ITSP OW ji i = = j i D j i OW ji D ji ji KIT j 3 (3 Dji j i (3) IT 11 IT KIT IT IT IT ITSPF ITSPS R&D RD JIP RD θ t = Rt s + ( 1 ) RDt 1 11 (3) R&D Wolff and Nadiri (1993)IT Mun and Nadiri(2002) 8
(4) RD R&D Rt-s t-s θ s s=0 JIP 2003 (4) R&D LNRD R&D 12 (1) Jorgenson IT IT R&D IT 3 1976 1998 JIP 83 76 34 42 1 32 (1) R&D 4 Fixed Effect Model Random Effect Model Hausman Fixed Effect Model Fixed Effect Model CC LNCC RCOMIT ITSPFITSPS (3) IT IT IT IT 12 JIP 9
13 IT IT IT 15 14 5 5 IT IT Jorgenson 33 6 5 IT R&D IT ITSPS 13 IT 2002Miyagawa et al.(2002) 2003 14 4 IT 1998 15 10
IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT 34 IT PROFIT JIP 7 7 IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT 11
IT IT IT IT IT IT 35IT 2003 2003 2006 IT IT 10 IT 2003 IT IT 5 IT -0.3-0.39 10 IT IT 1998 1998 8 10 8 6.8 9.1 7 8 6.4 8.5 IT IT 24 12
1.5 10 IT 6000 2000 5 6 IT 1.7 2.3 IT IT 1.7 2.3 10 1700 2300 12 1998 17.7 3000 4000 IT 1998 IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT 4 JIP IT IT IT JIP IT 13
IT OECD IT 2003 IT IT IT IT IT IT IT R&D IT 2003 IT IT 10 6.4% 8.5% IT.5 2 2 98 IT Colecchia and Schreyer2002 IT IT 14
IT IT IT IT IT IT IT 15
IT IT JIP IT 2003 11 IT JIP 14 15 18 20 JIP JIP 7 19 21 31 IT IT IT IT IT JIP IT JIP 7 19 21 31 IT IT RAS 1970 98 IT 90 IT 12 121 JIP IT 93SNA 1 16
122 93SNA 1995 1985-90-95 85 90 1980 93SNA 93SNA 68SNA 1995 8512-011 1985 1990 1995 8512-011 1970 8300-910 19751980 8300-200 19851990 8512-011 1995 8512-011 123 15 17
1973 197072 197382 197072 1983 1982 1983 2 13 93SNA 199098 1-2-2 124 1985-90-95 9099-00 18
1973 10 2 5 SE 3 2 125 1970 28 1970 KS1970 16 17 19
KS IS1971 = g + δ 1970 IS 35 44 20
2001IT 1999 2002IT 2002 1998 IT 2003 197098 170 2001 IT Vol. 22-1 Jordan 1998 IT FRI 2003 10 10 2002IT 38 34 2003 2002 RIETI Discussion Paper Series 02-J-018 Brynjolfsson, E and L. Hitt (1996), Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending, Management Science 42, 541-558. Colecchia, A. and P. Schreyer (2002), ICT Investment and Economic Growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a Unique Case? Review of Economic Dynamics 5, 408-422. Hall, Robert and Dale Jorgenson (1967), Tax Policy and Investment Behavior, American Economic Review 57, 394-414. Jorgenson, D. W. (1963), Capital Theory and Investment Behavior, American Economic Review, 53, 247-259. Jorgenson, D. W. (2001), Information Technology and the US Economy, American Economic Review 91, 1-32. 21
Jorgenson, D. W. and Stiroh K. J. (2000), Raising the Speed Limit: US Economic Growth in the Information Age, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 125-211. Litchenberg, F. R. (1995), The Output Contribution of Computer Equipment and Personnel: A Firm-level Analysis, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 3, 201-217. Matsudaira, J. (2000), Information Technology, Performance and Productivity, Fujitsu Research Institute Discussion Paper, No. 2000-01. Miyagawa, T, Y. Ito and N. Harada (2002), Does the IT Revolution Contribute to Japanese Economic Growth? JCER Discussion Paper No. 75. Mun, S. and M. Nadiri (2002), Information Technology Externalities: Empirical Evidence from 42 U. S. Industries, NBER Working Paper No. 9272. Nordhaus, W. (2002), The Recent Recession, the Current Recovery, and Stock Prices, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, pp.199-228. Pilat, D. and F. Lee (2001), Productivity Growth in ICT-producing and ICT-using Industries. A Source of Growth Differentials in the OECD? STI Working Paper, OECD. Schreyer, P. (2000), The Contribution of Information and Communication Technology to Output Growth: A Study of the G7 Countries, STI Working Paper OECD. Solow, R. (1987), We d Better Watch Out, New York Times Book Review, July 12. Wolff, E. and M. Nadiri (1993), Spillover Effects, Linkage Structure and Research and Development, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 4, pp. 315-330. 22