Previous version: 2002-02-27 SIMULATING THE NEW ECONOMY *

IT or the Computing & Communications technology has been central to the economic discussion for several decades. Before the mid-1990s the catch word was the “productivity paradox” coined by Robert Solow, who stated in 1987 that “computers are everywhere visible, except in the productivity statistics”. The New Economy, suddenly became the catch word of the very late 1990s. Its luster however, faded almost as fast as it arrived with the dot.com deaths of the first years of the new millennium. With this paper we demonstrate that the two paradoxes above are perfectly compatible within a consistent micro based macro theoretical framework of endogenous growth. Within the same model framework also a third paradox can be resolved, namely the fact that the previous major New Industry creation, the Industrial Revolution, only involved a handful of Western nations that had got their institutions in order. If the New Economy is a potential reality, one cannot take for granted that all industrial economies will participate successfully in its introduction. It all depends on the local receiver competence to build industry on the new technology. We, hence, also demonstrate the existence of the possibility of failing to capture the opportunities of a New Economy within the same model.

[1]  Dan Johansson The Dynamics of Firm and Industry Growth : The Swedish Computing and Communications Industry , 2001 .

[2]  G. Eliasson The Role of Knowledge in Economic Growth , 2001 .

[3]  R. Gordon Interpreting the "One Big Wave" in U.S. Long-Term Productivity Growth , 2000 .

[4]  Christina Freytag,et al.  Economic Evolution, Learning, and Complexity , 1999 .

[5]  G. Eliasson,et al.  The biotechnological competence bloc , 1996 .

[6]  G. Eliasson Firm objectives, controls, and organization , 1995 .

[7]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  Information Technology And The Productivity Paradox: Getting The Questions Right , 1995 .

[8]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The productivity paradox of information technology , 1993, CACM.

[9]  K. Arrow,et al.  The markets for innovation, ownership and control , 1993 .

[10]  Mark Perlman,et al.  Entrepreneurship, technological innovation, and economic growth : studies in the Schumpeterian tradition , 1992 .

[11]  Gunnar Eliasson,et al.  Modeling the experimentally organized economy: Complex dynamics in an empirical micro-macro model of endogenous economic growth , 1991 .

[12]  G. Eliasson Deregulation, innovative entry and structural diversity as a source of stable and rapid economic growth , 1991 .

[13]  G. Eliasson Business Competence, Organizational Learning and Economic Growth: Establishing the Smith-Schumpeter-Wicksell (SSW) Connection , 1991 .

[14]  Gunnar Eliasson,et al.  The Firm as a Competent Team , 1990 .

[15]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[16]  H. Hanusch Evolutionary economics : applications of Schumpeter's ideas , 1990 .

[17]  G. Eliasson,et al.  Technological competition and trade in the experimentally organized economy , 1987 .

[18]  Gunnar Eliasson,et al.  Schumpeterian Innovation, Market Structure and the Stability of Industrial Development , 1986 .

[19]  Richard H. Day,et al.  The dynamics of market economies , 1986 .

[20]  Gunnar Eliasson The Firm and Financial Markets in the Swedish Micro-To-Macro Model: Theory, Model, and Verification , 1985 .

[21]  G. Eliasson Micro Heterogeneity of Firms and the Stability of Industrial Growth , 1984 .

[22]  B. Carlsson Industrial Subsidies in Sweden: Macro-Economic Effects and an International Comparison , 1983 .

[23]  A Micro-to-macro model of the Swedish economy , 1980 .

[24]  Gunnar Eliasson,et al.  Competition and Market Processes in a Simulation Model of the Swedish Economy , 1977 .

[25]  J. Lee Shneidman,et al.  The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History , 1973 .

[26]  Glenn L. Johnson,et al.  Productivity and Technical Change. , 1961 .