Roberto M. SamaniegoMy Curriculum 
VitaeInformation on my current and recent teaching 
activitiesResearch in ProgressPersonal pages and
linksSend me

I am currently interested in the role of technological progress in the processes of economic growth and development, and in how policy might affect growth and development through its impact on technological progress or technological adoption decisions.

Roberto Samaniego has Erdos Number 5, and Einstein number 6.

To view the following, pages you may need to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader for free.


  1. Demand for Contract Enforcement in a Barter Economy.
    Social Choice and Welfare 41(1), June 2013, 73-97.
    Joint with Anna Rubinchik, University of Haifa.
    An earlier version was issued as UC- Boulder Working Paper 06-04.

  2. Knowledge Spillovers and Intellectual Property Rights.
    International Journal of Industrial Organization 31(1), January 2013, 50-63.

    An earlier version was issued as MPRA Working Paper 22348 under the title Financing Creative Destruction. The current version supersedes the working version.

  3. Structural Change and Financing Constraints.
    Journal of Monetary Economics 59(2), March 2012, 166-179.

    Joint with Anna Ilyina, International Monetary Fund.
    An earlier version is available as IMF Working Paper 09/119.

  4. Technology and Financial Development.
    Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 43(5), August 2011, 899-921.

    Joint with Anna Ilyina, International Monetary Fund.
    An earlier version is available as IMF Working Paper 08/182.

  5. Accounting for Research and Productivity Growth Across Industries
    Review of Economic Dynamics 14(3), July 2011, 475-495.

    Joint with Rachel Ngai, London School of Economics.
    Earlier versions were issued as CEP Discussion Paper 0914, CEPR Discussion Paper DP 6408 and CEP Discussion Paper 0762.

  6. Entry, Exit and Investment-Specific Technical Change
    American Economic Review 100(1), March 2010, 164-192.

    Earlier versions were issued as PIER Working Paper 09-020 and PIER Working Paper 08-013

  7. Mapping Prices into Productivities in Multi-sector Growth Models
    Journal of Economic Growth 14(3), September 2009, 183-205.
    Joint with Rachel Ngai, London School of Economics.
    Earlier versions were issued as CEPR Discussion Paper 7318 and CEP Discussion paper DP 869.

  8. Entry, Exit and Business Cycles in a General Equilibrium Model.
    Review of Economic Dynamics 11(3), July 2008, 529-541.

  9. Can Technical Change Exacerbate the Effects of Labor Market Sclerosis?
    Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32(2), February 2008, 497-528.

  10. R&D and Growth: The Missing Link?
    Macroeconomic Dynamics 11(5), November 2007, 691-714.

  11. Organizational Capital, Technology Adoption and the Productivity Slowdown.
    Journal of Monetary Economics 53(7), October 2006, 1555-1569.

  12. Industrial Subsidies and Technology Adoption in General Equilibrium.
    Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30(9-10), September-October 2006, 1589-1614.

  13. Do Firing Costs affect the Incidence of Firm Bankruptcy?
    Macroeconomic Dynamics 10(4), September 2006, 467-501.

  14. Employment Protection and High-Tech Aversion.
    Review of Economic Dynamics 9(2), April 2006, 224-241.

Working Papers

  • Productivity Differences and Structural Transformation.
    Joint with Juliana Yu Sun, Singapore Management University.

    A multi-industry growth model with industry productivity differences accounts for the evolution of economic structure along the development path, both within industries and at the sector level. Empirical evidence also underlines the importance of industry productivity differences as a factor of structural change.

  • Is Investment-Specific Technical Change an Important factor of Economic Development?
    The contribution of investment specific technical progress in most countries is small because accounting for natural resource income implies that capital shares are small. Also in many places standard measures of ISTC suggest it slows growth instead of contributing to it. However, cross country differences are large. Also, adjusting rates of return to capital to take account of ISTC (as here) and natural resource income (as in Caselli and Feyrer (2005)) overturns the Lucas (1990) paradox, so that rates of return to capital are higher in richer countries.

  • Technology and Recessions.
    Joint with Juliana Yu Sun, Singapore Management University.

    Country-industry data indicate that the technological features most clearly related to slow growth in recessions are labor intensity and capital specificity. This is because these technological features are related to difficulty raising external funds. The results are consistent with models where financing constraints emerge due to costly state verification.

  • Education, Entrepreneurship and Credit: A General Equilibrium Model.
    Joint with Juliana Yu Sun, Singapore Management University.

    Although entrepreneurs are disproportionately college educated, a college education does not make for better entrepreneurs: fianncing constraints are responsible. Policy experiments indicate that financing constraints on education significantly affect entrepreneurial choice, and financing constraints on entrepreneurs significantly affect educational choice.

  • Joint Determination of Product and Labor Market Policies in a Model of Rent Creation, Rent Division and Self-employment.
    Joint with Alain Delacroix, Université du Québec à Montréal. In progress, new version soon.

    A general equilibrium model of occupational choice is used to study who benefits and loses from a variety of policies that in practice are often clustered together.

  • Between Alpha and Beta: Modeling the impact of Regulatory Constraints on the Hedge Fund Industry.
    Joint with Anna Ilyina, International Monetary Fund.

    A large panel of hedge fund returns provides strong evidence of an impact of both size and talent on hedge fund returns, consistent with the controversial model of Berk and Green (2004). We study the implications of these features for the industry response to proposed changes in regulation. Leverage caps can have a large impact on the industry, whereas changes in due diligence costs have little effect on the industry as they mainly impact the smallest funds.

roberto "at"