Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Factor-Eliminating Technical Change

Contents:

Author Info

  • Pietro F. Peretto
  • John J. Seater

Abstract

Endogenous growth requires that non-reproducible factors of production be either augmented or eliminated. Attention heretofore has focused almost exclusively on augmentation. In contrast, we study factor elimination. Maximizing agents decide when to reduce the importance of non-reproducible factors. We use a Cobb-Douglas production function with two factors of production, one reproducible ("capital") and one not ("labor"). There is no augmenting progress of any kind, thus excluding the standard engine of growth. What is new is the possibility of changing factor intensities endogenously by spending resources on R&D. The economy starts with no capital and no knowledge of how to use it. By conducting R&D, the economy learns new technologies that use capital, which then is built. There are two possible ultimate outcomes: the economy may achieve perpetual growth, or it may stagnate with no growth. The first outcome is an asymptotic version of the AK model of endogenous growth, and the second outcome is the standard Solow model in the absence of any exogenous sources of growth. Which outcome is achieved depends on parameter values of saving and production, and there always is a feasible saving rate that will give the perpetual growth outcome. The model thus provides a theory of the endogenous emergence of a production technology with constant returns to the reproducible factors, that is, one that is capable of supporting perpetual economic growth. The model also allows derivation of the full transition dynamics, which have interesting properties. One especially notable feature is that the origin is not a steady state. An economy that starts with pure labor production becomes industrialized through its own efforts. The theory thus offers a purely endogenous explanation for the transition from a primitive to a developed economy, in contrast to several well-known theories. Several aspects of the transition paths accord with the evidence, suggesting that the theory is reasonable. In contrast to almost all the existing endogenous growth literature, neither monopoly power nor an externality is a necessary condition for endogenous growth. It is sufficient that firms be able to appropriate the results of their research and development efforts.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1270650_code1070428.pdf?abstractid=1270650&mirid=1
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Duke University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 10-21.

as in new window
Length: 38
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:10-21

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics Duke University 213 Social Sciences Building Box 90097 Durham, NC 27708-0097
Phone: (919) 660-1800
Fax: (919) 684-8974
Web page: http://econ.duke.edu/

Related research

Keywords: Endogenous growth; technical change; factor intensity choice;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output per Worker than Others?," NBER Working Papers 6564, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Joseph Zeira, 1998. "Workers, Machines, And Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1091-1117, November.
  3. Oliver J. Blanchard, 1997. "The Medium Run," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 28(2), pages 89-158.
  4. Blanchard, Olivier, 1998. "Revisiting European Unemployment : Unemployment, Capital Accumulation and Factor Prices," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number GL28, January.
  5. Hernando Zuleta, 2008. "Factor Saving Innovations and Factor Income Shares," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(4), pages 836-851, October.
  6. Sergio Rebelo, 1999. "Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2114, David K. Levine.
  7. Robert M. Solow, 1994. "Perspectives on Growth Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 45-54, Winter.
  8. Gary D. Hansen & Edward C. Prescott, 1998. "Malthus to Solow," NBER Working Papers 6858, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Douglas Gollin, 2002. "Getting Income Shares Right," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 458-474, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Brad Sturgill, 2009. "Cross-country Variation in Factor Shares and its Implications for Development Accounting," Working Papers 09-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  2. Alberto Dalmazzo & Antonio Accetturo & Guido de Blasio, 2011. "Skill-Biased Share-Altering Technical Change in Spatial General Equilibrium," ERSA conference papers ersa11p83, European Regional Science Association.
  3. Jakob B. Madsen & James B. Ang & Rajabrata Banerjee, 2010. "Four Centuries of British Economic Growth: The Roles of Technology and Population," CAMA Working Papers 2010-18, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  4. Laura Liliana Moreno Herrera & Jorge Eduardo Pérez Pérez, 2009. "Biased Technological Change, Impatience and Welfare," DEGIT Conference Papers c014_046, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
  5. Julián David Parada, 2008. "Tasa de depreciación endógena y crecimiento económico," DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO 004594, UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO.
  6. Nazrullaeva, Eugenia, 2010. "Modeling the relationship between investment processes and costs structure applied to Russian economic activities in 2005-2009," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 19(3), pages 38-61.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:duk:dukeec:10-21

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Department of Economics Webmaster).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.