IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3185.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transitional Dynamics and Economic Growth in the Neoclassical Model

Author

Listed:
  • Robert G. King
  • Sergio T. Rebelo

Abstract

An understanding of the qualitative nature of the transitional dynamics of the neociassical model - the process of convergence from an initial capital stock to a steady state growth path - is a key part of the shared knowledge of most economists. It forms the basis, for example, of the widespread interest in hypotheses about convergence of levels of national economic activity. Based on several quantitative experiments undertaken in the 1960s with fixed savings rates versions of the neoclassical model, many economists further believe that the transition process can be lengthy, potentially rationalizing differences in growth rates across countries that are sustained for decades. In this paper, we undertake a systematic quantitative investigation of transitional dynamics within the most widely employed versions of the neoclassical model with interteorally optimizing households. Lengthy transitional episodes arise only if there is very low intertemporal substitution. But, more important, we find that the simplest neoclassical model inevitably generates a central implication that is traced to the production technology. Whenever we try to use it to explain major growth episodes, the model produces a rate of return that is counterfactually high in the early stages of development. For example, in seeking to account for U.S-Japan differences in post war growth as a consequence of differences in end-of-war capital, we find that the immediate postwar rate of return in Japan would have had to exceed 500% per annum. Frequently employed variants of the basic neoclassical model - those that introduce adjustment costs, separate production and consumption sectors, and international capital mobility - can potentially sweep this marginal product implication under the rug. However, such alterations necessarily cause major discrepancies to arise in other areas. With investment adjustment costs, for example, the implications resurface in counterfactual variations in Tobin's Q. We interpret our results as illustrating two important principles. First, systematic quantitative investigation of familiar models can provide surprising new insights into their practical operation. Second, explanation of sustained cross country differences in growth rates will require departure from the familiar neoclassical environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert G. King & Sergio T. Rebelo, 1989. "Transitional Dynamics and Economic Growth in the Neoclassical Model," NBER Working Papers 3185, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:3185
    Note: EFG
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w3185.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    2. Ahmed, Shaghil, 1986. "Temporary and permanent government spending in an open economy: Some evidence for the United Kingdom," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 197-224, March.
    3. King, Robert G & Rebelo, Sergio, 1990. "Public Policy and Economic Growth: Developing Neoclassical Implications," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 126-150, October.
    4. A. B. Atkinson, 1971. "The Timescale of Economic Model How Long is the Long Run?," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 19, pages 248-263, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    6. Nicholas Kaldor, 1961. "Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth," International Economic Association Series, in: D. C. Hague (ed.), The Theory of Capital, chapter 0, pages 177-222, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van de Klundert, T.C.M.J. & Smulders, J.A., 1991. "Reconstructing growth theory : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 19355c51-17eb-4d5d-aa66-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Kevin S. Nell & A.P. Thirlwall, 2017. "Why does the productivity of investment vary across countries?," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 70(282), pages 213-245.
    3. Jie Li & Robert Ayres, 2008. "Economic Growth and Development: Towards a Catchup Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 1-36, May.
    4. Rebelo, Sergio, 1991. "Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 500-521, June.
    5. Ekaterina Ponomareva & Alexandra Bozhechkova & Alexandr Knobel, 2012. "Factors of Economic Growth," Published Papers 172, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.
    6. Robert M. Solow, 2000. "The neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 349-381.
    7. Ruttan, Vernon W., 1998. "Growth Economics And Development Economics: What Should Development Economists Learn (If Anything) From The New Growth Theory?," Bulletins 12972, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    8. Turnovsky, S., 2000. "Growth in an Open Economy: some Recent Developments," Papers 5, Warwick - Development Economics Research Centre.
    9. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Mehmet Ugur & Siew Ling Yew, 2017. "Does Government Size Affect Per-Capita Income Growth? A Hierarchical Meta-Regression Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(300), pages 142-171, March.
    10. Adriana Di Liberto, 2007. "Convergence and Divergence in Neoclassical Growth Models with Human Capital," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 2, pages 289-322.
    11. Narayan Sethi & Saileja Mohanty & Sanhita Sucharita & Nanthakumar Loganathan, 2020. "Tax Reform And Economic Growth Nexus In India: Evidence From The Cointegration And Rolling-Window Causality," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(06), pages 1699-1725, December.
    12. Sedat Alataş & Erkam Sarı, 2021. "An Empirical Investigation on Regional Disparities in Public Expenditures: Province Level Evidence from Turkey," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 217-240, November.
    13. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1994. "Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    15. Renelt, David, 1991. "Economic growth : a review of the theoretical and empirical literature," Policy Research Working Paper Series 678, The World Bank.
    16. Eaton, Jonathan & Kortum, Samuel, 1997. "Engines of growth: Domestic and foreign sources of innovation," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 235-259, May.
    17. Martin Zagler & Georg Dürnecker, 2003. "Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 397-418, July.
    18. Paul Lau, Sau-Him, 1999. "I(0) In, integration and cointegration out:: Time series properties of endogenous growth models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-24, November.
    19. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    20. Maria João Ribeiro, 2003. "Endogenous Growth: Analytical Review of its Generating Mechanisms," NIPE Working Papers 4/2003, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    21. Rosa Capolupo, 2005. "THE NEW GROWTH THEORIES AND THEIR EMPIRICS, Discussion Paper in Economics, University of Glasgow, N. 2005-04 (http://www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/Economics," GE, Growth, Math methods 0506003, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:3185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.