Is Harrod-neutrality Needed for Balanced Growth? Uzawa's Theorem Revisited
AbstractTaking into account the adjustment costs of investment, this paper proves that it is not the neoclassical growth model itself but the specific form of capital accumulation function that requires technical change to exclusively be Harrod neutral in steady state. Uzawa’s(1961)steady-state growth theorem holds only when the marginal efficiency of capital accumulation is constant, which implies that the capital supply is infinitely elastic. Therefore, it is unnecessary to make strong assumptions about the shape of the production function and the direction of technical change for neoclassical growth model to exhibit steady-state growth.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 55046.
Date of creation: 2014
Date of revision: Feb 2014
Neoclassical Growth Model; Uzawa’s Steady-state Growth Theorem; Direction of Technical Change; Adjustment Cost;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- E13 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Neoclassical
- O33 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
- O41 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2014-04-11 (All new papers)
- NEP-FDG-2014-04-11 (Financial Development & Growth)
- NEP-GER-2014-04-11 (German Papers)
- NEP-GRO-2014-04-11 (Economic Growth)
- NEP-MAC-2014-04-11 (Macroeconomics)
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.:
- Charles I. Jones, 2005.
"The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press,
MIT Press, vol. 120(2), pages 517-549, May.
- Charles I. Jones, 2004. "The Shape of Production Function and the Direction of Technical Change," NBER Working Papers 10457, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Daron Acemoglu, 2003.
"Labor- And Capital-Augmenting Technical Change,"
Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press,
MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-37, 03.
- Foley, Duncan K & Sidrauski, Miguel, 1970.
"Portfolio Choice, Investment and Growth,"
American Economic Review, American Economic Association,
American Economic Association, vol. 60(1), pages 44-63, March.
- D. K. Foley & M. Sidrauski, 1968. "Portfolio Choice, Investment, and Growth," Working papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics 24, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Robert E. Lucas & Jr., 1967. "Adjustment Costs and the Theory of Supply," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75, pages 321.
- Bailey, Roy E & Scarth, William M, 1980. "Adjustment Costs and Aggregate Demand Theory," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 47(188), pages 423-31, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.