Does The Capital Intensity Matter? Evidence From The Postwar Japanese Economy And Other Oecd Countries
The capital intensity takes an important role in two-sector and multisector growth models. Surprisingly very few empirical studies have been conducted so far except by Kuga (1967). This fact implies that few people have ever tried to perform any empirical research to study whether the two-sector and multisector optimal growth models could explain the economic development properly based on the empirical data. Although we witnessed fairly active theoretical research on two-sector and multisector growth models in the 1990s and recent years, R. M. Solow has thrown doubt on the capital intensities [in Philippe Aghion and Steven Durlauf (eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth , Vol. 1A (2005, pp. 3–10)]. Our purpose is to measure the capital intensities of the consumption good and the investment good sectors mainly in the postwar Japanese economy, and also in other OECD countries. By so doing, we will demonstrate that the capital intensity does matter and our empirical evidence will strongly support the common assumption that the consumption goods sector is more capital-intensive than the capital goods sector.
Volume (Year): 16 (2012)
Issue (Month): S1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK|
Web page: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_MDY
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:macdyn:v:16:y:2012:i:s1:p:103-116_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.