Putty-putty, two sector, vintage capital growth models
Most growth models assume capital is homogeneous with regard to technology. This contradicts intuition and empirical evidence that the majority of technology is embodied in the capital stock. Berger (2001) showed that neoclassical vintage capital (embodied technology) and non-vintage capital (disembodied technology) models have different convergence rates, although identical steady state growth rates. Removing the neoclassical assumption that technological growth is exogenous, I examine two-sector, putty-putty, vintage capital models. Technological growth is tied to investment in the research sector. Savings rates and the allocation of labor differ between the vintage and non-vintage cases. It is shown for the first time that vintage and non-vintage versions of a model can have different steady state growth rates.
|Date of creation:||2001|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20551|
Web page: http://www.federalreserve.gov/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/order.htm|
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.:
- Greenwood, J. & Hercowitz, Z. & Krusell, P., 1996.
"Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change,"
RCER Working Papers
420, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Greenwood, Jeremy & Hercowitz, Zvi & Krusell, Per, 1997. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 342-62, June.
- Greenwood, J. & Hercowitz, Z. & Krusell, P., 1995. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9510, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Eicher, Theo S & Turnovsky, Stephen J, 1999. "Convergence in a Two-Sector Nonscale Growth Model," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 413-28, December.
- R. M. Solow & J. Tobin & C. C. von Weizsäcker & M. Yaari, 1966. "Neoclassical Growth with Fixed Factor Proportions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 79-115.
- Edmund S. Phelps, 1962. "The New View of Investment: A Neoclassical Analysis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(4), pages 548-567.
- Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-84, August.
- Ramanathan, R, 1973. "Adjustment Time in the Two-Sector Growth Model with Fixed Coefficients," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 83(332), pages 1236-44, December.
- Edmond S. Phelps, 1962. "Substitution, Fixed Proportions, Growth and Distribution," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 133, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Eicher, Theo S. & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2001. "Transitional dynamics in a two-sector non-scale growth model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 85-113, January.
- Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedgif:716. 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: (Marlene Vikor)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.