Are Nonconvexities Important For Understanding Growth?
Everyday experience and a simple logical argument show that nonconvexities are essential for understanding growth. Compared to previous statements of this well known argument, the presentation here places more emphasis on the distinction between two of the fundamental attributes of any economic good: rivalry and excludability. It also emphasizes the difference between public goods and the technological advances that are fundamental to economic growth. Like public goods, technological advances are rionrival goods. Hence, they are inextricably linked to nonconvexities. But in contrast to public goods, which are nonexcludable, technological advances generate benefits that are at least partially excludable. Hence, innovations in the technology are for the most part privately provided. This means that nonconvexities are relevant for goods that trade in private markets. Consequently, an equilibrium with price-taking in all markets cannot be sustained. Concluding remarks describe some of the recent equilibrium growth models that do not rely on price-taking and highlight some of the implications of these models.
|Date of creation:||Feb 1990|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 97-103, (May 1990).|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Luis A. Rivera-Batiz & Paul M. Romer, 1991.
"International Trade with Endogenous Technological Change,"
NBER Working Papers
3594, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rivera-Batiz, Luis A. & Romer, Paul M., 1991. "International trade with endogenous technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 971-1001, May.
- Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1989.
"Endogenous Product Cycles,"
NBER Working Papers
2913, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-91, December.
- Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990.
"A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction,"
DELTA Working Papers
90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
- Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 8904, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Working papers 527, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 1990. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," NBER Working Papers 3223, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:3271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.