1 the Origins of Modern Growth
-
Upload
amit-santra -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
1/93
1
Alternative Approaches to
Economic Growth
Dr John McCombie
DirectorCentre for Economic and Public Policy
University of Cambridge
September 2010
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
2/93
2
Lecture 1 The Origins of Modern Economic Growth: Harrod-Domar and Solow.
Lecture 2 The Increasing Returns Revolution: EndogenousGrowth Theory and Beyond.
Lecture 3 Technical Change, the Aggregate Production Functionand Neoclassical Growth Theory, Not Even Wrong.
Lecture 4 The Demand Oriented Approach: CumulativeCausation and the Verdoorn Law.
Lecture 5 Economic Growth and the Balance-of-PaymentsConstraint.
Lecture 6 Is Growth Pass? The Economics of Happiness.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
3/93
3
Preamble
An outline of the six lectures
Lecture 1 and 2: A critical overview of the mainstream approach togrowth: Solow and endogenous growth theory
Lecture 3: Why the aggregate production function is not evenwrong. The most controversial lecture. For example, Solowsgrowth model is fundamentally flawed.
Lectures 4 and 5: The Keynesian/Kaldorian approach to economicgrowth
Lecture 6: Increasing economic growth: A fools errand?
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
4/93
4
A Tale of Two Paradigms
How do we model economic growth? How useful are mathematical
models of growth? Is there a difference between growth and
development? What do we mean by explanation and
explaining growth? Solow/Romer versus David Landes.
Appreciative versus formal theorizing. (Richard Nelson)
Formal Theorizing
(i) The Neoclassical approach: Supply-oriented growth theory;
Solow and endogenous growth models.
(ii) The Kaldorian/Keynesian Approach: Demand-oriented
growth including models of cumulative causation and the balance-
ofpayments constrained growth model
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
5/93
5
But how Useful are these models in Explaining the Really
Big Questions?
Why did no country experience sustained per caputgrowth before the18th Century. Why did the industrial revolution occur in Britain and notin China in the 14th Century or in Italy in Roman times?
Was the industrial revolution inevitable? What were the proximatecauses?
Why has there been such a wide divergence of growth rates over thelast 250 years? Why have there been growth miracles and disasters?
Why has there been divergence, big time?
Is the north-south divide really a temperate/tropical divide?
Why was there a productivity slowdown in the OECD countries after
1973?
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
6/93
6
Lecture 1. Models of Economic Growth.
From Harrod-Domar to Solow
Dr John McCombieDirector
Centre for Economic and Public Policy
University of Cambridge
September 2010
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
7/93
7
Outline of the Lecture
I shall be looking at the alternative ways economists model growth andwhy there are some fundamental disagreements between them.
1. Harrod (Domar) growth model (savings matter)2. The Solow model (savings do not matter; its technical progress)
3. The growth accounting approach.
4. Limitations of the Solow Growth Model
(i) The growth of productive potential is endogenous, notexogenous (AP Thirlwall)
(ii) Sectoral change is important in accounting for growth ratedisparities (JSL McCombie)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
8/93
8
How do We Assess Models?
(i) Karl Poppers approach of conjectures and refutations
The linear model of scientific progress
Theorytesting rejection of hypothesis new better theory .
Science objectively progresses over time
(ii) Thomas Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(a) The paradigm
(b) The paradigmatic assumptions (not testable by fiat)
(c) Normal science versus revolutionschallenge of paradigmaticassumptions
(d) Incommensurability of paradigms
(f) No linear development of science
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
9/93
9
What about Economics?
(1) Development within a paradigmpuzzle solving- questionspedagogically determined
(2) But the paradigm prevents fundamental methodological questions
is this necessary bad?
(3) Paradigms persist for a long time.
(4) How do we compare paradigms? Sociological factors andrelativism.
(5) Paradigms in economics: Neoclassical economics, Evolutionaryeconomics, Institutional economics, Marxian economics
Individualistic, utility maximisation (Neoclassical) versusimportance of social class and institutions (Marxian).
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
10/93
10
A Gestalt Switch
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
11/93
11
The Duck Rabbit Gestalt Switch
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
12/93
12
Pseudo-paradigmatic assumptions or heuristic
untestable by fiatan article of faith.
Neoclassical paradigm
Markets are competitive; factors are paid their
marginal product; agents optimise subject toconstraints.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
13/93
13
Economic Paradigms
Classical economics
Hydraulic Keynesian Economics: IS/LM Keynesian Economic PostKeynesian Economics ??
AS/AD model; The Neoclassical Synthesis Neo-Keynesian Economics
??
Monetarism
New Classical Economics
The New Neoclassical Synthesis??
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
14/93
14
The Paradigmatic Crisis in Macroeconomics
The failure of the New Neoclassical Consensus in
explaining or predicting the sub-prime crisis.
Blanchflower (2009) and Buiter (2009)
Paradigmatic debate about fundamentals.
Renewed interest in Keynes and Minsky, long dismissed asirrelevant.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
15/93
15
Growth Theory
Neoclassical Paradigm
Developments within the paradigm: Linear theory ofdevelopment?
(i) Harrod-Domar growth model (1936/1940)(limitations)(ii) Solow growth model (1956/57) (Nobel prize)
(limitations)(iii) Romer; Endogenous growth model; (1986)(iv) Krugman (1991) New Economic Geography?
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
16/93
16
Growth Paradigms
Neoclassical Growth TheorySolow
Endogenous growth theory
Supply oriented; full employment; money is neutral in the long run,long run growth is at the productive potential. Constant returns toscale (Solow); Increasing returns to scale (Endogenous growththeory). Country growth rates are not competitive.
Keynesian Growth Theory
Harrod-Domar
Kaldor/Pasinetti distributional theory
Kaldors two-sector development modelBalance-of-payments constrained growth model
Demand oriented; underemployed resources possible, increasingreturns to scale (Kaldor), BoP constrained growth model. Growth maybe competitive; one countrys growth may be at the expense of
another's.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
17/93
17
Growth Paradigms
Evolutionary Growth Theories
Metcalf/ Nelson/Winter
Path dependenceTechnological transfer
Probabilistic and not optimising models
Institutions and Geography
Douglas North, David Landes, et al.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
18/93
18
Before we look at the theory, let us examine what we
are trying to explain.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
19/93
19
Economic Growth: What Do We Mean?
Three possible meanings:
1. The growth of real output
2. The growth of real output per worker
3. The growth of real output per capita
Focus upon meaning (3) because economics is a subjectabout welfare, but this really depends upon (2). In thelast lecture I shall discuss this further and question
whether it is such a good measure. In fact, does growthbring greater happiness? Discussed in Lecture 6.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
20/93
20
What Are We Trying to Explain?
(1) The wide disparities in living standards. 200 years ago the greatest
difference between the richest and poorest countries was about 1:3.Today it is 1:70 or even greater.
(2) Rates of economic growth and productivity growth (output perworker) vary substantially between countries. Growth rates are notnecessarily constant over time. No correlation between decennial
growth rates.
(3) Economic miracles of the Japan (1950-80); East Asian Tigers(1960- present) and more recently China (1995present) and India(?)
(4) A countrys relative position is not fixed.Some countries can declinerelatively (UK, Argentina), others can improve (China).
.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
21/93
21
Average Growth Rates of GDP of the US, Japan, Selected European
Countries and East Asian Countries, 1971-2008( per cent per annum, constant prices)
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2008
United States 3.2 3.2 2.8
Japan 5.3 4.0 1.4
France 3.3 2.4 1.9
United Kingdom 2.0 2.7 2.5
Germany 2.7 2.3 1.7
Italy 3.8 2.2 1.3
European Area* 3.1 2.4 2.0
Hong-Kong 13.9 6.2 4.4
South Korea 10.0 8.9 5.5
Singapore 10.2 8.0 6.5
Taiwan 9.4 8.0 5.3
Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2008.* Includes: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain 2002; plus Slovenia 2007; plus Cyprus and
Malta 2008.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
22/93
22
The Asian Tigers
0.9% world population and 3.5 percent of world
GDP.
India and China as the new economic miracles?
Per capita income is still very low.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
23/93
23
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
24/93
24
GDP Per Capita and Output Per Worker in WesternEurope Relative to US 1960
2003/4
GDP per capita as a percentage of
the US (current international $
prices)
Output per worker as a
percentage of the US (constant
2000 prices)
1960 1970 1980 1990 2004 1960 1970 1980 1990 2003
Germany* n/a 77.53 80.80 79.22 71.01 n/a 73.8 82.6 78.9 75.6
France 66.40 77.52 80.99 79.43 72.74 62.3 77.5 88.4 91.2 83.9
UK 76.62 72.12 71.38 72.55 74.52 70.5 68.7 72.1 74.3 76.5
Netherlands 81.43 87.67 85.58 79.32 73.10 90.9 101.4 102.1 84.6 83.6
Austria 65.48 74.06 84.61 83.72 78.37 55.5 74.5 89.4 89.9 88.1
Finland 60.31 68.22 74.36 75.85 65.10 53.7 61.6 70.7 72.7 70.8
Italy 55.47 67.35 71.74 73.65 64.53 54.7 73.6 88.8 84.4 76.8
Spain 37.49 52.48 54.24 56.96 59.39 39.8 61.1 72.4 70.6 68.7
Portugal 27.48 38.81 43.06 48.91 48.73 30.1 43.9 47.5 51.9 50.2
Switzerland 117.5 116.8 108.0 101.1 82.70 103.0 110.8 111.6 96.4 80.0
Sweden 86.89 92.68 85.82 82.78 72.44 79.8 83.3 80.6 74.8 70.9
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
25/93
25
Country and region Exponential annual growth rate (1975-96)
GRP GRP per worker GRP per capita
Italy
Valle dAosta
Sicila
Lombardia
Emila-Romagna
Campania
Portugal
Alentejo
AlgarveCentro
Lisboa
Norte
France
Lorraine
Nord-Pas-de-Calais
Champagne-Ardennes
Ile-de-France
Midi-Pyrenees
Languedoc
Basse-Normandie
1.6
1.9
2.7
2.8
3.0
1.5
2.12.2
2.3
2.9
1.0
1.4
1.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
0.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
3.0
3.2
1.92.2
2.9
2.9
1.5
1.8
1.9
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.7
1.3
1.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
1.8
1.32.2
1.8
2.3
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.3
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
26/93
26
What a Difference a Small Increase in aGrowth Rate Makes
Period in Years 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
0 1,000 1,000 1000 1,000 1,000
20 1,220 1,490 1,800 2,190 2,650
50 1,640 2,690 4,380 7,100 11,470
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
27/93
27
To Recapitulate: Alternative Approaches to
Modeling Growth
The neoclassical approach (paradigm):
- models that emphasize growth ofAggregate Supply:
(a) exogenous growth models(b) endogenous growth models
The Keynesian/Kaldorian approach (paradigm):
- models that emphasize growth ofAggregate Demand
- balance-of-payments growth models
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
28/93
28
Harrods (1939) Growth Model
An extension of Keyness GTto a growth context.
If S = Iin the short run, what must be the growth of income for
this to hold for a growing economy? The warranted growthrate.
The key to growth is investment or capital accumulation.
Rostows condition for take-off into sustained growth; viewsof many development agencies until the 2000s (Easterly and
Levine, 2001).
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
29/93
29
Harrod Growth Theory
An Essay in Dynamic Theory (Economic Journal, 1939).
Three growth rates:
1. Actual growth rate:
where and
2. Warranted Growth Rate:
Planned investment is:
Planned saving is:
For equilibrium:
or
Dynamic Equilibrium Requires
If not the system will be cumulatively unstable (the knife-edge problem)
s/vga S/Ys YI/K/Yv
*s/vgw
YvI *p sYSp
sYYv *
*s/vgw
wa gg
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
30/93
30
Harrod Growth Theory
3.Natural Growth Rate:
where lis the growth of the labour force
And is the growth of labour productivity (technical progress)
Full Employment of capital and labour requires
Assumptions: Fixed coefficients production function (?). Not according to
Harrod.
Algn
A
nwa
ggg
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
31/93
31
The warrantedgrowth rate is given byv
sgw = %3
3
%9ga
But the naturalgrowth rate is given by %6%3%3LAgn
For the economy to grow withoutunemployment/underemployment worsening
requires the savings rate to double to 18%. It will have to save even more if there is
to be a steady growth in per capita income
This gives asavings gap of 9% of GDP which needs to be financed (thefinancing
ap) by overseas aid.
An additional policy is to reduce the growth of the labour force by controlling the
growth of population.
This model provides the justification for the fundamental capital accumulationist
view of growth.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
32/93
32
The Evidence
Hill (1964), Close relationship between growth GNP and share ofinvestment in machinery but not structures for the advanced countries,1953-1962.
De Long and Summers (1991), Similar results for the advanced
countries using more recent data.
Blomstrom et al. (1996). Output growth Granger causes a higherinvestment ratio (the growth of demand is important)
BUT: Easterly (1991, 2000), Time-series data the Harrod Domar
growth model makes no sense theoretically and it fails empirically.
An expedition from Mars arriving on Earth, having read this literature,would have expected the wreckage of a capitalism that had shakenitself to pieces long ago (Solow, 1987) But clearly this is not the case.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
33/93
33
Are Savings the Driving Force Behind Growth?
The major problem is the incremental capital-output ratio (an inverse
measure of the productivity or efficiency of capital) is not constant.
Capital output ratios vary considerably across countries. (Prichett)
Korea I/Y of 21.5%, growth of the capital stock is 12.5% per annum.
Germany, similar I/Y ratio but growth of the capital stock only 4%.
Much public investment in developing countries is simply not
productive (Easterly). Aid Investment; increase in aid increase inGDP
World Bank used this model for development planning purposeswell into the late 1990s when it had been abandoned by growththeorists. (Minimum Standard Model)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
34/93
34
Solows Growth Model (1956)
Problem of the Harrod instabil ity problem
If the warrantedgrowth rate does not equal the actualgrowth rate, thepath of the economy will spiral away from its equilibrium growth path(The knife-edge problem)
There is nothing in the model that will ensure that the warranted willequal the naturalgrowth rate.
The latter problem was solved by Solow (1956) by allowing forsubstitution of capital and labour. The former was solved byremoving the investment function (all savings are assumed to beinvested)
Growth is too easy in the Harrod-Domar model (just increase thesavings/investment rate)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
35/93
35
The Cambridge UK Solution
The savings ratio as a function of the distribution of
income (the propensity to save out of profits > propensity
to save out of wages). Profits rose during a boom and this
ensured the path of the economy was brought back intoequilibrium.
The theory was popular in the early 1970s but has now
disappeared from the textbooks (as has the Harrod-Domarmodel).
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
36/93
36
The Aggregate Production Function
Central to all neoclassical growth models. This is a technologicalrelationship -
Output of a country (Y) is a function of
Capital (machines, buildings, IT equipment) (K) Labour (L)
Technology (ideas) (A), proxied by a time trend
Education and skills (human capital) (H)
Managerial efficiency (ME)
Plus ??? Friday cars; Newcastle United
Y = f (K, L, t) or Y = f(K, L, H, t)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
37/93
37
But Does the Aggregate Production Function Exist?
Lecture 3
Can we measure capital without circular reasoning? The CambridgeCapital Theory controversies of 1960-1975.
(Geoff Harcourt)
Can we aggregate micro-production functions to give a well behavedaggregate production function (the aggregation problem)?
(Frank Fisher)
Can the good statistical fits that aggregate production functions givebeen interpreted as a test of the aggregate production function?
(John McCombie and Jesus Felipe)
In Lecture 3, I shall argue that the answer to all these questions isNO
But lets leave these problems for the moment
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
38/93
38
The Cobb-Douglas Production Function
After Charles Cobb and Paul Douglas (1928)
It is a technological relationshipwith the properties.
(i) Returns to scale: + = V
(ii) Constant returns to scale = (1- )
(iii) and are technological parameters or output elasticities
(iv) Diminishing returns to each factorK, L.
(v) Substitution between labour and capital
(vi) A = A0exp(t)
(vii) Q andKshould ideally be physical measures
LK)t(AY
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
39/93
39
See Next Slide
The early results of Paul Douglas and his
colleagues in the 1930s and 1940s..
(Initially scorn was poured on his efforts by his a
prioristcolleagues at Chicago and the
econometricians, including Horst
Mendershausan)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
40/93
40
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
41/93
41
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
42/93
42
Paul Douglas (1976) concluded:
A considerable body of independent work tends tocorroborate the original Cobb-Douglas formula, but more
important, the approximate coincidence of the estimated
coefficients with the actual shares received also
strengthens the competitive theory of distribution anddisproves the Marxian. Many of the original objections
have been answered. Some remain.
I shall return to this in Lecture 3
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
43/93
43
Intensive form
Writing the production function its intensive form:
Y/L is output per worker,K/L is capital (number of units) perworker.
Solves the problem of the actual and natural rate of growthbeing different by allowing v to vary.
)1(
1
L
K
AvY
K
andL
K
AL
Y
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
44/93
44
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
45/93
45
Some Useful Results
Factors (labour and capital) are paid their marginal products
The output elasticities (a technological relationship) equal the factor
shares (a value relationship).
= a = rK/Y0.25 (useful for growth accounting)
(1-) = (1-a) = wL/Y0.75
By Eulers theorem (payments to capital and labour just equals thevalue of output)
K
YrandL
Y)(L
Yw 1
rKwLKK
YL
L
YY
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
46/93
46
But it is controversial: Why?
The marginal productivity theory of distribution shows that underconditions of perfect competition, each worker gets paid what he/shecontributes at the margin and the latter is determined by thetechnologicalconditions of production.
By such means, a just social and economic order prevails overconflict and potential instability. As Pasinetti (1974, p.125) aptlyremarked:
It is hard to see any rationale for this peculiar set of assumptions,
except that of bringing in a particular shape of technologyand thusof marginal productivityat all costs, as the main determinant ofincome distribution and the rate of profit. It looks as if the marginal
productivity theorists are willing to introduce almost any assumption,if it serves that purpose.
(cited by Blankenburg, 2008)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
47/93
47
Robert M Solow
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
48/93
48
The Solow Growth Model
The neoclassical growth model, originated by Robert MSolowin two important papers in 1956 (the theory) and1957 (an empirical application)
Savings do not drive long-term growth rates.
Generate a huge research programme in studying economicgrowth, still continues today.
Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1987 for his pioneering work ingrowth theory
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
49/93
49
Back to the Cobb-Douglas Production Function
Y =AKL1-
Divide both sides by L (labour) we get:
What we learn from this is that as the amount ofcapital per worker
increases so does the productivity of labour(output per worker)
L
KA
L
Y
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
50/93
50
Questions
Does this mean that to increase a countrys standard of living all that needsto be done is increase investment (increaseKand henceK/L)?
Is the US the most advanced country because it has the largest amount of
capital per worker in the world? It certainly has more capital per worker
than most other countries but is this the explanation?
L
KA
L
Y
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
51/93
51
Answers
Does this mean that to increase a countrys standard of livingall that needs to be done is increase investment (increaseKand henceK/L)? NO
Is the US the most advanced country because it has thelargest amount of capital per worker in the world? NO
What is the reason for this surprising result?Why is it the most advanced country in the world?
Assumptions of the Solow
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
52/93
52
Assumptions of the Solow
growth model
1 Diminishing returns to scale
2 Technology (A(t)) is a pure public good:
- non-rival(one persons use of it does not reduce another
persons)- non-excludable (Nobody can be prevented from using it)
countries share identical: - technology levels
- tech. progress rate
3. Exogenous technological progress: model ultimately unable to explain why growth occurs!
The Solow diagram
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
53/93
53
The Solow diagram
(No technical change)
y = Y/L
k = K/L
y = f(k)
sy = sf(k)
(n + )k
k*
y*
k1 k2
Accounting for National Growth Disparities and
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
54/93
54
Accounting for National Growth Disparities and
the Solow Model
y = Y/L
k = K/L
y = f(k)
sy = sf(k)
(n + )k
k*
y*
k1 k2
Absolute convergence: country 1 grows absolutely faster than country
2
Conditional Convergence in
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
55/93
55
Conditional Convergence in
the Solow Model
y = Y/L
k = K/L
s2y
s1y
(n + )k
k1*
Country 2 grows faster than Country 1 because further away
from its own steady-state equilibrium
k2*k1 k2
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
56/93
56
Technical change to the rescue
In the story so far, the country will reach steady-state
k*, but there will be no further growth. But, of course,
countries keep on growing. Why?
Technical change has the effect of shifting the
y and sy curves over time.
It offsets the effect of diminishing returns.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
57/93
57
In Growth Rate Form
5% = 3% + 0.25(5%) + 0.75(1%)Output = technical + contribution of + contribution of
growth progress capital growth labour growth
100% = 60% + 25% + 15%= 60% + { 40% }
L)1(KAY
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
58/93
58
Convergence and Divergence in the Solow Model
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
59/93
59
Policy Implications of the Solow Growth Model
Countries will ultimately converge to their steady
state levels of productivity growth.
No need for government intervention.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
60/93
60
Testing the Solow Growth Model
(1) Beta conditional and absolute convergence
Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004) Strong evidence of regional absolute
convergence (USA, Japan, Europe) (convergence clubs). Rate
of convergence about 2% per annum. Evidence for someconvergence in the advanced countries (but cfBaumols error)
But no evidence of convergence on a world wide scale.
Tt,i
T
Tt,i
it
ylnT
e1
cy
y
lnT
1
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
61/93
61
Testing the Solow Growth Model
(2) The augmented Solow model
Good fits to data for all countries initially but improved by
either (i) including human capital or (ii) allowingA0 to
differ between countries.
Mankiw-RomerWeil (1992)
)n(1
sln1
tAlnyln K0
-
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
62/93
62
Failure of the Solow Model
The level of technology cannot be the same for all countries. If it were
USA with 15 times per capita income of India would need 900 times
more machines. There should be substantially higher rates of return in
the poorer countries therefore there should be substantial capital flows
in to these countries. Why do many skilled workers in developing
countries migrate to the richer countries.
Cannot explain the big questions of growth.
Does an increase in the investment-output ratio really have no effect onthe long-run (equilibrium) rate of growth?
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
63/93
63
The Growth Accounting Approach
Using the aggregate production function we can calculate
for each country the rate of growth not accounted for by
the growth of inputs. We can call this growth of
efficiency, rate of technical progress or the growth of
total factor productivity. Note that this is the A in the
Cobb-Douglas production function.
We can calculate it as
Note that there are very strong assumptions underlying
this.
}K)a(La{YPFT 1
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
64/93
64
When Solow (1957) did this using US data 1909-49, hefound to his surprise that the (weighted) growth of theinputs explained only about 15% of productivity growtha very small proportion. The bulk was explained by
technical progress.
The growth accounting approach attempts to explain thisresidual and much of the early pioneering work was done
by Edward Denison (1967).
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
65/93
65
The Growth Accounting Approach
This is done by making allowances for
1. The growth of human capital (skills and education).
2. Increasing returns to scale.
3. Disequilibrium factors (the movement of labour from low productivity sectors
(agriculture) to high productivity sectors (manufacturing).
4. Technological diffusion from the more to the less advanced countries. It isfound that differences in aggregate productivity growth are largely explained
by the growth of TFP. In other words, the rapid growth of Japan over the early
post war period was largely due to its rapid growth of TFP. Take the US as the
technological leader, then, say,
5. This assumes that the growth of TFP of the US is due entirely to technical
progress.
ylogTechnoofDiffusionPFTPFT USAJAPAN
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
66/93
66
The Growth Accounting Approach
The Eastern Asian Tigers
Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea all experienced rapid growth rates
1966-1990 Growth of (%)
Output Productivity TFP
Hong Kong 2.3 4.7 2.3Singapore 8.7 4.6 0.02
South Korea 8.5 2.8 1.7
Taiwan 9.4 4.6 2.6
Very rapid growth of output and, to a lesser extent, productivity. But TFPgrowth not exceptional and in the case of Singapore nearly zero!
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
67/93
67
The Growth Accounting Approach
Singapores rapid growth was due to the growth of the factor inputs.
But the miracle is based on perspiration rather than inspiration I/Y rose from11 to 40%. Once and for all change that cannot be repeated. Increased
education of the workforce can also not be repeated.
Comparison between Singapore (TFP growth 0.02% p.a.) and Hong Kong
(2.3%)
Similarities
The two city cities share some common characteristics.
Both are small (2.5 million) with mainly a Chinese population.
Both were at roughly the same level of development in 1965
Both went through the same set of technologies : textiles clothing
plasticsbanking and financial services.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
68/93
68
The Growth Accounting Approach
Differences
Hong Kong higher initial education levels. Migrants from China (Shanghai)
Hong Kong more laissez faire. Some public policy programmes to do withhousing/social security.
Singapore; Stagnation in the 1950s and 1960s. British bases 13-20% of GDP
Strong government intervention after independence. State targeting ofindustries. Development Bank of Singapore. Labour legislation that wasfavourable for firms.
Large volume of FDI. More than any other SE Asian economy
Singapore: forced saving 10 40%
Hong Kong remained around 20%.
By the late 1980s, Singapore seems to have sur passed Hong Kong on thetechnological ladder, with Singaporean finance increasingly dominatingHong Kong f inance and Singaporean manuf actur ing industri es producingen masse high-technology electronic goods that have eluded most H ongKong entrepreneurs.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
69/93
69
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
70/93
70
The Growth Accounting Approach
The answer according to Young is that the Singapore forceddevelopment with rapid movement into high-tech industries but with
little time for learning-by-doing.
I am arguing that Singapore is a victim of i ts own targeting policies.
I n individual sectors, Singapore probably had exper iencedproductivity growth. This improvement in productivity, however, is
masked by the further and further movement beyond societys level
of industr ial matur ity; that is growing outputreducing distortion.
(Young)
Paul Krugman draws parallels with the Soviet Bloc in the 1950s
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
71/93
71
Biased Technical change
KL
t0
t0
:biasofDegree
)LeB;KeA(fY LK
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
72/93
72
The Problem of Biased Technical Change
Factor shares will be constantif we have a Cobb-Douglasproduction function or biased technical change such that:
onsubstitutiofelasticity
changetechnicalaugmentingcapital
changetechnicalaugmentinglabour
)]K()L][(/)1)(a1[(a
)a(shares'capitalofGrowth
K
L
KL
0athatsoLKkL
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
73/93
73
Two Possible Explanations
Why did factor shares remain constant in the Asian Tigers despite arapidly growing capital-labour ratio?
(i) The production function is a Cobb-Douglas.
(ii) There was technical change such that:
But in this case we need to use constant-technology factor shares in thegrowth accounting. If we use observedshares they will include theeffect of technical change, but they will attribute this to thecontribution of the growth of factor inputs.
LKkL
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
74/93
74
Biased Technical Change
The shares used are the average of the observed shares in the initialand terminal period.
But if the terminal share is affected by technical change
such that
then if we take the initialcapitals share to be equal to the observed,the terminalshare 0 as the length of time T increases.
For small time periods, the use of observed shares and constant-technology shares will give the same result.
)aa(5.0a T0
LKkL
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
75/93
75
Biased Technical Change
Felipe and McCombie (2001) used an algorithm to calculate the constant-technology shares.
Example of Singapore
But we do not know values of and also TFP growth dependent on numberof years over which it is calculated. So we can a large range of estimates ofTFP growth. Diamond and McFaddens impossibility theorem
%11.0497.0497.0497.0497.00.1
%55.2077.0467.0000.0439.02.0
growthTFPaaaa *30*1
*30
*1
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
76/93
76
Explanation
With a low elasticity of substitution, and a rapid growth of thecapital-labour ratio the rate of biased technical change will have to berapid to prevent capitals share from falling.
We can calculate the rate of biased technical change for Singapore
necessary to prevent capitals share from falling:
Why is there negative rate of capital-augmenting technical change?
annumper%80.2
annumper%00.3
K
L
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
77/93
77
Two Big Questions
If the Solow model predicts convergence in productivitylevels; how did the present large disparities in income perhead occur in the first place?
Is there evidence that convergence is currently occurring inthe world as a whole?
The Shortcomings of the Solow
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
78/93
78
Model Revisited
(1) Technological progress like manna from heaven
(2) Unable to convincingly account for growth disparities:
- technology = pure public good
- only able to account for growth rate
disparities by speculatingthat different countries have
experienced different shocks
(3) Shortcomings emergence of endogenous growth
models
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
79/93
79
The Shortcomings of the Solow Model
Capital and migration flow predictions are wrong. Capital
should flow to the less developed countries asK/L ratio
low there.
Assumes that the growth of productive potential (the
natural rate of growth) is exogenous.
The one-sector model ignores the large structural and
sectoral change that accompanies growth
The Endogeneity of the Natural Rate of Growth
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
80/93
80
Thirlwalls Analysis
1. Reasons why the natural rate of growth is likely to beendogenous and implications. (i) Flexibility of laboursupply. (ii) Growth of labour productivity positively relatedto the growth of output (Verdoorn law).
2. A technique for estimating the natural rate of growth.
3. Estimating the endogeneity of the natural rate of growth.
4. Estimates of the endogeneity of the natural rate of growthfor OECD and Latin American countries.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
81/93
81
Estimating the Natural Rate of Growth (gn)
1. %U = a b (g) Natural rate:%U = 0gn = a/b
OR
2. g = a1 b1 (%U)
gn = a1 (generally gives the better statistical fits)
3. g = a2 + b2D c2 (%U)
whereD = 1 whenga
> gn
(a2 + b2) givesgn in boom periods. If b2 > 0, then the natural
rate of growth increases during boom periods.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
82/93
82
The Endogeneity of the Natural Rate of Growth
Relation between growth and change in unemployment
0 %U
a2
a1
a2+ b2
Natural rate (gn)
g
Sensitivity of the Natural rate of Growth to the Actual Rate of Growth
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
83/93
83
Country Naturalrate
Natural rate inboom periods
Increase in Natural Rate inBoom periods
Absolutedifference
(2)-(1)%
increase
Australia 3.9985 5.7131 1.7146 42.9Austria 3.1358 4.9563 1.8205 58.1Belgium 3.5239 4.9102 1.3863 39.3Canada 3.8352 5.2613 1.4261 37.2Denmark 2.9424 4.7826 1.8402 62.5
France 2.8270 3.9343 1.1073 39.2Germany 3.5054 4.7091 1.2037 34.3Greece 4.5089 7.6711 3.1622 70.1Italy 3.3439 5.9104 2.5665 76.8Japan 4.5671 8.7199 4.1528 90.9Netherlands 3.2817 5.3151 2.0334 62.0Norway 3.9722 5.0094 1.0372 26.1
Spain 4.0623 6.0928 2.0305 50.0UK 2.5438 3.8022 1.2584 49.5USA 2.9911 3.6642 0.6731 22.5
Average 3.5359 5.3634 1.8275 51.7
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
84/93
84
Conclusions
In general, the results show substantial elasticity of the
labour force and productivity growth, certainly significant
to suggest that the natural rate is not exogenous, but is veryresponsive to demand conditions in the economy.
(Thirlwall, 2010)
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
85/93
85
Productivity Growth and Structural Change
in the Postwar Advanced Countries
1. Need to explain substantial disparities between growthrates between the advanced countries in the post-war
period.
2. Need to explain the post 1973 slowdown3. What was the role of sectoral change?
4. Large shift of labour out of agriculture and services (?) toindustry.
5. Movement of labour will contribute positively toproductivity if losing sector has a lower level ofproductivity (agriculture) than the gaining sector(manufacturing)
G i i P d ti it D t th I t t l
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
86/93
86
Gains in Productivity Due to the Intersectoral
Reallocation of Labour in the Postwar periodAssumption 1
All sectors are subject to constant returns to scale
Assumption 2.
Industry has increasing returns to scale; agriculture surplus labour andservices constant returns to scale.
Calculated using the definition of total productivity in terms of the growthof the three sectors
(i) Standardised growth rate. The growth that would have occurred if allthe sectors employment had growth at the same rate.
(ii) Structural growth rate. The differential growth rate of employmentbetween the various sectors. It captures the effect on productivity ofthe net transfer of labour between sectors under the two assumptions.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
87/93
87
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
88/93
88
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
89/93
89
The Results
If the decline in the rate of transfer of labour
between sectors and the fall in industrial
productivity could explain the productivity growth
slowdown, there should be no differences in the
standardised rates of growth between 1950-73 and
1973-1985.
The structural rate of growth should be such as tomake the standardised rates of growth roughly
equal in the two periods.
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
90/93
90
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
91/93
91
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
92/93
92
-
7/28/2019 1 the Origins of Modern Growth
93/93
Conclusions
Shortcomings of the Solow model and Growth
accounting:
Exogenous technical change
Problem of calculating total factor productivity growthDoes it make sense to try to separate the growth of factor
inputs and technical change?
Is the growth of productive potential independent of the
growth of demand?
How useful are one-sector models?