http://individual.utoronto.ca/zheli/sa1.pdf

On the mechanics of economic development

This paper examines whether the Solow growth model is consistent with the international variation in the standard of living. It shows that an augmented Solow model that includes accumulation of human as well as physical capital provides an excellent description of the cross-country data. The paper also examines the implications of the Solow model for convergence in standards of living, that is, for whether poor countries tend to grow faster than rich countries. The evidence indicates that, holding population growth and capital accumulation constant, countries converge at about the rate the augmented Solow model predicts. This paper takes Robert Solow seriously. In his classic 1956 article Solow proposed that we begin the study of economic growth by assuming a standard neoclassical production function with decreasing returns to capital. Taking the rates of saving and population growth as exogenous, he showed that these two vari- ables determine the steady-state level of income per capita. Be- cause saving and population growth rates vary across countries, different countries reach different steady states. Solow's model gives simple testable predictions about how these variables influ- ence the steady-state level of income. The higher the rate of saving, the richer the country. The higher the rate of population growth, the poorer the country. This paper argues that the predictions of the Solow model are, to a first approximation, consistent with the evidence. Examining recently available data for a large set of countries, we find that saving and population growth affect income in the directions that Solow predicted. Moreover, more than half of the cross-country variation in income per capita can be explained by these two variables alone. Yet all is not right for the Solow model. Although the model correctly predicts the directions of the effects of saving and

/pdf/a-contribution-to-the-empirics-of-economic-growth-27cl5gkqam.pdf

A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth

Growth in this model is driven by technological change that arises from intentional investment decisions made by profit-maximizing agents. The distinguishing feature of the technology as an input is that it is neither a conventional good nor a public good; it is a nonrival, partially excludable good. Because of the nonconvexity introduced by a nonrival good, price-taking competition cannot be supported. Instead, the equilibrium is one with monopolistic competition. The main conclusions are that the stock of human capital determines the rate of growth, that too little human capital is devoted to research in equilibrium, that integration into world markets will increase growth rates, and that having a large population is not sufficient to generate growth.

/pdf/endogenous-technological-change-4yzdlw043b.pdf

Endogenous Technological Change

Existing strategies for econometric analysis related to macroeconomics are subject to a number of serious objections, some recently formulated, some old. These objections are summarized in this paper, and it is argued that taken together they make it unlikely that macroeconomic models are in fact over identified, as the existing statistical theory usually assumes. The implications of this conclusion are explored, and an example of econometric work in a non-standard style, taking account of the objections to the standard style, is presented. THE STUDY OF THE BUSINESS cycle, fluctuations in aggregate measures of economic activity and prices over periods from one to ten years or so, constitutes or motivates a large part of what we call macroeconomics. Most economists would agree that there are many macroeconomic variables whose cyclical fluctuations are of interest, and would agree further that fluctuations in these series are interrelated. It would seem to follow almost tautologically that statistical models involving large numbers of macroeconomic variables ought to be the arena within which macroeconomic theories confront reality and thereby each other. Instead, though large-scale statistical macroeconomic models exist and are by some criteria successful, a deep vein of skepticism about the value of these models runs through that part of the economics profession not actively engaged in constructing or using them. It is still rare for empirical research in macroeconomics to be planned and executed within the framework of one of the large models. In this lecture I intend to discuss some aspects of this situation, attempting both to offer some explanations and to suggest some means for improvement. I will argue that the style in which their builders construct claims for a connection between these models and reality-the style in which "identification" is achieved for these models-is inappropriate, to the point at which claims for identification in these models cannot be taken seriously. This is a venerable assertion; and there are some good old reasons for believing it;2 but there are also some reasons which have been more recently put forth. After developing the conclusion that the identification claimed for existing large-scale models is incredible, I will discuss what ought to be done in consequence. The line of argument is: large-scale models do perform useful forecasting and policy-analysis functions despite their incredible identification; the restrictions imposed in the usual style of identification are neither essential to constructing a model which can perform these functions nor innocuous; an alternative style of identification is available and practical. Finally we will look at some empirical work based on an alternative style of macroeconometrics. A six-variable dynamic system is estimated without using 1 Research for this paper was supported by NSF Grant Soc-76-02482. Lars Hansen executed the computations. The paper has benefited from comments by many people, especially Thomas J. Sargent

/pdf/macroeconomics-and-reality-3v6kkpl8jz.pdf

Macroeconomics and reality

Growth in this model is driven by technological change that arises from intentional investment decisions made by profit maximizing agents. The distinguishing feature of the technology as an input is that it is neither a conventional good nor a public good; it is a nonrival, partially excludable good. Because of the nonconvexity introduced by a nonrival good, price-taking competition cannot be supported, and instead, the equilibriumis one with monopolistic competition. The main conclusions are that the stock of human capital determines the rate of growth, that too little human capital is devoted to research in equilibrium, that integration into world markets will increase growth rates, and that having a large population is not sufficient to generate growth.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/nber_w3210.pdf?abstractid=226703&mirid=1

Report of the NOOA Panel on Contingent Valuation

We analyze in this paper a completely aggregated model of production in which output is produced by inputs of homogeneous labor and heterogeneous capital goods, and allocated either to consumption or to use as capital goods. Allocations are irreversible: capital goods can never be directly consumed. Fixed coefficients rule: any concrete unit of capital has a given output capacity and requires a given complement of labor. Technological progress continuously differentiates new capital goods from old. But we assume that the “ latest model ” in capital goods has no smaller capacity and no higher labor requirement than any older-model capital goods with the same reproduction cost. Thus each instant’s gross investment will take the form of the latest-model capital. There is no problem of the optimal “ depth ” of capital. The main effect of an increase in gross investment is to modernize the capital stock in use.

Neoclassical Growth with Fixed Factor Proportions

ost international comparisons of economic productivity work throughaggregate calculations of labor productivity or total factor productivityat the level of the national income, or sometimes at the broad sector orindustry level (for example, Jorgenson, 1995; Wagner and Van Ark, 1996). A lot hasbeen learned in this way. Increasingly, however, there have been attempts tosupplement aggregate calculations with micro-level information about individualdepartments, ﬁrms or narrowly deﬁned industries and their operations. A variety ofsuch studies has been done.One line of research has used data from single establishments, especially inU.S. manufacturing, to study productivity and employment patterns (Griliches,1998; Olley and Pakes, 1996; Baily, Hulten and Campbell, 1992). Another approachhas focused on the ﬁrms or plants within a particular industry (for example,Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990, on the auto industry). Still another line of researchstudies the frequency distribution of plant-level changes in output and employ-ment, revealing large gross ﬂows even when net changes at the industry level aresmall (Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh, 1996). The National Bureau of EconomicResearch has developed a program of “pin factory” visits as a way of bringingﬁrst-hand information into the analysis of economic performance ( Jaffe, Trajten-berg and Fogarty, 2000; Freeman and Kleiner, 2000; Borenstein and Farrell, 2000;Helper, 2000).We have been extensively involved, along with a group of other academicadvisers, in a series of international comparative performance studies carried out by

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.3.151

International Productivity Comparisons Built from the Firm Level

Land use in a long narrow city

Publisher Summary Different long-run rates of growth of money supply are eventually reflected in different rates of inflation Tobin studied this in a simple descriptive model with aggregate saving depending only on current income It was found that money growth was associated with higher capital stock and output per person in the steady state Faster inflation led savers to shift their portfolios in favor of real capital The chapter examines Sidrauski model illustrating the central neutrality result and presents some of its variations in which neutrality with respect to output fails even though the real interest rate is not affected by inflation It examines the Fisher relation and focuses on deviations from the one infinitely lived family models The exact function of money and the sensitivity of the long-run inflation–growth relation to different assumptions about the reasons why money is held are also examined

Robert M. Solow

Papers

Report of the NOOA Panel on Contingent Valuation

Neoclassical Growth with Fixed Factor Proportions

International Productivity Comparisons Built from the Firm Level

Land use in a long narrow city

Chapter 6 Money, inflation and growth