About: Capital (economics) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 52440 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1239176 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
01 Jan 1936
TL;DR: In this article, a general theory of the rate of interest was proposed, and the subjective and objective factors of the propensity to consume and the multiplier were considered, as well as the psychological and business incentives to invest.
Abstract: Part I. Introduction: 1. The general theory 2. The postulates of the classical economics 3. The principle of effective demand Part II. Definitions and Ideas: 4. The choice of units 5. Expectation as determining output and employment 6. The definition of income, saving and investment 7. The meaning of saving and investment further considered Part III. The Propensity to Consume: 8. The propensity to consume - i. The objective factors 9. The propensity to consume - ii. The subjective factors 10. The marginal propensity to consume and the multiplier Part IV. The Inducement to Invest: 11. The marginal efficiency of capital 12. The state of long-term expectation 13. The general theory of the rate of interest 14. The classical theory of the rate of interest 15. The psychological and business incentives to liquidity 16. Sundry observations on the nature of capital 17. The essential properties of interest and money 18. The general theory of employment re-stated Part V. Money-wages and Prices: 19. Changes in money-wages 20. The employment function 21. The theory of prices Part VI. Short Notes Suggested by the General Theory: 22. Notes on the trade cycle 23. Notes on mercantilism, the usury laws, stamped money and theories of under-consumption 24. Concluding notes on the social philosophy towards which the general theory might lead.
14 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors define cultural capital as accumulated labor that, when appropriated on a private, that is, exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor.
Abstract: Capital is accumulated labor that, when appropriated on a private, that is, exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor. Most of the properties of cultural capital can be deduced from the fact that, in its fundamental state, it is linked to the body and presupposes embodiment. Cultural capital, in the objectified state, has a number of properties that are defined only in the relationship with cultural capital in its embodied form. By conferring institutional recognition on the cultural capital possessed by any given agent, the academic qualification also makes it possible to compare qualification holders and even to exchange them. Furthermore, it makes it possible to establish conversion rates between cultural capital and economic capital by guaranteeing the monetary value of a given academic capital.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a different framework for solving problems of distribution accumulation and growth first in a closed and then in an open economy, where the assumption of an unlimited labor supply is used.
Abstract: Written in the classical tradition this essay attempts to determine what can be made of the classical framework in solving problems of distribution accumulation and growth first in a closed and then in an open economy. The purpose is to bring the framework of individual writers up to date in the light of modern knowledge and to see if it helps facilitate an understanding of the contemporary problems of large areas of the earth. The 1st task is to elaborate the assumption of an unlimited labor supply and by establishing that it is a useful assumption. The objective is merely to elaborate a different framework for those countries which the neoclassical (and Keynesian) assumptions do not fit. In the 1st place an unlimited supply of labor may be said to exist in those countries where population is so large relative to capital and natural resources that there are large sectors of the economy where the marginal productivity of labor is negligible zero or even negative. Several writers have drawn attention to the existence of such "disguised" unemployment in the agricultural sector. If unlimited labor is available while capital is scarce it is known from the Law of Variable Proportions that the capital should not be spread thinly over all the labor. Only so much labor should be used with capital as will reduce the marginal productivity of labor to zero. The key to the process of economic expansion is the use that is made of the capitalist surplus. In so far as this is reinvested in creating new capital the capital sector expands taking more people into capitalist employment out of the subsistence sector. The surplus is then larger still and capital formation is still greater and so the process continues until the labor surplus disappears. The central problem in the theory of economic development is to understand the process by which a community which was previously saving and investing 4 or 5% of its national income or less converts itself into an economy where voluntary saving is running at about 12-15% of national income or more. This is the crucial problem because the central fact of economic development is rapid capital accumulation (including knowledge and skills with capital). Much of the plausible explanation is that people save more because they have more to save. The model used here states that if unlimited supplies of labor are available at a constant real wage and if any part of profits is reinvested in productive capacity profits will grow continuously relative to the national income and capital formation will also grow relatively to the national income. As capitalists also create capital as a result of a net increase in the supply of money particularly bank credit it is necessary to take account of this. Governments affect the process of capital accumulation in many ways and not least by the inflations which they experience. The expansion of the capitalist sector may be stopped because the price of subsistence goods rises or because the price is not falling as fast as subsistence productivity per head is rising or because capitalist workers raise their subsistence standards.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present three key facts about income and wealth inequality in the long run emerging from my book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and seek to sharpen and refocus the discussion about those trends.
Abstract: In this article, I present three key facts about income and wealth inequality in the long run emerging from my book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and seek to sharpen and refocus the discussion about those trends. In particular, I clarify the role played by r > g in my analysis of wealth inequality. I also discuss some of the implications for optimal taxation, and the relation between capital-income ratios and capital shares.
TL;DR: This article showed that the differences in capital accumulation, productivity, and therefore output per worker are driven by differences in institutions and government policies, which are referred to as social infrastructure and called social infrastructure as endogenous, determined historically by location and other factors captured by language.
Abstract: Output per worker varies enormously across countries. Why? On an accounting basis our analysis shows that differences in physical capital and educational attainment can only partially explain the variation in output per worker—we find a large amount of variation in the level of the Solow residual across countries. At a deeper level, we document that the differences in capital accumulation, productivity, and therefore output per worker are driven by differences in institutions and government policies, which we call social infrastructure. We treat social infrastructure as endogenous, determined historically by location and other factors captured in part by language. In 1988 output per worker in the United States was more than 35 times higher than output per worker in Niger. In just over ten days the average worker in the United States produced as much as an average worker in Niger produced in an entire year. Explaining such vast differences in economic performance is one of the fundamental challenges of economics. Analysis based on an aggregate production function provides some insight into these differences, an approach taken by Mankiw, Romer, and Weil  and Dougherty and Jorgenson , among others. Differences among countries can be attributed to differences in human capital, physical capital, and productivity. Building on their analysis, our results suggest that differences in each element of the production function are important. In particular, however, our results emphasize the key role played by productivity. For example, consider the 35-fold difference in output per worker between the United States and Niger. Different capital intensities in the two countries contributed a factor of 1.5 to the income differences, while different levels of educational attainment contributed a factor of 3.1. The remaining difference—a factor of 7.7—remains as the productivity residual. * A previous version of this paper was circulated under the title ‘‘The Productivity of Nations.’’ This research was supported by the Center for Economic Policy Research at Stanford and by the National Science Foundation under grants SBR-9410039 (Hall) and SBR-9510916 (Jones) and is part of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s program on Economic Fluctuations and Growth. We thank Bobby Sinclair for excellent research assistance and colleagues too numerous to list for an outpouring of helpful commentary. Data used in the paper are available online from http://www.stanford.edu/,chadj.
Trending Questions (10)