Neoclassical Growth Theory

Sibabrata Das; Alex Mourmouras; Peter C. Rangazas

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14265-4_2

Economic Growth and Development pp 11-50 | Cite as

Neoclassical Growth Theory

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Sibabrata Das
Alex Mourmouras
Peter C. Rangazas

Chapter

First Online: 13 January 2015

1.7k Downloads

Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the one-sector neoclassical growth model—the foundation for all the growth theory in the book. The primary focus of the chapter is growth via capital accumulation. We think of capital as man-made durable inputs to the production process. The first type of capital we include is physical capital. For our purposes, physical capital can be primarily thought of as plant and equipment that is produced in one period and then used in production in the following period. (Definitions of physical capital will vary depending on the purpose at hand. In some cases, physical capital is defined to include inventories, software, land, and other inputs that extend beyond plant and equipment.) To model production, we introduce firms, economic institutions that combine physical capital and labor to produce goods and services.

Keywords

Interest Rate Human Capital Physical Capital Human Capital Investment Financial Transfer

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Appendix*

A: Derivative of the Value Function

Substituting (2.14a, b) back into $ U_{t} $ gives

$$ \begin{aligned} U_{t} & = \frac{{\left[ {\Psi _{1t} (W_{t} - n(x_{t + 1} + b_{t + 1} ))} \right]^{1 - 1/\sigma } }}{1 - 1/\sigma } + \beta \frac{{\left[ {(\beta R_{t} )^\sigma\Psi _{1t} (W_{t} - n(x_{t + 1} + b_{t + 1} ))} \right]^{1 - 1/\sigma } }}{1 - 1/\sigma } \\ & =\Psi _{1t}^{ - 1/\sigma } \frac{{(W_{t} - n(x_{t + 1} + b_{t + 1} ))^{1 - 1/\sigma } }}{1 - 1/\sigma }. \\ \end{aligned} $$

Next, denote the optimal choices of the intergenerational transfers with an asterisk so that we can write

$$ V_{t} (W_{t} ) =\Psi _{1t}^{ - 1/\sigma } \frac{{(W_{t} - n(x_{t + 1}^{ * } + b_{t + 1}^{ * } ))^{1 - 1/\sigma } }}{1 - 1/\sigma } + \beta V_{t + 1} \left( {w_{t + 1} H\left( {x_{t + 1}^{ * } } \right) + \left( {1 + r_{t + 1} } \right)b_{t + 1}^{ * } } \right). $$

Note that the optimal intergenerational transfers are in general functions of $ W_{t} $ (in the constrained case, financial transfers are zero and thus do not depend on $ W_{t} $). However, because the derivative of the right-hand side with respect to these choices is zero, then we may ignore these indirect effects of $ W_{t} $ when differentiating $ V_{t} $ with respect to $ W_{t} $ (in the constrained case, the derivative is taken only with respect to human capital investments). Thus, the derivative of the value function with respect to $ W_{t} $ includes only the direct effect, working through $ U_{t} $ in the first expression above. This result is a general one and is known as the envelope theorem. Equation (2.16) is the envelope theorem applied to $ V_{t + 1} \left( {W_{t + 1} } \right) $.

B: Many-Period Models

In models that extend beyond two periods, it is easier to proceed by thinking of the equilibrium or market clearing condition in terms of goods rather than capital. The two ways of thinking about things are actually equivalent, but the exposition is easier if we conduct the discussion in terms of goods (see Problem 14). This is especially true if one wants to contrast the infinitely lived agent approach with the overlapping generations approach. To reduce notation, we will limit the discussion to the simple model of physical capital accumulation with no human capital or technical progress. In addition, the key points can be made for the case with σ = 1 and n = 1.

As shown in Problem 14, using the goods market approach allows the transition equation for the economy to be written as

$$ nk_{t + 1} = Ak_{t}^{\alpha } - (1 - \delta )k_{t} - \frac{{C_{t} }}{{M_{t} }}. $$

In the overlapping generations model with two-period lifetimes, this equation reduces nicely to a first-order difference equation (Problem 14). This is because the right-hand side can be reduced to the consumption behavior of a single generation whose consumption depends only on period t wages and thus only on $ k_{t} $. The old generation consumes all its income. As a result, their income and their consumption are equal and cancel from the right-hand side of the transition equation.

However, with more periods of life there will be more generations on the right-hand side, whose income is less than their consumption, i.e., who save by purchasing capital. The consumption behavior of these generations will depend on wages earned before period t. For example, think of a model with five periods of life—four working periods and one retirement period. The aggregate consumption behavior on the right-hand side sums over five different generations. In general, it is only the generation who is retired that will “cancel out.” The saving of other generations will generally not be zero, so all variables that affect their consumption behavior will appear in the transition equation.

Consider the next oldest generation, who is in the last period of its working life. This generation’s working life began three periods ago. Their consumption behavior in period t will depend on the wages they earned in each of those periods. Thus, wages as far back at period t-3 will appear in the transition equation. The wages in each period are determined by the capital–labor ratio from that period. This implies that the transition equation will be a fifth-order difference equation, including the variables, $ k_{t + 1} ,k_{t} ,k_{t - 1} ,k_{t - 2} ,k_{t - 3} $. The important point is that the state variables, here the capital–labor ratios, characterizing the economy increase as the number of periods of the life-cycle increase. This curse of dimensionality raises the computational complexity of the model when the number of periods in the life cycle is large.

In contrast, if one assumes that the generations are linked by intergenerational financial transfers, the transition equation of the economy is a second-order difference equation, no matter how many periods in the life cycle are included. To see this, first note that as long as financial intergenerational transfers link the generations together, then we can write $ C_{t} = \kappa N_{t} c_{1t} $ (see Problem 10). As periods in the life cycle are added, only the value of κ changes. For example, κ = 2, with two periods of life, and κ = 5, if there are five periods of life.

Next, solve for $ c_{1t} $ using the transition equation to get

$$ c_{1t} = \frac{{M_{t} }}{{N_{t} \kappa }}\left[ {Ak_{t}^{\alpha } - (1 - \delta )k_{t} - nk_{t + 1} } \right]. $$

Now substitute into (2.17b) to get

$$ \left[ {Ak_{t + 1}^{\alpha } - (1 - \delta )k_{t + 1} - nk_{t + 2} } \right] = \left[ {\frac{{\beta \left( {1 + \alpha Ak_{t + 1}^{\alpha - 1} - \delta } \right)}}{n}} \right]\left[ {Ak_{t}^{\alpha } - (1 - \delta )k_{t} - nk_{t + 1} } \right], $$

This is a second-order difference equation in $ k_{t} $ that is completely independent of the number of periods in the life cycle. Thus, the infinitely lived agent simplification is able to avoid the dreaded curse of dimensionality . A very nifty and useful result.

The lesson is that if you want to do computations, use the infinitely lived agent approach whenever you can get away with it (e.g., business cycle analysis). Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that for the issues we examine in this book, those that directly focus on private intergenerational transfers and government policies that transfer resources across generations, one must stick with the overlapping generations approach.

References

Abel A (1985) Precautionary saving and accidental bequests. Am Econ Rev 75(4):777–791Google Scholar
Acemoglu D (2009) Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
Altonji J, Hayshi F, Kotlikoff L (1997) Parental altruism and inter vivos transfers: theory and evidence. J Polit Econ 105(6):1121–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach A, Kotlikoff L (1998) Macroeconomics: an integrated approach. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Auerbach A, Kotlikoff L, Skinner J (1983) The efficiency gains from dynamic tax reform. International economic review 24(1):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azariadis C (1993) Intertemporal macroeconomics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Barro R (1974) Are government bonds net wealth? J Polit Econ 82(6):1095–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro R (1997) Macroeconomics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Becker G (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 82(6):1063–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker G (1981) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Becker G (1988) Family economics and macro behavior. Am Econ Rev 78(1):1–13Google Scholar
Bernheim D, Shleifer A, Summers L (1985) The strategic bequest motive. J Polit Econ 93(6):1045–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Córdoba J, Ripoll M (2013) What explains schooling differences across countries? J Monetary Econ 60(2):184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95(3):508–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies J (1981) Uncertain lifetime, consumption and dissaving in retirement. J Polit Econ 89(3):561–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Croix D, Michel P (2002) A theory of economic growth: dynamics and policy in overlapping generations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Diamond P (1965) National debt in a neoclassical growth model. Am Econ Rev 55(5):1126–1150Google Scholar
Drazen A (1978) Government debt, human capital, and bequests in a life-cycle model. J Polit Econ 86(3):505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer K, Schelnast M (2013) Growth and international trade: an introduction to the overlapping generations approach. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollin D (2002) Getting income shares right. J Polit Econ 110(2):458–474Google Scholar
Hansen L, Heckman J (1996) The empirical foundations of calibration. J Econ Perspect 10(1):87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman J, Cunha F (2007) The technology of skill formation. Am Econ Rev 97(2):31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd M (1989) Mortality risk and bequests. Econometrica 57(4):779–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King R, Rebelo S (1993) Transitional dynamics and economic growth in the neoclassical growth model. Am Econ Rev 83:908–931Google Scholar
Kocherlakota N (1996) The equity premium: it’s still a puzzle. J Econ Lit 34(1):42–71Google Scholar
Kydland F, Prescott E (1982) Time to build and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 50(6):1345–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydland F, Prescott E (1996) The computational experiment: an econometric tool. J Econ Perspect 10(1):69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord W (2001) Household dynamics, policies, and economic growth. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Lord W, Rangazas P (2006) Fertility and development: the roles of schooling and family production. J Econ Growth 11(3):229–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuelli R, Seshadri A (2014) Human capital and the wealth of nations. Am Econ Rev 104 (9):2736–2762Google Scholar
Mourmouras A, Rangazas P (2009) Reconciling Kuznets and Habbakuk in a unified growth model. J Econ Growth 14(2):149–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parente S, Prescott E (2000) Barriers to riches. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Rangazas P (2000) Schooling and economic growth: a King-Rebelo experiment with human capital. J Monetary Econ 46(2):397–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rangazas P (2002) The quantity and quality of schooling and U.S. labor productivity growth (1870–2000). Rev Econ Dyn 5(4):932–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer D (2001) Advanced macroeconomics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Stokey N, Lucas R (1989) Recursive methods in economic dynamics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MassGoogle Scholar
Stokey N, Rebelo S (1995) Growth effects of flat-rate taxes. J Polit Econ 103(3):519–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers L (1981) Capital taxation and capital accumulation in a life-cycle growth model. Am Econ Rev 71(4):533–544Google Scholar
Wallis J (2000) American government finance in the long-run: 1790–1990. J Econ Perspect 14(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm M (1996) Bequest behavior and the effect of heirs’ earnings: testing the altruistic model of bequests. Am Econ Rev 86(4):874–892Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Sibabrata Das
- 1
Alex Mourmouras
- 2
Peter C. Rangazas
- 3
Email author

1.International Monetary FundWashingtonUSA
2.Asia and Pacific DepartmentInternational Monetary FundWashingtonUSA
3.Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)IndianapolisUSA

Neoclassical Growth Theory

Abstract

Keywords

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter