On the Transition Dynamics in Endogenous Recombinant Growth Models

  • Fabio PrivileggiEmail author


Tsur and Zemel (2007) developed an endogenous growth model in which balanced long-run growth is obtained by assuming that the stock of knowledge evolves according toWeitzman’s (1998) recombinant expansion process and is used, together with physical capital, as input factor by competitive firms in order to produce a unique physical good. At each instant new knowledge is produced by an independent R&D sector directly controlled by a “regulator” who aims at maximizing the discounted utility of a representative consumer over an infinite horizon. The optimal resources required for new knowledge production are obtained by the regulator in the form of a tax levied on the consumers. The economy, thus, envisages two sectors, a competitive one devoted to the production of the unique physical good, and a regulated R&D sector in which the public good “knowledge” is being directly financed by the regulator and produced according toWeitzman’s production function.

In such framework Tsur and Zemel provide conditions under which the economy performs sustained constant balanced growth in the long run; moreover, when balanced growth occurs, they also characterize the asymptotic optimal tax rate and the common growth rate of all variables. Hence, by endogenizing the optimal choice for investing in knowledge production, their result generalizes Weitzman’s (1998) endogenous growth model in which the investment in knowledge production was assumed to be constant and exogenously determined.


Optimal Policy Knowledge Production Transition Dynamics Physical Capital Balance Growth 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank Giovanni Ramello for bringing our attention to recombinant growth models, Raouf Boucekkine for precious (and critical) technical suggestions and Mauro Sodini, met at the MDEF 2008, for encouragement at a time when we were nearly giving up looking for a suitable “detrendization” of the model. We are also grateful to Carla Marchese, for her help in the economic interpretation of the results. All remaining errors are, of course, ours.


  1. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1999). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic growth (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boucekkine, R., & Ruiz-Tamarit, J. R. (2008). Special functions for the study of economic dynamics: The case of the Lucas–Uzawa model. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 44, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Mulligan, C. B., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1991). A note on the time-elimination method for solving recursive dynamic economic models (NBER Working Paper Series 116).Google Scholar
  5. Mulligan, C. B., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1993). Transitional dynamics in two-sector models of endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 737–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Romer, D. (1996). Advanced macroeconomics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Shampine, L. F., & Corless, R. M. (2000). Initial value problems for ODEs in problem solving environments. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 125, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tsur, Y., & Zemel, A. (2007). Towards endogenous recombinant growth. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31, 3459–3477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dip. di Politiche Pubbliche e Scelte Collettive PolisUniversità del Piemonte OrientaleAlessandriaItaly

Personalised recommendations