Advertisement

Effects of a declining population in a model of economic growth

Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Keywords

Human Capital Production Function Population Growth Rate Steady State Solution Technological Progress 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1998), 20, Inada (1963).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2003), 439. Schröer and Stahlecker (1996) estimate α = 0.353 and β = 0.666 for Germany. Similar Smolny (2000).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    When employing the Cobb-Douglas production function, α and β add up to one. See Duffy and Papageorgiou (2000) who favour the CES function and reject the Cobb-Douglas function as suitable for growth theory in an empirical study.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Depreciation was left out in the analyses of Solow (1956) by Kurz (1982) and Schmitt-Rink (1986) (see section 2.2).Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1998), 28.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    Solow (1994), 48.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    Solow (2000), 110.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    Kaldor (1961), 178f.Google Scholar
  9. 17.
    Solow (1956), 90.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    See Phelps (1961).Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    Phelps (1961), (1965).Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    This follows Frenkel and Hemmer (1999), 171–172.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1998), 44.Google Scholar
  14. 25.
    Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1998), 44.Google Scholar
  15. 26.
    Solow (1956), 85. Following Hicks (1932) a technological change is neutral if the ratio of marginal products remains unchanged for a given capital/labour ratio.Google Scholar
  16. 27.
    Following Harrod (1942) a technological change is neutral if the relative input shares remain unchanged for a given capital/output ratio.Google Scholar
  17. 28.
    See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1998), 63.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    Bretschger (1999), 38.Google Scholar
  19. 31.
    The technology A can be interpreted as a measure of efficiency. A · L is the effective workforce. One unit of this workforce is the effective worker. See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1998), 41.Google Scholar
  20. 32.
    See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), 35.Google Scholar
  21. 34.
    Lucas (1988) provides a model where H is a function of L as H = h · L. See chapter 4.Google Scholar
  22. 35.
    Mankiw et al. (1992), 417.Google Scholar
  23. 38.
    Mankiw et al. (1992), 422.Google Scholar
  24. 39.
    See e.g. Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004), chapter 5 and Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln (2005), 97ff.Google Scholar
  25. 40.
    Lindh and Malmberg (1999), 437.Google Scholar
  26. 41.
    Lindh and Malmberg (1999), 437.Google Scholar
  27. 42.
    Lindh and Malmberg (1999), 434.Google Scholar
  28. 43.
    Lindh and Malmberg (1999), 434.Google Scholar
  29. 44.
    Lindh and Malmberg (1999), 446.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations