Income distribution, technical change, and economic growth: A two-sector Kalecki--Kaldor approach

Nishi, Hiroshi (2020): Income distribution, technical change, and economic growth: A two-sector Kalecki--Kaldor approach.

Abstract

This paper presents a two-sector Kalecki--Kaldor model of income distribution, technical change, and economic growth. The model is Kaleckian in the sense that it incorporates mark-up pricing, investment independent of saving, and excess capacity. It is also Kaldorian in that labour productivity growth is led by Kaldor's technical progress function. In other words, productivity growth is endogenously realised through the technology embodied in new capital stock, which differentiates our model from previous two-sector models. Our extension drastically changes the standard Kaleckian implications. We find that although the economic activity levels in the short run are led by the demand and income distribution parameters, economic growth in the long run is realised by supply-side (i.e. technical change and the associated productivity and wage growth) parameters. The important implication of our findings is that a two-sector economy faces a trade-off between a high economic growth rate and the local stability of the steady state.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Two-sector model, Economic growth, Endogenous productivity growth, Technical change, Income distribution
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D3 - Distribution > D33 - Factor Income Distribution; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E1 - General Aggregative Models > E12 - Keynes ; Keynesian ; Post-Keynesian; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models

References

Bassi, F. and D. Lang (2016): ‘Investment hysteresis and potential output: A post-Keynesian-Kaleckian agent-based approach’, Economic Modelling, 52 (A), pp. 35-49.

Beqiraj, E., L. Fanti and L. Zamparelli (2019): ‘Sectoral Composition of Output and the Wage Share: The role of the service sector’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 51, pp. 1-10.

Bhaduri, A. and S. Marglin (1990): ‘Unemployment and the Real Wage: The Economic Basis for Contesting Political Ideologies’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14 (4), pp. 375-393.

Blecker, R. and M. Setterfield (2019): Heterodox Macroeconomics: Models of Demand, Distribution and Growth, Cheltenham, UK.: Edward Elgar.

Campbell, T. and D. Tavani (2019): ‘Marx-biased technical change and income distribution: A panel data analysis’, Metroeconomica, 70 (4), pp. 655-687.

De Serres, A., S. Scarpetta and C. De La Maisonneuve (2002): ‘Falling Wage Shares in Europe and the United States: How Important is Aggregation Bias’, Empirica, 28 (4), pp. 375-401.

Dumenil, G. and D. Levy (1999): ‘Being Keynesian in the Short Term and Classical in the Long Term: The Traverse to Classical Long-Term Equilibrium’, The Manchester School, 67 (6), pp. 684-716.

Dumenil, G. and D. Levy (2010): ‘The Classical-Marxian Evolutionary Model of Technical Change: Application to Historical Tendencies’, pp. 243-273. in Setterfield (2010).

Fabrizio, A., M. Deleidi and W. Meloni (2020): ‘Kaldor 3.0: An Empirical Investigation of the Verdoorn-augmented Technical Progress Function’, Review of political economy (Forthcoming), pp. 1-28.

Fazzari, S., P. Ferri. and A. Variato (2020): ‘Demand-led growth and accommodating supply’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 44 (3), pp. 583-605.

Foley, D., T. Michl and D. Tavani (2019): Growth and Distribution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2nd edition.

Fujita, S. (2019a): ‘Mark-up Pricing, Sectoral Dynamics, and the Traverse Process in a Two-Sector Kaleckian Economy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 43 (2), pp. 465-479.

Fujita, S. (2019b): ‘Who should bear the pain of price competition? A Kaleckian approach’, Review of Keynesian Economics, 7 (4), pp. 321-340.

Kaldor, N. (1955-6): ‘Alternative Theories of Distribution’, Review of Economic Studies, 23 (2).

Kaldor, N. (1957): ‘A Model of Economic Growth’, Economic Journal, 67 (268), pp. 591-624.

Kalecki, M. (1971): Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lavoie, M. and E. Stockhammer eds. (2013): Wage-led Growth: An Equitable Strategy for Economic Recovery, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mallick, S. K. and R. M. Sousa (2017): ‘The skill premium effect of technological change: new evidence from United States manufacturing’, International Labour Review, 156 (1), pp. 113-131.

Marglin, S.A. (1984): ‘Growth, Distribution and Inflation: A Centennial Synthesis’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8 (2), pp. 115-144.

Marquetti, A. (2004): ‘Do rising real wages increase the rate of labor-saving technical change? Some econometric evidence’, Metroeconomica, 55 (4), pp. 432-441.

Marquetti, A., L. E. Ourique and H. Morrone (2020): ‘A Classical-Marxian Growth Model of Catching Up and the Cases of China, Japan, and India: 1980-2014’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 52 (2), pp. 312-334.

Murakami, H. (2017): ‘A Two-sector Keynesian Model of Business Cycles’, Metroeconomica, pp. 1-29.

Murakami, H. and R. Zimka (2020): ‘On dynamics in a two-sector Keynesian model of business cycles’, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 130 (109419), pp. 1-8.

Nishi, H. (2019): ‘Sources of Productivity Growth Dynamics: Is Japan Suffering from Baumol’s Growth Disease?’, Review of Income and Wealth, 65 (3), pp. 592-616.

Nishi, H. (2020): ‘A two-sector Kaleckian model of growth and distribution with endogenous productivity dynamics’, Economic Modelling, 88, pp. 223-243, June.

Nishi, H. and E. Stockhammer (2020a): ‘Cyclical dynamics in a Kaleckian model with demand and distribution regimes and endogenous natural output’, Metroeconomica, 71 (1), pp. 256-288.

Nishi, H. and E. Stockhammer (2020b): ‘Distribution shocks in a Kaleckian Model with Hysteresis and Monetary Policy’, Economic Modelling, 90, pp. 465-479, August.

Pasinetti, L. (1961): ‘Rate of profit and income distribution in relation to the rate of economic growth’, Review of Economic Studies, 29 (4), pp. 267-279.

Setterfield, M. ed. (2010): Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Setterfield, M. (2016): ‘Wage- versus Profit-led Growth after 25 Years: An Introduction’, Review of Keynesian Economics, 4 (4), pp. 367-372. Steedman, I. (1992): ‘Questions for Kaleckians’, Review of Political Economy, 4 (2), pp. 125-151.

Stockhammer, E. (2017): ‘Wage-led versus Profit-led Demand: What Have We Learned? A Kaleckian-Minskyan View’, Review of Keynesian Economics, 5 (1), pp. 25-42.

Storm, S. and C. W. M. Naastepad (2017): ‘Bhaduri-Marglin Meet Kaldor-Marx: Wages, Productivity, and Investment’, Review of Keynesian Economics, 5 (1), pp. 4-24.

Tavani, D. and L. Zamparelli (2017): ‘Endogenous Technical Change in Alternative Theories of Growth and Distribution’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 31 (5), pp. 1272-1303.

Timmer, M., R. Inklaar, M. O’Mahony and B. van Ark eds. (2013): Economic Growth in Europe: A Comparative Industry Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Villanueva, L. and X. Jiang (2018): ‘Patterns of Technical Change and De-industrialization’, PSL Quarterly Review, 71 (285), pp. 161-182.