A New Class of Production Functions and an Argument Against Purely Labor-Augmenting Technical Change

Growiec, Jakub (2006): A New Class of Production Functions and an Argument Against Purely Labor-Augmenting Technical Change. Forthcoming in: International Journal of Economic Theory

Abstract

This paper follows Jones (2005) in his approach to deriving the global production function from microfoundations. His framework is generalized by allowing for dependence between the Pareto distributions of labor- and capital-augmenting developments. Using the Clayton copula family to capture this dependence, we derive a “Clayton-Pareto” class of production functions that nests both the Cobb-Douglas and the CES. Embedding the resultant production function in a neoclassical growth framework, we draw conclusions for the long-run direction of technical change. Jones’ result of Cobb-Douglas global production functions and purely labor-augmenting technical change hinges on the assumption of independence of marginal Pareto distributions. In our more general case, the shape of local production functions matters for the shape of the global production function, and technical change augments both factors in the long run. Furthermore, the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor may exceed unity and thus yield endogenous growth.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: global production function, technology frontier, CES, Pareto distribution, Clayton copula
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E23 - Production; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General

References

[1] Acemoglu, D. (2003), “Labor- and Capital-Augmenting Technical Change”, Journal of the European Economic Association I, 1-37.

[2] Arrow, K.J., H.B. Chenery, B.S. Minhas, and R.M. Solow (1961), “Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency”, Review of Economics and Statistics 43, 225-250.

[3] Atkinson, A.B., J.E. Stiglitz (1969), “A New View of Technological Change”, Economic Journal 79, 573-578.

[4] Basu, S., D.N. Weil (1998), “Appropriate Technology and Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 113, 1025-1054.

[5] Caselli, F., W.J. Coleman, “The World Technology Frontier”, forthcoming in American Economic Review.

[6] de La Grandville, O. (1989), “In the Quest of the Slutsky Diamond”, American Economic Review 79(3), 468-481.

[7] Gabaix, X. (1999), “Zipf’s Law for Cities: An Explanation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 739-767.

[8] Houthakker, H.S. (1955-56), “The Pareto Distribution and the Cobb-Douglas Production Function in Activity Analysis”, Review of Economic Studies 23, 27-31.

[9] Jones, C.I. (2005), “The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(2), 517-549.

[10] Jones, L.E., R.E. Manuelli (1990), “A Convex Model of Equilibrium Growth: Theory and Policy Implications”, Journal of Political Economy 98, 1008-1038.

[11] Klump, R., O. de La Grandville (2000), “Economic Growth and the Elasticity of Substitution: Two Theorems and Some Suggestions”, American Economic Review 90, 282-291.

[12] Kortum, S.S. (1997), “Research, Patenting, and Technological Change”, Econometrica 65, 1389-1419.

[13] Lotka, A.J. (1926), “The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity”, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences XVI, 317-323.

[14] Nelsen, R.B., An Introduction to Copulas, Springer, New York 1999.

[15] Olsson, O. (2005), “Technological Opportunity and Growth”, Journal of Economic Growth 10, 35-57.

[16] Palivos, T., G. Karagiannis (2004), “The Elasticity of Substitution in Convex Models of Endogenous Growth”, University of Macedonia at Thessaloniki, mimeo.

[17] Revankar, N.S. (1971), “A Class of Variable Elasticity of Substitution Production Functions”, Econometrica 39(1), 61-71.

[18] Sattinger, M. (1975), “Comparative Advantage and the Distributions of Earnings and Abilities”, Econometrica 43(3), 455-468.

[19] Solow, R.M. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 65-94.

[20] Solow, R.M. (1960), “Investment and Technological Progress”, [in:] K. Arrow, S. Karlin and P. Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods in Social Sciences 1959, 89-104. Stanford University Press.

[21] Solow, R.M., J. Tobin, C. von Weizsacker, M. Yaari (1966), “Neoclassical Growth With Fixed Factor Proportions”, Review of Economic Studies 33, 79-115.

[22] Uzawa, H. (1961), “Neutral Inventions and the Stability of Growth Equilibrium”, Review of Economic Studies 28(2), 117-124.

[23] Yuhn, K.-H. (1991), “Economic Growth, Technical Change Biases, and the Elasticity of Substitution: A Test of the de La Grandville Hypothesis”, Review of Economics and Statistics 73(2), 340-346.