The Embodiment Controversy: on the Policy Implications of Vintage Capital models

Samaniego, Roberto (2016): The Embodiment Controversy: on the Policy Implications of Vintage Capital models.

Abstract

We explore the long run impact of policy on the level of economic activity through changes in the vintage distribution of capital, in a model where different vintages coexist in production. Because firms can choose the vintage of capital in which they invest, investment subsidies do not in general affect the vintage structure of capital. In contrast, vintage-specific taxes or subsidies that target the newest vintages of capital can significantly affect output and welfare in the long run, mainly downwards.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Embodiment controversy, vintage capital, capital taxation, investment subsidies.
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O14 - Industrialization ; Manufacturing and Service Industries ; Choice of Technology; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O43 - Institutions and Growth

References

Bahk, Byong H., and Michael Gort. 1993. Decomposing learning by doing in new plants. Journal of Political Economy 101, 561--583.

Boucekkine, Raouf, David de la Croix and Omar Licandro. 2011. Vintage capital growth theory: Three breakthroughs. Barcelona GSE Working Paper 565.

Chari, V. V. and Hugo Hopenhayn. 1991. Vintage human capital, growth, and the diffusion of new technology. Journal of Political Economy 99(6), 1142-1165.

Cummins, Jason G.,and Giovanni L. Violante. 2002. Investment-Specific Technical Change in the United States (1947--2000): Measurement and Macroeconomic Consequences. Review of Economic Dynamics 5(2), 243--84.

Denison, Edward F. 1964. The Unimportance of the Embodied Question. American Economic Review 54(2) Part 1, 90-94.

Eaton, Jonathan and Samuel Kortum. 2001. Trade in capital goods. European Economic Review 45(7), 1195--1235.

Edgerton, Jesse. 2011. The Effects of Taxation on Business Investment: New Evidence from Used Equipment. Mimeo: MarginalQ.com.

Eisfeldt, Andrea and Adriano Rampini. 2007. New or Used? Investment with Credit Constraints. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2656-2681.

Gollin, Douglas. 2002. Getting Income Shares Right. Journal of Political Economy 110(2), 458-474.

Gort, Michael and Steven Klepper. 1982. Time Paths in the Diffusion of Market Innovations. Economic Journal 92, 630-53.

Greenwood, Jeremy, Zvi Hercowitz, and Per Krusell. 1997. Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change. American Economic Review 87(3), 342--62.

Griliches, Zvi. 1957. Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change. Econometrica 25, 501-22.

Hercowitz, Zvi. 1998. The `embodiment' controversy: A review essay. Journal of Monetary Economics 41(1), 217-224.

Hritonenko, Natalia and Yuri Yatsenko (1996), Modeling and Optimization of the Lifetime of Technologies, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hritonenko, Natalia and Yuri Yatsenko (2005), Turnpike and optimal trajectories in integral dynamic models with endogenous delay, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 127, 109-127.

Hulten, Charles R. 1992. Growth Accounting When Technical Change is Embodied in Capital. American Economic Review 82(4), 964-980.

Jermann, Urban J., 1998. Asset pricing in production economies. Journal of Monetary Economics 41(2), 257-275.

Johansen, Leif. 1959. Substitution versus Fixed Production Coefficients in the Theory of Economic Growth: A Synthesis. Econometrica 27(2), 157-176.

Jovanovic, Boyan and Saul Lach. 1989. Entry, Exit, and Diffusion with Learning by Doing. American Economic Review 79(4), 690-699

Jovanovic, Boyan & Yatsenko, Yuri, 2012. Investment in vintage capital. Journal of Economic Theory 147(2), 551-569.

Kydland, Finn E., and Edward C. Prescott. 1982. Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations. Econometrica, 50(6): 1345--70.

Lanteri, Andrea. 2016. The Market for Used Capital: Endogenous Irreversibility and Reallocation over the Business Cycle. Mimeo: Duke University.

Restuccia, Diego and Richard Rogerson. 2008. Policy distortions and aggregate productivity with heterogeneous establishments. Review of Economic Dynamics 11(4), 707--720.

Samaniego, Roberto M., 2006a. Industrial subsidies and technology adoption in general equilibrium. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30(9-10), 1589-1614.

Samaniego, Roberto M. 2006b. Employment Protection and High-Tech Aversion. Review of Economic Dynamics 9(2), 224-241.

Samaniego, Roberto M. 2010. Entry, Exit, and Investment-Specific Technical Change. American Economic Review 100(1), 164-92.

Soloaga, Isidro, Barba Giorgio Navaretti and Wendy Takacs. 1999. When Vintage Technology Makes Sense: Matching Imports to Skills. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 750.

Solow, Robert M. 1960. Investment and technical progress. In Arrow, Kenneth J.; Karlin, Samuel; Suppes, Patrick, Mathematical models in the social sciences, 1959: Proceedings of the first Stanford symposium. Stanford mathematical studies in the social sciences, IV. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 89--104.

Stolyarov, Dmitriy. 2002. Turnover of Used Durables in a Stationary Equilibrium: Are Older Goods Traded More? Journal of Political Economy 110(6), 1390-1413.

United States Department of Commerce. 2015. Compilation of Foreign Motor Vehicle Import Requirements. United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration Office of Transportation and Machinery, Washington DC.