The steady-state growth conditions of neoclassical growth model and Uzawa theorem revisited

Li, Defu and Huang, Jiuli (2016): The steady-state growth conditions of neoclassical growth model and Uzawa theorem revisited.

Abstract

Based on a neoclassical growth model including adjustment costs of investment, this paper proves that the essential condition for neoclassical model to have steady-state growth path is that the sum of change rate of the marginal efficiency of capital accumulation (MECA) and the rate of capital-augmenting technical change (CATC) be zero. We further confirm that Uzawa(1961)’s steady-state growth theorem that says the steady-state technical change of neoclassical growth model should exclusively be Harrod neutral, holds only if the marginal efficiency of capital accumulation is constant, which in turn implies that the capital supply should be infinitely elastic. Uzawa’s theorem has been misleading the development of growth theorem by not explicitly specifying this prerequisite, and thus should be revisited.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Neoclassical Growth Model; Uzawa’s Theorem; Direction of Technical Change; Adjustment Cost
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E1 - General Aggregative Models > E13 - Neoclassical; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models

References

Acemoglu, Daron, 2003, “Labor- and Capital-Augmenting Technical Change,” Journal of European Economic Association,Vol. 1(1): 1-37.

Acemoglu, Daron, 2009, Introduction to Modern Economic Growth, Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Aghion, Philippe, and Peter Howitt, 1998, Endogenous Growth Theory, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Barro, Robert J., and Xavier Sala-i-Martin, 2004, Economic Growth, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Drandakis, Emmanuel. M., and Edmund S. Phelps,1966, “A Model of Induced Invention, Growth, and Distribution,” Economic Journal, Vol. 76(304): 823-840.

Fellner, William, 1961, “Two Propositions in the Theory of Induced Innovations,” Economic Journal, Vol. 71 (282): 305-308.

Irmen,Andreas,2013, “Adjustment costs in a variant of Uzawa’s steady-state growth theorem”, Economics Bulletin, Vol.33 No. 4 pp. 2860-2873.

Jones, Charles I., 2005, “The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,Vol. 120 (2): 517–549.

Jones, Charles I., and Dean Scrimgeour, 2008,“A New Proof of Uzawa’s Steady-State Growth Theorem,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 90 (1): 180-182.

Karabarbounis, L., and B. Neiman, ‘‘The GlobalDeclineof the Labor Share,’’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2014), vol. 129(1),61–103.

Kennedy, Charles M., 1964, “Induced Bias in Innovation and the Theory of Distribution,” Economic Journal, Vol. 74 (295): 541-547.

Samuelson, Paul A.,1965, “A Theory of Induced Innovation along Kennedy-Weisäcker Lines,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47 (4): 343-356.

Sato, R. (1996).“A note on modeling endogenous growth”.Keio Economic Studies 39, 343-356.

Sato, R., R. V. Ramachandran and C. Lian (1999). “A Model of Optimal Economic Growth with EndogenousBias'', Macroeconomic Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp. 293-310.

Sato, R., R.V. Ramachandran and C. (2000).“OptimalGrowthWith Endogenous Technical Progress: HicksianBiasinaMacroModel.”The Japanese Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, June 2000.

Schlicht, Ekkehart, 2006, “A Variant of Uzawa’s Theorem,” Economics Bulletin, Vol. 5 (6), 1-5.

Solow, Robert M.,1956, “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 70, February, pp. 65-94.

Temple, Jonathan,2008, “Balanced growth,”inStevenDurlaufandLawrenceBlumeeds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (second edition), Palgrave Macmillan.

Uzawa, Hirofumi, 1961, “Neutral Inventions and the Stability of Growth Equilibrium,” Review of Economic Studies,Vol. 28 (2): 117-124.