Live and Let Live: Sustainable Heterogeneity Will Generally Prevail

Harashima, Taiji (2016): Live and Let Live: Sustainable Heterogeneity Will Generally Prevail.

Abstract

As is well known, the most patient household (i.e., the household possessing the lowest rate of time preference) will eventually own all capital in an economy if it behaves unilaterally without considering the optimality of the other households. This paper shows that choosing to engage in unilateral behavior is not always better for the most patient household than choosing multilateral behavior because unilateral behavior results in fewer educational opportunities for most people and constrains innovation in technologically advanced societies. Therefore, the rate of growth on the path when unilateral behavior is taken will be generally lower than that on the path when multilateral behavior is taken.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Sustainable heterogeneity; Endogenous growth; Innovation; Education; Inequality
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D60 - General; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I24 - Education and Inequality; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I25 - Education and Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General

References

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

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962) “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,” in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pp. 609–626, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Barro, Robert J. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1995) Economic Growth, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Becker, Gary S. (1964) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Columbia University Press, New York.

Becker, Robert A. (1980) “On the Long-run Steady State in a Simple Dynamic Model of Equilibrium with Heterogeneous Households,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 375–382.

Coase, Ronald H. (1937) “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, Vol. 4, pp. 386–405

Dinopoulos, Elias and Peter Thompson. (1998). “Schumpeterian Growth without Scale Effects,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 3, pp. 313–335.

Farmer, Roger E. A. and Amartya Lahiri (2005) “Recursive Preferences and Balanced Growth,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vo. 125, No. 1, pp. 61–77.

Ghiglino, Christian (2002) “Introduction to a General Equilibrium Approach to Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 105, No.1, pp. 1–17.

Grossman, Sanford J. and Hart, Oliver D. (1986) “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, pp. 691–719.

Harashima, Taiji (2009) “A Theory of Total Factor Productivity and the Convergence Hypothesis: Workers’ Innovations as an Essential Element,” MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper, No. 15508.

Harashima, Taiji (2010) “Sustainable Heterogeneity: Inequality, Growth, and Social Welfare in a Heterogeneous Population,” MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper, No. 24233.

Jacobs, Jane (1969) The Economy of Cities, Random House, New York.

Jones, Charles I. (1995). “Time Series Test of Endogenous Growth Models,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, pp. 495–525.

Jones, Charles I. (1999) “Growth: With or Without Scale Effects?” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 89, No.2, pp. 139–144.

Kaldor, Nicholas (1961) “Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth,” Chap. 10 of A. Lutz and D. C. Hague (eds.), The Theory of Capital, St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Lawrance, Emily C. (1991) “Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference: Evidence from Panel Data,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 54–77.

Lynch, L. (1991) “The Role of Off-the-Job Vs. On-the-Job Training for the Mobility of Women Workers,” American Economic Review, Vo. 81, No. 2, pp. 151-156.

Marshall, Alfred (1890) Principles of Economics, Macmillan, London.

Moore, John (1992) “The Firm as a Collection of Assets,” European Economic Review, Vol. 36, pp. 493–507.

Peretto, Pietro (1998) “Technological Change and Population Growth,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 3, pp. 283–311.

Romer, Paul M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, pp. 1,002–1037.

Prescott, Edward C. (1998) “Needed: A Theory of Total Factor Productivity,” International Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 525–551.

Samwick, Andrew A. (1998) “Discount Rate Heterogeneity and Social Security Reform,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 117–146.

Ventura, Luigi (2003) “Direct Measure of Time-preference,” Economic and Social Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 293–310.

Weisbroad, Burton A. (1966) “Investing in Human Capital,” The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Williamson, O.E. (1967) “Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 75, pp. 123–138.

Young, Alwyn (1998) “Growth without Scale Effects,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106, pp. 41–63.