2017  OriginalPaper  Buchkapitel
Tipp
Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Erschienen in:
Macroeconomics in Ecological Context
An examination of the different factors that can contribute to growth: increased capital, abundant resource supplies, a larger labor force, and innovation, though the effect of different types of innovation will depend on the ease with which resource supplies can be expanded. A distinction is made between the things that physically have to happen for growth to occur and the social arrangements that make those physical outcomes more likely. The question of convergence between rich countries and poor is considered by means of the diminishing marginal product of capital. The end of the chapter introduces “conditional equivalence,” describing what has to be true for the conventional model and this book’s model to provide the same view of growth. An appendix goes through the algebra of the steady state.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Anzeige
Given particular parameters for growth, what level of output will the economy reach over time? In other words, what is the “steady state” toward which it is heading? It turns out we can solve for the level of capital per worker in the steady state, and that in turn implies a particular level of steadystate output per worker.
We start with the observation that next year’s capital is this year’s capital, plus whatever we build over the course of this year, minus whatever depreciates over the course of the year.
If we use a subscript
t for this year and
t + 1 for next year, we can write:
Then we just have to get more specific about investment and depreciation.
Make a couple of simplifying assumptions: first, that investment equals saving, and that we save a constant portion of each year’s GDP. If that portion is s, we can write:
We can then make a similar simplifying assumption about depreciation, namely, that a constant portion of capital wears out in any given year. If that portion is
d, then we can write:
Now we can describe the evolution of capital in algebraic terms:
Having done that, we bring
K
_{ t } over to the lefthand side, and divide both sides by
N
_{ t }, the labor force:
To simplify the notation, remember from Sect.
4.7 that
Y∕
N =
y, or output per worker, and
K∕
N =
k, capital per worker:
Note that the first fraction can’t quite be gotten rid of the way the other fractions could, because the subscripts on
K and
N aren’t the same;
next year’s capital stock divided by
this year’s work force isn’t a meaningful quantity. But it would be nice to be able to do something about that fraction, which will require getting a term
N
_{ t+1} under there. We can do that by multiplying by
\(\frac{N_{t+1}} {N_{t+1}}\) and rearranging:
We need to put some meaning to this new fraction that has appeared,
\(\frac{N_{t+1}} {N_{t}}\). If you look at the terms, it’s next year’s labor force divided by this year’s labor force. If we say that the labor force is growing at the rate
n, then we can rewrite
\(\frac{N_{t+1}} {N_{t}}\) as (1 +
n) and put this into our equation (also noting that
K
_{ t+1}∕
N
_{ t+1} =
k
_{ t+1}):
Now we isolate the
k
_{ t+1} term:
and divide both sides by (1 +
n):
The next step is to subtract
k
_{ t } from both sides:
and bring
k
_{ t } into the numerator on the right by multiplying it by (1 +
n)∕(1 +
n):
On the right, we have a (+1
k
_{ t }) and a (−1
k
_{ t }), so we can consolidate:
What we have on the left is the growth of capital per worker (next year’s level, minus this year’s level). To turn it into a growth
rate in percentage terms, we have to divide by
k
_{ t }, this year’s level, so of course we have to do the same to the righthand side as well:
Now, it would be nice to be able to do something with that
y
_{ t }∕
k
_{ t } term on the righthand side, and it turns out we can. Remember (Sect.
4.7) that the perworker form of the CobbDouglas function is
and if we divide both sides of that by
k
_{ t } we get
So if we take this expression in Eq.
7.2 and substitute it into Eq.
7.1, we get:
Now, believe it or not, we’re almost there.
The steady state is defined by things not changing. Among the things that have to not change in the steady state is the level of capital per worker. In other words, we can define the steady state as the situation when the lefthand side of Eq.
7.3 is zero (we can also move the
k
_{ t }
^{ α−1} around within its part of the righthand side):
Our goal now is to solve for
k
_{ t }, in order to be able to define steadystate capital per worker in terms of the other items in the equation. Except that now we’ll call it
\(\overline{k}\) (pronounced “kbar”) instead of
k
_{ t }, because the time subscript suggests something that’s changing from one period to the next, and the whole point of this exercise is that we’re looking for a value that’s fixed; the bar over the
k will denote that fixed, steadystate level of
k.
The first step is to multiply through by (1 +
n), so it disappears from the denominator on the right; it doesn’t show up on the left, since it’s getting multiplied by zero:
Next we can move the things that are just added on (
d and
n), and also turn the equation around for notational convenience:
Now we divide both sides by all the stuff that
\(\overline{k}\) is getting multiplied by:
If we take the exponent on
\(\overline{k}\) and turn it around (so it becomes [1 −
α]), that’s the same as taking the inverse of the lefthand side of the equation (in other words, 1 divided by
\(\overline{k}^{(\alpha 1)}\), which means we have to flip over the righthand side as well:
And now we are actually, really, truly, almost there—we just need to get rid of the exponent on
\(\overline{k}\). If you raise both sides to the 1∕(1 −
α), that shows up as an exponent on the right, while it cancels out the exponent on the left:
A few pages later, and we’ve done it: we have an expression for capitalperworker in the steady state, expressed as a function of the level of efficiency, resource intensity of labor, the savings rate, the depreciation rate, and the growth rate.
If you plug that back into the perworker form of output, you get the level of output per worker in the steady sate, as a function of the same factors that determine steadystate capital per worker.
The table below shows eight fictitious countries (creatively named “A” through “H”). Each country is given with its CO
_{2} footprint per capita, its renewables footprint per capita, and its GDP per capita. For each country, say whether it fits the expected pattern in terms of the relationship between resource use and GDP per capita. If your answer is that it doesn’t fit, explain specifically how it’s “out of line.”
Identify a social institution. Say whether it tends to foster economic growth or hinder it. Your answer should operate through one of the more tangible factors of economic growth (e.g., saving, investment, innovation, access to resources, population growth).
The table below gives another four (fantastically creatively named) imaginary countries, this time “J” through “K”. The data show population (in thousands) and GDP (in billions) for each country in two different periods (1 and 2).
For each country calculate GDP per capita in each of the two periods, as well as the
percent change in GDP from period 1 to period 2, and the
percent change in GDP per capita from period 1 to period 2.
Equation
7.4 of the appendix defines steadystate capital per worker
\(\overline{k}\) as a function of various influences, including
s,
Z,
ρ,
n, and
d. For each of these influences:
Say what the letter represents.
Give a
mathematical explanation of how that factor influences
\(\overline{k}\). For example, “A larger value of
s makes
\(\overline{k}\) get” (and here you have to say “larger” or “smaller”) “because …”, and your explanation should be based simply on the equation for steadystate capital per worker.
Provide the economic logic behind the impact you identified in the previous part of the question. That is, why does it “make sense” that the relationship should be what you said it was in that part of the question?
Explain the circumstances under which the resourceinclusive growth model of this book leads to a different conclusion than a model that neglects the role of resources.
$$\displaystyle{ K_{t+1} = K_{t} + \text{investment} \text{depreciation}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \text{(Investment)}_{t} = sY _{t}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \text{(Depreciation)}_{t} = dK_{t}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ K_{t+1} = K_{t} + sY _{t}  dK_{t}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \frac{K_{t+1}  K_{t}} {N_{t}} = s\frac{Y _{t}} {N_{t}}  d\frac{K_{t}} {N_{t}}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \frac{K_{t+1}} {N_{t}}  k_{t} = sy_{t}  dk_{t}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \frac{K_{t+1}} {N_{t+1}} \frac{N_{t+1}} {N_{t}}  k_{t} = sy_{t}  dk_{t}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ k_{t+1}(1 + n)  k_{t} = sy_{t}  dk_{t}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ k_{t+1}(1 + n) = sy_{t} + (1  d)k_{t}, }$$
$$\displaystyle{ k_{t+1} = \frac{sy_{t} + (1  d)k_{t}} {(1 + n)}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ k_{t+1}  k_{t} = \frac{sy_{t} + (1  d)k_{t}} {(1 + n)}  k_{t}, }$$
$$\displaystyle{ k_{t+1}  k_{t} = \frac{sy_{t} + (1  d)k_{t}  (1 + n)k_{t}} {(1 + n)}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ k_{t+1}  k_{t} = \frac{sy_{t}  dk_{t}  nk_{t}} {(1 + n)}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \frac{k_{t+1}  k_{t}} {k_{t}} = \frac{s\frac{y_{t}} {k_{t}}  d  n} {(1 + n)}. }$$
(7.1)
$$\displaystyle{ y_{t} = k_{t}^{\alpha }Z^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }, }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \frac{y_{t}} {k_{t}} = k_{t}^{\alpha 1}Z^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }. }$$
(7.2)
$$\displaystyle{ \frac{k_{t+1}  k_{t}} {k_{t}} = \frac{sk_{t}^{\alpha 1}Z^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }  d  n} {(1 + n)}. }$$
(7.3)
$$\displaystyle{ 0 = \frac{sZ^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }k_{t}^{\alpha 1}  d  n} {(1 + n)}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ 0 = sZ^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }\overline{k}^{\alpha 1}  d  n. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ sZ^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }\overline{k}^{(\alpha 1)} = d + n. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \overline{k}^{(\alpha 1)} = \frac{d + n} {sZ^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \overline{k}^{(1\alpha )} = \frac{sZ^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }} {d + n}. }$$
$$\displaystyle{ \overline{k} = \left ( \frac{sZ^{\delta }\rho ^{\gamma }} {d + n}\right )^{ \frac{1} {(1\alpha )} }. }$$
(7.4)
Country

CO
_{2} footprint

Renewables footprint

GDP per capita


A

0.5

1.1

1,000

B

2.8

6.9

3,000

C

7.0

3.2

2,500

D

0.8

2.5

39,000

E

1.5

0.5

1,500

F

2.1

0.9

38,000

G

8.0

3.3

42,000

H

4.1

5.8

35,000

GDP/

GDP/

ΔGDP/



Country

Pop
_{1}

Pop
_{2}

GDP
_{1}

GDP
_{2}

cap
_{1}

cap
_{2}

ΔGDP

cap

J

1,542

1,628

45

65


K

2,563

2,000

84

80


L

32,832

49,036

120

135


M

11,561

10,493

85

79

(a)
Say what the letter represents.
(b)
Give a
mathematical explanation of how that factor influences
\(\overline{k}\). For example, “A larger value of
s makes
\(\overline{k}\) get” (and here you have to say “larger” or “smaller”) “because …”, and your explanation should be based simply on the equation for steadystate capital per worker.
(c)
Provide the economic logic behind the impact you identified in the previous part of the question. That is, why does it “make sense” that the relationship should be what you said it was in that part of the question?
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. The American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation.
The American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111. Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions.
Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, B. M. (2006). The moral consequences of economic growth. New York: Vintage. Friedman, B. M. (2006).
The moral consequences of economic growth. New York: Vintage.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2009). Penn world table version 6.3. http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt63/pwt63_form.php. Downloaded March 14, 2010; data series is rgdpch, “Real GDP per capita (Constant prices: chain series)”. Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2009). Penn world table version 6.3.
http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt63/pwt63_form.php. Downloaded March 14, 2010; data series is rgdpch, “Real GDP per capita (Constant prices: chain series)”.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Human development report 2007/2008. (2008). http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_Tables.zip, Table 1, downloaded on June 8, 2009. Human development report 2007/2008. (2008).
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_Tables.zip, Table 1, downloaded on June 8, 2009.
6.
Zurück zum Zitat National footprint accounts 2008 edition. (2009). http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=509 at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/, downloaded June 8, 2009. National footprint accounts 2008 edition. (2009).
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=509 at
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/, downloaded June 8, 2009.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat National Income and Product Accounts, Table 1.1.6, “Real Gross Domestic Product, chained dollars”. (2009). http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp, downloaded February 22, 2014. National Income and Product Accounts, Table 1.1.6, “Real Gross Domestic Product, chained dollars”. (2009).
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp, downloaded February 22, 2014.
8.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Tverberg, G. (2010). Delusions of finance: Where we are headed. “The oil drum” blog, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6191. Accessed August 7, 2015. Tverberg, G. (2010). Delusions of finance: Where we are headed. “The oil drum” blog,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6191. Accessed August 7, 2015.
 Titel
 Growth with Abundant Resources
 DOI
 https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319517575_7
 Autor:

Karl Seeley
 Sequenznummer
 7
 Kapitelnummer
 Chapter 7