IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/metroe/v61y2010i4p593-620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marx‐Biased Technical Change And The Neoclassical View Of Income Distribution

Author

Listed:
  • Deepankar Basu

Abstract

This paper empirically tests two competing views about capital–labour substitution at the aggregate level in capitalist economies: the classical model with Marx‐biased technical change versus the neoclassical model. Following Foley and Michl (1999), the classical viability condition of technical change is used to draw out two different hypotheses about the profit share in national income corresponding to the two competing models. A stochastic version of the viability condition is empirically tested with data from the Extended Penn World Tables 2.1 using a simple cross‐country estimation strategy. It is found that the data overwhelmingly rejects the neoclassical theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Deepankar Basu, 2010. "Marx‐Biased Technical Change And The Neoclassical View Of Income Distribution," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 593-620, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:metroe:v:61:y:2010:i:4:p:593-620
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-999X.2009.04079.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-999X.2009.04079.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-999X.2009.04079.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.
    2. Bruno Decreuse & Paul Maarek, 2015. "FDI and the Labor Share in Developing Countries : A Theory and Some Evidence," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 119-120, pages 289-319.
    3. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809.
    4. Neri Salvadori (ed.), 2006. "Economic Growth and Distribution," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3798.
    5. Barro, Robert J & Lee, Jong-Wha, 2001. "International Data on Educational Attainment: Updates and Implications," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 541-563, July.
    6. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    7. Easterly, William & Levine, Ross, 2003. "Tropics, germs, and crops: how endowments influence economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 3-39, January.
    8. Thomas R. Michl, 2002. "The Fossil Production Function in a Vintage Model," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 53-68, March.
    9. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "Labor- And Capital-Augmenting Technical Change," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-37, March.
    10. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995. "Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 1-118.
    11. Emmanuel M. Drandakis & Edmond S. Phelps, 1965. "A Model of Induced Invention, Growth and Distribution," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 186, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    12. Thomas Michl, 1999. "Biased Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 193-206.
    13. Tavani, Daniele, 2008. "Optimal Induced Innovation and Growth with Congestion of a Limited Natural Resource," MPRA Paper 11525, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Foley, Duncan K., 2003. "Endogenous technical change with externalities in a classical growth model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 167-189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sangjun Jeong, 2017. "Biased Technical Change and Economic Growth: The Case of Korea, 1970–2013," Research in Political Economy, in: Return of Marxian Macro-Dynamics in East Asia, volume 32, pages 81-103, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    2. Basu, Deepankar, 2015. "A Selective Review of Recent Quantitative Empirical Research in Marxist Political Economy," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2015-05, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    3. Joao Paulo A. de Souza, 2014. "Real wages and labor-saving technical change: evidence from a panel of manufacturing industries in mature and labor-surplus economies," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2014-03, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    4. Roberto Veneziani & Luca Zamparelli & Deepankar Basu, 2017. "Quantitative Empirical Research In Marxist Political Economy: A Selective Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 1359-1386, December.
    5. Roberto Veneziani & Luca Zamparelli & Daniele Tavani & Luca Zamparelli, 2017. "Endogenous Technical Change In Alternative Theories Of Growth And Distribution," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 1272-1303, December.
    6. Guilherme Klein Martins & Fernando Rugitsky, 2018. "The commodities boom and the profit squeeze: output and profit cycles in Brazil (1996-2016)," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2018_09, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    7. Guilherme Klein Martins & Fernando Rugitsky, 2021. "The Long Expansion and the Profit Squeeze: Output and Profit Cycles in Brazil (1996–2016)," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 53(3), pages 373-397, September.
    8. Marwil J. Dávila-Fernández, 2018. "Alternative Approaches to Technological Change when Growth is BoPC," Department of Economics University of Siena 795, Department of Economics, University of Siena.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. zamparelli, luca, 2008. "Direction and intensity of technical change: a micro-founded growth model," MPRA Paper 10843, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Roberto Veneziani & Luca Zamparelli & Daniele Tavani & Luca Zamparelli, 2017. "Endogenous Technical Change In Alternative Theories Of Growth And Distribution," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 1272-1303, December.
    3. Lucrezia Fanti, 2018. "An AB-SFC Model of Induced Technical Change along Classical and Keynesian Lines," Working Papers 3/18, Sapienza University of Rome, DISS.
    4. Ekaterina Ponomareva & Alexandra Bozhechkova & Alexandr Knobel, 2012. "Factors of Economic Growth," Published Papers 172, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.
    5. Daniele Tavani, 2013. "Bargaining over productivity and wages when technical change is induced: implications for growth, distribution, and employment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 207-244, July.
    6. Tavani, Daniele, 2008. "Optimal Induced Innovation and Growth with Congestion of a Limited Natural Resource," MPRA Paper 11525, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Luca Zamparelli, 2009. "Direction and Intensity of Technical Change: a Micro Model," Working Papers 4, Doctoral School of Economics, Sapienza University of Rome.
    8. Florian Brugger & Christian Gehrke, 2017. "The Neoclassical Approach to Induced Technical Change: From Hicks to Acemoglu," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(4), pages 730-776, November.
    9. Thomas R. Michl, 2007. "Capitalists, Workers And Social Security," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 244-268, May.
    10. Daron Acemoglu, 2007. "Equilibrium Bias of Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1371-1409, September.
    11. Kogel, Tomas, 2005. "Youth dependency and total factor productivity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 147-173, February.
    12. Stefano Bartolini & Luigi Bonatti, 2004. "Does Technical Progress Increase Long-Run Welfare?," Department of Economics University of Siena 435, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    13. Antonio Ciccone & Elias Papaioannou, 2009. "Human Capital, the Structure of Production, and Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 66-82, February.
    14. Bhattacharyya, Sambit, 2012. "Trade liberalization and institutional development," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 253-269.
    15. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    16. Antoni Estevadeordal & Alan M. Taylor, 2013. "Is the Washington Consensus Dead? Growth, Openness, and the Great Liberalization, 1970s–2000s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1669-1690, December.
    17. Méon, Pierre-Guillaume & Weill, Laurent, 2010. "Is Corruption an Efficient Grease?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 244-259, March.
    18. P. Dorian Owen & R. Quentin Grafton & Tom Kompas, 2004. "Productivity, Factor Accumulation and Social Networks: Theory and Evidence," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 224, Econometric Society.
    19. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    20. Yasir Khan & Attiya Yasmin Javid, 2015. "The Impact of Formal and Informal Institutions on Economic Performance: A Cross-Country Analysis," PIDE-Working Papers 2015:130, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:metroe:v:61:y:2010:i:4:p:593-620. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0026-1386 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.