IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lui/celegw/1102.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Induced Innovation, Endogenous Growth, and Income Distribution: a Model along Classical Lines

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Zamparelli

    (Department of Economic Theory, Sapienza University of Rome)

Abstract

This paper presents a classical micro-founded growth model with endogenous direction and size of technical change. In a standard induced innovation model firms freely adopt productivity improvements from an innovation possibilities frontier describing the trade-off between increasing capital or labor productivity. The shape of the innovation possibility frontier uniquely determines the steady state distribution of income. The model proposed allows firms to choose not only the direction but also the size of innovation by making innovation a costly activity requiring R&D investment. Comparative dynamics analysis shows that income distribution is are sensitive to saving parameters and fiscal policy. In particular, an increase in the discount factor or in subsidy to R&D raises the labor share.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Zamparelli, 2011. "Induced Innovation, Endogenous Growth, and Income Distribution: a Model along Classical Lines," Working Papers CELEG 1102, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    • Handle: RePEc:lui:celegw:1102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://static.luiss.it/RePEc/pdf/celegw/1102.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Attfield, Cliff & Temple, Jonathan R.W., 2010. "Balanced growth and the great ratios: New evidence for the US and UK," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 937-956, December.
    2. Miguel A. León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2010. "Identifying the Elasticity of Substitution with Biased Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1330-1357, September.
    3. Niels Kemper & Dierk Herzer & Luca Zamparelli, 2011. "Balanced growth and structural breaks: evidence for Germany," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 409-424, April.
    4. Skott, Peter, 1981. "Technological Advance with Depletion of Innovation Possibilities: A Comment and Some Extensions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 977-987, December.
    5. Hellwig, Martin & Irmen, Andreas, 2001. "Endogenous Technical Change in a Competitive Economy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-39, November.
    6. Neusser, Klaus, 1991. "Testing the long-run implications of the neoclassical growth model," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 3-37, February.
    7. Frank Thompson, 1995. "Technical Change, Accumulation and the Rate of Profit," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 27(1), pages 97-126, March.
    8. 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.
    9. van der Ploeg, F., 1987. "Growth cycles, induced technical change, and perpetual conflict over the distribution of income," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12.
    10. H. Uzawa, 1961. "Neutral Inventions and the Stability of Growth Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 28(2), pages 117-124.
    11. Irmen, Andreas, 2005. "Extensive and intensive growth in a neoclassical framework," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1427-1448, August.
    12. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.), 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780444850133.
    13. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1969. "Induced Factor Augmenting Technical Progress from a Microeconomic Viewpoint," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(4), pages 668-684, October.
    14. F. A. Lutz, 1961. "The Theory of Capital," International Economic Association Series, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-08452-4 edited by D. C. Hague, June.
    15. Jesus Clemente & Antonio Montanes & Montserrat Ponz, 1999. "Are the consumption/output and investment/output ratios stationary? An international analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(10), pages 687-691.
    16. David Harvey & Stephen Leybourne & Paul Newbold, 2003. "How great are the great ratios?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 163-177.
    17. repec:bla:econom:v:69:y:2002:i:273:p:155-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Ekaterina Ponomareva & Alexandra Bozhechkova & Alexandr Knobel, 2012. "Factors of Economic Growth," Published Papers 172, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.

    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. Ekaterina Ponomareva & Alexandra Bozhechkova & Alexandr Knobel, 2012. "Factors of Economic Growth," Published Papers 172, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.
    2. Luca Zamparelli, 2015. "Induced Innovation, Endogenous Technical Change and Income Distribution in a Labor-Constrained Model of Classical Growth," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 243-262, May.
    3. Luca Zamparelli, 2009. "Direction and Intensity of Technical Change: a Micro Model," Working Papers 4, Doctoral School of Economics, Sapienza University of Rome.
    4. zamparelli, luca, 2008. "Direction and intensity of technical change: a micro-founded growth model," MPRA Paper 10843, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Chang, Juin-Jen & Lin, Chang-Ching & Lin, Hsieh-Yu, 2016. "Great ratios and international openness," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 110-121.
    6. Miguel A León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "Non-Balanced Growth and Production Technology Estimation," Studies in Economics 1204, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    7. Irmen, Andreas & Tabaković, Amer, 2017. "Endogenous capital- and labor-augmenting technical change in the neoclassical growth model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 346-384.
    8. Andreas Irmen, 2009. "Population Aging and the Direction of Technical Change," CESifo Working Paper Series 2888, CESifo.
    9. Zamparelli, Luca, 2024. "On the positive relation between the wage share and labor productivity growth with endogenous size and direction of technical change," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. A. J. Julius, 2005. "Steady‐State Growth And Distribution With An Endogenous Direction Of Technical Change," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 101-125, February.
    11. George Kapetanios & Stephen Millard & Katerina Petrova & Simon Price, 2018. "Time varying cointegration and the UK great ratios," CAMA Working Papers 2018-53, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    12. 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.
    13. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman & Ezra Oberfield & Thomas Sampson, 2017. "The productivity slowdown and the declining labor share: a neoclassical exploration," CEP Discussion Papers dp1504, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Kenneth G. Stewart & Jiang Li, 2018. "Are factor biases and substitution identifiable? The Canadian evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(2), pages 528-548, May.
    15. Niels Kemper & Dierk Herzer & Luca Zamparelli, 2011. "Balanced growth and structural breaks: evidence for Germany," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 409-424, April.
    16. Clemens Struck & Adnan Velic, 2017. "To Augment Or Not To Augment? A Conjecture On Asymmetric Technical Change," Trinity Economics Papers tep0117, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    17. Kenneth G. Stewart, 2018. "Normalized CES supply systems: Replication of Klump, McAdam, and Willman (2007)," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 290-296, March.
    18. Tavani, Daniele & Zamparelli, Luca, 2021. "Labor-augmenting technical change and the wage share: New microeconomic foundations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 27-34.
    19. Miguel A. León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2015. "Production Technology Estimates and Balanced Growth," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(1), pages 40-65, February.
    20. Andreas Irmen, 2017. "Capital‐ And Labor‐Saving Technical Change In An Aging Economy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(1), pages 261-285, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Induced innovation; endogenous growth; direction of technical change; classical growth.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D33 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Factor Income Distribution
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O40 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lui:celegw:1102. 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: Paolo Giordani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deluiit.html .

    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.