Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:32:43.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OUTPUT EXTERNALITIES ON TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2016

Julio Dávila
Julio Dávila*
Affiliation:
Université catholique de Louvain
*
Address correspondence to: Julio Dávila, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics, Voie du Roman Pays 34, L1.03.01, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The impact that output has on future total factor productivity is not internalized by competitive agents. As a result, the allocation that a planner would choose cannot be reached as a competitive equilibrium outcome (neither for infinitely lived agents nor for overlapping generations): the market remuneration to capital and labor is too low. The planner's allocation can nonetheless be implemented by a fiscal policy subsidizing the returns to savings and the wage rate as needed. The exact policy differs depending on whether only past investment or total output influences productivity: in the first case only capital returns need to be subsidized, whereas in the second case labor income needs to be subsidized too. The policy is balanced period by period by means of a lump-sum tax.

Keywords

TFPLearning by DoingDynamic ComplementaritiesExternalities
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 21 , Issue 6 , September 2017 , pp. 1389 - 1425
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author thanks Andrés Carvajal for very helpful discussions about the results presented in this paper. Insightful feedback from David de la Croix on a previous version of this paper is also gratefully acknowledged. The author thanks the Belgian FNRS research project PDR T.0044.13 for funding.

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K.J. (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies 29, 155–173.Google Scholar
Azariadis, C. and Kaas, L. (2016) Capital misallocation and aggregate factor productivity. Macroeconomic Dynamics 20 (2), 525–543.Google Scholar
Brezis, E., Krugman, P., and Tsiddon, D. (1991) Leapfrogging: A Theory of Cycles in National Technological Leadership. NBER working paper 3886Google Scholar
Castiglionesi, F. and Ornaghi, C. (2013) On the determinants of TFP growth: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Macroeconomic Dynamics 17 (3), 501–530.Google Scholar
Chari, V.V. and Hopenhayn, H. (1991) Vintage human capital, growth, and the diffusion of new technology. Journal of Political Economy 99 (6), 1142–1165.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.W. and Johri, A. (1997) Dynamic complementarities: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Monetary Economics 40, 97–119.Google Scholar
Dávila, J. (2013) Implementing the best steady state with savings in unbacked risky assets. Macroeconomic Dynamics 17 (4), 779–801.Google Scholar
Durlauf, S. (1991) Multiple equilibria and persistence in aggregate fluctuations. American Economic Review 81, 70–74.Google Scholar
Easterly, W. and Levine, R. (2001) What have we learned from a decade of empirical research on growth? It's not factor accumulation: Stylized facts and growth models. World Bank Economic Review 15 (2), 177–219.Google Scholar
Fernald, John G. (2014) A Quarterly, Utilization-Adjusted Series on Total Factor Productivity. FRBSF working paper 2012-19 (updated March 2014).Google Scholar
Jovanovic, B. and Nyarko, Y. (1996) Learning by doing and the choice of technology. Econometrica 64 (6), 1299–1310.Google Scholar
Karp, L. and Lee, I.H. (2001) Learning-by-doing and the choice of technology: The role of patience. Journal of Economic Theory 100 (1), 73–92.Google Scholar
Krusell, P. and Rull, J.-V. Ríos (1996) Vested interests in a positive theory of stagnation and growth. Review of Economic Studies 63 (2), 301–329.Google Scholar
Levhari, D. (1966a) Extensions of arrow's “learning by doing.” Review of Economic Studies 33, 117–131.Google Scholar
Levhari, D. (1966b) Further implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies 33, 31–38.Google Scholar
Parente, S.L. (1994) Technology adoption, learning-by-doing, and economic growth. Journal of Economic Theory 63 (2), 346–369.Google Scholar
Prescott, E.C. (1998) Needed: A theory of total factor productivity. International Economic Review 39 (3), 525–551.Google Scholar
Romer, P.M. (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94 (5), 1002–1037.Google Scholar
Save the Children Foundation (2013) Food for Thought. https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/Food_for_Thought_UK.pdf.Google Scholar
Sheshinski, E. (1967) Optimal accumulation with learning by doing. In Shell, K. (ed.), Essays on the Theory of Optimal Growth, pp. 31–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stokey, N. (1988) Learning by doing and the introduction of new goods. Journal of Political Economy 96 (4), 701–717.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2010) Learning by doing. In Hall, B.H. and Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of Economics of Innovation, pp. 430–473. North-Holland Elsevier.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2012) The relationship between unit cost and cumulative quantity and the evidence for organizational learning-by-doing. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (3), 203–224.Google Scholar
Uzawa, H. (1965) Optimal technical change in an aggregative model of economic growth. International Economic Review 6 (1), 18–31.Google Scholar
Wright, T.P. (1936) Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of Aeronautical Sciences 3, 122–128.Google Scholar