Mankiw - Growth Theory II

CHAPTER
8
Economic Growth II:
Technology, Empirics, and Policy
Is there some action a government of India could take that would lead the
Indian economy to grow like Indonesia’s or Egypt’s? If so, what, exactly? If
not, what is it about the “nature of India” that makes it so? The consequences
for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: Once
one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.
—Robert E. Lucas, Jr., 1988
T
his chapter continues our analysis of the forces governing long-run eco-
nomic growth. With the basic version of the Solow growth model as our
starting point, we take on four new tasks.
Our first task is to make the Solow model more general and realistic. In
Chapter 3 we saw that capital, labor, and technology are the key determinants of
a nation’s production of goods and services. In Chapter 7 we developed the
Solow model to show how changes in capital (through saving and investment)
and changes in the labor force (through population growth) affect the econo-
my’s output. We are now ready to add the third source of growth—changes in
technology—to the mix. The Solow model does not explain technological
progress but, instead, takes it as exogenously given and shows how it interacts
with other variables in the process of economic growth.
Our second task is to move from theory to empirics. That is, we consider how
well the Solow model fits the facts. Over the past two decades, a large literature
has examined the predictions of the Solow model and other models of eco-
nomic growth. It turns out that the glass is both half full and half empty. The
Solow model can shed much light on international growth experiences, but it is
far from the last word on the subject.
Our third task is to examine how a nation’s public policies can influence the
level and growth of its citizens’ standard of living. In particular, we address five
questions: Should our society save more or less? How can policy influence the
rate of saving? Are there some types of investment that policy should especially
encourage? What institutions ensure that the economy’s resources are put to
their best use? How can policy increase the rate of technological progress? The
221
222 | PART III Growth Theory: The Economy in the Very Long Run
Solow growth model provides the theoretical framework within which we con-
sider these policy issues.
Our fourth and final task is to consider what the Solow model leaves out. As
we have discussed previously, models help us understand the world by simplify-
ing it. After completing an analysis of a model, therefore, it is important to con-
sider whether we have oversimplified matters. In the last section, we examine a
new set of theories, called endogenous growth theories, which help to explain the
technological progress that the Solow model takes as exogenous.
8-1 Technological Progress

in the Solow Model
So far, our presentation of the Solow model has assumed an unchanging rela-
tionship between the inputs of capital and labor and the output of goods and ser-
vices. Yet the model can be modified to include exogenous technological
progress, which over time expands society’s production capabilities.
The Efficiency of Labor

To incorporate technological progress, we must return to the production func-
tion that relates total capital K and total labor L to total output Y. Thus far, the
production function has been
Y = F(K, L).
We now write the production function as
Y = F(K, L × E),
where E is a new (and somewhat abstract) variable called the efficiency of labor.
The efficiency of labor is meant to reflect society’s knowledge about production
methods: as the available technology improves, the efficiency of labor rises, and each
hour of work contributes more to the production of goods and services. For
instance, the efficiency of labor rose when assembly-line production transformed
manufacturing in the early twentieth century, and it rose again when computeriza-
tion was introduced in the late twentieth century. The efficiency of labor also rises
when there are improvements in the health, education, or skills of the labor force.
The term L × E can be interpreted as measuring the effective number of work-
ers. It takes into account the number of actual workers L and the efficiency of
each worker E. In other words, L measures the number of workers in the labor
force, whereas L × E measures both the workers and the technology with which
the typical worker comes equipped. This new production function states that
total output Y depends on the inputs of capital K and effective workers L × E.
The essence of this approach to modeling technological progress is that
increases in the efficiency of labor E are analogous to increases in the labor
CHAPTER 8 Economic Growth II: Technology, Empirics, and Policy | 223
force L. Suppose, for example, that an advance in production methods makes

the efficiency of labor E double between 1980 and 2010. This means that a
single worker in 2010 is, in effect, as productive as two workers were in 1980.
That is, even if the actual number of workers (L) stays the same from 1980 to
2010, the effective number of workers (L × E ) doubles, and the economy ben-
efits from the increased production of goods and services.
The simplest assumption about technological progress is that it causes the effi-
ciency of labor E to grow at some constant rate g. For example, if g = 0.02, then
each unit of labor becomes 2 percent more efficient each year: output increases
as if the labor force had increased by 2 percent more than it really did. This form
of technological progress is called labor augmenting, and g is called the rate of
labor-augmenting technological progress. Because the labor force L is
growing at rate n, and the efficiency of each unit of labor E is growing at rate g,
the effective number of workers L × E is growing at rate n + g.
The Steady State With Technological Progress

Because technological progress is modeled here as labor augmenting, it fits into
the model in much the same way as population growth. Technological progress
does not cause the actual number of workers to increase, but because each
worker in effect comes with more units of labor over time, technological
progress causes the effective number of workers to increase. Thus, the analytic
tools we used in Chapter 7 to study the Solow model with population growth
are easily adapted to studying the Solow model with labor-augmenting tech-
nological progress.
We begin by reconsidering our notation. Previously, when there was no tech-
nological progress, we analyzed the economy in terms of quantities per worker;
now we can generalize that approach by analyzing the economy in terms of
quantities per effective worker. We now let k = K/(L × E ) stand for capital per
effective worker and y = Y/(L × E) stand for output per effective worker. With
these definitions, we can again write y = f(k).
Our analysis of the economy proceeds just as it did when we examined pop-
ulation growth. The equation showing the evolution of k over time becomes
Dk = sf(k) − (d + n + g)k.
D
As before, the change in the capital stock k equals investment sf(k) minus break-
even investment ( + n + g)k. Now, however, because k = K/(L × E), break-even
d
d
investment includes three terms: to keep k constant, k is needed to replace depre-
ciating capital, nk is needed to provide capital for new workers, and gk is needed to
provide capital for the new “effective workers” created by technological progress.1
1
Mathematical note: This model with technological progress is a strict generalization of the model
analyzed in Chapter 7. In particular, if the efficiency of labor is constant at E = 1, then g = 0, and
the definitions of k and y reduce to our previous definitions. In this case, the more general model
considered here simplifies precisely to the Chapter 7 version of the Solow model.
FIGURE 8-1
Investment, Technological Progress and

break-even Break-even investment, (d n g)k the Solow Growth Model
investment Labor-augmenting technologi-
cal progress at rate g enters our
analysis of the Solow growth
model in much the same way
as did population growth at
Investment, sf(k) rate n. Now that k is defined as
the amount of capital per
effective worker, increases in
the effective number of workers
because of technological
progress tend to decrease k. In
the steady state, investment
sf (k) exactly offsets the reduc-
k* Capital per effective worker, k tions in k attributable to depre-
The steady ciation, population growth,
state
and technological progress.
As shown in Figure 8-1, the inclusion of technological progress does not

substantially alter our analysis of the steady state. There is one level of k,
denoted k*, at which capital per effective worker and output per effective
worker are constant. As before, this steady state represents the long-run equi-
librium of the economy.
The Effects of Technological Progress

Table 8-1 shows how four key variables behave in the steady state with techno-
logical progress. As we have just seen, capital per effective worker k is constant in
the steady state. Because y = f(k), output per effective worker is also constant. It
is these quantities per effective worker that are steady in the steady state.
From this information, we can also infer what is happening to variables that
are not expressed in units per effective worker. For instance, consider output per
actual worker Y/L = y × E. Because y is constant in the steady state and E is
growing at rate g, output per worker must also be growing at rate g in the steady
state. Similarly, the economy’s total output is Y = y × (E × L). Because y is con-
stant in the steady state, E is growing at rate g, and L is growing at rate n, total
output grows at rate n + g in the steady state.
With the addition of technological progress, our model can finally explain the
sustained increases in standards of living that we observe. That is, we have shown
that technological progress can lead to sustained growth in output per worker.
By contrast, a high rate of saving leads to a high rate of growth only until the
steady state is reached. Once the economy is in steady state, the rate of growth
of output per worker depends only on the rate of technological progress. Accord-
ing to the Solow model, only technological progress can explain sustained growth and per-
sistently rising living standards.
TABL E 8-1
Steady-State Growth Rates in the Solow Model
With Technological Progress
Variable Symbol Steady-State Growth Rate
Capital per effective worker k = K/(E × L) 0

Output per effective worker y = Y/(E × L) = f(k) 0
Output per worker Y/L = y × E g
Total output Y = y × (E × L) n+g
The introduction of technological progress also modifies the criterion for the
Golden Rule. The Golden Rule level of capital is now defined as the steady state
that maximizes consumption per effective worker. Following the same arguments
that we have used before, we can show that steady-state consumption per effec-
tive worker is
c* = f(k*) − ( + n + g)k*.
d
Steady-state consumption is maximized if
MPK =
d + n + g,
or
MPK −
d = n + g.
That is, at the Golden Rule level of capital, the net marginal product of capital,
MPK − , equals the rate of growth of total output, n + g. Because actual
d
economies experience both population growth and technological progress, we
must use this criterion to evaluate whether they have more or less capital than
they would at the Golden Rule steady state.
8-2 From Growth Theory

to Growth Empirics
So far in this chapter we have introduced exogenous technological progress into
the Solow model to explain sustained growth in standards of living. Let’s now
discuss what happens when this theory is forced to confront the facts.
Balanced Growth
According to the Solow model, technological progress causes the values of many
variables to rise together in the steady state. This property, called balanced growth,
does a good job of describing the long-run data for the U.S. economy.
Consider first output per worker Y/L and the capital stock per worker K/L.
According to the Solow model, in the steady state, both of these variables grow
at g, the rate of technological progress. U.S. data for the past half century show
that output per worker and the capital stock per worker have in fact grown at
approximately the same rate—about 2 percent per year. To put it another way,
the capital–output ratio has remained approximately constant over time.
Technological progress also affects factor prices. Problem 3(d) at the end of the
chapter asks you to show that, in the steady state, the real wage grows at the rate of
technological progress. The real rental price of capital, however, is constant over
time. Again, these predictions hold true for the United States. Over the past 50
years, the real wage has increased about 2 percent per year; it has increased at about
the same rate as real GDP per worker. Yet the real rental price of capital (measured
as real capital income divided by the capital stock) has remained about the same.
The Solow model’s prediction about factor prices—and the success of this
prediction—is especially noteworthy when contrasted with Karl Marx’s theory
of the development of capitalist economies. Marx predicted that the return to
capital would decline over time and that this would lead to economic and polit-
ical crisis. Economic history has not supported Marx’s prediction, which partly
explains why we now study Solow’s theory of growth rather than Marx’s.
Convergence
If you travel around the world, you will see tremendous variation in living stan-
dards. The world’s poor countries have average levels of income per person that
are less than one-tenth the average levels in the world’s rich countries. These dif-
ferences in income are reflected in almost every measure of the quality of life—
from the number of televisions and telephones per household to the infant
mortality rate and life expectancy.
Much research has been devoted to the question of whether economies con-
verge over time to one another. In particular, do economies that start off poor
subsequently grow faster than economies that start off rich? If they do, then the
world’s poor economies will tend to catch up with the world’s rich economies.
This property of catch-up is called convergence. If convergence does not occur,
then countries that start off behind are likely to remain poor.
The Solow model makes clear predictions about when convergence should
occur. According to the model, whether two economies will converge depends
on why they differ in the first place. On the one hand, suppose two economies
happen by historical accident to start off with different capital stocks, but they
have the same steady state, as determined by their saving rates, population growth
rates, and efficiency of labor. In this case, we should expect the two economies
to converge; the poorer economy with the smaller capital stock will naturally
grow more quickly to reach the steady state. (In a case study in Chapter 7, we
applied this logic to explain rapid growth in Germany and Japan after World War
II.) On the other hand, if two economies have different steady states, perhaps
because the economies have different rates of saving, then we should not expect
convergence. Instead, each economy will approach its own steady state.
Experience is consistent with this analysis. In samples of economies with sim-

ilar cultures and policies, studies find that economies converge to one another at
a rate of about 2 percent per year. That is, the gap between rich and poor
economies closes by about 2 percent each year. An example is the economies of
individual American states. For historical reasons, such as the Civil War of the
1860s, income levels varied greatly among states at the end of the nineteenth
century. Yet these differences have slowly disappeared over time.
In international data, a more complex picture emerges. When researchers
examine only data on income per person, they find little evidence of conver-
gence: countries that start off poor do not grow faster on average than countries
that start off rich. This finding suggests that different countries have different
steady states. If statistical techniques are used to control for some of the deter-
minants of the steady state, such as saving rates, population growth rates, and
accumulation of human capital (education), then once again the data show con-
vergence at a rate of about 2 percent per year. In other words, the economies of
the world exhibit conditional convergence: they appear to be converging to their
own steady states, which in turn are determined by such variables as saving, pop-
ulation growth, and human capital.2
Factor Accumulation Versus Production Efficiency

As a matter of accounting, international differences in income per person can be
attributed to either (1) differences in the factors of production, such as the quan-
tities of physical and human capital, or (2) differences in the efficiency with
which economies use their factors of production. That is, a worker in a poor
country may be poor because he lacks tools and skills or because the tools and
skills he has are not being put to their best use. To describe this issue in terms of
the Solow model, the question is whether the large gap between rich and poor
is explained by differences in capital accumulation (including human capital) or
differences in the production function.
Much research has attempted to estimate the relative importance of these two
sources of income disparities. The exact answer varies from study to study, but
both factor accumulation and production efficiency appear important. Moreover,
a common finding is that they are positively correlated: nations with high levels
of physical and human capital also tend to use those factors efficiently.3
There are several ways to interpret this positive correlation. One hypothesis is
that an efficient economy may encourage capital accumulation. For example, a
2
Robert Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin, “Convergence Across States and Regions,” Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity 1 (1991): 107–182; and N. Gregory Mankiw, David Romer, and David
N. Weil, “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics
(May 1992): 407–437.
3
Robert E. Hall and Charles I. Jones, “Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Out-
put per Worker Than Others?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (February 1999): 83–116; and
Peter J. Klenow and Andres Rodriguez-Clare, “The Neoclassical Revival in Growth Economics:
Has It Gone Too Far?” NBER Macroeconomics Annual (1997): 73–103.
person in a well-functioning economy may have greater resources and incentive

to stay in school and accumulate human capital. Another hypothesis is that cap-
ital accumulation may induce greater efficiency. If there are positive externalities
to physical and human capital, then countries that save and invest more will
appear to have better production functions (unless the research study accounts
for these externalities, which is hard to do). Thus, greater production efficiency
may cause greater factor accumulation, or the other way around.
A final hypothesis is that both factor accumulation and production efficiency
are driven by a common third variable. Perhaps the common third variable is the
quality of the nation’s institutions, including the government’s policymaking
process. As one economist put it, when governments screw up, they screw up big
time. Bad policies, such as high inflation, excessive budget deficits, widespread
market interference, and rampant corruption, often go hand in hand. We should
not be surprised that economies exhibiting these maladies both accumulate less
capital and fail to use the capital they have as efficiently as they might.
CASE STUDY
Is Free Trade Good for Economic Growth?
At least since Adam Smith, economists have advocated free trade as a policy that
promotes national prosperity. Here is how Smith put the argument in his 1776
classic, The Wealth of Nations:
It is a maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at
home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt
to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not
attempt to make his own clothes but employs a tailor. . . .
What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in
that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity
cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the
produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.
Today, economists make the case with greater rigor, relying on David Ricardo’s
theory of comparative advantage as well as more modern theories of interna-
tional trade. According to these theories, a nation open to trade can achieve
greater production efficiency and a higher standard of living by specializing in
those goods for which it has a comparative advantage.
A skeptic might point out that this is just a theory. What about the evidence?
Do nations that permit free trade in fact enjoy greater prosperity? A large body
of literature addresses precisely this question.
One approach is to look at international data to see if countries that are open
to trade typically enjoy greater prosperity. The evidence shows that they do.
Economists Andrew Warner and Jeffrey Sachs studied this question for the peri-
od from 1970 to 1989. They report that among developed nations, the open
economies grew at 2.3 percent per year, while the closed economies grew at 0.7
percent per year. Among developing nations, the open economies grew at 4.5
percent per year, while the closed economies again grew at 0.7 percent per year.
These findings are consistent with Smith’s view that trade enhances prosperity,
but they are not conclusive. Correlation does not prove causation. Perhaps being
closed to trade is correlated with various other restrictive government policies,
and it is those other policies that retard growth.
A second approach is to look at what happens when closed economies remove
their trade restrictions. Once again, Smith’s hypothesis fares well. Throughout
history, when nations open themselves up to the world economy, the typical
result is a subsequent increase in economic growth. This occurred in Japan in the
1850s, South Korea in the 1960s, and Vietnam in the 1990s. But once again, cor-
relation does not prove causation. Trade liberalization is often accompanied by
other reforms, and it is hard to disentangle the effects of trade from the effects of
the other reforms.
A third approach to measuring the impact of trade on growth, proposed by
economists Jeffrey Frankel and David Romer, is to look at the impact of geog-
raphy. Some countries trade less simply because they are geographically disad-
vantaged. For example, New Zealand is disadvantaged compared to Belgium
because it is farther from other populous countries. Similarly, landlocked coun-
tries are disadvantaged compared to countries with their own seaports. Because
these geographical characteristics are correlated with trade, but arguably uncor-
related with other determinants of economic prosperity, they can be used to
identify the causal impact of trade on income. (The statistical technique, which
you may have studied in an econometrics course, is called instrumental variables.)
After analyzing the data, Frankel and Romer conclude that “a rise of one per-
centage point in the ratio of trade to GDP increases income per person by at
least one-half percentage point. Trade appears to raise income by spurring the
accumulation of human and physical capital and by increasing output for given
levels of capital.”
The overwhelming weight of the evidence from this body of research is that
Adam Smith was right. Openness to international trade is good for economic
growth.4 ■
8-3 Policies to Promote Growth

So far we have used the Solow model to uncover the theoretical relationships
among the different sources of economic growth, and we have discussed some of
the empirical work that describes actual growth experiences. We can now use
the theory and evidence to help guide our thinking about economic policy.
4
Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew Warner, “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,”
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1995): 1–95; and Jeffrey A. Frankel and David Romer, “Does
Trade Cause Growth?” American Economics Review 89 ( June 1999): 379–399.
Evaluating the Rate of Saving

According to the Solow growth model, how much a nation saves and invests is
a key determinant of its citizens’ standard of living. So let’s begin our policy dis-
cussion with a natural question: is the rate of saving in the U.S. economy too low,
too high, or about right?
As we have seen, the saving rate determines the steady-state levels of capital and
output. One particular saving rate produces the Golden Rule steady state, which
maximizes consumption per worker and thus economic well-being. The Golden
Rule provides the benchmark against which we can compare the U.S. economy.
To decide whether the U.S. economy is at, above, or below the Golden Rule
steady state, we need to compare the marginal product of capital net of deprecia-
tion (MPK – ) with the growth rate of total output (n + g). As we established in
d
Section 8-1, at the Golden Rule steady state, MPK − = n + g. If the economy
d
is operating with less capital than in the Golden Rule steady state, then diminish-
ing marginal product tells us that MPK − > n + g. In this case, increasing the rate
d
of saving will increase capital accumulation and economic growth and, eventual-
ly, lead to a steady state with higher consumption (although consumption will be
lower for part of the transition to the new steady state). On the other hand, if the
economy has more capital than in the Golden Rule steady state, then MPK −
< n + g. In this case, capital accumulation is excessive: reducing the rate of saving
d
will lead to higher consumption both immediately and in the long run.
To make this comparison for a real economy, such as the U.S. economy, we
need an estimate of the growth rate of output (n + g) and an estimate of the net
marginal product of capital (MPK − ). Real GDP in the United States grows an
d
average of 3 percent per year, so n + g = 0.03. We can estimate the net marginal
product of capital from the following three facts:
1. The capital stock is about 2.5 times one year’s GDP.
2. Depreciation of capital is about 10 percent of GDP.
3. Capital income is about 30 percent of GDP.
Using the notation of our model (and the result from Chapter 3 that capital own-
ers earn income of MPK for each unit of capital), we can write these facts as
1. k = 2.5y.
2. k = 0.1y.
d
3. MPK × k = 0.3y.
We solve for the rate of depreciation
d by dividing equation 2 by equation 1:
dk/k = (0.1y)/(2.5y)
d = 0.04.
And we solve for the marginal product of capital MPK by dividing equation 3
by equation 1:
(MPK × k)/k = (0.3y)/(2.5y)
MPK = 0.12.
Thus, about 4 percent of the capital stock depreciates each year, and the marginal
product of capital is about 12 percent per year. The net marginal product of cap-
ital, MPK − , is about 8 percent per year.
d
We can now see that the return to capital (MPK − = 8 percent per year) is
d
well in excess of the economy’s average growth rate (n + g = 3 percent per year).
This fact, together with our previous analysis, indicates that the capital stock in
the U.S. economy is well below the Golden Rule level. In other words, if the
United States saved and invested a higher fraction of its income, it would grow
more rapidly and eventually reach a steady state with higher consumption.
This conclusion is not unique to the U.S. economy. When calculations simi-
lar to those above are done for other economies, the results are similar. The pos-
sibility of excessive saving and capital accumulation beyond the Golden Rule
level is intriguing as a matter of theory, but it appears not to be a problem that
actual economies face. In practice, economists are more often concerned with
insufficient saving. It is this kind of calculation that provides the intellectual
foundation for this concern.5
Changing the Rate of Saving

The preceding calculations show that to move the U.S. economy toward the
Golden Rule steady state, policymakers should increase national saving. But how
can they do that? We saw in Chapter 3 that, as a matter of sheer accounting,
higher national saving means higher public saving, higher private saving, or some
combination of the two. Much of the debate over policies to increase growth
centers on which of these options is likely to be most effective.
The most direct way in which the government affects national saving is
through public saving—the difference between what the government receives in
tax revenue and what it spends. When its spending exceeds its revenue, the gov-
ernment runs a budget deficit, which represents negative public saving. As we saw
in Chapter 3, a budget deficit raises interest rates and crowds out investment; the
resulting reduction in the capital stock is part of the burden of the national debt
on future generations. Conversely, if it spends less than it raises in revenue, the
government runs a budget surplus, which it can use to retire some of the nation-
al debt and stimulate investment.
The government also affects national saving by influencing private saving—
the saving done by households and firms. In particular, how much people
decide to save depends on the incentives they face, and these incentives are
altered by a variety of public policies. Many economists argue that high tax rates
on capital—including the corporate income tax, the federal income tax, the
estate tax, and many state income and estate taxes—discourage private saving by
reducing the rate of return that savers earn. On the other hand, tax-exempt
retirement accounts, such as IRAs, are designed to encourage private saving by
5
For more on this topic and some international evidence, see Andrew B. Abel, N. Gregory
Mankiw, Lawrence H. Summers, and Richard J. Zeckhauser, “Assessing Dynamic Efficiency: The-
ory and Evidence,” Review of Economic Studies 56 (1989): 1–19.
giving preferential treatment to income saved in these accounts. Some econo-

mists have proposed increasing the incentive to save by replacing the current
system of income taxation with a system of consumption taxation.
Many disagreements over public policy are rooted in different views about
how much private saving responds to incentives. For example, suppose that the
government were to increase the amount that people can put into tax-exempt
retirement accounts. Would people respond to this incentive by saving more? Or,
instead, would people merely transfer saving already done in other forms into
these accounts—reducing tax revenue and thus public saving without any stim-
ulus to private saving? The desirability of the policy depends on the answers to
these questions. Unfortunately, despite much research on this issue, no consensus
has emerged.
Allocating the Economy’s Investment

The Solow model makes the simplifying assumption that there is only one type
of capital. In the world, of course, there are many types. Private businesses
invest in traditional types of capital, such as bulldozers and steel plants, and
newer types of capital, such as computers and robots. The government invests
in various forms of public capital, called infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and
sewer systems.
In addition, there is human capital—the knowledge and skills that workers
acquire through education, from early childhood programs such as Head Start to
on-the-job training for adults in the labor force. Although the capital variable in
the Solow model is usually interpreted as including only physical capital, in many
ways human capital is analogous to physical capital. Like physical capital, human
capital increases our ability to produce goods and services. Raising the level of
human capital requires investment in the form of teachers, libraries, and student
time. Recent research on economic growth has emphasized that human capital
is at least as important as physical capital in explaining international differences
in standards of living. One way of modeling this fact is to give the variable we
call “capital” a broader definition that includes both human and physical capital.6
Policymakers trying to stimulate economic growth must confront the issue of
what kinds of capital the economy needs most. In other words, what kinds of
capital yield the highest marginal products? To a large extent, policymakers can
rely on the marketplace to allocate the pool of saving to alternative types of
investment. Those industries with the highest marginal products of capital will
6
Earlier in this chapter, when we were interpreting K as only physical capital, human capital was
folded into the efficiency-of-labor parameter E. The alternative approach suggested here is to
include human capital as part of K instead, so E represents technology but not human capital. If K
is given this broader interpretation, then much of what we call labor income is really the return to
human capital. As a result, the true capital share is much larger than the traditional Cobb–Douglas
value of about 1/3. For more on this topic, see N. Gregory Mankiw, David Romer, and David N.
Weil, “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth,’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics (May
1992): 407–437.
naturally be most willing to borrow at market interest rates to finance new

investment. Many economists advocate that the government should merely cre-
ate a “level playing field” for different types of capital—for example, by ensuring
that the tax system treats all forms of capital equally. The government can then
rely on the market to allocate capital efficiently.
Other economists have suggested that the government should actively
encourage particular forms of capital. Suppose, for instance, that technological
advance occurs as a by-product of certain economic activities. This would hap-
pen if new and improved production processes are devised during the process of
building capital (a phenomenon called learning by doing) and if these ideas
become part of society’s pool of knowledge. Such a by-product is called a tech-
nological externality (or a knowledge spillover). In the presence of such externalities,
the social returns to capital exceed the private returns, and the benefits of
increased capital accumulation to society are greater than the Solow model sug-
gests.7 Moreover, some types of capital accumulation may yield greater external-
ities than others. If, for example, installing robots yields greater technological
externalities than building a new steel mill, then perhaps the government should
use the tax laws to encourage investment in robots. The success of such an indus-
trial policy, as it is sometimes called, requires that the government be able to mea-
sure accurately the externalities of different economic activities so it can give the
correct incentive to each activity.
Most economists are skeptical about industrial policies for two reasons. First,
measuring the externalities from different sectors is virtually impossible. If poli-
cy is based on poor measurements, its effects might be close to random and, thus,
worse than no policy at all. Second, the political process is far from perfect. Once
the government gets into the business of rewarding specific industries with sub-
sidies and tax breaks, the rewards are as likely to be based on political clout as on
the magnitude of externalities.
One type of capital that necessarily involves the government is public capital.
Local, state, and federal governments are always deciding if and when they should
borrow to finance new roads, bridges, and transit systems. In 2009, one of Pres-
ident Barack Obama’s first economic proposals was to increase spending on such
infrastructure. This policy was motivated by a desire partly to increase short-run
aggregate demand (a goal we will examine later in this book) and partly to pro-
vide public capital and enhance long-run economic growth. Among econo-
mists, this policy had both defenders and critics. Yet all of them agree that
measuring the marginal product of public capital is difficult. Private capital gen-
erates an easily measured rate of profit for the firm owning the capital, whereas
the benefits of public capital are more diffuse. Furthermore, while private capi-
tal investment is made by investors spending their own money, the allocation of
resources for public capital involves the political process and taxpayer funding. It
is all too common to see “bridges to nowhere” being built simply because the
local senator or congressman has the political muscle to get funds approved.
7
Paul Romer, “Crazy Explanations for the Productivity Slowdown,’’ NBER Macroeconomics
Annual 2 (1987): 163–201.
Establishing the Right Institutions

As we discussed earlier, economists who study international differences in the stan-
dard of living attribute some of these differences to the inputs of physical and
human capital and some to the productivity with which these inputs are used. One
reason nations may have different levels of production efficiency is that they have
different institutions guiding the allocation of scarce resources. Creating the right
institutions is important for ensuring that resources are allocated to their best use.
A nation’s legal tradition is an example of such an institution. Some coun-
tries, such as the United States, Australia, India, and Singapore, are former
colonies of the United Kingdom and, therefore, have English-style common-
law systems. Other nations, such as Italy, Spain, and most of those in Latin
America, have legal traditions that evolved from the French Napoleonic
Code. Studies have found that legal protections for shareholders and creditors
are stronger in English-style than French-style legal systems. As a result, the
English-style countries have better-developed capital markets. Nations with
better-developed capital markets, in turn, experience more rapid growth
because it is easier for small and start-up companies to finance investment
projects, leading to a more efficient allocation of the nation’s capital.8
Another important institutional difference across countries is the quality of
government itself. Ideally, governments should provide a “helping hand” to the
market system by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, promoting
competition, prosecuting fraud, and so on. Yet governments sometimes diverge
from this ideal and act more like a “grabbing hand” by using the authority of the
state to enrich a few powerful individuals at the expense of the broader com-
munity. Empirical studies have shown that the extent of corruption in a nation
is indeed a significant determinant of economic growth.9
Adam Smith, the great eighteenth-century economist, was well aware of the
role of institutions in economic growth. He once wrote, “Little else is requisite
to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but
peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being
brought about by the natural course of things.” Sadly, many nations do not enjoy
these three simple advantages.
CASE STUDY
The Colonial Origins of Modern Institutions
International data show a remarkable correlation between latitude and econom-
ic prosperity: nations closer to the equator typically have lower levels of income
per person than nations farther from the equator. This fact is true in both the
northern and southern hemispheres.
8
Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny, “Law and Finance,”
Journal of Political Economy 106 (1998): 1113–1155; and Ross Levine and Robert G. King, “Finance and
Growth: Schumpeter Might Be Right,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (1993): 717–737.
9
Paulo Mauro, “Corruption and Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (1995): 681–712.
What explains the correlation? Some economists have suggested that the trop-
ical climates near the equator have a direct negative impact on productivity. In
the heat of the tropics, agriculture is more difficult, and disease is more prevalent.
This makes the production of goods and services more difficult.
Although the direct impact of geography is one reason tropical nations tend
to be poor, it is not the whole story. Recent research by Daron Acemoglu, Simon
Johnson, and James Robinson has suggested an indirect mechanism—the impact
of geography on institutions. Here is their explanation, presented in several steps:
1. In the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, tropical climates
presented European settlers with an increased risk of disease, especially
malaria and yellow fever. As a result, when Europeans were colonizing
much of the rest of the world, they avoided settling in tropical areas, such as
most of Africa and Central America. The European settlers preferred areas
with more moderate climates and better health conditions, such as the
regions that are now the United States, Canada, and New Zealand.
2. In those areas where Europeans settled in large numbers, the settlers established
European-like institutions that protected individual property rights and limited
the power of government. By contrast, in tropical climates, the colonial powers
often set up “extractive” institutions, including authoritarian governments, so
they could take advantage of the area’s natural resources. These institutions
enriched the colonizers, but they did little to foster economic growth.
3. Although the era of colonial rule is now long over, the early institutions that
the European colonizers established are strongly correlated with the modern
institutions in the former colonies. In tropical nations, where the colonial
powers set up extractive institutions, there is typically less protection of
property rights even today. When the colonizers left, the extractive
institutions remained and were simply taken over by new ruling elites.
4. The quality of institutions is a key determinant of economic performance.
Where property rights are well protected, people have more incentive to
make the investments that lead to economic growth. Where property rights
are less respected, as is typically the case in tropical nations, investment and
growth tend to lag behind.
This research suggests that much of the international variation in living standards
that we observe today is a result of the long reach of history.10 ■
Encouraging Technological Progress

The Solow model shows that sustained growth in income per worker must come
from technological progress. The Solow model, however, takes technological
progress as exogenous; it does not explain it. Unfortunately, the determinants of
technological progress are not well understood.
10
Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson, “The Colonial Origins of Compar-
ative Development: An Empirical Investigation,” American Economic Association 91 (December
2001): 1369–1401.
Despite this limited understanding, many public policies are designed to stim-
ulate technological progress. Most of these policies encourage the private sector
to devote resources to technological innovation. For example, the patent system
gives a temporary monopoly to inventors of new products; the tax code offers
tax breaks for firms engaging in research and development; and government
agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, directly subsidize basic
research in universities. In addition, as discussed above, proponents of industrial
policy argue that the government should take a more active role in promoting
specific industries that are key for rapid technological advance.
In recent years, the encouragement of technological progress has taken on an
international dimension. Many of the companies that engage in research to
advance technology are located in the United States and other developed
nations. Developing nations such as China have an incentive to “free ride” on this
research by not strictly enforcing intellectual property rights. That is, Chinese
companies often use the ideas developed abroad without compensating the
patent holders. The United States has strenuously objected to this practice, and
China has promised to step up enforcement. If intellectual property rights were
better enforced around the world, firms would have more incentive to engage in
research, and this would promote worldwide technological progress.
CASE STUDY
The Worldwide Slowdown in Economic Growth:
1972–1995
Beginning in the early 1970s, and lasting until the mid-1990s, world policy-
makers faced a perplexing problem: a global slowdown in economic growth.
Table 8-2 presents data on the growth in real GDP per person for the seven
major economies. Growth in the United States fell from 2.2 percent before
1972 to 1.5 percent from 1972 to 1995. Other countries experienced similar or
more severe declines. Accumulated over many years, even a small change in the
rate of growth has a large effect on economic well-being. Real income in the
United States today is almost 20 percent lower than it would have been had
growth remained at its previous level.
Why did this slowdown occur? Studies have shown that it was attributable to
a fall in the rate at which the production function was improving over time. The
appendix to this chapter explains how economists measure changes in the pro-
duction function with a variable called total factor productivity, which is closely
related to the efficiency of labor in the Solow model. There are many hypothe-
ses to explain this fall in productivity growth. Here are four of them.
Measurement Problems One possibility is that the productivity slowdown
did not really occur and that it shows up in the data because the data are flawed.
As you may recall from Chapter 2, one problem in measuring inflation is cor-
recting for changes in the quality of goods and services. The same issue arises
when measuring output and productivity. For instance, if technological advance
leads to more computers being built, then the increase in output and productivity
TABL E 8-2
Growth Around the World
GROWTH IN OUTPUT PER PERSON

(PERCENT PER YEAR)
Country 1948–1972 1972–1995 1995–2007
Canada 2.9 1.8 2.2

France 4.3 1.6 1.7
West Germany 5.7 2.0
Germany 1.5
Italy 4.9 2.3 1.2
Japan 8.2 2.6 1.2
United Kingdom 2.4 1.8 2.6
United States 2.2 1.5 2.0
Source: Angus Maddison, Phases of Capitalist Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1982); OECD National Accounts; and World Bank: World Development Indicators.
is easy to measure. But if technological advance leads to faster computers being

built, then output and productivity have increased, but that increase is more sub-
tle and harder to measure. Government statisticians try to correct for changes in
quality, but despite their best efforts, the resulting data are far from perfect.
Unmeasured quality improvements mean that our standard of living is rising
more rapidly than the official data indicate. This issue should make us suspicious
of the data, but by itself it cannot explain the productivity slowdown. To explain
a slowdown in growth, one must argue that the measurement problems got worse.
There is some indication that this might be so. As history passes, fewer people
work in industries with tangible and easily measured output, such as agriculture,
and more work in industries with intangible and less easily measured output,
such as medical services. Yet few economists believe that measurement problems
were the full story.
Oil Prices When the productivity slowdown began around 1973, the obvious
hypothesis to explain it was the large increase in oil prices caused by the actions
of the OPEC oil cartel. The primary piece of evidence was the timing: produc-
tivity growth slowed at the same time that oil prices skyrocketed. Over time,
however, this explanation has appeared less likely. One reason is that the accu-
mulated shortfall in productivity seems too large to be explained by an increase
in oil prices—petroleum-based products are not that large a fraction of a typical
firm’s costs. In addition, if this explanation were right, productivity should have
sped up when political turmoil in OPEC caused oil prices to plummet in 1986.
Unfortunately, that did not happen.
Worker Quality Some economists suggest that the productivity slowdown
might have been caused by changes in the labor force. In the early 1970s, the
large baby-boom generation started leaving school and taking jobs. At the same
time, changing social norms encouraged many women to leave full-time house-
work and enter the labor force. Both of these developments lowered the average
level of experience among workers, which in turn lowered average productivity.
Other economists point to changes in worker quality as gauged by human
capital. Although the educational attainment of the labor force continued to
rise throughout this period, it was not increasing as rapidly as it had in the past.
Moreover, declining performance on some standardized tests suggests that the
quality of education was declining. If so, this could explain slowing productiv-
ity growth.
The Depletion of Ideas Still other economists suggest that the world start-
ed to run out of new ideas about how to produce in the early 1970s, pushing the
economy into an age of slower technological progress. These economists often
argue that the anomaly is not the period since 1970 but the preceding two
decades. In the late 1940s, the economy had a large backlog of ideas that had not
been fully implemented because of the Great Depression of the 1930s and World
War II in the first half of the 1940s. After the economy used up this backlog, the
argument goes, a slowdown in productivity growth was likely. Indeed, although
the growth rates in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s were disappointing com-
pared to those of the 1950s and 1960s, they were not lower than average growth
rates from 1870 to 1950.
As any good doctor will tell you, sometimes a patient’s illness goes away on its
own, even if the doctor has failed to come up with a convincing diagnosis and
remedy. This seems to be the outcome of the productivity slowdown. In the
middle of the 1990s, economic growth took off, at least in the English-speaking
countries of the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. As with the
slowdown in economic growth in the 1970s, the acceleration in the 1990s is hard
to explain definitively. But at least part of the credit goes to advances in com-
puter and information technology, including the Internet. 11 ■
8-4 Beyond the Solow Model:

Endogenous Growth Theory
A chemist, a physicist, and an economist are all trapped on a desert island, try-
ing to figure out how to open a can of food.
“Let’s heat the can over the fire until it explodes,” says the chemist.
“No, no,” says the physicist, “let’s drop the can onto the rocks from the top
of a high tree.”
“I have an idea,” says the economist. “First, we assume a can opener . . .”
11
For various views on the growth slowdown, see “Symposium: The Slowdown in Productivity
Growth’’ in the Fall 1988 issue of The Journal of Economic Perspectives. For a discussion of the sub-
sequent growth acceleration and the role of information technology, see “Symposium: Computers
and Productivity” in the Fall 2000 issue of The Journal of Economic Perspectives.
This old joke takes aim at how economists use assumptions to simplify—and
sometimes oversimplify—the problems they face. It is particularly apt when eval-
uating the theory of economic growth. One goal of growth theory is to explain
the persistent rise in living standards that we observe in most parts of the world.
The Solow growth model shows that such persistent growth must come from
technological progress. But where does technological progress come from? In the
Solow model, it is just assumed!
The preceding Case Study on the productivity slowdown of the 1970s and
speed-up of the 1990s suggests that changes in the pace of technological progress
are tremendously important. To understand fully the process of economic
growth, we need to go beyond the Solow model and develop models that explain
technological advance. Models that do this often go by the label endogenous
growth theory because they reject the Solow model’s assumption of exogenous
technological change. Although the field of endogenous growth theory is large
and sometimes complex, here we get a quick taste of this modern research.12
The Basic Model

To illustrate the idea behind endogenous growth theory, let’s start with a partic-
ularly simple production function:
Y = AK,
where Y is output, K is the capital stock, and A is a constant measuring the
amount of output produced for each unit of capital. Notice that this production
function does not exhibit the property of diminishing returns to capital. One
extra unit of capital produces A extra units of output, regardless of how much
capital there is. This absence of diminishing returns to capital is the key differ-
ence between this endogenous growth model and the Solow model.
Now let’s see what this production function says about economic growth. As
before, we assume a fraction s of income is saved and invested. We therefore describe
capital accumulation with an equation similar to those we used previously:
ΔK = sY − K.
d
This equation states that the change in the capital stock (ΔK) equals investment
(sY ) minus depreciation ( K). Combining this equation with the Y = AK pro-
d
duction function, we obtain, after a bit of manipulation,
DY/Y = DK/K = sA − d.
12
This section provides a brief introduction to the large and fascinating literature on endogenous
growth theory. Early and important contributions to this literature include Paul M. Romer,
“Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy 94 (October 1986):
1002–1037; and Robert E. Lucas, Jr., “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,’’ Journal of
Monetary Economics 22 (1988): 3–42. The reader can learn more about this topic in the undergrad-
uate textbook by David N. Weil, Economic Growth, 2nd ed. (Pearson, 2008).
This equation shows what determines the growth rate of output ΔY/Y. Notice
that, as long as sA > , the economy’s income grows forever, even without the
d
assumption of exogenous technological progress.
Thus, a simple change in the production function can alter dramatically the
predictions about economic growth. In the Solow model, saving leads to growth
temporarily, but diminishing returns to capital eventually force the economy to
approach a steady state in which growth depends only on exogenous techno-
logical progress. By contrast, in this endogenous growth model, saving and invest-
ment can lead to persistent growth.
But is it reasonable to abandon the assumption of diminishing returns to cap-
ital? The answer depends on how we interpret the variable K in the production
function Y = AK. If we take the traditional view that K includes only the econ-
omy’s stock of plants and equipment, then it is natural to assume diminishing
returns. Giving 10 computers to a worker does not make that worker 10 times
as productive as he or she is with one computer.
Advocates of endogenous growth theory, however, argue that the assumption of
constant (rather than diminishing) returns to capital is more palatable if K is inter-
preted more broadly. Perhaps the best case can be made for the endogenous growth
model by viewing knowledge as a type of capital. Clearly, knowledge is an impor-
tant input into the economy’s production—both its production of goods and ser-
vices and its production of new knowledge. Compared to other forms of capital,
however, it is less natural to assume that knowledge exhibits the property of dimin-
ishing returns. (Indeed, the increasing pace of scientific and technological innova-
tion over the past few centuries has led some economists to argue that there are
increasing returns to knowledge.) If we accept the view that knowledge is a type of
capital, then this endogenous growth model with its assumption of constant returns
to capital becomes a more plausible description of long-run economic growth.
A Two-Sector Model
Although the Y = AK model is the simplest example of endogenous growth, the
theory has gone well beyond this. One line of research has tried to develop mod-
els with more than one sector of production in order to offer a better descrip-
tion of the forces that govern technological progress. To see what we might learn
from such models, let’s sketch out an example.
The economy has two sectors, which we can call manufacturing firms and
research universities. Firms produce goods and services, which are used for con-
sumption and investment in physical capital. Universities produce a factor of pro-
duction called “knowledge,” which is then freely used in both sectors. The
economy is described by the production function for firms, the production func-
tion for universities, and the capital-accumulation equation:
Y = F[K,(1 − u)LE] (production function in manufacturing firms),
DE = g(u)E (production function in research universities),
DK = sY − dK (capital accumulation),
where u is the fraction of the labor force in universities (and 1 – u is the fraction
in manufacturing), E is the stock of knowledge (which in turn determines the effi-
ciency of labor), and g is a function that shows how the growth in knowledge
depends on the fraction of the labor force in universities. The rest of the notation
is standard. As usual, the production function for the manufacturing firms is
assumed to have constant returns to scale: if we double both the amount of phys-
ical capital (K ) and the effective number of workers in manufacturing [(1 – u)LE],
we double the output of goods and services (Y ).
This model is a cousin of the Y = AK model. Most important, this economy
exhibits constant (rather than diminishing) returns to capital, as long as capital is
broadly defined to include knowledge. In particular, if we double both physical
capital K and knowledge E, then we double the output of both sectors in the
economy. As a result, like the Y = AK model, this model can generate persistent
growth without the assumption of exogenous shifts in the production function.
Here persistent growth arises endogenously because the creation of knowledge
in universities never slows down.
At the same time, however, this model is also a cousin of the Solow growth
model. If u, the fraction of the labor force in universities, is held constant, then
the efficiency of labor E grows at the constant rate g(u). This result of constant
growth in the efficiency of labor at rate g is precisely the assumption made in the
Solow model with technological progress. Moreover, the rest of the model—the
manufacturing production function and the capital-accumulation equation—
also resembles the rest of the Solow model. As a result, for any given value of u,
this endogenous growth model works just like the Solow model.
There are two key decision variables in this model. As in the Solow model,
the fraction of output used for saving and investment, s, determines the steady-
state stock of physical capital. In addition, the fraction of labor in universities, u,
determines the growth in the stock of knowledge. Both s and u affect the level
of income, although only u affects the steady-state growth rate of income. Thus,
this model of endogenous growth takes a small step in the direction of showing
which societal decisions determine the rate of technological change.
The Microeconomics of Research and Development

The two-sector endogenous growth model just presented takes us closer to
understanding technological progress, but it still tells only a rudimentary story
about the creation of knowledge. If one thinks about the process of research and
development for even a moment, three facts become apparent. First, although
knowledge is largely a public good (that is, a good freely available to everyone),
much research is done in firms that are driven by the profit motive. Second,
research is profitable because innovations give firms temporary monopolies,
either because of the patent system or because there is an advantage to being the
first firm on the market with a new product. Third, when one firm innovates,
other firms build on that innovation to produce the next generation of innova-
tions. These (essentially microeconomic) facts are not easily connected with the
(essentially macroeconomic) growth models we have discussed so far.
Some endogenous growth models try to incorporate these facts about

research and development. Doing this requires modeling both the decisions that
firms face as they engage in research and the interactions among firms that have
some degree of monopoly power over their innovations. Going into more detail
about these models is beyond the scope of this book, but it should be clear
already that one virtue of these endogenous growth models is that they offer a
more complete description of the process of technological innovation.
One question these models are designed to address is whether, from the stand-
point of society as a whole, private profit-maximizing firms tend to engage in
too little or too much research. In other words, is the social return to research
(which is what society cares about) greater or smaller than the private return
(which is what motivates individual firms)? It turns out that, as a theoretical mat-
ter, there are effects in both directions. On the one hand, when a firm creates a
new technology, it makes other firms better off by giving them a base of knowl-
edge on which to build in future research. As Isaac Newton famously remarked,
“If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders
of giants.” On the other hand, when one firm invests in research, it can also make
other firms worse off if it does little more than being the first to discover a tech-
nology that another firm would have invented in due course. This duplication of
research effort has been called the “stepping on toes” effect. Whether firms left
to their own devices do too little or too much research depends on whether the
positive “standing on shoulders” externality or the negative “stepping on toes”
externality is more prevalent.
Although theory alone is ambiguous about whether research effort is more or
less than optimal, the empirical work in this area is usually less so. Many studies
have suggested the “standing on shoulders” externality is important and, as a
result, the social return to research is large—often in excess of 40 percent per
year. This is an impressive rate of return, especially when compared to the return
to physical capital, which we earlier estimated to be about 8 percent per year. In
the judgment of some economists, this finding justifies substantial government
subsidies to research.13
The Process of Creative Destruction

In his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, economist Joseph Schum-
peter suggested that economic progress comes through a process of “creative
destruction.” According to Schumpeter, the driving force behind progress is the
entrepreneur with an idea for a new product, a new way to produce an old prod-
uct, or some other innovation. When the entrepreneur’s firm enters the market, it
has some degree of monopoly power over its innovation; indeed, it is the prospect
of monopoly profits that motivates the entrepreneur. The entry of the new firm is
good for consumers, who now have an expanded range of choices, but it is often
13
For an overview of the empirical literature on the effects of research, see Zvi Griliches, “The
Search for R&D Spillovers,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94 (1991): 29–47.
bad for incumbent producers, who may find it hard to compete with the entrant.
If the new product is sufficiently better than old ones, the incumbents may even
be driven out of business. Over time, the process keeps renewing itself. The entre-
preneur’s firm becomes an incumbent, enjoying high profitability until its product
is displaced by another entrepreneur with the next generation of innovation.
History confirms Schumpeter’s thesis that there are winners and losers from
technological progress. For example, in England in the early nineteenth century,
an important innovation was the invention and spread of machines that could
produce textiles using unskilled workers at low cost. This technological advance
was good for consumers, who could clothe themselves more cheaply. Yet skilled
knitters in England saw their jobs threatened by new technology, and they
responded by organizing violent revolts. The rioting workers, called Luddites,
smashed the weaving machines used in the wool and cotton mills and set the
homes of the mill owners on fire (a less than creative form of destruction). Today,
the term “Luddite” refers to anyone who opposes technological progress.
A more recent example of creative destruction involves the retailing giant
Wal-Mart. Although retailing may seem like a relatively static activity, in fact it
is a sector that has seen sizable rates of technological progress over the past sev-
eral decades. Through better inventory-control, marketing, and personnel-
management techniques, for example, Wal-Mart has found ways to bring goods
to consumers at lower cost than traditional retailers. These changes benefit
consumers, who can buy goods at lower prices, and the stockholders of Wal-
Mart, who share in its profitability. But they adversely affect small mom-and-
pop stores, which find it hard to compete when a Wal-Mart opens nearby.
Faced with the prospect of being the victims of creative destruction, incumbent
producers often look to the political process to stop the entry of new, more efficient
competitors. The original Luddites wanted the British government to save their jobs
by restricting the spread of the new textile technology; instead, Parliament sent
troops to suppress the Luddite riots. Similarly, in recent years, local retailers have
sometimes tried to use local land-use regulations to stop Wal-Mart from entering
their market. The cost of such entry restrictions, however, is to slow the pace of
technological progress. In Europe, where entry regulations are stricter than they are
in the United States, the economies have not seen the emergence of retailing giants
like Wal-Mart; as a result, productivity growth in retailing has been much lower.14
Schumpeter’s vision of how capitalist economies work has merit as a matter
of economic history. Moreover, it has inspired some recent work in the theory
of economic growth. One line of endogenous growth theory, pioneered by
economists Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, builds on Schumpeter’s insights
by modeling technological advance as a process of entrepreneurial innovation
and creative destruction.15
14
Robert J. Gordon, “Why Was Europe Left at the Station When America’s Productivity Loco-
motive Departed?” NBER Working Paper No. 10661, 2004.
15
Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction,” Econo-
metrica 60 (1992): 323–351.
8-5 Conclusion
Long-run economic growth is the single most important determinant of the
economic well-being of a nation’s citizens. Everything else that macroeconomists
study—unemployment, inflation, trade deficits, and so on—pales in comparison.
Fortunately, economists know quite a lot about the forces that govern eco-
nomic growth. The Solow growth model and the more recent endogenous
growth models show how saving, population growth, and technological progress
interact in determining the level and growth of a nation’s standard of living.
These theories offer no magic recipe to ensure an economy achieves rapid
growth, but they give much insight, and they provide the intellectual framework
for much of the debate over public policy aimed at promoting long-run eco-
nomic growth.
Summary
1. In the steady state of the Solow growth model, the growth rate of income
per person is determined solely by the exogenous rate of technological
progress.
2. Many empirical studies have examined to what extent the Solow model
can help explain long-run economic growth. The model can explain much
of what we see in the data, such as balanced growth and conditional
convergence. Recent studies have also found that international variation in
standards of living is attributable to a combination of capital accumulation
and the efficiency with which capital is used.
3. In the Solow model with population growth and technological progress,
the Golden Rule (consumption-maximizing) steady state is characterized
by equality between the net marginal product of capital (MPK − ) and the
d
steady-state growth rate of total income (n + g). In the U.S. economy, the
net marginal product of capital is well in excess of the growth rate, indicat-
ing that the U.S. economy has a lower saving rate and less capital than it
would have in the Golden Rule steady state.
4. Policymakers in the United States and other countries often claim that their
nations should devote a larger percentage of their output to saving and
investment. Increased public saving and tax incentives for private saving are
two ways to encourage capital accumulation. Policymakers can also
promote economic growth by setting up the right legal and financial insti-
tutions so that resources are allocated efficiently and by ensuring proper
incentives to encourage research and technological progress.
5. In the early 1970s, the rate of growth of income per person fell substantial-
ly in most industrialized countries, including the United States. The cause
of this slowdown is not well understood. In the mid-1990s, the U.S. growth
rate increased, most likely because of advances in information technology.
6. Modern theories of endogenous growth attempt to explain the rate of

technological progress, which the Solow model takes as exogenous. These
models try to explain the decisions that determine the creation of
knowledge through research and development.
K E Y C O N C E P T S
Efficiency of labor Labor-augmenting technological Endogenous growth theory

progress
Q U E S T I O N S F O R R E V I E W
1. In the Solow model, what determines the 4. How can policymakers influence a nation’s sav-
steady-state rate of growth of income per worker? ing rate?
2. In the steady state of the Solow model, at what 5. What has happened to the rate of productivity
rate does output per person grow? At what rate growth over the past 50 years? How might you
does capital per person grow? How does this explain this phenomenon?
compare with the U.S. experience? 6. How does endogenous growth theory explain
3. What data would you need to determine persistent growth without the assumption of
whether an economy has more or less capital exogenous technological progress? How does
than in the Golden Rule steady state? this differ from the Solow model?
P R O B L E M S A N D A P P L I C AT I O N S
1. An economy described by the Solow growth that the capital share in output is constant, and
model has the following production function: that the United States has been in a steady state.
y = 兹k苶. (For a discussion of the Cobb–Douglas produc-
tion function, see Chapter 3.)
a. Solve for the steady-state value of y as a func-
a. What must the saving rate be in the initial
d
tion of s, n, g, and .
steady state? [Hint: Use the steady-state rela-
b. A developed country has a saving rate of 28 tionship, sy = ( + n + g)k.]
percent and a population growth rate of 1 d
percent per year. A less developed country has b. What is the marginal product of capital in the
a saving rate of 10 percent and a population initial steady state?
growth rate of 4 percent per year. In both c. Suppose that public policy raises the saving
countries, g = 0.02 and = 0.04. Find the
d
steady-state value of y for each country.
rate so that the economy reaches the Golden
Rule level of capital. What will the marginal
c. What policies might the less developed coun- product of capital be at the Golden Rule
try pursue to raise its level of income? steady state? Compare the marginal product at
the Golden Rule steady state to the marginal
2. In the United States, the capital share of GDP product in the initial steady state. Explain.
is about 30 percent, the average growth in
output is about 3 percent per year, the deprecia- d. What will the capital–output ratio be at the
tion rate is about 4 percent per year, and the Golden Rule steady state? (Hint: For the
capital–output ratio is about 2.5. Suppose that Cobb–Douglas production function, the
the production function is Cobb–Douglas, so capital–output ratio is related to the marginal
product of capital.)
e. What must the saving rate be to reach the the large difference in income between Rich-
Golden Rule steady state? land and Poorland?
3. Prove each of the following statements about the 5. The amount of education the typical person
steady state of the Solow model with population receives varies substantially among countries.
growth and technological progress. Suppose you were to compare a country with a
a. The capital–output ratio is constant. highly educated labor force and a country with
a less educated labor force. Assume that
b. Capital and labor each earn a constant share education affects only the level of the efficiency
of an economy’s income. [Hint: Recall the of labor. Also assume that the countries are oth-
definition MPK = f(k + 1) – f(k).] erwise the same: they have the same saving rate,
c. Total capital income and total labor income the same depreciation rate, the same population
both grow at the rate of population growth growth rate, and the same rate of technological
plus the rate of technological progress, n + g. progress. Both countries are described by the
d. The real rental price of capital is constant, and Solow model and are in their steady states. What
the real wage grows at the rate of technologi- would you predict for the following variables?
cal progress g. (Hint: The real rental price of a. The rate of growth of total income.
capital equals total capital income divided by b. The level of income per worker.
the capital stock, and the real wage equals total
labor income divided by the labor force.) c. The real rental price of capital.
4. Two countries, Richland and Poorland, are d. The real wage.
described by the Solow growth model. They have 6. This question asks you to analyze in more detail
the same Cobb–Douglas production function, the two-sector endogenous growth model pre-
F(K, L) = A K aL1−a, but with different quantities sented in the text.
of capital and labor. Richland saves 32 percent of a. Rewrite the production function for manufac-
its income, while Poorland saves 10 percent. tured goods in terms of output per effective
Richland has population growth of 1 percent per worker and capital per effective worker.
year, while Poorland has population growth of 3
percent. (The numbers in this problem are chosen b. In this economy, what is break-even
to be approximately realistic descriptions of rich investment (the amount of investment needed
and poor nations.) Both nations have technologi- to keep capital per effective worker constant)?
cal progress at a rate of 2 percent per year and c. Write down the equation of motion for k,
depreciation at a rate of 5 percent per year. which shows Δk as saving minus break-even
a. What is the per-worker production function investment. Use this equation to draw a graph
f(k)? showing the determination of steady-state k.
(Hint: This graph will look much like those
b. Solve for the ratio of Richland’s steady-state we used to analyze the Solow model.)
income per worker to Poorland’s. (Hint: The
d. In this economy, what is the steady-state
a
parameter will play a role in your answer.)
growth rate of output per worker Y/L? How
a
c. If the Cobb–Douglas parameter takes the
conventional value of about 1/3, how much
do the saving rate s and the fraction of the
labor force in universities u affect this steady-
higher should income per worker be in state growth rate?
Richland compared to Poorland?
e. Using your graph, show the impact of an
d. Income per worker in Richland is actually 16 increase in u. (Hint: This change affects both
times income per worker in Poorland. Can curves.) Describe both the immediate and the
you explain this fact by changing the value of steady-state effects.
a
the parameter ? What must it be? Can you
think of any way of justifying such a value for f. Based on your analysis, is an increase in u an
this parameter? How else might you explain unambiguously good thing for the economy?
Explain.
APPENDIX
Accounting for the Sources

of Economic Growth
Real GDP in the United States has grown an average of about 3 percent per year
over the past 50 years. What explains this growth? In Chapter 3 we linked the
output of the economy to the factors of production—capital and labor—and to
the production technology. Here we develop a technique called growth accounting
that divides the growth in output into three different sources: increases in capi-
tal, increases in labor, and advances in technology. This breakdown provides us
with a measure of the rate of technological change.
Increases in the Factors of Production

We first examine how increases in the factors of production contribute to
increases in output. To do this, we start by assuming there is no technological
change, so the production function relating output Y to capital K and labor L is
constant over time:
Y = F(K, L).
In this case, the amount of output changes only because the amount of capital or
labor changes.
Increases in Capital First, consider changes in capital. If the amount of cap-

ital increases by ΔK units, by how much does the amount of output increase? To
answer this question, we need to recall the definition of the marginal product of
capital MPK:
MPK = F(K + 1, L) − F(K, L).
The marginal product of capital tells us how much output increases when capi-
tal increases by 1 unit. Therefore, when capital increases by ΔK units, output
increases by approximately MPK × ΔK.16
For example, suppose that the marginal product of capital is 1/5; that is, an
additional unit of capital increases the amount of output produced by one-fifth
16
Note the word “approximately’’ here. This answer is only an approximation because the
marginal product of capital varies: it falls as the amount of capital increases. An exact
answer would take into account that each unit of capital has a different marginal product. If
the change in K is not too large, however, the approximation of a constant marginal product is
very accurate.
247
of a unit. If we increase the amount of capital by 10 units, we can compute the

amount of additional output as follows:
DY = MPK ×
DK
units of output
= 1/5 ⎯⎯ × 10 units of capital
unit of capital
= 2 units of output.
By increasing capital by 10 units, we obtain 2 more units of output. Thus, we
use the marginal product of capital to convert changes in capital into changes
in output.
Increases in Labor Next, consider changes in labor. If the amount of labor
increases by ΔL units, by how much does output increase? We answer this ques-
tion the same way we answered the question about capital. The marginal prod-
uct of labor MPL tells us how much output changes when labor increases by 1
unit—that is,
MPL = F(K, L + 1) − F(K, L).
Therefore, when the amount of labor increases by ΔL units, output increases by
approximately MPL × ΔL.
For example, suppose that the marginal product of labor is 2; that is, an addi-
tional unit of labor increases the amount of output produced by 2 units. If we
increase the amount of labor by 10 units, we can compute the amount of addi-
tional output as follows:
DY = MPL ×
DL
units of output
= 2 ⎯⎯ × 10 units of labor
unit of labor
= 20 units of output.
By increasing labor by 10 units, we obtain 20 more units of output. Thus,
we use the marginal product of labor to convert changes in labor into changes
in output.
Increases in Capital and Labor Finally, let’s consider the more realistic
case in which both factors of production change. Suppose that the amount of
capital increases by ΔK and the amount of labor increases by ΔL. The increase
in output then comes from two sources: more capital and more labor. We can
divide this increase into the two sources using the marginal products of the
two inputs:
DY = (MPK × DK ) + (MPL × DL).

The first term in parentheses is the increase in output resulting from the increase
in capital, and the second term in parentheses is the increase in output resulting
from the increase in labor. This equation shows us how to attribute growth to
each factor of production.
We now want to convert this last equation into a form that is easier to inter-
pret and apply to the available data. First, with some algebraic rearrangement, the
equation becomes17
MPK × K MPL × L
DY = ⎯⎯
⎯
( DK + ⎯
⎯
) DL .
⎯
( )
Y Y K Y L
This form of the equation relates the growth rate of output, ΔY/Y, to the growth
rate of capital, ΔK/K, and the growth rate of labor, ΔL/L.
Next, we need to find some way to measure the terms in parentheses in the last
equation. In Chapter 3 we showed that the marginal product of capital equals its real
rental price. Therefore, MPK × K is the total return to capital, and (MPK × K )/Y
is capital’s share of output. Similarly, the marginal product of labor equals the real
wage. Therefore, MPL × L is the total compensation that labor receives, and
(MPL × L)/Y is labor’s share of output. Under the assumption that the production
function has constant returns to scale, Euler’s theorem (which we discussed in
Chapter 3) tells us that these two shares sum to 1. In this case, we can write
DY = a ⎯
⎯ DK + (1 − a) ⎯
DL ,
Y K L
where is capital’s share and (1 − ) is labor’s share.
a a
This last equation gives us a simple formula for showing how changes in inputs
lead to changes in output. It shows, in particular, that we must weight the growth
rates of the inputs by the factor shares. As we discussed in Chapter 3, capital’s share
in the United States is about 30 percent, that is, = 0.30. Therefore, a 10-percent
a
increase in the amount of capital (ΔK/K = 0.10) leads to a 3-percent increase in
the amount of output (ΔY/Y = 0.03). Similarly, a 10-percent increase in the
amount of labor (ΔL/L = 0.10) leads to a 7-percent increase in the amount of
output (ΔY/Y = 0.07).
Technological Progress
So far in our analysis of the sources of growth, we have been assuming that the
production function does not change over time. In practice, of course, techno-
logical progress improves the production function. For any given amount of
inputs, we can produce more output today than we could in the past. We now
extend the analysis to allow for technological progress.
We include the effects of the changing technology by writing the production
function as
Y = AF(K, L),
17
Mathematical note: To see that this is equivalent to the previous equation, note that we can mul-
tiply both sides of this equation by Y and thereby cancel Y from three places in which it appears.
We can cancel the K in the top and bottom of the first term on the right-hand side and the L in
the top and bottom of the second term on the right-hand side. These algebraic manipulations turn
this equation into the previous one.
where A is a measure of the current level of technology called total factor produc-
tivity. Output now increases not only because of increases in capital and labor but
also because of increases in total factor productivity. If total factor productivity
increases by 1 percent and if the inputs are unchanged, then output increases by
1 percent.
Allowing for a changing level of technology adds another term to our equa-
tion accounting for economic growth:
DY
⎯ = D
a⎯
K
+ (1 − D
a) ⎯
L
+ DA
⎯
Y K L A
Growth in Contribution Contribution Growth in Total
= + + .
Output of Capital of Labor Factor Productivity
This is the key equation of growth accounting. It identifies and allows us to mea-
sure the three sources of growth: changes in the amount of capital, changes in the
amount of labor, and changes in total factor productivity.
Because total factor productivity is not directly observable, it is measured indi-
rectly. We have data on the growth in output, capital, and labor; we also have data
on capital’s share of output. From these data and the growth-accounting equa-
tion, we can compute the growth in total factor productivity to make sure that
everything adds up:
DA = ⎯
⎯ DY − a ⎯
DK − (1 − a) ⎯
DL .
A Y K L
ΔA/A is the change in output that cannot be explained by changes in inputs.
Thus, the growth in total factor productivity is computed as a residual—that is,
as the amount of output growth that remains after we have accounted for the
determinants of growth that we can measure directly. Indeed, ΔA/A is some-
times called the Solow residual, after Robert Solow, who first showed how to
compute it.18
Total factor productivity can change for many reasons. Changes most often
arise because of increased knowledge about production methods, so the Solow
residual is often used as a measure of technological progress. Yet other factors,
such as education and government regulation, can affect total factor productivi-
ty as well. For example, if higher public spending raises the quality of education,
then workers may become more productive and output may rise, which implies
higher total factor productivity. As another example, if government regulations
require firms to purchase capital to reduce pollution or increase worker safety,
then the capital stock may rise without any increase in measured output, which
implies lower total factor productivity. Total factor productivity captures anything that
changes the relation between measured inputs and measured output.
18
Robert M. Solow, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,’’ Review of Eco-
nomics and Statistics 39 (1957): 312–320. It is natural to ask how growth in labor efficiency E relates
to growth in total factor productivity. One can show that ΔA/A = (1 − )ΔE/E, where is cap-
a a
ital’s share. Thus, technological change as measured by growth in the efficiency of labor is propor-
tional to technological change as measured by the Solow residual.
The Sources of Growth in the United States

Having learned how to measure the sources of economic growth, we now look
at the data. Table 8-3 uses U.S. data to measure the contributions of the three
sources of growth between 1948 and 2007.
This table shows that output in the non-farm business sector grew an average
of 3.6 percent per year during this time. Of this 3.6 percent, 1.2 percent was
attributable to increases in the capital stock, 1.2 percent to increases in the labor
input, and 1.2 percent to increases in total factor productivity. These data show
that increases in capital, labor, and productivity have contributed almost equally
to economic growth in the United States.
Table 8-3 also shows that the growth in total factor productivity slowed sub-
stantially during the period from 1972 to 1995. In a case study in this chapter,
we discussed some hypotheses to explain this productivity slowdown.
TABL E 8-3
Accounting for Economic Growth in the United States
SOURCE OF GROWTH
Output Total Factor
Growth Capital Labor Productivity
= + (1 − ) L/L +
Years
DY/Y
aDK/K
aD D A/A
(average percentage increase per year)

1948–2007 3.6 1.2 1.2 1.2
1948–1972 4.0 1.2 0.9 1.9

1972–1995 3.4 1.3 1.5 0.6
1995–2007 3.5 1.3 1.0 1.3
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Data are for the non-farm business sector.
CASE STUDY
Growth in the East Asian Tigers
Perhaps the most spectacular growth experiences in recent history have been
those of the “Tigers” of East Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Tai-
wan. From 1966 to 1990, while real income per person was growing about 2
percent per year in the United States, it grew more than 7 percent per year in
each of these countries. In the course of a single generation, real income per
person increased fivefold, moving the Tigers from among the world’s poorest
countries to among the richest. (In the late 1990s, a period of pronounced
financial turmoil tarnished the reputation of some of these economies. But this
short-run problem, which we examine in a case study in Chapter 12, doesn’t
come close to reversing the spectacular long-run growth that the Asian Tigers
have experienced.)
What accounts for these growth miracles? Some commentators have argued
that the success of these four countries is hard to reconcile with basic growth
theory, such as the Solow growth model, which takes technology as growing at
a constant, exogenous rate. They have suggested that these countries’ rapid
growth is explained by their ability to imitate foreign technologies. By adopting
technology developed abroad, the argument goes, these countries managed to
improve their production functions substantially in a relatively short period of
time. If this argument is correct, these countries should have experienced unusu-
ally rapid growth in total factor productivity.
One study shed light on this issue by examining in detail the data from these
four countries. The study found that their exceptional growth can be traced to
large increases in measured factor inputs: increases in labor-force participation,
increases in the capital stock, and increases in educational attainment. In South
Korea, for example, the investment–GDP ratio rose from about 5 percent in the
1950s to about 30 percent in the 1980s; the percentage of the working popula-
tion with at least a high-school education went from 26 percent in 1966 to 75
percent in 1991.
Once we account for growth in labor, capital, and human capital, little of the
growth in output is left to explain. None of these four countries experienced
unusually rapid growth in total factor productivity. Indeed, the average growth in
total factor productivity in the East Asian Tigers was almost exactly the same as
in the United States. Thus, although these countries’ rapid growth has been truly
impressive, it is easy to explain using the tools of basic growth theory.19 ■
The Solow Residual in the Short Run

When Robert Solow introduced his famous residual, his aim was to shed light
on the forces that determine technological progress and economic growth in the
long run. But economist Edward Prescott has looked at the Solow residual as a
measure of technological change over shorter periods of time. He concludes that
fluctuations in technology are a major source of short-run changes in econom-
ic activity.
Figure 8-2 shows the Solow residual and the growth in output using annual
data for the United States during the period 1970 to 2007. Notice that the
Solow residual fluctuates substantially. If Prescott’s interpretation is correct, then
we can draw conclusions from these short-run fluctuations, such as that tech-
nology worsened in 1982 and improved in 1984. Notice also that the Solow
residual moves closely with output: in years when output falls, technology tends
to worsen. In Prescott’s view, this fact implies that recessions are driven by
adverse shocks to technology. The hypothesis that technological shocks are the
19
Alwyn Young, “The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the Statistical Realities of the East Asian
Growth Experience,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 101 (August 1995): 641–680.
FIGURE 8-2
Percent
per year 8
Output growth
2
Solow residual
4
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Growth in Output and the Solow Residual The Solow residual, which some
economists interpret as a measure of technology shocks, fluctuates with the econo-
my’s output of goods and services.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Labor, and author’s calculations.
driving force behind short-run economic fluctuations, and the complementary

hypothesis that monetary policy has no role in explaining these fluctuations, is
the foundation for an approach called real-business-cycle theory.
Prescott’s interpretation of these data is controversial, however. Many econo-
mists believe that the Solow residual does not accurately represent changes in
technology over short periods of time. The standard explanation of the cyclical
behavior of the Solow residual is that it results from two measurement problems.
First, during recessions, firms may continue to employ workers they do not
need so that they will have these workers on hand when the economy recovers.
This phenomenon, called labor hoarding, means that labor input is overestimated
in recessions, because the hoarded workers are probably not working as hard as
usual. As a result, the Solow residual is more cyclical than the available produc-
tion technology. In a recession, productivity as measured by the Solow residual
falls even if technology has not changed simply because hoarded workers are sit-
ting around waiting for the recession to end.
Second, when demand is low, firms may produce things that are not easily
measured. In recessions, workers may clean the factory, organize the inventory,
get some training, and do other useful tasks that standard measures of output fail
to include. If so, then output is underestimated in recessions, which would also
make the measured Solow residual cyclical for reasons other than technology.
Thus, economists can interpret the cyclical behavior of the Solow residual in
different ways. Some economists point to the low productivity in recessions as
evidence for adverse technology shocks. Others believe that measured produc-
tivity is low in recessions because workers are not working as hard as usual and
because more of their output is not measured. Unfortunately, there is no clear
evidence on the importance of labor hoarding and the cyclical mismeasurement
of output. Therefore, different interpretations of Figure 8-2 persist.20
M O R E P R O B L E M S A N D A P P L I C AT I O N S
1. In the economy of Solovia, the owners of capital ductivity depends on growth in total factor pro-
get two-thirds of national income, and the ductivity and growth in the capital–labor ratio.
workers receive one-third. In particular, show that
a. The men of Solovia stay at home performing D(Y/L) = ⎯
⎯ DA + a ⎯
D(K/L) .
household chores, while the women work in Y/L A K/L
factories. If some of the men started working Hint: You may find the following mathematical
outside the home so that the labor force trick helpful. If z = wx, then the growth rate of
increased by 5 percent, what would happen to z is approximately the growth rate of w plus the
the measured output of the economy? Does growth rate of x. That is,
labor productivity—defined as output per
worker—increase, decrease, or stay the same? Dz/z ≈ Dw/w + Dx/x.
3. Suppose an economy described by the Solow
Does total factor productivity increase,
model is in a steady state with population
decrease, or stay the same?
growth n of 1.8 percent per year and technolog-
b. In year 1, the capital stock was 6, the labor ical progress g of 1.8 percent per year. Total out-
input was 3, and output was 12. In year 2, the put and total capital grow at 3.6 percent per
capital stock was 7, the labor input was 4, and year. Suppose further that the capital share of
output was 14. What happened to total factor output is 1/3. If you used the growth-account-
productivity between the two years? ing equation to divide output growth into three
2. Labor productivity is defined as Y/L, the sources—capital, labor, and total factor produc-
amount of output divided by the amount of tivity—how much would you attribute to each
labor input. Start with the growth-accounting source? Compare your results to the figures we
equation and show that the growth in labor pro- found for the United States in Table 8-3.
20
To read more about this topic, see Edward C. Prescott, “Theory Ahead of Business Cycle Measure-
ment,’’ and Lawrence H. Summers, “Some Skeptical Observations on Real Business Cycle Theory,’’
both in Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Fall 1986); N. Gregory Mankiw,“Real
Business Cycles: A New Keynesian Perspective,’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 (Summer 1989):
79–90; Bennett T. McCallum, “Real Business Cycle Models,’’ in R. Barro, ed., Modern Business Cycle
Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 16–50; and Charles I. Plosser, “Understand-
ing Real Business Cycles,’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 (Summer 1989): 51–77.

Mankiw - Growth Theory II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mankiw - Growth Theory II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mankiw - Growth Theory II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER

8-1 Technological Progress

The Efficiency of Labor

force L. Suppose, for example, that an advance in production methods makes

The Steady State With Technological Progress

Investment, Technological Progress and

As shown in Figure 8-1, the inclusion of technological progress does not

The Effects of Technological Progress

Variable Symbol Steady-State Growth Rate

Capital per effective worker k = K/(E × L) 0

8-2 From Growth Theory

Experience is consistent with this analysis. In samples of economies with sim-

Factor Accumulation Versus Production Efficiency

person in a well-functioning economy may have greater resources and incentive

8-3 Policies to Promote Growth

Evaluating the Rate of Saving

Changing the Rate of Saving

giving preferential treatment to income saved in these accounts. Some econo-

Allocating the Economy’s Investment

naturally be most willing to borrow at market interest rates to finance new

Establishing the Right Institutions

Encouraging Technological Progress

GROWTH IN OUTPUT PER PERSON

Canada 2.9 1.8 2.2

is easy to measure. But if technological advance leads to faster computers being

8-4 Beyond the Solow Model:

The Basic Model

DE = g(u)E (production function in research universities),

The Microeconomics of Research and Development

Some endogenous growth models try to incorporate these facts about

The Process of Creative Destruction

6. Modern theories of endogenous growth attempt to explain the rate of

Efficiency of labor Labor-augmenting technological Endogenous growth theory

Accounting for the Sources

Increases in the Factors of Production

Increases in Capital First, consider changes in capital. If the amount of cap-

of a unit. If we increase the amount of capital by 10 units, we can compute the

DY = (MPK × DK ) + (MPL × DL).

The Sources of Growth in the United States

(average percentage increase per year)

1948–1972 4.0 1.2 0.9 1.9

The Solow Residual in the Short Run

driving force behind short-run economic fluctuations, and the complementary

You might also like