全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Endogenous Technical Progress in the Theory of Economic Growth

DOI: 10.1155/2014/928121

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

It is shown that substitutive work, which can be defined as work of production equipment (capital stock) replacing the efforts of workers in production processes, can be considered as a measure of technical progress. The methods of estimation of substitutive work are discussed. The theoretical results are illustrated on the data for the US. economy. 1. Introduction The theory of economic growth tries to connect the magnitude of gross domestic product (GDP), which is a measure of current achievements of an economy as a whole—a money measure of a multitude of things and services—created by society for unit of time [1], with some universal, basic factors, called production factors. In other words, one can say that the aim of the theory is to separate original sources of wealth. The most important production factor is labour, which, in our days, is considered as the sum of the efforts of all workers, participating in the production of things and services. The labour theory of value, due to Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and David Ricardo, considered labour as the only production factor, but it has appeared that, to account for the effect of the enlargement of output with introduction of production equipment, about which we think as a collection of animals, machines, buildings, roads, harbours, pipelines, and so on, something else ought to be added into the theory. In the beginning of the last century, it was a fundamental problem of economic theory, which has required a generalisation of labour theory of value. A hypothesis was declared: the amount of capital stock itself is a source of enlargement, so that output can be considered as a function of two variables: labour and capital : This simple approach appears to be a foundation of the conventional neoclassical interpretation of economic development [2, 3]. Capital stock is measured in money units, whereas labour is measured as a number of workers or a number of working hours per year. Having an energy estimate of efforts, which are spent by a worker for a unit of time, it is possible and convenient to count labour in energy units per year. The fundamental property of the approach (1) is that the two production factors: labour and capital , can substitute for each other without limit during the development of production system. To the middle of the last century it was recognised that the theory in the simple classic form, independent of the specific form of the function (1), leaves no place for technical progress, which, nevertheless, was believed to be the ultimate source of economic growth in developed

References

[1]  P. Studenski, The Income of Nations. Theory, Measurement and Analysis: Past and Present, New York University Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1961.
[2]  P. Aghion and P. W. Howitt, Endogenous Growth Theory, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1998.
[3]  P. Aghion and P. W. Howitt, The Economics of Growth, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2009.
[4]  R. Solow, “Technical change and the aggregate production function,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 39, pp. 312–330, 1957.
[5]  V. N. Pokrovskii, Econodynamics. The Theory of Social Production, Springer, London, UK, 2011, http://www.springer.com/physics/complexity/book/978-94-007-2095-4.
[6]  J. Robinson, “The production function and the theory of capital,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 81–106, 1953-1954.
[7]  B. C. Beaudreau, Energy and Organization: Growth and Distribution Re-Examined, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn, USA, 1998.
[8]  B. C. Beaudreau and V. N. Pokrovskii, “On the energy content of a money unit,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 389, no. 13, pp. 2597–2606, 2010.
[9]  V. N. Pokrovskii, “Energy in the theory of production,” Energy, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 769–788, 2003.
[10]  V. N. Pokrovskii, “Productive energy in the US economy,” Energy, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 816–822, 2007.
[11]  R. U. Ayres, J. C. J. M. van den Bergh, D. Lindenberger, and B. Warr, “The underestimated contribution of energy to economic growth,” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 27, pp. 79–88, 2013.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133