I read the two articles on a
national income growth model (called Solow model www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Solow1956 ) and found some interesting things which I would explain
here. The Solow’s growth model emerged in 1956 which showed that higher the
rate at which a country saves the richer it will be and this relationship
becomes inverse when the population growth is considered for its impact on the
national income i.e. per capita (Solow, 1956),
this is due to the fact that a larger population would result in a smaller
portion of total National income. The article “A Contribution to the Empirics
of Economic Growth” has utilized the Solow model to improve the forecasts it
makes and provided a better and improved model with inclusion of the human
capital in it (N. Greofory Mankiw, MAy, 1992 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5533%28195602%2970%3A1%3C65%3AACTTTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M ). The implications of Mankiw’s article are very useful
because it describes the impact of human capital in the growth model which was
missing in the original Solow Growth model. The findings of Mankiw suggest that
the elasticity in per capita income to the change in physical capital under
this augmented model is comparable to the original Solow model which shows that
the definition of the physical capital by the textbook Solow model is very much
comprehensive and it doesn’t have externalities.
Mankiw improved the Solow model
and displays the importance of human capital accumulation and claims that
difference in income levels of different countries is due to the difference in
education, savings and population growth in those countries. From these factors
the original Solow model missed out the human capital accumulation which was
found out to be very important in predicting the future income per capita of a
country. These findings can be used by the government authorities in
determining the direction of their government expenditure and taxation.
The contributions of Mankiw’s article towards the field of study are
immense and it adds to the previously established knowledge i.e. Solow Growth
Model and asserted that the human capital accumulation is also important in
explaining the elasticity in the income per capita level to human capital
accumulation which was a lacking point in the textbook Solow model. Moreover,
it also provided more accurate convergence period (35 years instead of 17
years) over which the different countries with similar population growth,
physical capital accumulation and education might converge in terms per capita
income in 35 years. The article has shortcomings besides these factors there
are also lot of contributors in the economy which have influence on the income
levels like; net exports, different tax systems, different political structures
and socio-cultural differences etc. Therefore, these differences can make it
hard to validate the results and suggestions of the Mankiw’s Solow growth model
in terms of the per capita predictions, convergence period and coefficient of
the elasticity between the income per capita and the physical and human
capitals.
1 comment:
Judy: 82/100 (for repetitive problems with definite articles, for capitalizing national inconsistently, tastes are evolving so I didn't take off for not italicizing "i.e.", for many run-on sentences).
Well, I'm primarily a macroeconomist, so I like to talk about this topic, but what does it have to do with managerial economics?
I'm not sure what Judy meant by " larger population would result in a smaller portion of total National income".
Yes, the Solow model found that growth could be increased with more saving, but the relationship is quite inelastic. So, it's not as important as people think it is.
Mankiw's inclusion of human capital is an improvement over Solow, but again the response to human capital is inelastic, so it's not as important as may people think.
Because these effects are inelastic, the implications for determining government spending and taxation are limited.
Mankiw's results do increase the time required for convergence. But it still isn't enough to explain the lack of convergence of some regions.
As to the list of other factors towards the end, the use of growth models like these have helped us more with deciding that isn't important for explaining growth differences, than explaining what is important. Currently, we're focused on what I call "low tech": differences in social and cultural institutions. It's difficult to measure this stuff, but it seems rather important for explaining growth differences.
Post a Comment