[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbp/nbpmis/98.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A microfoundation for normalized CES production functions with factor-augmenting technical change

Author

Abstract
We derive the aggregate normalized CES production function from idea-based microfoundations where firms are allowed to choose their capital- and labor-augmenting technology optimally from a menu of available technologies. This menu is in turn augmented through factor-specific R&D. The considered model yields a number of interesting results. First, normalization of the production function can be maintained simultaneously at the local and at the aggregate level, greatly facilitating interpretation of the aggregate production function’s parameters in terms of the underlying idea distributions. Second, in line with earlier findings, if capital- and labor-augmenting ideas are independently Weibull-distributed then the aggregate production function is CES; if they are independently Pareto-distributed, then it is Cobb–Douglas. Third, by disentangling technology choice by firms from R&D output, one can draw a clearcut distinction between the direction of R&D and the direction of technical change actually observed in the economy, which are distinct concepts. Fourth, it is argued that the Weibull distribution should be a good approximation of the true unit factor productivity distribution (and thus the CES should be a good approximation of the true aggregate production function) if a “technology” is in fact an assembly of a large number of complementary components. This argument is illustrated with a novel, tractable model of directed (factor-specific) R&D. Finally, it is shown that all our results carry forward to the general case of n-input production functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakub Growiec, 2011. "A microfoundation for normalized CES production functions with factor-augmenting technical change," NBP Working Papers 98, Narodowy Bank Polski.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbp:nbpmis:98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://static.nbp.pl/publikacje/materialy-i-studia/98_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kremer, 1993. "The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 551-575.
    2. Miguel A. León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2010. "Identifying the Elasticity of Substitution with Biased Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1330-1357, September.
    3. Jakub Growiec, 2007. "Beyond the Linearity Critique: The Knife-edge Assumption of Steady-state Growth," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(3), pages 489-499, June.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Veronica Guerrieri, 2008. "Capital Deepening and Nonbalanced Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 116(3), pages 467-498, June.
    5. Palivos, Theodore & Karagiannis, Giannis, 2010. "The Elasticity Of Substitution As An Engine Of Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(5), pages 617-628, November.
    6. Daron Acemoglu, 2007. "Equilibrium Bias of Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1371-1409, September.
    7. Xavier Gabaix, 1999. "Zipf's Law for Cities: An Explanation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 739-767.
    8. Xavier Gabaix, 1999. "Zipf's Law and the Growth of Cities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 129-132, May.
    9. Growiec, Jakub, 2013. "Factor-augmenting technology choice and monopolistic competition," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 38(PA), pages 86-94.
    10. H. Uzawa, 1961. "Neutral Inventions and the Stability of Growth Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 28(2), pages 117-124.
    11. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "Labor- And Capital-Augmenting Technical Change," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-37, March.
    12. de La Grandville, Olivier, 1989. "In Quest of the Slutsky Diamond," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 468-481, June.
    13. Rainer Klump & Harald Preissler, 2000. "CES Production Functions and Economic Growth," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 102(1), pages 41-56, March.
    14. Olivier de La Grandville & Rainer Klump, 2000. "Economic Growth and the Elasticity of Substitution: Two Theorems and Some Suggestions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 282-291, March.
    15. Miguel A. Leon-Ledesma & Mathan Satchi, 2011. "The Choice of CES Production Techniques and Balanced Growth," Studies in Economics 1113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    16. Samuel S. Kortum, 1997. "Research, Patenting, and Technological Change," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(6), pages 1389-1420, November.
    17. Francesco Caselli & Wilbur John Coleman II, 2006. "The World Technology Frontier," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 499-522, June.
    18. Growiec, Jakub, 2008. "Production functions and distributions of unit factor productivities: Uncovering the link," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 87-90, October.
    19. Charles I. Jones, 2005. "The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 517-549.
    20. Rainer Klump & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "The Normalized Ces Production Function: Theory And Empirics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 769-799, December.
    21. Jakub Growiec, 2008. "A new class of production functions and an argument against purely labor‐augmenting technical change," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 4(4), pages 483-502, December.
    22. Mihaela Iulia Pintea & Peter Thompson, 2007. "Technological Complexity and Economic Growth," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 10(2), pages 276-293, April.
    23. Charles I. Jones, 2011. "Intermediate Goods and Weak Links in the Theory of Economic Development," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.
    24. de La Grandville, Olivier, 1989. "Erratum [In Quest of the Slutsky Diamond]," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1307-1307, December.
    25. Nakamura, Hideki & Nakamura, Masakatsu, 2008. "Constant-Elasticity-Of-Substitution Production Function," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 694-701, November.
    26. Nakamura, Hideki, 2009. "Micro-foundation for a constant elasticity of substitution production function through mechanization," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 464-472, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Growiec, Jakub, 2018. "Factor-specific technology choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Michael Knoblach & Fabian Stöckl, 2020. "What Determines The Elasticity Of Substitution Between Capital And Labor? A Literature Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 847-875, September.
    3. Growiec, Jakub, 2013. "Factor-augmenting technology choice and monopolistic competition," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 38(PA), pages 86-94.
    4. Growiec, Jakub & McAdam, Peter & Mućk, Jakub, 2018. "Endogenous labor share cycles: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 74-93.
    5. Temple, Jonathan, 2012. "The calibration of CES production functions," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 294-303.
    6. Miguel A León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "Non-Balanced Growth and Production Technology Estimation," Studies in Economics 1204, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    7. Jakub Growiec, 2008. "A new class of production functions and an argument against purely labor‐augmenting technical change," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 4(4), pages 483-502, December.
    8. Miguel A. León-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2015. "Production Technology Estimates and Balanced Growth," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(1), pages 40-65, February.
    9. Growiec, Jakub & Mućk, Jakub, 2020. "Isoelastic Elasticity Of Substitution Production Functions," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(7), pages 1597-1634, October.
    10. Kemnitz, Alexander & Knoblach, Michael, 2020. "Endogenous sigma-augmenting technological change: An R&D-based approach," CEPIE Working Papers 02/20, Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
    11. Miguel A. Leon-Ledesma & Mathan Satchi, 2015. "Appropriate Technology and the Labour Share," Studies in Economics 1505, School of Economics, University of Kent, revised Nov 2016.
    12. Miguel A León-Ledesma & Mathan Satchi, 2019. "Appropriate Technology and Balanced Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(2), pages 807-835.
    13. Robert S. Chirinko & Debdulal Mallick, 2014. "The Substitution Elasticity, Factor Shares, Long-Run Growth, and the Low-Frequency Panel Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 4895, CESifo.
    14. Miguel A. Leon-Ledesma & Mathan Satchi, 2010. "A Note on Balanced Growth with a less than unitary Elasticity of Substitution," Studies in Economics 1007, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    15. Growiec, Jakub, 2015. "On the modeling of size distributions when technologies are complex," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-8.
    16. de la Fonteijne, Marcel R., 2018. "Why the concept of Hicks, Harrod, Solow neutral and even non-neutral augmented technical progress is flawed in principle in any economic model," MPRA Paper 107730, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Rainer Klump & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2012. "The Normalized Ces Production Function: Theory And Empirics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 769-799, December.
    18. Thomas Ziesemer, 2023. "Labour-augmenting technical change data for alternative elasticities of substitution: growth, slowdown, and distribution dynamics," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 449-475, May.
    19. Lin, Justin Yifu & Liu, Zhengwen & Zhang, Bo, 2023. "Endowment, technology choice, and industrial upgrading," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 364-381.
    20. Miguel A. Leon-Ledesma & Mathan Satchi, 2011. "The Choice of CES Production Techniques and Balanced Growth," Studies in Economics 1113, School of Economics, University of Kent.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CES production function; normalization; Weibull distribution; direction of technical change; directed R&D; optimal technology choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E23 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Production
    • E25 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Aggregate Factor Income Distribution
    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbp:nbpmis:98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jakub Growiec (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nbpgvpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.