An understanding of the qualitative nature of the transitional dynamics of the neociassical model - the process of convergence from an initial capital stock to a steady state growth path - is a key part of the shared knowledge of most economists. It forms the basis, for example, of the widespread interest in hypotheses about convergence of levels of national economic activity. Based on several quantitative experiments undertaken in the 1960s with fixed savings rates versions of the neoclassical model, many economists further believe that the transition process can be lengthy, potentially rationalizing differences in growth rates across countries that are sustained for decades. In this paper, we undertake a systematic quantitative investigation of transitional dynamics within the most widely employed versions of the neoclassical model with interteorally optimizing households. Lengthy transitional episodes arise only if there is very low intertemporal substitution. But, more important, we find that the simplest neoclassical model inevitably generates a central implication that is traced to the production technology. Whenever we try to use it to explain major growth episodes, the model produces a rate of return that is counterfactually high in the early stages of development. For example, in seeking to account for U.S-Japan differences in post war growth as a consequence of differences in end-of-war capital, we find that the immediate postwar rate of return in Japan would have had to exceed 500% per annum. Frequently employed variants of the basic neoclassical model - those that introduce adjustment costs, separate production and consumption sectors, and international capital mobility - can potentially sweep this marginal product implication under the rug. However, such alterations necessarily cause major discrepancies to arise in other areas. With investment adjustment costs, for example, the implications resurface in counterfactual variations in Tobin's Q. We interpret our results as illustrating two important principles. First, systematic quantitative investigation of familiar models can provide surprising new insights into their practical operation. Second, explanation of sustained cross country differences in growth rates will require departure from the familiar neoclassical environment.
[1]
Lawrence J. Christiano.
Understanding Japan's saving rate: the reconstruction hypothesis
,
1989
.
[2]
R. Lucas.
On the Mechanics of Economic Development
,
1988
.
[3]
Charles I. Plosser,et al.
Growth and Business Cycles I. The Basic Neoclassical Model
,
1988
.
[4]
De Long,et al.
Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Comment
,
1988
.
[5]
P. Romer.
CAPITAL ACCUMULATION IN THE THEORY OF LONG RUN GROWTH
,
1988
.
[6]
B. Hickman,et al.
Keynesian and Classical Unemployment in Four Countries
,
1987
.
[7]
R. Barro.
Government Spending, Interest Rates, Prices, and Budget Deficits in the United Kingdom, 1701-1918
,
1986
.
[8]
W. Baumol.
Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-run Data Show
,
1985
.
[9]
David A. Lipton,et al.
Multiple Shooting in Rational Expectations Models
,
1982
.
[10]
Thomas J. Sargent,et al.
The ends of four big inflations
,
1982
.
[11]
R. Barro.
Output Effects of Government Purchases
,
1981,
Journal of Political Economy.
[12]
L. Summers.
Taxation and Corporate Investment: A q-Theory Approach
,
1981
.
[13]
L. Summers.
Tax Policy in a Life Cycle Model
,
1978
.
[14]
B. Kiker.
Investment in human capital
,
1971
.
[15]
J. Tobin.
A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory
,
1969
.
[16]
E. Phelps,et al.
Golden Rules of Economic Growth
,
1967
.
[17]
R. Radner.
OPTIMAL GROWTH IN A LINEAR-LOGARITHMIC ECONOMY,
,
1966
.
[18]
R. Sato.
Fiscal Policy in a Neo-Classical Growth Model: An Analysis of Time Required for Equilibrating Adjustment
,
1963
.
[19]
N. Kaldor.
Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth
,
1961
.
[20]
T. Swan.
Of golden ages and production functions
,
1960
.
[21]
R. Solow.
TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION
,
1957
.
[22]
R. Solow.
A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth
,
1956
.