Long-Run Growth Effect of the Physical Capital-Human Capital
Complementarity: An Approach by Time Series Techniques
Nejat ERK
Çukurova Üniversitesi, İktisat Bölümü, P.K. 393, 01330, Adana-TÜRKİYE
erk@mail.cu.edu.tr
Sanlı ATEŞ
Çukurova Üniversitesi, İktisat Bölümü, P.K. 393, 01330, Adana-TÜRKİYE
asanli@mail.cu.edu.tr
Uluslararası ODTÜ Ekonomi Kongresi III
8-11 Eylül 1999
Ankara
METU International Conference in Economics III
September 8-11, 1999
Ankara
Long-Run Growth Effect of the Physical Capital-Human Capital
Complementarity: An Approach by Time Series Techniques
Nejat ERK
Çukurova University, Department of Economics, 01330 , Adana, Türkiye. E-mail: erk@mail.cu.edu.tr
Sanlı ATEŞ
Çukurova University,Department of Economics, 01330, Adana, Türkiye.E-mail: asanli@mail.cu.edu.tr
Abstract
This paper aims to explore physical capital (K) and human capital (H) complementarity
impact on long-run economic growth. It is hypothesized that in times of frequent innovations
factor complementarity plays a more significant role in explaining GDP growth than factor
substitutability adopted among neoclassical and endogenous growth models. VAR results
confirm that physical capital and human capital accord showing complementarity is a good proxy
in explaining GDP growth for selected developed countries. The estimates yield results showing
very short term and stabilizing impacts on innovation for all tested countries.
1. Introduction
Economic growth theory had faced significant changes during the last fifty years. This in
no way decreases the importance of different long term economic
growth rates both for
developed and developing countries. In fact, major economic literature concentrates on whether
future growth rates will lead to a convergence or divergence of Per capita income which is an
extension of “catch-up thesis” (Baumol, 1986; Barro, 1994; Jones, 1997). Besides these debates,
consistency of low long-run growth rates of developed countries relative to developing countries
needs to be explored to create rationale for the divergence or convergence of Per capita income
among countries. Introduction of human capital factor to economic growth theory is not new. But
as in the case of Ak type models, human capital has been added to the production, economic
growth and to the Hamiltonian functions with the assumption that this independent factor does
not need any concentration with other factors of production. To clarify the concentration of K/H
(physical capital stock/human capital stock) concept, we should look into factors like
technological absorption, diffusion, managerial applications, learning by doing and other
endogenous factors, not reflected in traditional Ak type models. Existing technological level and
improvements in it, needs similar improvements in human capital component in its broadest
sense to stir up long term economic growth in all countries. Developed countries with
2
devastating technological improvements had not been able to capture high growth rates because
of the relative inadequacy of human capital endowments. Thus, not the absolute sizes of K and H
but their relative concentration values should be the key determinant of long term economic
growth. We start with the historical developments in economic growth theory for the last
decades. In the empirical section, to test our hypothesis, that for a given time interval higher K/H
values will be represented by low growth rates which coincides with high per capita income
countries will be tested using tests of VAR technique (Sims, 1980; Enders, 1995).
The debate over complementarity and substitutability of inputs of output is not new. But
in recent years economics of complementarity has been major area of research interest
(Matsuyama, 1996; Young, 1993; Teulings, 1999). Thus, the economic history of economic
growth, looks at the nature of inputs to be used, as well as the mathematical functional form in
explaining GDP growth. In this respect, it is possible to categorize debates around
complementarity of labor ( human capital ) and physical capital under three alternative
approaches. One group of thought looks at widening Wage
skilled
and Wage
unskilled
differences and
argues that aggregate technology is capital-skill complementary (Krusell et all, 1997; Goldin and
Katz, 1996).
Second
approach looks at physical and human capital complimentarity within the
scope of "creative destruction" (Matsuyama, 1999; Young, 1993 ). And
the last approach looks at
technological innovations and its impact on the complementarity of input requirements
(Bresnahan et al., 1999)
Economist interest in skilled and unskilled wage dispersion and its outcomes could be
explained by capital-skilled complimentarity. Growth's in stock of equipment, reflecting as
higher technological levels increases the MPP
L
of skilled labor while lowering the MPP
L
unskilled labor. As an outcome, almost in all economies we see that increased wage inequality
can be a consequence of capital-skill complimentarity. ( Krussel et al., 1997). Similar findings
have been put forward by Twellings (1999). Investment in human capital in terms of training
increases the skill level by an equal amount increase in relative wage gain, equal to loss of less
skilled, expressed as complexity parameter. Along the same lines, physical capital and more
advanced technology should be regarded as relative compliment of human capital (Goldwin and
Katz, 1997). When cost reduction in an industry reflect productivity increases, we see that key
determinant is employee involvement programs which could also be interpreted as another way
of investment in human capital (Helper, 1997). The author argues that, unit cost of a product is
not a function of quantity produced but mainly by the amount of commitment and skill
improvements.