Long-Run Growth Effect of the Physical Capital-Human Capital Complementarity: An Approach by Time Series Techniques
Yüklə 193,73 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Graph 3. Dynamic Impulse Response of Growth Rates to One Standart Physical Capital-Human Capital Ratio Innovation for Selected Developed Countries
- Impulse Responses Australia
- Period Impulse Responses France
- Period Impulse Responses Italy
- Period Impulse Responses Norway
- Period Impulse Responses Switzerland
- Period Impulse Responses United States
- Period Impulse Responses
- Table 4. Variance Decomposition of Growth Rates for One Standard Physical Capital-Human Capital Ratio Innovation
- Period Japan Norway Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States
- Özet Fiziksel Sermaye-Beşeri Sermaye Tamamlayıcılığının Uzun Dönemli Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi: Zaman Serisi Yaklaşımı
15 Graph 3. Dynamic Impulse Response of Growth Rates to One Standart Physical Capital-Human Capital Ratio Innovation for Selected Developed Countries
-0.050 0.000
0.050 0.100
0.150 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period__Impulse_Responses__France'>Period Impulse Responses Australia -0.400
-0.200 0.000
0.200 0.400
0.600 0.800
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses Canada -0.040
-0.020 0.000
0.020 0.040
0.060 0.080
0.100 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses France -0.100
-0.080 -0.060
-0.040 -0.020
0.000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period__Impulse_Responses__United_States'>Period Impulse Responses Germany -0.200
-0.100 0.000
0.100 0.200
0.300 0.400
0.500 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses Italy -0.200
-0.100 0.000
0.100 0.200
0.300 0.400
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses
16 Japan -0.200
-0.150 -0.100
-0.050 0.000
0.050 0.100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses Norway -0.050
0.000 0.050
0.100 0.150
0.200 0.250
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses Sweden -0.020
0.000 0.020
0.040 0.060
0.080 0.100
0.120 0.140
0.160 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses Switzerland -0.050
0.000 0.050
0.100 0.150
0.200 0.250
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses United Kingdom 0.000
0.050 0.100
0.150 0.200
0.250 0.300
0.350 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses United States -0.250
-0.200 -0.150
-0.100 -0.050
0.000 0.050
0.100 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 35 50 Period Impulse Responses
17 Cumulative impulse response of growth rates for one standard physical capital-human capital ratio innovation shows the overall effect on GDP growth of innovations of the system. As in the case of variance decomposition slight deviations (not many) could be stemming from the nature of physical capital and human capital data that is being used in our models. Unavailable physical capital stock data reflecting the marketable production capacity of the capital stock is the first shortcoming of our model. Secondly, human capital data which is commonly used as an index for formal education in no way incorporates factors like learning-by-doing, economies of scope, research and development, managerial talent and other components of health and migration. Another explanation of small disturbances could come from the manipulation of annual data for quarterly adjustments. Apart from this, human capital data taken as years of schooling index assumes that there are significant similarities among educational institutions within and among nations. On the other hand, economies of scope effecting human capital generation and economies of scope in terms of physical capital generation should not be expected to show similarities among nations.
Cumulative impulse response values show the smallest absolute values for Sweden and Norway where the countries have very similar human capital and physical capital formation. Germany, France and UK having relatively high cumulative impulse response reactions could be interpreted as beyond dissimilarities in K/H behavior, countries could have different institutional structures effecting physical capital and human capital generation which can be further clarified by political setting, taxes, legislatures, bureaucratic procedures, established institutional procedures. Hall and Jones (1999) also uses similar variables in explaining differing economic growth rates but in no way we can accept that physical capital-human capital and productivity could be used in explaining differing growth rates. Because are econometric tests confirm that K and H complementarity explains growth rates for selected countries where the process should in fact be K and H complementarity first effecting the productivity levels and then GDP growth rates. This in no way, decreases the importance of infrastructure of a country in the physical sense which directly influences physical capital stock and human capital generation. But nonetheless, even for countries with higher cumulative impulse response growth rates on one standard physical capital-human capital ratio innovation contributes to a very small segment of unexplained GDP growth by K/H.
18 Table 4. Variance Decomposition of Growth Rates for One Standard Physical Capital-Human Capital Ratio Innovation
France Germany Italy 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 6.11 0.02 0.06 1.71 3.94 3 0.47 15.53 0.08 0.19 4.34 4.62 4 0.43 18.46 0.15 0.39 7.38 4.56 5 0.44 19.26 0.20 0.63 8.71 4.42 6 0.52 19.46 0.22 0.88 10.53 4.50 7 0.52 19.88 0.23 1.14 11.98 4.68 8 0.51
19.94 0.24 1.39 12.32 4.78 9 0.51 20.58 0.24 1.62 12.19 4.77 10 0.52 21.14 0.25 1.83 11.99 4.72 11 0.53 21.24 0.25 2.01 11.78 4.70 12 0.54 21.25 0.25 2.16 11.73 4.70 13 0.56 21.25 0.25 2.29 11.78 4.73 14 0.56 21.29 0.25 2.40 11.86 4.75 15 0.56 21.29 0.25 2.50 11.90 4.75 16 0.56 21.33 0.25 2.58 11.89 4.74 17 0.56 21.35 0.25 2.64 11.86 4.74 18 0.56 21.35 0.25 2.69 11.84 4.74 19 0.56 21.35 0.25 2.74 11.82 4.74 20 0.56 21.35 0.25 2.78 11.83 4.75 30 0.58 21.36 0.25 2.95 11.86 4.74 40 0.59 21.36 0.25 2.99 11.86 4.74 50 0.60 21.36 0.25 3.02 11.86 4.74 60 0.62 21.36 0.25 3.03 11.86 4.74
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.01 0.53 0.36 1.13 1.26 0.20 3 0.21 0.56 0.44 0.86 2.76
0.23 4 0.17 0.58 0.46 1.26 3.07 0.70 5 0.78 0.59 0.46 1.47 3.20 1.31 6 1.12 0.59 0.47 1.55 3.30 1.97 7 1.52 0.58 0.47 1.62 3.35 2.45 8 1.97 0.59 0.47 1.64 3.38 2.64 9 2.19 0.59 0.47 1.65 3.39 2.68 10 2.26 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.41 2.66 11 2.25 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.41 2.65 12 2.20 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.66 13 2.18 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.68 14 2.19 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.70 15 2.23 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.70 16 2.27 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.71 17 2.30 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.70 18 2.31 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.70 19 2.32 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.70 20 2.31 0.59 0.47 1.66 3.42 2.71 30 2.32 0.60 0.48 1.66 3.42 2.71 40 2.32 0.61 0.48 1.66 3.42 2.71 50 2.32 0.62 0.49 1.66 3.42 2.71 60 2.32 0.63 0.49 1.66 3.42 2.71
19 Table 4 shows variance decomposition of GDP growth rates for one standard physical capital-human capital ratio innovation. This estimate also shows that physical capital, human capital concentration ratio is a determinant of GDP growth rates. Estimated values showing low numerical values confirm that, physical capital and human capital components show complementarity for all selected developed countries. Largest values for variance decomposition of GDP growth rates for one standard physical capital-human capital ratio innovation is in Germany confirming impulse-response results.
We began this paper with the modest goal, namely to test the hypothesis whether capital concentration with respect to human capital has an explanatory power with growth rates. All model estimates using dynamic time series confirm our hypothesis. In brief, innovations towards H/K, leads to small and short instability in GDP growth and stabilizing in very short time intervals. The second contribution, which we believe that is at least as important as the first finding that, unlike endogenous growth models, K represented by physical capital stock and H represented by human capital shows complementarity mainly in times of frequent innovations. As a policy measure we can conclude that, for the tested group of developed countries, optimal combinations in physical capital stock and human capital will yield better results than investing in each separately. Given the statistically significant estimates we have to take into consideration above cited shortcomings related to our econometric estimations. We strongly believe that studies towards, in depth data for human capital data and other components of human capital formation and firm level testing will create stronger evidence towards our hypothesis.
References Aghion, P.; P. Howitt (1992) “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction” Econometrica , 60(2), 323-351. Arrow, K.J.; H.B. Chenery; B.S. Minhas; R.M. Solow (1961) "Capital-Labor Substitution in Economic Efficiency" Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, 225-250. Arrow, K.J. (1962) “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing” Review of Economic
, 29, 155-173.
20 Barro, R.J. (1990) “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth” Journal of Political Economy , 98(5), S103-S125. Barro, R.J. (1994) Economic Growth and Convergence, International Center for Economic Growth, San Francisco, California. Barro, R.J.; J-W, Lee (1994) “Sources of Economic Growth” Carnegie-Rochester Conference
Barro, R.J.; J. Lee (1993) "International Comparisons of Educational Attainment" Journal of Monetary Economics , 32(3), 363-394. Baumol, W.J. (1986) “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show” American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072-1085. Berndt, E.R.; C.J. Morison; L.S. Rosenblum (1992) "High-Tech Capital, Economic Performance and Labor Composition in US Manufacturing Industries: An Explanatory Analysis" MIT Working Paper , No.3414EFA Bresnahan, T.F.; E. Brynjolfsson; L.M. Hitt (1999) "Information Technology, Work Place Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm Level Evidence" NBER Working Paper , No.7136. Cass, D. (1965) "Optimum Growth in an Aggregative Model of Capital Accumulation" Review of
, 32, 233-240. d’Autume, A.; P. Michel (1993) “Endogenous Growth in Arrow’s Learning by Doing Model”
, 37, 1175-1184. De Long, J.B.; L.H. Summers (1992) “Equipment Investment and Economic Growth: How Strong Is the Nexus?” Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 157-211. Enders, Walter (1995) Applied Econometric Time Series, John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York. Erk, N.; A. Çabuk; S. Ateş (1998) "Long-Run Growth and Physical Capital-Human Capial Concentration" METU International Economic Conference II, 9-12 September 1998, Ankara.
Goldin, C.; L.F. Katz (1996) "The Origins of Technology-Skill Complementarity" NBER Working Paper , No.5657. Grossman, G.M.; E. Helpman (1991) Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Griliches, Z. (1969) "Capital-Skill Complementarity" The Review of Economics and Statistics, 51(4), 465-468. Hall, R.E.; C.I. Jones (1999) "Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others" Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (1), 83-116.
21 Helper, S. (1997) "Complementarity and Cost Reduction: Evidence from Auto Supply Industry" NBER Working Paper , No.6033. Jones, C.I. (1995) "Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models" Quarterly Journal of
, 110(2), 495-525. Jones, C.I. (1996) “Human Capital, Ideas, and Economic Growth”: http://www-
Jones, C.I. (1997) “Convergence Revisited” Journal of Economic Growth, 2(2), 131-153. Jones, L.E.; R.E. Manuelli (1990) “A Convex Model of Equilibrium Growth: Theory and Policy Implications” Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 1008-1038. Koopmans, T.C.(1965) "On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth" in The Econometric
, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Krusell, P.; L.E. Ohanian; J. Rios-Rull; G.L. Violante (1997) "Capital-Skill Complementarity and Inequality: A Macroeconomic Analysis" Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report, No.239 Levine, R.; D. Renelt (1992) “A Sensivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions” American Economic Review , 82(4), 942-963. Lucas, R.E. Jr. (1988) “On the Mechanics of Economic Development” Journal of Monetary
, 22, 3-42. Mankiw, N.G.; D. Romer; D.N. Weil (1992) “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 407-437. Matsuyama, K. (1996) "Complementarity, Instability, and Multiplicty", mimeo. Nehru, V; A. Dhardharashwar (1993) "A New Database on Physical Capital Stock: Sources, Methodology and Results" Rivista de Analisis Economico, 8(1), 37-59. Rebelo, S.T. (1991) “Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth” Journal of Political Economy , 99(3), 500-521. Romer, P.M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth” Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037. Romer, P.M. (1987) “Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization” American
, 77(2), 56-62. Romer, P.M. (1990) “Endogenous Technological Change” Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71-S101. Sims, C. (1980) "Macroeconomics and Reality" Econometrica, 48, 1-48. Solow, R.M. (1956) “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth” Quarterly Journal of Economics , 70, 65-94.
22 Swan, T.W.(1956) "Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation" Economic Record, 32, 334- 361.
Uzawa, H. (1965) “Optimum Technical Change in an Aggregative Model of Economic Growth” International Economic Review , 6, 18-31. Tallman, E.W.; P. Wang (1994) “Human Capital and Endogenous Growth Evidence from Taiwan” Journal of Monetary Economics, 34, 101-124. Teulings, C.N. (1999) "Substitution and Complementarity Under Comparative Advantage and the Accumulation of Human Capital" http://www.fee.uva.nl/bieb/edocs/ TI/1999/TI99049.pdf. World Bank (1994) International Statistics, CD-Rom, Washington, D.C. Young, A. (1993) "Substitution and Complementarity in Endogenous Innovation" NBER
, No.4256.
Fiziksel Sermaye-Beşeri Sermaye Tamamlayıcılığının Uzun Dönemli Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi: Zaman Serisi Yaklaşımı
Bu çalışma uzun dönem ekonomik büyüme üzerinde fiziksel ve beşeri sermayenin tamamlayıcılığını araştırmaktadır. Hipotezimiz, sık teknolojik ve yönetsel yeniliklerin yaratıldığı bir dönemde, ulusal gelir düzeyindeki değişimlerin açıklanmasında, faktör tamamlayıcılığının, faktör ikamesine oranla daha anlamlı olacağıdır. Vektör oto regresif model testlerinden elde edilen sonuçlar, fiziksel ve beşeri sermaye tamamlayıcılığı açıklayıcılarının, GSYİH değişimlerinde iyi bir ölçüt olacağını ortaya koymaktadır. Ekonometrik sonuçlar, modele dahil edilen gelişmiş ülkelerde fiziksel sermaye-beşeri sermaye yoğunlaşma oranına gelebilecek ekonomik şokların, GSYİH'de kısa süreli ve zayıf genli salınımlara yol açtığını doğrulamaktadır. Yüklə 193,73 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|