Function Of Capital Accumulation Research Articles

Technology and Convergence

The empirical convergence literature envisages a world in which the presence or lack of convergence is a function of capital accumulation. This focus ignores a long tradition among economic historians and growth theorists which emphasizes technology and the potential for technology transfer. The authors suggest here that this neglect is an important oversight: simple models which incorporate technology transfer provide a richer framework for thinking about convergence. Empirically, differences in technologies across countries and sectors appear to match differences in labor productivity and to exhibit interesting changes over time. Copyright 1996 by Royal Economic Society.

Economic development, growth of human capital, and the dynamics of the wage structure

In this paper I elucidate the sources of growth of human capital in the course of economic development. On the supply side (Section 1) I include the growth of family income, urbanization, the demographic transition, and the rising cost of time.The supply side alone cannot explain the continuous growth of human capital as it implies a self limiting decline in rates of return below those in alternative investments. Such declines are offset by growing demands for human capital in the labor market. Growth of demand for labor skills is a function of capital accumulation and of technological changes. Evidence on this hypothesis is summarized in Section 2 and on supply responses to growing demand for human capital in Section 3. Changes in the skill and wage structures in the labor market are an important part of the evidence.The reciprocal relation between economic growth and the growth of human capital is likely to be an important key to sustained economic growth. A caveat applies to indirect effects of economic growth on family instability, which may lead to a deterioration of childhood human capital in some sectors of society.

Francois Quesnay: Interpreters and Critics Revisited

Abstract. Francois Quesnay is held by many to be the first truly modern economist. In 1750, Quesnay outlined a framework for input‐output analysis, perfected by Leontiefin 1930's; he developed a general equilibrium theory perfected in the 20th century by Walras and Keynes; and Quesnay was among the first to analyse economic growth theory as a function of capital accumulation. As the main representative of the Physiocrats he proclaimed the libertarian motto of laissez faire. But his “libertarian ideas“ were quite limited to domestic agricultural trade. The Physiocrats were tied with the aristocratic and autocratic “ancien regime” and Quesnay himself did not promote individual freedom and abhorred class struggle. By proclaiming “laissez faire la nature,” the physiocrats believed in the natural order of things, with governments enforcing this natural order. In this order, agriculture is the source of all wealth and everything else is sterile: agricultural development means economic development. The physiocratic philosophy contributed to the 18th century “enlightenment” from the outside; it was too tied with the past to induce radical changes. The Physiocrats were forerunners of much of the economic theory and tools used today; but the economics system they envisioned was not meant to widen welfare or economic freedom.

Output Effect, Technology Change, and Labor Absorption in Taiwan, 1952-1986

Industrial employment in developing countries has been generally identified as a function of capital accumulation and technological change.' However, in the specific case of the newly industrializing countries such as Taiwan, the structural change of industrial employment has been attributed to policy shifts toward outward-oriented development strategy in the mid-1960s.2 Thus, the export promotion development strategy in Taiwan is said to have transformed its economy from a predominantly agrarian economy to one with exports heavily concentrated in labor-intensive products in the last 3 decades. Moreover, export expansion has allegedly caused a simultaneous development of industrialization in Taiwan.3 It is not surprising that conventional wisdom tends to conclude that export growth had a deterministic effect on the structural change of the Taiwanese economy and that it absorbed relatively more labor employment in the nonfarm sector. The phenomenal structural change in labor employment in Taiwan during 1952-86 can be exemplified by the significant growth of nonfarm employment. Total labor employment increased from 2.93 million in 1952 to 7.73 million in 1986, industrial employment increased from less than one-half million to 3.21 million, while agricultural employment had a moderate decline from 1.64 million to 1.32 million in the same

Urban Specialization in the World-System

In the history of urban sociology in the United States, much of urban-growth theory has been limited to a national level of analysis. From classical-location to uneven-development theories, conceptualization of urban growth has been contained mainly in regional or national frameworks. But in many cases, involvement in the capitalist world-economy has been a source of major urban development. Many major cities grow during certain periods mainly because of a specific function they play in the capital-accumulation circuits of the world-system. That is, some cities grow as the world-system grows because they have specialized in some function of capital accumulation, for example, as producers or as financial markets, and thus fit a specific niche in the world-economy. Taking a world-system perspective as a necessary level of analysis for understanding major urban growth, the discussion in this article elaborates on the concept of urban specialization, offers case studies of urban growth through a specialization niche, and compares the development of specialization from the standpoint of the three stages of capitalist development (mercantile, industrial, and monopoly) in which the cases are situated.

Economic Subsidies and Incentives in Education for Low-Income People

First, education is both a private and a public good. We may specify a social welfare function for education as a social good with externalities and internalities, social costs, and social benefits. We may also analyze education as a private good and specify production functions, consumption functions, investment functions, and capital accumulation functions for it. Both micro and macro relations are involved in its production and use. Stock-flow-stock variables are involved in the theory and applications. Economic education is no less important for low income people than it is for the nonpoor and the rich in a conservative capitalistic system.