Abstract
This paper investigates the stability properties of the Goodwin growth cycle model with the Bhaduri–Marglin accumulation function, when a constant elasticity of substitution production function is considered. It found that the substitution possibilities between the ‘factors’ of production simplify the local dynamic behaviour of the system.
Notes
For this line of research, see, e.g. Asada (1989), Skott (1989a, 1989b), Dutt (1992) and Sordi (2003), who do not use the Bhaduri–Marglin accumulation function, and Canry (2005), Barbosa-Filho and Taylor (2006), Flaschel and Luchtenberg (2012, ch. 4), and Nikiforos and Foley (2012), who use, explicitly or otherwise, the said function.
A ‘dot’ (‘hat’) above a variable denotes time derivative (logarithmic derivative) with respect to time.
Steady-state growth at full employment (Harrod–Domar–Kaldor growth path) requires that the ‘natural’ rate of growth must be less than the actual rate of capital accumulation corresponding to the maximum feasible value of the profit share, \(h = 1\), and to any actual value of the degree of capacity utilization, \(u = \bar{u}\), i.e. \(n < s\pi_{K} \bar{u}\).
Note that as \(\varepsilon \to - 1\), Eq. (9) becomes the linear production function and, therefore, as \(\varepsilon\) increases from −1 to infinity, the elasticity of substitution decreases steadily from infinity to zero. The use of a ‘neoclassical’ production function has been criticized by many scholars, for recent studies see Schefold (2008), Gandolfo (2008) and the special issue of Global and Local Economic Review published in 2013.
As Kurz (1990, pp. 232–233) stresses, “within the framework of the present model the choice of technique problem cannot generally be considered to be decided in terms of the technical conditions of production alone: the degree of capacity utilization matters too. The latter, however, reflects a multiplicity of influences, such as the state of income distribution and savings and investment behaviour […]. In particular, there is the possibility that, assessed in terms of the degree of utilization associated with the existing technique, a new technique proves superior, while in terms of its own characteristic steady-state degree of utilization it turns out to be inferior.” In what follows, we shall set aside the complications just mentioned and assume that the degree of utilization is remained constant and equal to that associated with the existing technique.
It should be noted that the equilibria is economically meaningful when \(n < sk^{1 - \alpha } f(k^{*} )\), \(k \ne 0\), \(\delta \text{ < }\gamma\) and \(e_{3}^{*} \ne - \alpha\).
Note that the latter is economically meaningful when \(n < s(h\alpha^{ - 1} )^{1/\varepsilon } f(h^{**} )\) and \(\delta \text{ < }\gamma\).
Take into account footnote 5.
It should be noted that (1) if the elasticity tends to zero (\(\varepsilon \to + \infty\): Leontief), then the dynamics of the system are equal to that obtained by Mariolis (2013); (2) these results are somewhat comparable to those obtained by van der Ploeg (1985); and (3) at the trivial fixed point, the equilibrium is locally unstable or is saddle-path stable.
References
Abe T (2014) Cyclical patterns in Japanese manufacturing firms: analysing three post-Keynesian models. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 11(1):1–18
Aguiar-Conraria L (2001) The stability properties of Goodwin’s growth cycle model. NIPE WP 10/2001. http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/nipe/docs/2001/NIPE_WP_10_2001.PDF. Accessed 26 June 2012
Aguiar-Conraria L (2008) A note on the stability properties of Goodwin’s predator-prey model. Rev Radic Polit Econ 40(4):518–523
Asada T (1989) Monetary stabilization policy in a Keynes–Goodwin model of the growth cycle. In: Semmler W (ed) Financial dynamics and business cycles: new perspectives. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, pp 145–167
Barbosa-Filho NH, Taylor L (2006) Distributive and demand cycles in the U.S. economy—a structuralist Goodwin model. Metroeconomica 57(3):389–411
Bhaduri A (2007) On the dynamics of profit-led and wage-led growth. Camb J Econ 32(1):147–160
Bhaduri A, Marglin S (1990) Unemployment and the real wage rate: the economic basis for contesting political ideologies. Camb J Econ 14(4):375–393
Canry N (2005) Wage-led regime, profit-led regime and cycles: a model. Écon Appl 58(1):143–163
Dutt AK (1992) Conflict inflation, distribution, cyclical accumulation and crises. Eur J Polit Econ 8(4):579–597
Flaschel P, Luchtenberg S (2012) Roads to social capitalism. Theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Gandolfo G (2008) Comment on ‘C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique’. J Macroecon 30(2):798–800
Global and Local Economic Review (2013) Special issue in honour of Anwar Shaikh, vol 17, no 1. MacGraw-Hill, Pescara
Goodwin RM (1967) A growth cycle. In: Feinstein CH (ed) Socialism, capitalism and economic growth: essays presented to Maurice Dobb. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 54–58
Hein E, Lavoie M, van Treeck T (2011) Some instability puzzles in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution: a critical survey. Camb J Econ 35(3):587–612
Konstantakis K, Michaelides PG, Mariolis T (2014) An endogenous Goodwin–Keynes business cycle model for Germany (1991–2007). Appl Econ Lett 21(7):481–486
Kurz HD (1990) Technical change, growth and distribution: a steady-state approach to ‘unsteady’ growth. In: Kurz HD (1990) Capital, distribution and effective demand. Studies in the ‘classical’ approach to economic theory. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp 211–239
Marglin SA, Bhaduri M (1988) Profit squeeze and Keynesian theory. World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University. Working Paper 39
Mariolis T (2004) Distribution accumulation and interest rates in a post-Keynesian multisectoral model. In: Sham Bhat K (ed) Issues in financial development. Serials Publications, New Delhi, pp 164–195
Mariolis T (2013) Goodwin’s growth cycle model with the Bhaduri–Marglin accumulation function. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 10(1):131–144
Nikiforos M, Foley DK (2012) Distribution and capacity utilization: conceptual issues and empirical evidence. Metroeconomica 63(1):200–229
Rodousakis N (2014) The stability properties of Goodwin’s growth cycle model with a variable elasticity of substitution production function. Stud Microecon 2(2):213–223
Sasaki H (2013) Cyclical growth in a Goodwin–Kalecki–Marx model. J Econ 108(2):145–171
Schefold B (2008) C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique. J Macroecon 30(2):798–800
Skott P (1989a) Conflict and effective demand in economic growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Skott P (1989b) Effective demand, class struggle and cyclical growth. Int Econ Rev 30(1):231–247
Skott P (2012) Theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the Kaleckian investment function. Metroeconomica 63(1):109–138
Skott P, Zipperer B (2012) An empirical evaluation of three post Keynesian models. Intervention 9(2):277–308
Sordi S (2003) The interaction between growth and cycle in macrodynamic models of the economy. In: Salvadori N (ed) The theory of economic growth. A ‘classical’ perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 285–305
van der Ploeg F (1983a) Predator-prey and neo-classical models of cyclical growth. J Econ 43(3):235–256
van der Ploeg F (1983b) Economic growth and conflict over the distribution of income. J Econ Dyn Control 6(3):253–279
van der Ploeg F (1985) Classical growth cycles. Metroeconomica 37(2):221–230
van der Ploeg F (1987) Growth cycles, induced technical change, and perpetual conflict over the distribution of income. J Macroecon 9(1):1–12
Acknowledgments
The material in the manuscript has been acquired according to modern ethical standards and does not contain material copied from anyone else without their written permission and there is no conflict of interest. I am indebted to the anonymous referees of EIER for extremely helpful comments and suggestions. Earlier versions were presented at a Workshop of the ‘Study Group on Sraffian Economics’ at the Panteion University, in October 2013; and at the Third Conference of Scientific Society of Political Economy, University of Patras, 14–15 January 2014. I am grateful to George Soklis and, in particular, Theodore Mariolis for very helpful discussions and remarks. The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: The mathematical proofs of Eqs. (11)–(13)
Appendix: The mathematical proofs of Eqs. (11)–(13)
Proof of Eq. (11)
From Eq. (10) and the definition of \(u\), we obtain
Hence, from Eq. (9) yields
Finally, recalling that \(k \equiv KL^{ - 1}\), \(h = 1 - wLy^{ - 1}\) and \(e_{1} \equiv - (1 - h)h^{ - 1}\), we obtain
□
Proof of Eq. (12)
Given the definition of \(\pi_{K}\), from Eq. (9) it follows that \(\pi_{K} = K^{ - 1} [(1 - \alpha )L^{ - \varepsilon } + \alpha K^{ - \varepsilon } ]^{ - 1/\varepsilon }\) or, recalling that \(k \equiv KL^{ - 1}\),
or, recalling Eq. (11),
or, recalling that \(e_{1} \equiv - (1 - h)h^{ - 1}\),
□
Proof of Eq. (13)
Given the definition of \(\pi_{L}\), from Eq. (9) it follows that \(\pi_{L} = L^{ - 1} [(1 - \alpha )L^{ - \varepsilon } + \alpha K^{ - \varepsilon } ]^{ - 1/\varepsilon } u\) or, recalling that \(k \equiv KL^{ - 1}\),
or recalling Eq. (11),
or, recalling that \(e_{1} \equiv - (1 - h)h^{ - 1}\),
□
About this article
Cite this article
Rodousakis, N. Goodwin’s growth cycle model with the Bhaduri–Marglin accumulation function: a note on the C.E.S. case. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 12, 105–114 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-015-0004-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-015-0004-3
Keywords
- Bhaduri–Marglin accumulation function
- Elasticity of factor substitution
- Goodwin’s growth cycle models
- Production functions
- Stability properties