Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 181–202 | Cite as

Endogenous fertility and human capital in a Schumpeterian growth model

Original Paper

Abstract

This study develops a scale-invariant Schumpeterian growth model with endogenous fertility and human capital accumulation. The model features two engines of long-run economic growth: R&D-based innovation and human capital accumulation. One novelty of this study is endogenous fertility, which negatively affects the growth rate of human capital. Given this growth-theoretic framework, we characterize the dynamics of the model and derive comparative statics of the equilibrium growth rates with respect to structural parameters. As for policy implications, we analyze how patent policy affects economic growth through technological progress, human capital accumulation, and endogenous fertility. In summary, we find that strengthening patent protection has (a) a positive effect on technological progress, (b) a negative effect on human capital accumulation through a higher rate of fertility, and (c) an ambiguous overall effect on economic growth.

Keywords

Economic growth Endogenous fertility Patent policy 

JEL Classification

O31 O34 O40 

Supplementary material

148_2012_433_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (103 kb)
(PDF 103 KB)

References

  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barro R, Becker G (1989) Fertility choice in a model of economic growth. Econometrica 57:481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bessen J, Meurer M (2008) Patent failure: how judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Boldrin M, Levine D (2008) Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Chu A (2009) Effects of blocking patents on R&D: a quantitative DGE analysis. J Econ Growth 14:55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chu A, Cozzi G (2011) Cultural preference on fertility and the long-run growth effects of intellectual property rights. MPRA Papers No 29059Google Scholar
  7. Chu A, Cozzi G, Galli S (2012) Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation? Eur Econ Rev 56:727–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connolly M, Peretto P (2003) Industry and the family: two engines of growth. J Econ Growth 8:115–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cozzi G (2001) Inventing or spying? Implications for growth. J Econ Growth 6:55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cozzi G (2007) The Arrow effect under competitive R&D. Contrib Macroecon 7:Article 2Google Scholar
  11. Cozzi G, Giordani P, Zamparelli L (2007) The refoundation of the symmetric equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models. J Econ Theory 136:788–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cozzi G, Spinesi L (2006) Intellectual appropriability, product differentiation, and growth. Macroecon Dyn 10:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cysne R, Turchick D (2012) Intellectual property rights protection and endogenous economic growth revisited. J Econ Dyn Control 36:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis L, Sener F (2012) Private patent protection in the theory of Schumpeterian growth. Manuscript, Union CollegeGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinopoulos E, Syropoulos C (2007) Rent protection as a barrier to innovation and growth. Econ Theory 32:309–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dinopoulos E, Thompson P (1998) Schumpeterian growth without scale effects. J Econ Growth 3:313–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furukawa Y (2007) The protection of intellectual property rights and endogenous growth: is stronger always better? J Econ Dyn Control 31:3644–3670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furukawa Y (2010) Intellectual property protection and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. Econ Lett 109:99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Futagami K, Iwaisako T (2007) Dynamic analysis of patent policy in an endogenous growth model. J Econ Theory 132:306–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert R, Shapiro C (1990) Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND J Econ 21:106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grossman G, Helpman E (1991) Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Rev Econ Stud 58:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Growiec J (2006) Fertility choice and semi-endogenous growth: where Becker meets Jones. Top Macroecon 6:Article 10Google Scholar
  23. Ha J, Howitt P (2007) Accounting for trends in productivity and R&D: a Schumpeterian critique of semi-endogenous growth theory. J Money Credit Bank 39:733–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horii R, Iwaisako T (2007) Economic growth with imperfect protection of intellectual property rights. J Econ 90:45–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horowitz A, Lai E (1996) Patent length and the rate of innovation. Int Econ Rev 37:785–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iwaisako T, Futagami K (2003) Patent policy in an endogenous growth model. J Econ 78:239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iwaisako T, Futagami K (2011) Patent protection, capital accumulation, and economic growth. Econ Theory. doi:10.1007/s00199-011-0658-y Google Scholar
  28. Jaffe A, Lerner J (2004) Innovation and its discontents: how our broken system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones C (1995) R&D-based models of economic growth. J Polit Econ 103:759–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones C (1999) Growth: with or without scale effects. Am Econ Rev 89:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones C (2001) Was an industrial revolution inevitable? Economic growth over the very long run. Adv Macroecon 1:Article 1Google Scholar
  32. Jones C (2003) Population and ideas: a theory of endogenous growth. In: Aghion P, Frydman R, Stiglitz J, Woodford M (eds) Knowledge, information, and expectations in modern macroeconomics: in honor of Edmund S. Phelps. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones C, Williams J (2000) Too much of a good thing? The economics of investment in R&D. J Econ Growth 5:65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Judd K (1985) On the performance of patents. Econometrica 53:567–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kortum S (1992) Inventions, R&D and industry growth. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Kortum S (1997) Research, patenting, and technological change. Econometrica 65:1389–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kwan Y, Lai E (2003) Intellectual property rights protection and endogenous economic growth. J Econ Dyn Control 27:853–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laincz C, Peretto P (2006) Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: an error of aggregation not specification. J Econ Growth 11:263–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laitner J, Stolyarov D (2011) Derivative ideas and the value of intangible assets. Manuscript, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  40. Li CW (2001) On the policy implications of endogenous technological progress. Econ J 111:C164–C179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nordhaus W (1969) Invention, growth, and welfare: a theoretical treatment of technological change. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Donoghue T, Zweimuller J (2004) Patents in a model of endogenous growth. J Econ Growth 9:81–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peretto P (1998) Technological change and population growth. J Econ Growth 3:283–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Razin A, Ben-Zion U (1975) An intergenerational model of population growth. Am Econ Rev 65:923–933Google Scholar
  45. Romer P (1990) Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ 98:S71–S102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scotchmer S (2004) Innovation and incentives. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Segerstrom P (1998) Endogenous growth without scale effects. Am Econ Rev 88:1290–1310Google Scholar
  48. Stokey N, Rebelo S (1995) Growth effects of flat-rate taxes. J Polit Econ 103:619–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strulik H (2005) The role of human capital and population growth in R&D-based models of economic growth. Rev Int Econ 13:129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yip C, Zhang J (1997) A simple endogenous growth model with endogenous fertility: indeterminacy and uniqueness. J Popul Econ 10:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young A (1998) Growth without scale effects. J Polit Econ 106:41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Durham Business SchoolDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  2. 2.Institute of EconomicsAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.School of EconomicsShanghai University of Finance and EconomicsShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations