Abstract
One of the central hypotheses of the neoclassical growth literature is the balanced-growth hypothesis, which predicts that output, consumption and investment grow at the same rate. Empirically, this implies that the consumption-to-output ratio and the investment-to-output ratio must be stationary and that consumption and investment must be cointegrated with output. This article tests these implications with respect to Germany, using unit root tests and cointegration techniques that allow for an endogenously determined structural break. We find that the long-run growth path of the German economy is consistent with the balanced-growth hypothesis if we allow for a structural break associated with the worldwide productivity slowdown of the early 1970s.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ando A, Modigliani F (1963) The ‘live cycle’ hypothesis of saving: aggregate implications and tests. Am Econ Rev 53: 55–84
Arrow KJ, Chenery HB, Minhas BS, Solow RM (1961) Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Rev Econ Stud 43: 225–250
Attfield CLF, Temple JRW (2006) Balanced growth and the great ratios: new evidence for the US and UK. Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research discussion paper no. 75. http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/cgbcr/dpcgbcr/dpcgbcr75.pdf
Clemente J, Montanes A, Ponz M (1999) Are the consumption/output and investment/output ratios stationary? An international analysis. Appl Econ Lett 6: 687–691
de La Grandville O (1989) In quest of the Slutsky diamond. Am Econ Rev 79: 468–481
Diamond P, McFadden D, Rodriguez M (1978) Measurement of the elasticity of factor substitution and bias of technical change. In: Fuss M, MacFadden D (eds) Production economics: a dual approach to the theory and application. Elsevier North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 125–147
Gòmez MA (2008) Dynamics of the saving rate in the neoclassical growth model with CES production. Macroecon Dyn 12: 195–210
Hakkio CS, Rush M (1991) Cointegration: how short is the long run? J Int Money Finance 10: 571–581
Harrod RF (1939) An essay in dynamic theory. Econ J 49: 14–33
Harvey DL, Leybourne SJ, Newbold P (2003) How great are the great ratios? Appl Econ 35: 163–177
Johansen S, Mosconi R, Nielsen B (2000) Cointegration analysis in the presence of structural breaks in the deterministic trend. Econom J 3: 216–249
King RG, Plosser CI, Stock JH, Watson MW (1991) Stochastic trends and economic fluctuations. Am Econ Rev 81: 819–840
King RG, Plosser CI, Rebelo S (2002) Production, growth and business cycle: technical appendix. Comput Econ 20(1–2): 87–116
Klein LR, Kosobud RF (1961) Some econometrics of growth: great ratios of economics. Q J Econ 75: 173–198
Klump R, de La Grandville O (2000) Economic growth and the elasticity of substitution: two theorems and some suggestions. Am Econ Rev 90: 282–291
Klump R, Saam M (2008) Calibration of normalized CES production functions in dynamic models. Econ Lett 99: 256–259
Lahiri K, Mamingi N (1995) Power versus frequency of observation—another view. Econ Lett 49: 121–124
Li H, Daly V (2009) Testing the balanced growth hypothesis: evidence from China. Empirical Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00181-008-0229-7 (early online article)
MacKinnon J (1996) Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. J Appl Econom 11: 601–618
Maddison A (1987) Growth and slow-down in advanced capitalist economies. J Econ Lit 25: 649–698
McAdam P, Willman A (2008) Medium run redux: technical change, factor shares and friction in the euro area. European Central Bank working paper no. 915. http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp915.pdf
Neusser K (1991) Testing the long-run implications of the neoclassical growth model. J Monet Econ 27: 3–37
Perron P, Vogelsang TJ (1992) Nonstationarity and level shifts with an application to purchasing power parity. J Bus Econ Stat 10: 301–320
Reinsel GC, Ahn SK (1992) Vector autoregressive models with unit roots and reduced rank structure: estimation, likelihood ratio and forecasting. J Time Ser Anal 13: 353–375
Serletis A, Krichel K (1995) International evidence on the long-run implications of the neoclassical growth model. Appl Econ 27: 205–210
Shiller RJ, Perron P (1985) Testing the random walk hypothesis: power versus frequency of observation. Econ Lett 18: 381–386
Smetters K (2003) The (interesting) dynamic properties of the neoclassical growth model with CES production. Rev Econ Dyn 6: 697–707
Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70: 65–94
Trenkler C (2008) Determining p-values for systems cointegration tests with a prior adjustment for deterministic terms. Comput Stat 23: 19–39
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kemper, N., Herzer, D. & Zamparelli, L. Balanced growth and structural breaks: evidence for Germany. Empir Econ 40, 409–424 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-010-0361-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-010-0361-z