Skip to main content

Redistribution and entrepreneurship with Schumpeterian growth

Abstract

We examine the effects of redistributive taxation on growth and inequality in a Schumpeterian model with risk-averse agents. There are skilled and unskilled workers, and the growth rate is determined by the occupational choice of skilled agents between entrepreneurship and employment. We show that redistribution provides insurance to entrepreneurs and increases the growth rate. The effects on inequality are such that low tax rates increase inequality relative to laissez-faire due to changes in wages, but higher tax rates can simultaneously raise growth and reduce inequality. We contrast the optimal linear income tax with alternative policies for promoting R&D and find that it is preferable on both equity and efficiency grounds.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Acemoglu D., Zilibotti F. (1997) Was prometheus unbound by chance? Risk, diversification, and growth. Journal of Political Economy 105: 709–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acs Z.J., Audretsch D.B. (1988) Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review 78:678–690

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aghion P., Bolton P. (1997) A trickle-down theory of growth and development with debt overhang. Review of Economic Studies 64: 151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aghion P., Caroli E., García-Peñalosa C. (1999) Inequality and growth in the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature 37: 1615–1669

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aghion P., Howitt P. (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60: 323–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aghion P., Tirole J. (1994) The management of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 1185–1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alesina A., Rodrik D. (1994) Distributive politics and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 465–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arrow K.J. (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R.R. (eds) The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton, Princeton University Press, pp. 609–625

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bertola G., Foellmi R., Zweimüller J. (2006) Income distribution in macroeconomic models. Princeton, Oxford, Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bird E.J. (2001) Does the welfare state induce risk-taking? Journal of Public Economics 80: 357–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boadway R., Marchand M., Pestieau P. (1991) Optimal linear income taxation in models with occupational choice. Journal of Public Economics 46:133–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carree M.A., Thurik A.R. (1998) Small firms and economic growth in Europe. Atlantic Economic Journal 26:137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Caucutt E.M., Imrohoroǧlu S., Kumar K.B. (2003) Growth and welfare analysis of tax progressivity in a heterogeneous agent model. Review of Economic Dynamics 6:546–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Caucutt E.M., Imrohoroǧlu S., Kumar K.B. (2006) Does the progressivity of taxes matter for human capital and growth? Journal of Public Economic Theory 8: 95–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chou C., Talmain G. (1996) Redistribution and growth: Pareto improvements. Journal of Economic Growth 1: 505–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooper B., García-Peñalosa C., Funk P. (2001) Status effects and negative utility growth. Economic Journal 111:642–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunne T., Roberts M.J., Samuelson L. (1988) Patterns of firm entry and exit in US manufacturing industries. RAND Journal of Economics 19: 495–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eaton J., Rosen H.S. (1980) Optimal redistributive taxation and uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics 95: 357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Galor O., Zeira J. (1993) Income distribution and macroeconomics. Review of Economic Studies 60: 35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. García-Peñalosa C., Turnovsky S.J. (2007) Growth, inequality, and fiscal policy with endogenous labor supply: What are the relevant tradeoffs? Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 39: 369–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. García-Peñalosa, C., & Wen, J.-F. (2004). Redistribution and occupational choice in a schumpeterian growth model. CESifo Working Paper No. 1323.

  22. Gould E., Moav O., Weinberg B.A. (2001) Precautionary demand for education, inequality, and technological progress. Journal of Economic Growth 6: 285–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenwood J., Jovanovic B. (1999) The IT revolution and the stock market. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89: 116–122

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hamilton, B. H. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 604–31.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Himmelberg C.P., Petersen B.C. (1994) R&D and internal finance: A panel study of firms in high-tech industries. Review of Economics and Statistics 76: 38–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ilmakunnas, P., & Kanniainen, V. (2001). Entrepreneurship, economic risks, and risk insurance in the welfare state: Results with OECD data 1978–93. German Economic Review, 2, 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kanbur S.M. (1981) Risk taking and taxation: An alternative perspective. Journal of Public Economics 15: 163–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Katz M., Ordover J. (1990) R&D cooperation and competition. Brookings Papers, Microeconomics 1990: 137–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lambson V.E., Phillips K.L. (2007) Market structure and schumpeterian growth. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 62: 47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayshar J. (1977) Should government subsidize risky private projects? American Economic Review 67: 20–28

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moskowitz T., Vissing-Jorgensen A. (2002) The returns to entrepreneurial investment: A private equity premium puzzle. American Economic Review 92:745–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Myers S.C., Majluf M.S. (1984) Corporate financing decisions when firms have investment information that investment do not. Journal of Financial Economics 13: 187–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Donoghue T., Zweimüller J. (2004). Patents in a model of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Growth 9: 81–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Persson T., Tabellini G. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? American Economic Review 84: 600–621

    Google Scholar 

  35. Saint-Paul G. (1992) Technological choice, financial markets and economic development. European Economic Review 36: 763–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Saint-Paul G., Verdier T. (1993) Education, democracy and growth. Journal of Development Economics 42: 399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sinn H.-W. (1996). Social insurance, incentives and risk taking. International Tax and Public Finance 3: 259–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Skeel D.A., Jr. (2001) Debt’s dominion: A history of bankruptcy in America. Princeton, Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  39. U.S.B.C. Small Business Administration. (2003). Research summary. U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 2003.

  40. Varian H.R. (1980). Redistributive taxation as social insurance. Journal of Public Economics 14: 49–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zeira J. (1988) Risk reducing fiscal policies and economic growth. In: Helpman E., Razin A., Sadka E. (eds) Economic effects of the government budget. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA, pp. 65–90

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zeira J. (2005). Innovations, patent races and endogenous growth. Mimeo, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia García-Peñalosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

García-Peñalosa, C., Wen, JF. Redistribution and entrepreneurship with Schumpeterian growth. J Econ Growth 13, 57–80 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-008-9027-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Growth
  • Innovation
  • Optimal taxation
  • Occupational choice

JEL Classifications

  • H21
  • O3
  • O4