ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR with a foreword by Jeffrey D. Sachs
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR
To Xiaojuan Wu
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR with a foreword by Jeffrey D. Sachs
© 2003 by Xiaokai Yang 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5018, USA 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton South, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia Kurfürstendamm 57, 10707 Berlin, Germany The right of Xiaokai Yang to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published 2003 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Yang, Xiaokai. Economic development and the division of labour / Xiaokai Yang. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-631-22003-8 (alk. paper) – ISBN 0-631-22004-6 (pb. : alk. paper) 1. Development economics. 2. Economic development. I. Title. HD75.S23 2003 338.9–dc21 2001018137 A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library. Set in 10/11.5pt Ehrhardt by Graphicraft Ltd, Hong Kong Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: http:/www.blackwellpublishing.com
CONTENTS
List of Figures
xiii
List of Tables
xv
Foreword by Jeffrey D. Sachs
xvii
Preface
xxi
1 Introduction 1.1 Classical Development Economics and Capitalist Economic Development 1.2 The Breakdown of the First Global Capitalist System and Neoclassical Development Economics 1.3 A Return to Classical Development Economics 1.4 The Scientific Approach to Development Economics Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Notes
PART I: GEOGRAPHY AND MICROECONOMIC MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2
1 1 6 10 15 19 19 20 31
35
Geography and Economic Development
37
2.1 Uneven Economic Development in Different Parts of the World Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 2.2 Geography and Division of Labor 2.3 Empirical Linkages of Geography and Economic Development 2.3.1 Geographical correlates of economic development 2.3.2 Geography and levels of per capita income 2.3.3 Geography and growth of per capita income 2.3.4 Geographical effects on economic policy choices Key Terms and Review
37 41 41 44 44 47 48 52 53
vi
3
C ONTENTS
Further Reading Questions Notes
54 54 56
Driving Force I – Exogenous Comparative Advantage and Trading Efficiency
57
3.1
4
5
Use of the Concept of General Equilibrium to Figure Out Mechanisms for Economic Development Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 3.2 A Ricardian Model with Exogenous Comparative Technological Advantage and Transaction Costs 3.3 Analysis of Decisions versus Equilibrium Analysis of Development 3.4 Per Capita Real Income, GDP, GNP, and PPP 3.5 Economic Development and Trade Policy 3.6 Comparative Endowment Advantage and Transaction Efficiency Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises
61 67 74 76 83 90 91 91 95
Driving Force II – Endogenous Comparative Advantage and Trading Efficiency
98
57 61
4.1 Endogenous versus Exogenous Comparative Advantages Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 4.2 Configurations and Corner Solutions in a Smithian Model 4.3 How the Market Coordinates Division of Labor to Utilize Network Effects and Promote Economic Development 4.4 More Examples 4.5 Pattern of Trade Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises
98 100 100 109 116 121 123 123 124 128
Driving Force III – Economies of Scale and Trading Efficiency
131
5.1 Economies of Scale and Economic Development Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 5.2 General Equilibrium Models of Economic Development with Trade-offs between Economies of Scale, Consumption Variety, and Transaction Costs 5.3 The Ethier Model with Transaction Costs 5.4 The Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny (MSV) Model of Big-push Industrialization 5.5 The Sachs and Yang Model with Economies of Scale, Endogenous Degree of Industrialization, and Transaction Costs Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions
131 132 132 138 144 147 151 152 152
C ONTENTS vii
6
7
Exercises Notes
154 156
Coexistence of Endogenous and Exogenous Comparative Advantages and Patterns of Development and Trade
157
6.1 Underdevelopment and a Dual Structure with Underemployment Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 6.2 A Smithian Model with a Dual Structure in the Transitional Stage of Economic Development 6.3 General Equilibrium and its Inframarginal Comparative Statics 6.4 Trade Pattern in the Presence of Both Endogenous and Exogenous Comparative Advantages, and the Relationship between Income Distribution and Development 6.5 Development Strategies and Trade Patterns 6.5.1 A consumer’s decision 6.5.2 Possible trade structures 6.5.3 Production of agricultural good z 6.5.4 Production of final manufactured good y 6.5.5 Production of intermediate goods 6.5.6 Local equilibrium in structure A 6.5.7 Local equilibrium in structure C 6.5.8 Local equilibrium in structure D 6.5.9 Local equilibrium in structure E 6.5.10 Local equilibrium in structure F 6.6 General Equilibrium and Inframarginal Comparative Statics 6.7 A Comparison with the Conventional Wisdom based on Models with CRS Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes
167 169 170 170 171 171 172 172 173 174 176 176 177 179 183 184 184 188 192
Structural Changes, Trade, and Economic Development
193
Endogenous Trade Theory and an Endogenous Number of Consumer Goods Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 7.2 A Model of Economic Development with Fixed Learning Costs 7.3 How Are Demand and Supply Functions Determined by Individuals’ Levels of Specialization? 7.4 Inframarginal Comparative Statics of Optimum Decisions 7.5 How is the Level of Division of Labor in Society Determined in the Market? 7.6 Inframarginal Comparative Statics of General Equilibrium and Many Concurrent Development Phenomena 7.7 Emergence of International Trade from Domestic Trade 7.8 Co-movement of Division of Labor and Consumption Variety 7.9 The Emergence of Professional Middlemen and Trade Patterns 7.10 The Trade-off between Economies of Specialization and Coordination Costs
157 158 159 162
7.1
193 195 195 198 201 201 204 209 210 214 216
viii
C ONTENTS
Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Note
PART II: 8
9
THE INSTITUTION OF THE FIRM, ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
217 218 218 223 225
227
Economic Development, the Institution of the Firm, and Entrepreneurship
229
8.1 What is the Institution of the Firm? Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 8.2 Why are Claims to Residual Rights of the Firm Essential for Nurturing Entrepreneurship? – The Story behind the Model 8.3 The Emergence of the Firm from the Evolution of Division of Labor 8.3.1 Economies of roundabout production 8.3.2 The corner equilibria in four structures 8.3.3 General equilibrium structure of transactions and residual rights 8.4 The Distinction between ex ante and ex post Production Functions, and the Role of the Institution of the Firm in Economic Development 8.5 The Coase Theorem and Other Theories of the Firm Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises
229 231
Endogenous Transaction Costs, Contracts, and Economic Development
254
9.1 Endogenous Transaction Costs and Economic Development Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 9.2 Endogenous Transaction Costs Caused by Moral Hazard 9.3 Game Models and Endogenous Transaction Costs 9.3.1 Game models 9.3.2 Nash equilibrium 9.3.3 Subgame perfect equilibrium 9.3.4 Bayes equilibrium 9.3.5 Sequential equilibrium 9.4 The Role of Nash Bargaining Games in Reducing Endogenous Transaction Costs caused by Trade Conflict 9.5 Endogenous Transaction Costs caused by Information Asymmetry and Holding Up 9.5.1 Economic development and endogenous transaction costs caused by adverse selection 9.5.2 An alternating-offer bargaining game in a model of endogenous specialization 9.5.3 Economic development and endogenous transaction costs caused by holding up 9.5.4 How can endogenous transaction costs be eliminated by consideration of reputation? 9.6 The Grossman–Hart–Moore Incomplete Contract Model
254 257 257 270 270 270 272 274 275
231 233 234 235 239 241 242 245 245 246 251
278 281 281 283 285 287 288
C ONTENTS
9.7 Noncredible Commitment and Soft Budget Constraint Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises 10 Transaction Risk, Property Rights, Insurance, and Economic Development 10.1 Uncertainties in Transactions and the Economics of Property Rights Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 10.2 Economic Development and the Trade-off between Economies of Division of Labor and Coordination Reliability 10.3 Endogenization of Coordination Reliability in Each Transaction and Substitution between Competition and Better Enforced Property Rights 10.4 Why Can Insurance Promote Economic Development? 10.5 Economic Development and Endogenous Transaction Costs Caused by Moral Hazard Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises
ix
291 293 293 294 298 302 302 306 307 310 319 324 331 332 332 336
PART III: URBANIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION
339
11 Urbanization, Structural Duality between Urban and Rural Areas, and Economic Development
341
11.1 Why and How Cities Emerge from the Division of Labor Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 11.2 The Fujita–Krugman Model of Urbanization based on a Trade-off between Economies of Scale and Transaction Costs 11.3 Emergence of a Structural Duality of Urban and Rural Areas from the Division of Labor 11.4 Why Can the Geographical Concentration of Transactions Improve Transaction Efficiency? 11.5 Simultaneous Endogenization of Level of Division of Labor, Location Pattern of Residences, Geographical Pattern of Transactions, and Land Prices Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes 12 Industrialization, Structural Changes, Economic Development, and Division of Labor in Roundabout Production 12.1 The Features of Industrialization Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 12.2 Industrialization and the Evolution of Division of Labor in Roundabout Production
341 343 344 346 349 355 366 366 367 368 369 370 370 375 375
x
C ONTENTS
12.3 Corner Equilibria and the Emergence of New Industry 12.4 General Equilibrium, Industrialization, and Structural Changes 12.4.1 Changes in the employment shares of the industrial and agricultural sectors 12.4.2 The number of possible structures of transactions increases more than proportionally as division of labor evolves in roundabout production 12.5 Evolution in the Number of Producer Goods and Economic Development Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes
377 379 381
383 386 391 391 391 396 398
PART IV: DYNAMIC MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
399
13 Neoclassical Models of Economic Growth
401
13.1 Exogenous versus Endogenous Growth Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 13.2 The Ramsey and AK Models 13.3 R&D-based Endogenous Growth Models Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes 14 Economic Development Generated by Endogenous Evolution of Division of Labor 14.1 Economies of Specialized Learning by Doing and Endogenous Evolution in Division of Labor Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 14.2 A Smith–Young Dynamic Model with Learning by Doing 14.3 Optimum Speed of Learning by Doing and Evolution of Endogenous Comparative Advantage 14.3.1 The function of contracts 14.3.2 An individual’s dynamic decision problem 14.3.3 Dynamic equilibrium 14.4 Endogenous Evolution of the Extent of the Market, Trade Dependence, Endogenous Comparative Advantages, and Economic Structure 14.5 Empirical Evidence and Rethinking Endogenous Growth Theory Appendix 14.1: The Relationship between the Control Theory and Calculus of Variations Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes
401 403 403 410 416 416 417 418 420
421 421 423 424 425 425 426 427 437 438 444 445 445 446 447 448
C ONTENTS
15 Social Experiments and the Evolution of Knowledge of Development 15.1 How Does Organizational Knowledge Acquired by Society Determine Economic Development? Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 15.2 A Static Model with a Roundabout Production Chain of Endogenous Length and an Endogenous Division of Labor 15.3 Interactions between Dynamic Decisions and Evolution in Organizational Information 15.4 Walrasian Sequential Equilibrium and Concurrent Evolution in Organizational Information and Division of Labor Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises
xi
449 449 453 454 456 459 468 468 468 470
PART V: THE MACROECONOMICS OF DEVELOPMENT
473
16 Investment, Saving, and Economic Development
475
16.1 Classical Theory of Investment and Saving Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 16.2 Neoclassical General Equilibrium Models of Self-saving and Interpersonal Loans 16.3 The Smith–Young Theory of Investment and Savings 16.3.1 The model 16.3.2 Configuration and structure sequences 16.3.3 Dynamic corner equilibria in 16 structure sequences 16.4 Investment, Capital, and Division of Labor in Roundabout Production 16.4.1 Dynamic general equilibrium 16.4.2 Nontopological properties of economic growth and the sudden decline of interest rates 16.4.3 An endogenous decision horizon and effect of liberalization on opportunities for lucrative investment Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Note 17 Money, Division of Labor, and Economic Development 17.1 Neoclassical and Classical Theories of Money Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 17.2 A Smithian Model with an Endogenous Monetary Regime and Economic Development 17.3 Possible Structures and Monetary Regimes Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes
475 478 478 482 482 483 485 488 489 492 494 495 495 496 497 497 498 498 501 501 503 509 510 510 511 512
xii C ONTENTS
18 Endogenous Business Cycles, Cyclical Unemployment, and Endogenous Long-run Growth 18.1 Rethinking Macroeconomic Phenomena in Economic Development Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 18.2 Long-run Regular Efficient Business Cycles, Cyclical Unemployment, Long-run Economic Growth, and Division of Labor in Producing Durable Goods 18.3 A Smithian Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Business Cycles, Unemployment, and Economic Development 18.4 Cyclical and Noncyclical Corner Equilibria 18.4.1 Regime specification, configurations, and market structures 18.4.2 The dynamic corner equilibrium in autarky 18.4.3 Market structure C 18.4.4 Market structure P 18.4.5 Welfare and policy implications of the model 18.5 General Price Level, Business Cycles, and the Unemployment Rate 18.6 The Emergence of Firms and Fiat Money from the Division of Labor Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Note 19 Economic Transition 19.1 Understanding Economic Transition Questions to Ask Yourself when Reading this Chapter 19.2 The Socialist System and Evolution in Division of Labor 19.3 Driving Mechanisms for Transition 19.4 Market-oriented Reforms Associated with the Transition of Constitutional Rules 19.5 Market-oriented Reforms in the Absence of Constitutional Order 19.6 Trade-offs between Reliability and the Positive Network Effects of Division of Labor, and between Incentive Provision and Stability Key Terms and Review Further Reading Questions Exercises Notes
513 513 519 519 523 525 525 526 527 529 531 531 534 536 537 537 539 543 544 544 546 547 555 557 561 572 577 578 578 582 583
References
586
Index
617
FIGURES
2.1 World GDP per capita 1995 3.1 Economies of division of labor based on exogenous technical comparative advantage 3.2 Configurations and structures 3.3 Possible trade structures 4.1 Economies of division of labor based on endogenous absolute and comparative advantage 4.2 Indirect utility functions and corner equilibrium-relative price 4.3 Partition of parameter space 4.4 Autarky and division of labor 5.1 Economic development based on economies of scale 5.2 Structural changes, industrialization, and economic development in the Ethier model 6.1 Dual structures in economic development 6.2 Economies of division of labor based on endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage 6.3 Different patterns of development and trade 7.1 Economies of division of labor generated by fixed learning costs 7.2 Evenly dispersed individuals’ residence location 7.3 Multiple general equilibria 7.4 Exogenous evolution in division of labor 7.5 Emergence of new technology and new consumption goods 8.1 Emergence of the firm from the division of labor 9.1 Risk aversion and a strictly concave utility function 9.2 The extensive form of the alternating-offer bargaining game 10.1 Different degrees of competition in equilibrium 11.1 Emergence of cities from evolution of division of labor 11.2 Dispersed and concentrated location patterns of transactions 11.3 Evolution of division of labor and location pattern of residences and transactions 12.1 Various industrial structures 12.2 Structures with firms 12.3 Industrialization and evolution of division of labor in the Sun–Lio model
38 64 64 83 101 110 114 115 133 143 160 166 171 196 203 204 205 214 232 259 273 316 347 351 364 377 384 387
xiv
13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.2 17.3 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 19.1
F IGURES
Phase diagram of the Ramsey model Phase diagram of the Romer model Different market structures in the early development stage Intervals of a that divide between various growth patterns Various growth patterns of nt and per capita real income Endogenous evolution in division of labor Sequential divergence and convergence Configurations and structures in the static model An individual’s dynamic programming problem in period 0 Walrasian sequential equilibrium Configurations and market structures Investment and evolution of division of labor in roundabout production Nontopological properties of evolution in division of labor and economic growth The absence of double coincidence of demand and supply based on ex ante differences between individuals Emergence of money and evolution of division of labor Market structures and monetary regimes Aggregate transformation curve for M = 3 An individual’s organization utility under equilibrium prices Growth patterns with and without business cycles and unemployment Structures with and without business cycles The trade-off between sensitive incentive and stability of the feedback mechanism
407 414 428 433 434 436 441 455 457 462 485 485 492 499 500 504 515 516 521 525 576
TABLES
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4a 9.4b 9.5 9.6 9.7
Geographical characteristics of selected regions Levels of GDP GDP growth Levels and changes in malarial prevalence between 1966 and 1994, by ecozone Four corner equilibria in the Ricardian model General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics of the Ricardo model Corner equilibrium solutions General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Profiles of zero and positive values of the 6 decision variables Three corner solutions Two corner equilibria Corner solutions based on the CES utility function Trade pattern in a model of endogenous comparative advantage Indirect utility functions Corner equilibria General equilibrium structure: inframarginal comparative statics Equilibrium structure (economies of specialization in producing one good for all countries) Corner equilibria in five structures Corner equilibria in four structures Candidates for equilibrium structure General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Corner solutions in seven configurations Corner equilibria in four structures General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics The strategic form of the Nash tariff game in structure Ba The strategic form of the Nash tariff game in structure C The strategic form of the game to compete for first mover advantage Probabilities for four contingent states The equilibrium structure of ownership and inframarginal comparative statics
40 47 49 50 67 70 77 88 103 106 111 117 122 163 163 164 168 215 238 239 240 267 268 269 271 271 285 288 291
xvi
10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1 12.2 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 16.1 16.2 17.1 17.2 19.1
T ABLES
Equilibrium reliability and degree of competition Expected real incomes in seven structures General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Eight corner solutions Corner equilibria in four structures General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Interactions between geographical patterns of transactions, transaction efficiency, and level of division of labor General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Corner equilibria Emergence of new industry and evolution in division of labor Three corner equilibria Static general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Optimum dynamic decisions in period 0 Adjusted optimum dynamic decisions in period 1 Inframarginal comparative dynamics of Walrasian sequential equilibrium Total discounted per capita real incomes in seven structure sequences Dynamic general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative dynamics Corner equilibria in eight structures Inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium and emergence of money from evolution in division of labor Corner solutions in four configurations
315 327 328 347 348 348 354 354 378 380 455 455 459 461 464 488 490 506 508 575
FOREWORD Jeffrey D. Sachs
It is a great pleasure and honor for me to write a Foreword for Xiaokai Yang’s remarkable text on Economic Development and the Division of Labor. Yang is one of the world’s most penetrating and exacting economic theorists, and one of the most creative minds in the economics profession. He is a major contributor to the modern theory of economic development, especially to the microeconomic foundations of development theory. He is also, without doubt, one of the most profound and bold analysts of the social transformation of his homeland China. In a powerful body of work stretching over nearly two decades, Yang has sought to reconstruct general equilibrium economic analysis based on Adam Smith’s fundamental insights on the role of the division of labor as an essential progenitor of economic development and growth. Yang recognized early on that this bold research program would require a new mathematical framework, and that indeed the lack of such a mathematical framework had frustrated earlier pioneers in economic theory, including great analysts of the division of labor such as Alfred Marshall, Allyn Young, and George Stigler. Yang rose to the challenge by adopting rigorous tools of inframarginal analysis based on nonlinear programming techniques. A key milestone in this research program was the path-breaking study Specialization and Economic Organization, co-authored with Yew-Kwang Ng (North-Holland, 1993). Yang appreciated that a careful general equilibrium model of the division of labor would serve two basic goals. It would provide a research tool for new scientific discoveries, and it would also provide a canonical framework for teaching, so that teachers and students throughout the worldwide economics profession would have a common set of models and tools with which to discuss and investigate the division of labor. This new textbook will provide another important contribution to the dual agendas of research and teaching. Yang stresses throughout his work how the conceptual and mathematical simplifications of standard development and growth theory in the post-Second World War era gravely misled both theorists and practitioners about the key determinants of economic development. The simplest models tended to deal with a single “representative good” and a single “representative agent,” often invoking the solitary figure of the shipwrecked Robinson Crusoe as a relevant “model” of economic development. Rather than studying the social context of the economy – how different individuals and firms relate to each other through markets, organizations, and social and political relationships – the postwar models focused mainly on the patterns of saving and investment by a representative household and firm. According to such models, the biggest development challenge was raising the rate of capital accumulation. Robinson Crusoe’s income on the island rises in such models according to the productive capital that he accumulates.
xviii
FOREWORD
Development economics thereby turned its attention to saving rates, incremental capitaloutput ratios, budget balances, and other indicators of capital accumulation, as the central tools of analysis for many decades. The socialist economies – including the Soviet Union and China – took the emphasis on capital accumulation to the extreme, by employing various forms of compulsion, including extreme suppression of peasant incomes, to raise national saving rates in order to speed industrialization and development. Alas, the savings-led model of development proved to be inadequate both in theory and in practice. It is one thing to accumulate capital, but quite another to raise living standards on a sustained basis. For that, the economy needs to enjoy rising productivity, and for that, it requires an increasingly sophisticated division of labor, just as Adam Smith had stressed more than two centuries ago. The rule of law and market forces are much more powerful than coercion in promoting rising living standards. One of the great insights of Smith, Young, and other followers is that the division of labor depends on the extent of the market, while at the same time the division of labor helps to determine the extent of the market. Yang’s models vividly illuminate this two-way causation, and with a mathematical rigor never before achieved on these issues. Yang also illuminates the fundamental determinants of the division of labor – how the extent of the market is influenced by the costs of transactions between economic agents, and how those transaction costs reflect a combination of physical and technological constraints (e.g. shipping costs) as well as contractual costs determined by the legal environment. Smith himself gave stress both to physical geography and government policy in determining the extent of the market, and Yang follows in this tradition. Yang’s models also put the gains from trade on a much richer and more profound footing than standard notions of comparative advantage. Yang’s models have the important and realistic property that international trade is a source of productivity gain even when the trading economies are essentially the same in their basic endowments and capabilities, a result that is also familiar from the “new trade theory,” though in Yang’s case the underpinnings are through the division of labor, rather than through the assumption of increasing returns to scale at the level of the firm and imperfect competition at the level of the industry as in most of the new trade theory. Trade, as Smith first explained and Yang’s models make clear, permits gains from an increasingly sophisticated division of labor. Once the proper focus is put on the productivity gains from an increasingly refined division of labor, Yang’s models underscore the self-defeating, indeed hopeless, course of trade autarky that has enticed, and entrapped, many poor countries over the years. Protectionism is the surest way to destroy the benefits of specialization and the division of labor, an argument that also goes back to Smith’s original conception. Many strands of modern economic theory, including the imperfect competition and new trade theory models of Stiglitz, Dixit, Krugman, and others, share some of the results of Yang’s models of the division of labor. The imperfect competition models also help us to understand trade flows between similarly endowed economies; the benefits of agglomeration and urbanization; and the determinants of the number of firms and industries in an economy (and how economic productivity depends on the number of industries). The two approaches indeed look similar. Yet, there is much to be gained from Yang’s relentless focus on transaction costs and the division of labor. In many circumstances Yang’s approach will provide a much sounder basis for empirical understanding, and can address many phenomena that cannot be handled well in the new trade theory, such as specialization at the individual level, the degree of market integration, and the deep microeconomics of network economies such as the use of money as an instrument of trade. Yang’s emphasis on the division of labor helps us to understand the growth of productivity from economic integration even when – as is often the case – there are no evident increasing returns to scale at the firm (or industry) level and when imperfect competition at the industry level is unrealistic. Yang’s approach thereby gives us the
FOREWORD xix
deepest tools to date for understanding the networks of economic interactions that arise under conditions that favor specialization. This textbook will be a take-off point for many new directions of research. The emerging global network of regional economies under globalization will be fruitfully studied using Yang’s modeling approach. The diffusion and innovation of technologies also depend on specialization and networks of economic interaction, and thus are logical directions for future research. The empirical validation of the linkages between physical geography, transaction costs, and the extent of the market is yet to be undertaken, but the preliminary results discussed in chapter 2 of the text are very promising. And Yang’s conjectures about the tradeoffs of network complexity and network reliability pose many issues for advanced research. Yang’s work will also mesh very well with the increasingly sophisticated modeling of networks based on rapid advances in graph theory (such as the advent of “small world” models). Network models try to explain the “emergent behavior” (macro-scale characteristics) of a system as a function of the topology of the underlying networks of interactions. These models are increasingly used in sociology, epidemiology, and engineering design. Since both Yang and the network modelers put great stress on the micro-features of interactions among agents, there is much that can be learned in economics from the new network theories, and Yang’s work will provide a vital bridge and framework. Finally, as Yang stresses throughout, the emphasis on transaction costs puts Yang’s models squarely in the context of the modern economic history approaches of North and colleagues, who emphasize how changes in economic institutions regarding property rights and contracting have helped to shape the extent of division of labor, and thus the processes of overall economic growth. I must also say some words about Xiaokai Yang as an individual, not just because he is brave and dedicated and steadfast, but also because his personal experience helps to shed light on his search for the foundations of economic analysis. Yang grew up in the People’s Republic of China, in a revolutionary period of great turmoil and human suffering. Of course, the newly established People’s Republic of China adopted a socialist economic system. As Yang has insightfully described, the very limited division of labor in the Chinese industrial sector was achieved in large part by copying the patterns of industrialization of the more advanced economies. In fact, even this rudimentary industrialization affected only a small part of the population and economy in the first decades of the new state. Yang grew up in a society in which the overwhelming proportion of the population lived in subsistence conditions in rural areas. As a young man, like tens of millions of his generation, Yang got caught up in the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution. It was during the extreme dislocations of his personal life and formal education that Yang first undertook his economic studies – often using books and journals that circulated informally or learning in improvised settings from intellectuals who were also thrown into the turmoil of the times. Many of his “professors” never returned to the University, dying of torture or neglect or duress. But out of these conditions, Yang was led to explore the very deepest questions about his own society, and eventually about economic life more generally. Without any glitter of the latest academic fads, or the small issues that can loom so large in the academic milieu, Yang asked probing questions about China’s impoverishment, the relationship of the city and the countryside, the role of specialization and expert knowledge, and other lifeand-death issues posed by Mao’s disastrous Cultural Revolution. It is in this probing, I believe, that Yang came to fashion his future research program, with all its boldness and insight. His graduate and postgraduate studies in China and the United States after the Cultural Revolution gave Yang the formal theoretical tools for analysis, but by then Yang was already taking on the most basic and probing questions in economic science. I came to know Xiaokai Yang during the 1990s, when I turned some of my own research to China’s remarkable economic reforms and their implications for economic development strategies
xx
FOREWORD
in other parts of the world. Yang and I discussed at length the nature of China’s economic transformation, and the comparison of China’s reform path with the reform paths in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We saw eye to eye on many crucial points: that China was on its way to a full market economy integrated into global markets; and that serious analytical comparisons of China and Eastern Europe needed to take into account the fundamentally different conditions in the two places (such as differences in the extent of urbanization and industrialization, and even differences in the physical geography and access to world markets). We also concurred that the integration of China and other transition economies into the world economy was a fundamental aspect of transition. Our fruitful discussions led to Xiaokai’s visit to the Center for International Development at Harvard University during 1998–2000, and to our collaboration on many projects and coauthorship of many papers. At that point, we decided to write a book together on economic development and the division of labor. Xiaokai dutifully carried out a mountain of research and writing, while I became increasingly absorbed by many advisory assignments, the start-up of a new research institute at Harvard, and the currents of my own research initiatives on globalization and development. Xiaokai returned to Monash University with a draft manuscript delivered to Blackwell Publishers with both of our names as author. And while the manuscript reflected many joint ideas and shared approaches, it overwhelmingly reflected Xiaokai’s own substantive research triumphs as well as his unique voice. I promised that I would rectify the balance in the coming year through work on the manuscript, but in the end could not do so. Not only was my own schedule increasingly daunting, especially with new leadership assignments at the World Health Organization, United Nations Headquarters, and elsewhere, but I also found that editing the manuscript simply diluted Xiaokai’s own voice without adding sufficient benefit of my own. In essence, the book was truly Xiaokai’s – a fitting and superb reflection of his long-standing research program – and while there were many reflections of my own concerns and preoccupations, there were far from enough to justify joint authorship. As usual, Xiaokai would hear nothing of it – he insisted on joint authorship with his usual grace, charm, generosity, and most of all stubborn persistence. In the end, though, bilateral stubbornness has led to the correct outcome. This is Xiaokai’s book, with my good fortune to be author of this Foreword, as well as Xiaokai’s continuing colleague and committed friend.
PREFACE
The core of classical mainstream economics represented by William Petty and Adam Smith was development economics. Classical development economics differed from neoclassical development economics in two aspects: it focused on development implications of the division of labor and it emphasized the role of the market (the “invisible hand”) in exploiting productivity gains from the division of labor. As shown in this textbook, inframarginal analysis of individuals’ networking decisions is essential for formalizing classical development economics. Here inframarginal analysis is the total cost–benefit analysis across corner solutions in addition to the marginal analysis of each corner solution. If the optimum value of a decision variable takes on its upper or lower bound, the optimal decision is a corner solution. Formally, it relates to nonlinear programming, mixed integer programming, dynamic programming, the control theory, and other nonclassical mathematical programming. The first decision that you have to make when you get into a university is to choose a major. If you choose economics as your major, you do not then attend chemistry and physics classes, but rather take classes in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and econometrics. Such a decision is called an inframarginal decision, since the values of decision variables discontinuously jump between zero and interior values as you shift between majors. After you have chosen a major, you allocate your limited time between the fields in this major. This type of resource allocation decision for a given major (or occupation) is called a marginal decision, since standard marginal analysis is applicable to it. The aggregate outcome of all students’ choices of majors in a university generates division of students among majors and fields, which is analogous to a structure of division of labor in society. But when Alfred Marshall formalized classical economics within a mathematical framework at the end of the nineteenth century, he had no knowledge of inframarginal analysis. He made an assumption of dichotomy between pure consumers’ decisions and firms’ decisions to avoid inframarginal analysis of corner solutions. Within the neoclassical framework, each pure consumer must buy all goods from the market and cannot choose her level of selfsufficiency or its reciprocal, level of specialization. Hence, the focus of economics shifted from inframarginal analysis of problems of economic development concerning how the degree of scarcity can be reduced by division of labor in society, to marginal analysis of problems of resource allocation for a given degree of scarcity. Neoclassical development economics departs, by following the neoclassical framework, from classical development economics. Hence, neoclassical development economics loses the central position that classical development economics occupied in the economics mainstream. Some neoclassical developmental economists also
xxii
P REFACE
depart from classical development economics by their advocacy of state-planned industrialization and development. Since the 1950s, economists have applied inframarginal analysis to various decision problems. However, many economists still follow Marshall’s assumption of a dichotomy between pure consumers and firms, under which the corner solution is exceptional and the interior solution is the rule. Hence, the implications of formal inframarginal analysis for investigating effects of network size of division of labor on economic development could not be fully explored until the late 1970s. This text will show that if a Smithian framework is adopted, the interior solution is never optimal and corner solution is the rule rather than the exception. Hence, marginal analysis is not enough and inframarginal analysis is essential for exploring the implications of the division of labor for economic development. The recent renaissance of classical development economics not only revives the spirit of the classical development economics, but also provides new frameworks for inframarginal analysis of the network of division of labor. Hence it creates an opportunity for bringing development economics back to the core of modern mainstream economics. The new thinking of development economics is associated with the literature of the economics of property rights, transaction costs, and institutions; the literature of the “new economic history” school; the formal models of endogenous transaction costs; the formal models of high-development economics (general equilibrium models with economies of scale); endogenous growth models; and the literature of endogenous specialization. The formal general equilibrium models of division of labor and transaction costs also echo recent rethinking of development policies represented by Bhagwati, Krueger, Srinivasan, and the World Bank. The current text organizes the literatures under an overarching framework with emphasis on inframarginal analysis of the network of division of labor and related transaction costs. It seeks to simplify complex ideas and tie them together. The structuralist views of Lewis (1955) and Chenery et al. (1986), the neoclassical views of economic development, and many nonmainstream views, such as those of Alizadeh (1984), Bacha (1978), Emmanuel (1972), Frank (1995), Myrdal (1957), Nelson (1956), Palma (1978), Prebisch (1988), and Smith and Toye (1979), are reassessed here using inframarginal analysis and formal models. Despite the innovative structure of the text, standard topics on population (chapters 2, 5, 7, 11, 13), income distribution (chapters 3, 5, 6), human capital (chapters 14, 16), entrepreneurship (chapter 8), dual structure/structural changes (chapters 3, 5, 6, 12), industrialization (chapter 12), and urbanization (chapter 13) in development economics are covered by comparing new and old models. In addition, empirical evidence for or against the new and old models is reviewed (for instance in chapters 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16). Since the main purpose of the text is to teach theories of development economics in a systematic and coherent way and to bring considerable analytic machinery to bear on important problems of economic development, it reviews empirical research rather than covering details of regressions. The coverage of empirical research is selective; for instance, a large part of recent empirical research on microeconomic development problems (see e.g. Case and Deaton, 1998, 1999a/b, and Deaton and Paxson, 1998a/b) is not covered in this text. This text can be used at two different levels. Since each chapter includes the descriptive intuition behind the formal models and mechanisms at work, with the aid of graphical illustrations, the text can be used for third- or fourth-year courses in development economics. The focus for an undergraduate course is on training in economic thinking. If the text is used for that purpose, questions for assignments and examinations can be chosen from those at the end of each chapter, and difficult algebra in the text and exercises at the end of each chapter could then be skipped. The questions not only expose students to different ideas and controversies, they also include important readings from the documentation of economic history, classic pieces, empirical findings, and interesting debates. Teachers will find that the graphs used in
P REFACE xxiii
the text to describe topological properties (the number of trade connections between individuals and the number of goods involved in the division of labor) of the evolution of division of labor in the Smithian models are much more intuitive than conventional demand and supply curves. Hence, if a teacher can use demand and supply curves to teach neoclassical development economics without mathematics, she will certainly feel more comfortable teaching materials in this text using graphs of the evolution of division of labor without mathematics. This text could also be used for a course in development economics at the graduate level. The focus for a graduate course is on formal basic training as well as on innovative, creative, and critical economic thinking. For basic training, students should pay more attention to duplication of major models in the text and work on the main exercises at the end of each chapter. One hour spent on duplicating the models is as effective as eight hours spent listening and reading. The formal training is characterized by strong accumulation effects. If each model covered in the lectures is duplicated and well understood, study will become increasingly easy. But if one of the major models cannot be duplicated or a lecture is missed out, study may become increasingly difficult later on. For training in creative and critical thinking, students are asked to pay more attention to the trial-and-error process in designing models and in choosing one from many possible frameworks. Not only must all original ideas stand the tests of rigorous deduction, of logical consistency, and of empirical evidence, but we should also encourage insights that might be too sophisticated to be formalized by any available mathematical instruments. Questions and exercises at the end of each chapter include many good thesis topics for masters and Ph.D. programs. Free assistance can be obtained for such programs from the author upon request. You may contact the author at
[email protected]. The website www.inframarginal.com provides updated information on research, teaching, and dissertations, contact information for economists in the field, and details on conferences related to this text. This text is a response to increasing demand for a text and a survey from which the technical substance of the inframarginal analysis of economic development can be systematically learned. It covers many new research results in inframarginal analysis and compares it with the conventional marginal analysis of economic development. Some of the new research results are published here for the first time. I hope that the reader will experience an exciting intellectual adventure and discover inframarginal analysis to be a bridge between mainstream economics and this era of networking and globalization. Many individuals and institutions contributed to this project. I am first very grateful to my teachers at Princeton University: Hugo Sonneschein, who taught me the theory of general equilibrium; Edwin Mills, who taught me development economics and urban economics; Gene Grossman and Avinash Dixit, who taught me trade theory and new general equilibrium models with increasing returns; Gregory Chow, Whitney Newey, Angus Deaton, and Richard Quandt, who taught me econometrics; Joseph Stiglitz, Barry Nalebuff, and Sandy Grossman who taught me information economics and game theory; Alan Blinder and John Taylor who taught me macroeconomics; and William Baumol, Michael Katz, and Robert Willig who taught me industrial organization. I am also greatly indebted to my co-authors of various research papers which are covered in this text: Jeff Borland, Been-Lon Chen, Wen-Li Cheng, John Gallup, Ben Heijdra, Geoff Hogbin, Chien-fu Lin, Monchi Lio, Mong-Chun Liu, Pak-Wai Liu, Siang Ng, Yew-Kwang Ng, Katharina Pistor, Steven Radelet, Bob Rice, Jeff Sachs, He-Ling Shi, Guangzhen Sun, Jianguo Wang, Ian Wills, Kar-yiu Wong, Wing Thye Woo, Shuntian Yao, Dingsheng Zhang, Yiming Zhao, and Lin Zhou. In particular chapter 1 draws heavily on Sachs and Warner (1995a) and Sachs (1998), and chapter 2 draws heavily on Gallup and Sachs (1998). I appreciate that Gallup, Warner, and Sachs kindly allowed me to use their research results.
xxiv
P REFACE
I have benefited immensely from comments and criticisms on research papers and books that relate to this text from Olivier Blanchard, Gary Becker, Avner Ben-Ner, Steven Cheung, Cyrus Chu, Eric van Damme, Herbert Dawid, Jürgen Eichberger, Karl Farmer, Robyn Frandson, John Gallup, Robert Gilles, Gene Grossman, Oliver Hart, Michael Kremer, Heinz Kurz, Lachie McGregor, Douglas North, Eric Maskin, Yingyi Qian, Lloyd Reynolds, Peter Ruys, Jeff Sachs, Andre Shleifer, Hugo Sonnenschein, Sherwin Rosen, Donald Smythe, Willy Spanjers, Guoqiang Tian, Yingjiang Wang, Andrew Warner, Chenggang Xu, Gang Yi, Weiying Zhang, and the participants at numerous seminars and conference sessions. Many students at Harvard University, Monash University, Peking University, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Hong Kong, the National University of Taiwan, and the University of Louisville provided useful feedback on the teaching of the materials covered in this text. Special thanks go to Jeff Borland, Monchi Lio, Yingyi Qian, Sherwin Rosen, Mei Wen, and Julan Du for drawing several references cited in the text to my attention. Lijun Chen, Mei Wen, and Yiming Zhao have done an excellent job on research assistance related to this text. My gratitude also goes to Andrew Warner, the anonymous reviewers of the draft of this text for their helpful comments, and Blackwell’s editors. The financial support for this project and related research from the Center for International Development at Harvard University, Australian Research Council, National Taiwan University, Institute of Economics of Academia Sinica, the National Sciences Council of the Republic of China, Guanghua School of Management of Peking University, and the Centre for Economic Research at Tilburg University is gratefully acknowledged. Last, but not least, without the love, patience, and strong support of my family, it would have been hard to complete this book. I hereby express my deepest love and thanks to Xiaojuan Wu, Xiaoxi, James, and Edward. Of course, any remaining errors are solely my own responsibility. Xiaokai Yang
NOTE ON THE TEXT Equations are numbered only when they are referred to in the text.
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1
1
CLASSICAL DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS AND CAPITALIST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The focus of classical mainstream economics, represented by William Petty, A. R. J. Turgot, Adam Smith, and others, is on the development implications of division of labor.1 In a sense, the core of classical mainstream economics is development economics. This core includes the Smith theorem: Division of labor is the mainspring of economic progress (1776, ch. 1 of bk. I), division of labor is dependent on the extent of the market (ch. 3 of bk. I), and the extent of the market is determined by the transportation condition (pp. 25–32). Also, Smith’s conjecture on the intrinsic relationship between specialization and the use of money (p. 37), his theory of capital according to which investment is a vehicle for increasing division of labor in roundabout production (p. 371), and his conjecture on the role of the invisible hand in coordinating the network of division of labor are part of this core. In addition, this core comprises Petty’s theory of urbanization according to which cities can promote the division of labor by reducing transaction costs (Petty, 1683, pp. 471–2), and Turgot’s conjecture on the relationship between the division of labor, the introduction of money, the extension of commerce, and the accumulation of capital (Turgot, 1766).2 We refer to this core of classical mainstream economics as classical development economics. The policy prescription of classical development economics is represented by this statement by Smith, which is consistent with Britain’s liberal policy regime in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, as well as with liberalization policy reforms in nineteenth-century western Europe:3 “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things” (cited in Jones, 1981, p. 235). We call the development experience that is associated with classical development economics capitalist economic development. Max Weber (1927), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986), Braudel (1984), and North (1981) have stressed that capitalist economic development is a result of capitalist institutions. The capitalist institutions affect the level of division of labor and the related extent of the market via their effects on trading efficiency, while the level of division of labor and the extent of the market affect development performance, which in turn drives institutional changes. Also, the geographical and physical environment in western Europe and the north Atlantic were favorable for the evolution of institutions and division of labor. Many
2 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
historians consider the driving force of the development of capitalist institutions as the absence of a single overarching political power in Europe and the rivalry between hostile sovereignties, which created the opportunity for social experiments with a great variety of institutions within a relatively short period of time. This rivalry also created great pressure for rulers to creatively mimic those institutions that enhance economic performance and, thereby, their power. Baechler (1976, p. 79) states: “Fundamental springs of capitalist expansion are, on the one hand, the coexistence of several political units within the same cultural whole and on the other, political pluralism which frees the economy.” McNeil (1974, p. 125) also indicates that “The political pluralism of early modern Europe was, I think, fundamental and distinctive. When all the rest of the civilized world reacted to the enhanced power cannon gave to a central authority by consolidating vast, imperial states, the effect in western and central Europe was to reinforce dozens of local sovereignties, each consciously competing with its neighbors both in peace and, most especially, in war. Such a political structure acted like a forced draft in a forge, fanning the flames of rival ideologies and nurturing any spark of technical innovation that promised some advantage in the competition among states.” Hall (1987), Mokyr (1990), Jones (1981, pp. 226–35), Braudel (1984, pp. 128–9), Weber (quoted in MacFarlane, 1988, pp. 186–7), and Laslett (1988, p. 235) also support this view. Baechler (1976, pp. 77–113) indicates that the probability that such a pluralist geopolitical structure could be sustained for a long period of time in the absence of any political hegemonism is very low, since all power tends toward the absolute. Several explanations for the occurrence of this improbable phenomenon are proposed. One is to attribute it to particular geographical conditions of western Europe and the Mediterranean that are favorable for long-distance trade between city-states and unfavorable for a unification war (Baechler, 1976 and Mokyr, 1990, 1993). Around the Mediterranean and the English Channel, a great portion of highly populous areas were either coastal or island. The favorable conditions for trade were crucial for the emergence and evolution of capitalist institutions ( Jones, 1981, p. 233). This pluralism in an international arena ensured that several cultures and sovereignties could challenge each other on a nearly equal footing. In contrast, east Asian geopolitical structures ensured the hegemonism of Chinese culture prior to the invasion by Occidental cultures. No other culture could challenge it. The Japanese, Mongolians, and Manchurians were conquered culturally by the Chinese, regardless of whether they were subordinated to, or were rulers of, China. China is a mainland country, so it is easy to win a unification war and very expensive for inland trade. Hence, the variety of institutional experiments in east Asia was much smaller than that in western Europe until Japan’s Meiji Restoration. In particular, Britain’s geographic conditions ensured that she could avoid war with other countries, had lower defense expenses, a transportation advantage for trade; the evolution of its unique Anglo-Saxon culture and common law tradition. The pursuit of riches was legitimated under the prevailing ideology, so that talents were diverted from military, religious, and bureaucratic careers to business activities prior to and during the Industrial Revolution (Baechler, 1976, pp. 93–5). Competition among crown, local, and Church courts in Britain and amongst the state, the Church, and the decentralized feudal system also probably were conducive to the checks and balances on the top of the political arena in the western Europe (Baechler, 1976, pp. 78–80). Another unique feature of western Europe was the development of free cities prior to the formation of nation-states. The free cities and related international trade became the cradle of capitalist institutions and economic development. In contrast, cities were princely fortresses in ancient Asia. The particular conditions nurtured the political and legal institutions in Britain in the eighteenth century, then the institutions spread to the rest of western Europe via creative imitations and revisions in the nineteenth century. These fundamental institutions provided
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 3
conditions for the emergence of many important economic institutions, which significantly reduced transaction costs and therefore promoted the evolution of division of labor. Structural changes caused by this evolution are called industrialization, which includes increases in the income share of industrial output and in investment rate and saving rate (Lewis, 1955, Chenery, 1979, Kaldor, 1957, Kuznets, 1966). According to classical development economics, the increase in income share of industrial output is a transition from a self-sufficient society, where no division between agriculture and industry exists and each individual produces all industrial and agricultural goods for herself, to a high level of division of labor between professional farmers and manufacturers (Lewis, 1954 and Ranis, 1988, p. 88). Increases in the income share of the sector producing producer goods and in related investment imply the development of division of labor in roundabout production, which endogenously generates technical progress. This industrialization process increases aggregate productivity and individuals’ utilities (real income). The development performance then, in turn, affects the evolution of ideology and related institutions in a competitive arena between rival sovereignties. Hence, capitalist economic development can be analyzed at five levels. At first, we consider geopolitical structure, such as the absence of an overarching political power in Europe. This structure determines the evolution of ideology, norms, moral codes, and political and legal institutions at the second level, which determines the evolution of commercial institutions, industrial organization, and business practices at the third level, which determines the evolution of division of labor and related economic structure at the fourth level, which determines aggregate productivity and welfare at the fifth level, which in turn affects the evolution of ideology, norms, and institutions (North, 1994). The second and third levels of analysis (institutions) have received substantial attention from the literature of property rights and the “new school of economic history.” According to the literature, the evolution of capitalist institutions has the following features.4 1) The government’s credible commitment to constitutional order with due process emerged from the significant variety of institutional experiments in western Europe. The legal basis for private property rights and state enforcement of private contracts based on rational procedure emerged from this constitutional order. Also, predictable laws and a professional bureaucratic administration were conducive to the reduction of transaction costs. Under this credible commitment mechanism, the rational state not only provided many services, such as standard measures of weight and distance, currency, and infrastructure (the highway system, the census, etc.), but also the state itself was governed by law (constitutional and public law). Automatic registration of private firms replaced the approval system and government monopoly for enterprise. The licensing system has not been subject to state opportunism since free association became a legitimate ideology and practise in western Europe in the nineteenth century. State taxation power became subject to the approval of representatives, and the king’s coffer was separated from the Bank of England (Huang, 1991 and Pipe, 1999). These new institutions effectively restricted state opportunism. Also, Equity Law created a mechanism under which new cases could override outdated cases in the presence of justice, which made common law very adaptive to a changing world (Huang, 1991). This very adaptive legal system spontaneously created many rules to protect private property rights, in particular rights to residual returns and control of firms, business names, and brands. According to Mokyr (1990, 1993), the legal protection of residual rights was more important than patent laws for technical and managerial inventions and innovation. This institutional evolution in Britain and western Europe in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries created an opportunity for solving the paradox of state power: how to tame the Leviathan. Legitimate and powerful state violence could then be used to protect individuals’ rights via checks and balances at the top level of the political arena (MacFarlane, 1988, pp. 189–91).5
4 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
2) A special government policy regime of laissez faire and many government institutional innovations emerged in Britain after the Glorious Revolution and were later mimicked by other western European countries. Under this regime, mercantilist industrial policies, interventionist trade policy, and medieval regulations were abolished. This is represented by unilateral free trade in the UK in 1846, and by the 1860 Cobden Chevalier Treaty (Sachs and Warner, 1995a). Many innovative government institutions, such as the central bank system (for instance, the Bank of England as the first central bank, 1694), bankruptcy laws, the postal system, the government library system, the public school system, the publicly funded highway system, and national galleries and museums emerged from the rivalry between national governments. The tradition of free migration in western Europe also created great pressure for enhancing government’s capacity for managing public affairs. 3) In this institutional environment, a set of market institutions emerged and developed. Private contracting for labor, land, capital, and other properties gradually substituted for nonmarket institutions. For instance, the labor market substituted for serfdom, slavery, and corvée. Private ownership of land and related markets substituted for, hereditary, non-alienable, and patrimonial land relationships, common fields, and estates with servile obligations. The capital market took the place of government’s predatory, monopolistic, and interventionist role in money lending (for instance, the repeal of usury laws in Britain). Also, the market for technology and intellectual property superceded the government monopoly on technology and its infringement upon intellectual property rights (for instance, the Statute of Monopolies of 1624 in Britain). Many commercial institutional innovations emerged from this liberal institutional environment. They include modern double-entry accounting and bookkeeping, commercial instruments such as loans, stock shares, mortgages, bills of exchange, deeds of trust, insurance, power of attorney, franchising, and joint stock companies with limited liability. Capitalist institutions spread on a global scale in the nineteenth century. The first episode of global capitalism, of course, came about as much through the instruments of violent conquest and colonial rule as through economic reform and development of international institutions. Starting around 1840, western European powers wielded their superior industrial, and hence military, power to challenge traditional societies around the world. France began to colonize north Africa in the 1830s and 1840s; Britain forced its way into China in the Opium Wars, 1839–42; Britain and France defeated Russia in the Crimean War, 1854–6; and Britain completed the conquest of India in 1857. Among the populous societies of Asia and the Near East, only Japan was able to mobilize social and political institutions to support market reforms, implementing the first “shock therapy” reforms following the 1868 Meiji Restoration.6 By the 1870s, a global market had begun to take shape along the following economic lines. Western Europe and the United States constituted the main industrial powers. A major push toward industrialization, especially in east-central Europe, followed the unification of Germany. Russia began a period of rapid industrialization, partly through the building of foreign-financed railways across Russian Eurasia. Japan had begun its dramatic opening to the world economy through the adoption of capitalist institutions and free trade. Note that early Japanese industrialization took place entirely under free trade, since the dominant Western powers imposed low Japanese tariff levels through “unequal treaties” that lasted until the end of the century. Latin America, after a half century of post-independence upheaval, finally settled into market-based, export-led growth in the 1870s, based on raw materials exports and capital imports (primarily for railroad construction). Africa, which lagged farthest behind, was gobbled up by the western European powers in an orgy of imperialist competition that reached its height between 1880 and 1910. Trade barriers remained low among these economies for several decades, from the 1860s to 1914.7 As in the late twentieth century, the emergence of the first global capitalist system was based on the interaction of technology and economic institutions. Long-distance transport and
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 5
communications achieved breakthroughs similar to those in the present (Headrick, 1981). The Suez Canal, completed in 1869, and the Panama Canal, completed in 1914, dramatically cut international shipping times, as did the progressive development of faster and larger steamships from the 1840s. New railways in India, Russia, the United States, and Latin America, often built with foreign finance, opened vast, fertile territories for settlement and economic development. The spread of telegraph lines and transoceanic cables from the 1850s linked the world at electronic speed. Military innovations, particularly the breach-loading rifle introduced in the 1840s, combined with mass production made possible by industrialization, decisively shifted the military advantage to Europe. Medical advances, particularly the use of quinine as a preventative against malaria, played a pivotal role in the spread of European settlements, domination, and investment, especially in Africa. Without a doubt, these technological breakthroughs were as revolutionary in underpinning the emerging global system as those of our own age. On the economic level, key institutions similarly spread on a global scale. International gold and silver standards became nearly universal after the 1870s, eventually embracing North and South America, Europe, Russia, Japan, and China, as well as other European colonies and independent countries. By 1908, roughly 89 percent of the world’s population lived in countries with convertible currencies under the gold or silver standard.8 Basic legal institutions, such as business and commercial codes, were widely adopted. These were based on European models, mainly the Napoleonic Code, which absorbed some important features of Common Law. New multilateral institutions were established, such as the Universal Postal Union in 1878. The system was highly integrative, as in the present. A network of bilateral trade treaties kept protectionism in check in most countries (the United States and Russia, where tariff rates were relatively high, being the exceptions). Nations as diverse as Argentina and Russia struggled to adjust their economic policies, and especially their financial policies, to attract foreign investment, particularly for railway building. The adoption of a stable currency tied to gold was seen as a key step in the strategy of international integration. In Russia, Count Witte recalled how he outmaneuvered the conservative tsarist court to introduce the gold standard at the end of the nineteenth century (Owen, 1997, pp. 15–16). In Latin America, liberal market regimes stabilized under both democratic (Argentina and Chile) and authoritarian (Brazil and Mexico) political regimes. In all four cases, overall growth of GDP and exports was very rapid, indeed historically unprecedented. India similarly enjoyed rapid export growth between 1870 and 1914 under British rule. In a series of important papers, Jeffrey Williamson and his collaborators have shown that the open international system at the end of the nineteenth century produced an era of economic convergence ( Jeffrey Williamson, 1992, 1993, and O’Rourke and Williamson, 1994). Peripheral countries in Europe, such as Ireland and the Scandinavian countries, experienced rapid growth that narrowed the gap in real wages with the more advanced countries, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Former European colonies in Latin America and the South Pacific (Australia and New Zealand) similarly achieved convergent growth rates based on export-led growth. In a massive study of long-term growth in 41 developing countries, Lloyd Reynolds similarly found that the open international economy of 1850–1914 was crucial in promoting the onset of rapid economic growth in much of the developing world outside of Europe and North America (Reynolds, 1985). Reynolds noted that “politics apart, the main factor determining the timing of turning points has been a country’s ability to participate effectively in the trade opportunities opened by expansion of the world economy” (Reynolds, 1985). He then pointed out the wide range of countries that were indeed able to avail themselves of the burgeoning trade opportunities, including almost all of Latin America (with the exception of Venezuela); much of Asia, including but not limited to Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan,
6 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
and the Philippines; and parts of Africa, including Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, and Southern Rhodesia (Reynolds, 1985, pp. 34–5). Capitalist economic development has spread mainly as capitalist institutions have spread around the world from their home base in western Europe. This diffusion process is driven by challenges and competition between different societies, which might be associated with war, conquest, and colonization. Hence, the spread of capitalist institutions could be either a creative imitation process or a painful imposition process.
1.2
THE BREAKDOWN OF THE FIRST GLOBAL CAPITALIST SYSTEM AND NEOCLASSICAL DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Keynes (1971) rightly intuited in 1919 that the Humpty Dumpty of world markets and shared institutions would not soon be put back together in the harsh peace that followed the First World War. Indeed, the war and its aftermath laid waste to the emergent global capitalist system for more than half a century. The financial underpinnings of the late nineteenthcentury liberal order were not reestablished. British dominance in the international financial system was ended by the Great War, and neither US leadership nor international cooperation took its place (Kindleberger, 1973, Eichengreen and Flandreau, 1994). Financial instability and the failure of the gold standard rocked the 1920s and contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s. The export-led growth of the primary producers in Latin America and elsewhere was undermined by low and unstable commodities prices in the 1920s, and then was devastated by the Great Depression, which brought about the utter collapse of the terms of trade, intense protectionism in Europe and the United States, and the end of capital inflows. Political upheaval accompanied economic and military upheaval. Most important was the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, and the emergence of fascist states in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, respectively. In Latin America, the traditional political power of the landholders and mine owners was undermined by the collapse in the terms of trade. The free trade regimes of the late nineteenth century were replaced by a revolutionary regime in Mexico and authoritarian regimes in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile that were heavily influenced by the state planning of the communist and fascist regimes in the Soviet Union and Europe.9 Throughout the world, state planning, authoritarianism, and militarism competed with limited government and market-based economies. Whether or not economic theory offered insights and predictions about these alternative strategies, political leaders felt compelled to push for new and radical experimentation. Two events prior to the Second World War strengthened the tendency of economics to move away from classical development economics. One is the Great Depression in 1930; the other is the relatively successful industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1930s. Krueger (1995) indicates that the two events and Keynes’ advocacy for state intervention and investment fundamentalism were crucial for the formation of the spirit of neoclassical development economics. According to an inframarginal analysis of the trade-off between the positive network effect of division of labor on aggregate productivity and the reliability of a larger network of transactions in chapter 10, as transaction conditions are improved and the risk of coordination failure for each transaction declines, the benefit of a larger network of division of labor outweighs the increased aggregate transaction risk. Hence, the equilibrium network size of division of labor and the equilibrium aggregate risk of coordination failure of the whole network increase side by side. This implies, on the one hand, a greater degree of industrialization and higher aggregate productivity, and on the other hand, greater likelihood of a coordination failure in the larger
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 7
network of division of labor. Hence, to a certain degree, the Great Depression is a “crisis of success” and a sort of cost of successful industrialization and globalization that we had to pay. This is similar to choosing a higher risk of being killed when we choose to drive on a freeway. The decision is rational and efficient as long as the expected benefit from doing so outweighs the higher risk of being injured or killed in a traffic accident. If people really understood this mechanism for economic development, they would not turn to communism and distrust of the market mechanism when such an event takes place.10 Also, as the cobweb model in chapter 19 will show, when globalization and liberalization develop, the sensitivity of the feedback mechanism in response to a coordination failure will increase. The efficient balance of the trade-off between stability and sensitivity of the market feedback mechanism implies that the stability of the larger network of division of labor will decrease and the risk of devastating crisis will increase. When Keynes did not understand the trade-off, he suggested we go back to the autarchic state to avoid the risk of a great crisis.11 We would conjecture that if development economics had been better able to explain the mechanism behind the Great Depression, the thinking in the 1950s on state-planned development would not have been as influential.12 In chapter 10 we cover general equilibrium models that explain the development mechanism with concurrent increases in aggregate productivity and in aggregate risk for coordination failure. The complicated trade-offs among moral hazard, transaction costs, and the positive effect of insurance on the reliability of the network of division of labor are investigated in connection with the recent Asian financial crisis. These models formalize Sachs’ (1998) seemingly paradoxical notion of a “crisis of success.” They show that as transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium network of division of labor expands and the efficient aggregate risk for coordination failure increases because of trade-offs among economies of division of labor, reliability of the network of transactions, and transaction costs. Insurance can be used to enlarge the scope for trading-off one against the other conflicting forces, at the cost of increasing moral hazard. Hence, there is a trade-off between the positive effect of insurance on the reliability of the network of division of labor and the distortions caused by moral hazard. The complicated trade-offs imply that simply reducing moral hazard or following a simple slogan of liberalization will not necessarily ensure the efficient balance of these trade-offs. Repeating the overreaction to the Great Depression by resorting to communism, central planning, protectionism, or interventionism is also not the right way out. An inframarginal analysis of the general equilibrium mechanism of the crisis in chapter 10 will provide a balanced comprehension of new development phenomena generated by globalization. The second event that reversed the tide came from the industrialization experience of the Soviet Union in the 1930s and that of China in the 1950s. This is a special pattern of stateplanned, big-push industrialization. The major features of this pattern are as follows.13 China and the Soviet Union mimicked successful patterns of industrialization in developed capitalist economies, such as a high saving rate, an increasing income share of heavy industry producing capital goods, the Taylor scientific management approach, mass production, standardization, comprehensive investment programs, and internal organizational patterns of large capitalist corporations. However, the mimicry was not associated with a market and private property rights, as happened in Taiwan and South Korea in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead, the imitation was conducted by the central planning system through infringements upon the private property rights which created the industrialization patterns in capitalist economies. The precondition for the success of state-planned big-push industrialization is to mimic whatever succeeds in a capitalist economy. Many economists predicted that such a system could not succeed, since it destroyed the incentive mechanism that created the successful industrialization pattern (see, for instance, von Mises, 1922). But they were surprised by the relatively successful industrialization in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.
8 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
The short-run success impressed the leaders of many newly independent countries, who were busy with the task of state building. In particular, they believed that in a reverse engineering of capitalist institutions, they could repeat industrialization by mimicking capitalist industrial patterns and by ignoring fundamental capitalist institutions, including the legal system, constitutional order, behavior norms, and moral codes. Mainstream thinking on economic development converted from liberalism to the convictions of state-planned economic development and industrialization. Since classical development economics did not establish a sound theoretical foundation, economists could not really comprehend the mechanism of modern economic development and the real reason for the Soviet Union’s short-run success. They were easily converted to ideas of state-planned industrialization. Despite the short-run success of Sovietstyle big-push industrialization, the fall of the Soviet Union announced the long-run failure of state-planned economic development, compared to Hong Kong’s pattern of market-led industrialization, which is a modern version of Britain’s development pattern. As Britain’s original capitalist development experience spread to Europe in the nineteenth century, Hong Kong’s capitalist development experience was followed by Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, and China. As Sachs (1996) suggests, the fatal long-run negative effects of Soviet-style industrialization will outweigh its short-run positive effect on economic development once the potential for mimicking has been exhausted. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, along with reforms in China and other developing countries, symbolize a shift in development policy regime, which is associated with a shift of development economics back to its classical origin. The final support for a move away from classical development economics came from the idea that a great variety of institutional experiments might be helpful for discovering the institutions that are most conducive to economic development. Keynes (e.g. 1933) stressed that countries simply demanded the right to experiment with new economic models, since the old ones no longer commanded respect and assent. He joined the chorus for experimentation, vividly exemplifying the end of intellectual faith in global capitalism by the 1930s. His point was that there is no prospect for the next generation of a uniformity of economic systems throughout the world, such as existed, broadly speaking, during the nineteenth century; that we all need to be as free as possible of interference from economic changes elsewhere in order to make out own favorite experiments towards the ideal social republic of the future; and that a deliberate movement towards greater national self-sufficiency and economic isolation would make our task easier, insofar as it can be accomplished without excessive economic cost (Keynes, 1933, p. 241). This line of thinking is supported by documentation of the fact that experiments with a more active government role and different institutions in the US and on the European continent generated growth performance superior to Britain’s in the second half of the nineteenth century (see Craft, 1997).14 In response to these events, the term “development economics” was coined after the Second World War, when it became a field of applied economics relevant only to less-developed or underdeveloped countries.15 We call this version of development economics neoclassical development economics; it pays more attention to the fourth and fifth levels of analysis of development (structural changes, such as an increase in income share of industrial output, and productivity progress). Neoclassical development economics rejects the universal applicability of classical development economics and the capitalist development experience. It does not pay much attention to the intimate relationships between the evolution of division of labor and the institutional evolution that affects transaction costs, and between the evolution of division of labor and structural changes. It is characterized by the following features: the belief in protectionist trade policy (import substitution) to provide shelter for infant industries and industrialization; distrust of private entrepreneurship, the market, and related international trade; specific and comprehensive government industrial policies and investment programs; the belief that government,
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 9
as a paternalistic benevolent planner, and state-owned firms should take the leading role in development (state-planned industrialization); pessimism that exports from developing countries could grow (the theories justifying worries about a shortage of foreign investment and a shortage of foreign exchange); investment fundamentalism (i.e., a high saving rate is the engine of growth); specific and sometime comprehensive planned targets for development;16 urban-biased price controls and other interventionist policies; marginal analysis; and partial equilibrium or disequilibrium analysis (see Krueger, 1995, 1997 and Behrman and Srinivasan, 1995 for a critical assessment of development strategies). We call economic development guided by neoclassical development economics state-planned economic development. The shift from capitalist economic development to state-planned development was associated with the shift of development economics from the core of mainstream economics to its periphery. The latter shift started with Alfred Marshall (1890). Chapters 8–12 of book IV in Marshall’s keystone text are full of insights into the development implications of division of labor. He described the network of division of labor as an economic organism. Unfortunately, Marshall could not formalize his insights into development economics in a mathematical framework. This formalization must specify an individual’s decision in choosing her occupation and her level of specialization. Choosing a professional occupation is a yes-or-no decision. If you choose economics as your major during your college education, you do not go to classes in chemistry and physics; you go to classes in micro- and macroeconomics and econometrics. To say “yes” to a major and say “no” to other majors is an inframarginal decision, in the sense that decision variables discontinuously jump between zero and a positive value as one shifts between majors. For a given major which you have chosen, you compare the relative marginal cost and relative marginal benefit between two fields to choose the optimum allocation of your limited time between different fields in the major that you have chosen. This is called a marginal decision. In terms of mathematics, marginal analysis is classical mathematical programming, and inframarginal analysis is associated with linear and nonlinear programming and other kinds of nonclassical mathematical programming. Inframarginal analysis is a total benefit–cost analysis across corner and interior solutions, in addition to marginal analysis of each corner and interior solution.17 When you compare your life with the lives of secondary-school classmates who currently specialize in other occupations, you can see that an inframarginal decision is often more important than a marginal decision. Inframarginal analysis is essential for formalizing classical development economics. But Marshall did not know how to handle inframarginal analysis when he tried to formalize classical mainstream economics within a mathematical framework. Hence, it is not surprising that Marshall could not formalize his insights into classical development economics within a mathematical framework. In order to get around the corner solution, he made the very unrealistic assumption that society is divided between pure consumers, who do not make production decisions, and firms, which are exogenously given. This dichotomy, together with the assumptions of a quasi-concave utility function and a convex production set, ensure that interior solutions may occur in equilibrium.18 Then, marginal analysis of interior solutions can work. Within this neoclassical framework of marginal analysis, pure consumers have to buy all goods from the exogenously given market and firms, and cannot choose their level of self-sufficiency or its reciprocal, the level of specialization. Thus the focus has shifted from the development implications of division of labor to marginal analysis of demand and supply. Marginal analysis cannot be used to investigate individuals’ decisions in choosing their occupation patterns and levels of specialization. It cannot explain the emergence and evolution of markets as a result of the evolution of division of labor. The fatal flaw in this framework is that the equilibrium and Pareto optimum allocation of resources are always associated with an exogenously given production possibility frontier (PPF).
10 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
Hence, we cannot use this framework to address the classical question of economic development: why aggregate productivity can be increased by an increase in the level of division of labor in the absence of changes in production functions and endowments, and how the invisible hand coordinates division of labor to promote economic development. Since it cannot predict the emergence and evolution of markets, it is not applicable to studies of economic development and a decrease of the degree of scarcity. Marshall was aware of the fatal flaw in neoclassical marginal analysis of demand and supply. He suggested the use of the concept of external economies of scale to describe the effects of social division of labor on economic development. However, Allyn Young (1928, p. 533) argued that use of a notion of large-scale production misses the phenomenon of economies of division of labor. He emphasized Smith’s classical general equilibrium view of the network of division of labor: “The mechanism of increasing returns is not to be discerned adequately by observing the effects of variations in the size of an individual firm or of a particular industry, for the progressive division of labor and specialization of industries is an essential part of the process by which increasing returns are realized. What is required is that industrial operations be seen as an interrelated whole” (p. 539). However, Marshall’s formalization of marginal analysis of demand and supply established the neoclassical economic mainstream in the following sense. Marshall’s mathematical structure of marginalism gives the teaching of economics a well-organized structure. Within this structure, not only can different generations of economists and students share a common dictionary, but teachers can also set up good questions and exercises in classrooms and in examinations for which unique, correct answers are expected. What teachers demonstrate on the blackboard can be exactly duplicated by many students. This common mainstream facilitates division of labor between different generations of economists and between different fields of economics. Unfortunately, the neoclassical mainstream does not carry the core of classical mainstream thinking on the development implications of division of labor. As an unexpected consequence of Marshall’s success in formalizing marginal analysis of demand and supply, the core of classical economics concerning economic development has been forgotten. As indicated by Young (1928, pp. 538–40), the “possibility of economic progress” can not be fully understood without this core. The failure of the Soviet-style experiment with the socialist system shows that it is impossible to have successful social experiments if the rights for experimentation are monopolized by a totalitarian government and if individuals have no rights to experiment with various institutions via voluntary trade of property rights in the free market and under a fair constitutional order. The conviction that less-developed countries can catch up by mimicking the legal and economic systems of capitalist developed countries in the absence of a constitutional order was challenged by the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan in the Second World War. It has been challenged again by the transition of Taiwan, South Korea, and other Asian countries from an authoritarian regime to democracy.
1.3
A RETURN TO CLASSICAL DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
There were scattered efforts to keep classical development economics alive when it shifted from liberalism to advocacy for state-planned development. Rosen (1983, p. 44) suggests that Young (1928) was “the zenith of the analysis of the connection between specialization and economic development.” Young criticized technological fundamentalism, which claimed that exogenous technological progress was the engine of economic development, and investment fundamentalism, which claimed an if-and-only-if positive relationship between current saving and future productivity. He considered increases in per capita capital as increases in division of
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 11
labor in roundabout production. This view of capital is consistent with Smith’s classical view of investment, that investment is a vehicle for increasing division of labor in roundabout production (Smith, 1776, p. 371). According to Young and Smith, society’s capacity to create and absorb new knowledge and to invent new technology is determined by the extent of the market, which is in turn determined by the level of division of labor. Marshall (1890, p. 256) also attributed the invention of the steam engine by Boulton and Watt to a deep division of labor in inventing activities. Young proposed the Young theorem: “The securing of increasing returns depends on the progressive division of labor”; “Not only the division of labor depends upon the extent of the market, but the extent of the market also depends upon the division of labor”; “Demand and supply are two sides of the division of labor” (this is also known as the reciprocal law of demand). The Young theorem implies that, in the absence of a sufficiently high level of division of labor and a related sufficiently extensive market, not only can new technology not be invented but also, even if it were invented, it would be a commercially nonviable luxury. Houthakker (1956) formalizes Smith’s concept of endogenous absolute advantage using a graph. He shows that this concept might be more general than Ricardo’s concept of exogenous comparative advantage, and that the trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs may be used to explain the endogenous progress of aggregate productivity. But as Stigler (1976, pp. 1209–10) notes, “The last of Smith’s regrettable failures is one for which he is overwhelmingly famous – the division of labor. How can it be that the famous opening chapters of his book, and the pin factory he gave immortality, can be considered a failure? Are they not cited as often as any passages in all economics? Indeed, over the generations they are. The failure is different: almost no one used or now uses the theory of division of labor, for the excellent reason that there is scarcely such a theory . . . there is no standard, operable theory to describe what Smith argued to be the mainspring of economic progress. Smith gave the division of labor an immensely convincing presentation – it seems to me as persuasive a case for the power of specialization today as it appeared to Smith. Yet there is no evidence, so far as I know, of any serious advance in the theory of the subject since his time, and specialization is not an integral part of the modern theory of production.” The scattered efforts to keep classical development economics alive gradually became an increasingly more influential flow of thought. Several separate literatures contributed to this development. First, the literature on the economics of property rights, transaction costs, and institutions, represented by Coase, pioneered the renaissance of classical development economics. The literature of new school of economic history, represented by North, and the literature of constitutional economics and new political economics, represented by Buchanan, pushed this line of thinking further. The literature of formal models of transaction costs and contracts then consolidated the position of this research line in mainstream economics. Second, criticisms of state-planned development since the 1980s by World Bank and prominent development economists, such as Krueger and Srinivasan, put this tendency into policy practice.19 Finally, a recent surge in the literature of general equilibrium models of high development economics, represented by Fujita, Krugman, Venables, Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny, the literature of endogenous growth, represented by Aghion and Howitt, Lucas, Grossman and Helpman, and Romer, and the literature of endogenous specialization, represented by Becker, Murphy, Rosen, and Yang, provides sophisticated technical vehicles for formalizing classical development economics. The main purpose of this text is to systematically cover all of the new literatures that resurrect classical development economics in a modern body of formalism. We call the synthesis of the new literatures new development economics. In what follows, we briefly outline the new literatures one by one. A group of economists who study the economics of property rights, transaction costs, and institutions consider their theories as the inheritor of classical development economics. They
12 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
are very critical of neoclassical development economics. Among them, Coase (1946, 1960) and Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962) have proposed the notion of inframarginal analysis.20 Cheung (1970, 1983), Coase (1937, 1960), and Barzel (1982, 1985) apply this inframarginal analysis to criticism of Pigou’s marginal analysis of externality and public goods. Their theory of the endogenous degree of externality suggests that this degree is determined by the efficient tradeoff between transaction costs in specifying and enforcing property rights, and the distortions caused by inaccurate specification and enforcement. The theory is later formalized by models of Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994), Milgrom and Roberts (1992), and Yang and Wills (1990) in the literature of endogenous externality. In particular, Yang and Ng (1993) and Lio (1996) explore the intimate relationship between distortions, transaction costs, aggregate productivity, and the level of division of labor. Many models of the principal–agent relationship, general equilibrium models with transaction costs and endogenous specialization, and game models with strategic interactions have formalized ideas about property rights, transaction costs, contracts, and institutions. Milgrom and Roberts (1992), Hart (1995), Bolton and Scharfstein (1998), Gibbons (1998), Holmstrom and Roberts (1998), Maskin and Xu (1999), and Yang and S. Ng (1998) have provided reviews of the literatures. Also, the new school of economic history represented by North (1981, 1990), Mokyr (1990, 1993), and others has echoed the new development of the economics of property rights, transaction costs, and institutions. It shows that the development experience of eighteenthand nineteenth-century Britain and western Europe, and the classical thinking of economic development, are very relevant to currently developing countries. According to exponents of this approach, impediments to economic development consist of various transaction costs that are caused by state opportunism and deficient institutions. In particular, North spells out the intimate relationship between the evolution of division of labor, transaction costs, institutions, and economic development. Recently, many general equilibrium models of endogenous specialization and transaction costs have formalized ideas proposed by the new school of economic history. We shall cover this line of rethinking of development economics, comprising the literature of endogenous transaction costs caused by opportunism and the models formalizing the ideas of the new school of economic history, in Part III.21 Even if the new literatures can be dismissed as the voices of those who are outside the field of development economics, the critique of neoclassical development economics by policymakers, represented by the World Bank (1996, 1997) and by the prominent development economists Krueger (1995, 1997) and Behrman and Srinivasan (1995), can hardly be ignored. According to these critics, governments’ predatory and expropriative policies, their noncredible commitment to constitutional order, their distrust of the market (domestic as well as international), state opportunism that takes economic development as a hostage of the vested interests of the privileged class, rather than market failure, are real obstacles for economic development. More precisely, a great deal of market failure in developing countries is indeed caused by state opportunism and the absence of constitutional order (Sachs and Pistor, 1997 and Sachs and Woo, 1999). Again, their new policy prescriptions are quite similar to those suggested by the successful development experience of eighteenth-century Britain and nineteenth-century western Europe and advocated by Smith and other classical development economists. The distinctive feature of our era is that capitalist institutions have spread to virtually all of the world for the first time in history. In addition, the new political economics, represented by Buchanan (1991), develops the research on the effects of constitutional rules on rent-seeking and state opportunism, which affect economic development in the developed countries. This literature shows that the political-economic mechanism dictating the evolution of constitutional rules is much more important than the political-economic mechanism that determines policy-making under given constitutional rules.
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 13
Some ideas in the rethinking of development policies and in the literature of new political economics have been formalized by models of the commitment game (surveyed in Maskin and Xu, 1999) and other game models, which will be covered later in this text. Development economics has come full circle. This circle suggests that if we did not really understand the development mechanism underlying the early successful development experience of Britain and western Europe along with new development phenomena such as the Great Depression, previous mistakes will be repeated again and again and useful lessons cannot be exploited. Although many economists since the 1950s have become familiar with the technical substance of inframarginal analysis (nonlinear programming), which is essential for formalizing classical development economics, economists did not apply the new tools to formalization until the end of the 1970s. Since then, three literatures have stimulated the rethinking of development economics. They provide the technical substance for formalizing classical development economics. All three research lines feature general equilibrium analysis of the network of division of labor. This text will cover all three of the lines of rethinking and synthesize them with the above three literature areas (economics of property rights and transaction costs, the new school of economic history, and studies of liberal reforms and political economy). In chapter 3, inframarginal analysis is applied to the Ricardian model and the Heckscher– Ohlin model. It is shown that equilibrium aggregate productivity can endogenously increase as a result of the evolution of the network of division of labor. This inframarginal analysis of the Ricardian model and the Heckscher–Ohlin model identifies a general equilibrium mechanism of economic development. The equilibrium and efficient aggregate productivity are not on the PPF if the transaction cost coefficient for a unit of goods traded is very large. As transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium network of division of labor expands and aggregate productivity becomes closer to the PPF. The interesting feature of this model is that the equilibrium aggregate productivity increases as the equilibrium network of division of labor and the related extent of the market expand, even if economies of scale are absent. This type of increasing returns to a larger network of division of labor in the absence of economies of scale is called by Young (1928) “social increasing returns,” by Buchanan (1994) “generalized increasing returns,” and by Rosen (1978) “superadditivity.” Also, this general equilibrium mechanism for economic development implies that aggregate productivity increases as an outcome of the interactions between self-interested decisions. In the two types of model, as the equilibrium network of division of labor expands in response to improvements in transaction conditions, the following development phenomena concur. The equilibrium level of specialization for each individual or each country increases, the extent (or thickness) of the market increases, and the degree of market integration, degree of production concentration, and variety of occupation configurations increase. The degree of commercialization and trade dependence, degree of interpersonal dependence, and aggregate productivity increase. The inframarginal analysis can also explore a general equilibrium mechanism that simultaneously determines the interdependent policy regime and the level of division of labor. In chapters 4 and 7 we formalize Smith’s notion of endogenous comparative advantage, which means that differences in productivities between various specialists are consequences rather than causes of division of labor (Smith, 1776, p. 28). The notion of endogenous absolute advantage may be more general than Ricardo’s notion of exogenous comparative advantage, since the former may exist between ex ante identical individuals, while the latter does not exist if all individuals are identical in all aspects. The Smith–Young models of endogenous comparative advantage are used to investigate the equilibrium mechanism of economic development. This equilibrium analysis of economic development suggests that aggregate productivity and the degree of endogenous comparative advantage will increase in response to improvements in transaction conditions even if tastes (demand side) and production conditions (supply side) do not change.
14 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
In Part III, the Smith–Young models of endogenous comparative advantage are used to explore the implications of entrepreneurship and the institution of the firm for economic development. There we also investigate how endogenous transaction costs caused by opportunism prevent the realization of economic development and evolution in division of labor. In chapter 11, several Smith–Young models with endogenous urbanization formalize Petty’s idea with regard to the intimate relationship between urbanization and division of labor. In chapter 12, Young’s idea about the relationship between industrialization and division of labor in roundabout production is formalized. Chapter 14 uses a Smith–Young dynamic general equilibrium to formalize Young’s idea on the spontaneous coevolution of network of division of labor and extent of the market. In chapter 15, a Walrasian sequential equilibrium model formalizes Austrian theory of entrepreneurial discovery and bounded rationality. It predicts spontaneous coevolution in organization information acquired by the society via social experiments and in division of labor. In chapters 16, 17, and 18, Smith, Turgot, and other classical economists’ ideas on the relationship among investment, money, business cycles, economic development, and division of labor are formalized. In particular, technology and saving fundamentalisms are criticized using dynamic general equilibrium models. All of the Smith–Young models suggest that as soon as the right tool of the trade for formalizing classical development economics is at the command of economists, the spirit of classical mainstream economics can be resurrected in a modern body of inframarginal analysis, and development economics can then be brought back to the core of modern mainstream economics. In chapters 5, 6, 11, and 13, general equilibrium models with economies of scale and economies of variety of goods (Dixit–Stiglitz, 1977, Ethier, 1982, Krugman, 1979, 1980, Krugman– Venables, 1995, 1996, Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny, 1989, Fujita–Krugman, 1995, Romer, 1987, 1990) are used to formalize the high-development economics of Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Fleming (1955), Nurkse (1952), Scitovsky (1954), Myrdal (1957), and Hirschman (1958). These models show that as economists have gained a command of the technical substance of general equilibrium models with economies of scale, many development problems, such as the network effects of industrial linkage, circular causation, and interdependent decisions in different sectors, industrialization, dual structure, and urbanization can be much better investigated using general equilibrium analysis. These models show that not only is the degree of industrialization dependent on the degree of urbanization, but the latter is also determined by the former. Also, the number of goods, the network size of industrial linkage, productivity, and the extent of the market are interdependent. Some of the models show that each player’s decision in choosing her trade network is dependent on the size of the network of trade and industrial linkage, while the network size is determined by all players’ participation decisions. The Romer models (1987, 1990) and other dynamic equilibrium models of economic development in chapter 13 formalize Young’s conjecture about the spontaneous evolution of the number of producer goods, which Young (1928) called the “qualitative aspect of division of labor,” and the interdependence between the emergence of new goods and the evolution of the extent of the market. All of the models of high-development economics show that the very function of the market is to network self-interested decision-makers in order to utilize the gains from economic development, though the function might be imperfect. All of the formal general equilibrium models focus on the classical question of economic development (namely, why one county is wealthier than others or how scarcity can be reduced by the division of labor) rather than on the neoclassical question of what the resource allocation is in a market for a given degree of scarcity. In many of the new development models, symmetry is assumed, so that resource allocation is too trivial to be interesting at all: the quantities of all goods consumed and produced are the same in a model with ex ante identical
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 15
individuals and symmetric tastes and production and transaction conditions. But very interesting stories of economic development, such as the evolution of division of labor and the related extent of the market, structural changes, and industrialization, can be told by the models. Asymmetries are introduced in chapters 6, 8, 11, 17, and 18 to tell stories about urbanization, the emergence of dual structure, cities, money, business cycles, and the institution of the firm from the evolution of division of labor.
1.4
THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
All of the new models of economic development and transaction costs share a common feature: they are based on a scientific approach to development economics. This approach divides economic analysis between four levels in a hierarchical structure. At the bottom level of the hierarchy, the mathematical concepts of functions and sets are used to describe the environment of economic development. For instance, utility functions are used to describe individuals’ preferences, and production functions and production sets are used to describe production conditions. The notions of budget constraint and related ownership structure and pricing rules, or more general game rules in game models, are used to describe the institutional environment. At the second level of the hierarchy, mathematical programming is used to describe individuals’ self-interested decisions. The results of the analysis at this level are referred to as the comparative statics of a decision in a static model, or the dynamics and comparative dynamics of a decision in a dynamic model. Such results explain individuals’ self-interested decisions by prices and the development environment, which encompasses preferences, production conditions, and institutional arrangements. At the third level of the hierarchy, more sophisticated mathematical tools are used to describe the outcome of interactions between self-interested decisions. The results of the analysis at this level are called comparative statics of general equilibrium in a static model, and the dynamics and comparative dynamics of general equilibrium in a dynamic model. Such results explain how the outcomes of interactions between self-interested decisions and related development performance change in response to changes in the economic environment. Development economists pay particular attention to those comparative statics or dynamics that predict changes in equilibrium aggregate productivity. In this text, the equilibrium models that formalize classical development economics are used to predict evolution in division of labor and related structural changes. All analysis at the three levels just described is referred to as positive analysis of economic development. When development economists conduct positive analysis, they do not ask what is good or bad, or what should be done to change matters, for they are not then concerned with value judgments. What they are trying to do is to use thought experiments to figure out what is going to happen under certain conditions and what is the mechanism for economic development. The following process is typical of such thought experiments. Beginning with some assumptions about intangible preferences and behaviors, economists use rigorous mathematics to establish connections between the intangible and tangible phenomena. One example of such a tangible phenomenon is the structural change whereby the income share of the industrial sector increases with per capita income. They can thus infer intangible relationships from the tangible. If the observed phenomena are consistent with their predictions based on the established connection, then their assumptions about the intangible are accepted as working hypotheses, which can be used to explain development phenomena. If the thought experiment generates predictions concerning tangible phenomena that are incompatible with observations, the hypothesis underlying the thought experiment is then rejected.
16 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
Some conjectures can never be falsified. For example, consider the statement: “An increase in inequality of income distribution will decrease the welfare of a country.” Here, the inequality can be measured by the Gini coefficient or the variance of income distribution. Most economists accept the Pareto rankable measurement of welfare (see the definition of Pareto optimum in chapter 3). But if economic development generates changes that are not Pareto rankable, for instance, increases of some individuals’ utilities are at the cost of others’ utilities, then it is nearly impossible to find a measure of a country’s welfare that is accepted by all economists. This is not only because utility is intangible and cannot be directly measured and compared between individuals, but also because economists cannot find a universally accepted functional form or set of weights to specify a country’s welfare as a function of all individuals’ utilities. Without a well-defined measurement of the country’s welfare, there is no way to test or falsify the above statement. On the other hand, the following statement can be falsified. “Deterioration of a country’s terms of trade is associated with a decrease in per capita income in this country.” Data on a country’s terms of trade and per capita income can be collected. If the average price of all goods exported in terms of the average price of all goods imported decreases, while per capita real income increases, then the statement is falsified. P. Sen (1998) uses data to falsify this statement. He has also found that deterioration of the terms of trade and dramatic increases in trade volume and in total factor productivity may concur. In chapters 3 and 6, we shall use inframarginal analysis of general equilibrium models to show that the concurrent phenomena may take place if positive productivity gains from an enlarged network of division of labor caused by improvements in transportation conditions outweigh the negative effects of deteriorated terms of trade. This general equilibrium view about the relationship between economic development and the terms of trade can be intuitively illuminated by the following fact. The terms of trade of the computer sector have deteriorated dramatically in the past two decades, while productivity progress in this sector far outweighs the deterioration of terms of trade. Hence, an increase in the income share and productivity of this sector and the deterioration of its terms of trade concur. Falsification of a hypothesis does not invalidate the chain of mathematical logic linking the assumption and the prediction in the hypothesis, provided of course that the process of deduction is mathematically correct. Hence, rejection of the hypothesis may be attributable to unrealistic assumptions, or it may be attributable to a problem with the analytical framework itself. Thus, by safeguarding against incorrect logic in the thought experiment that generates a hypothesis, mathematics can help us to narrow down the list of possible explanations for the empirical rejection of that hypothesis. This enables us to focus our attention on the assumptions and the analytical framework. This text will review emerging empirical research that tests new development economics against observations. For instance, North (1958) provides empirical evidence for a positive correlation between the employment share of the transaction sector and economic development. Barro (1997), Easton and Walker (1997), Frye and Shleifer (1997), Gallup and Sachs (1998), and Sachs and Warner (1995a, 1997) provide empirical evidence for the positive effects of transaction conditions on economic development. Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992) provide empirical evidence for a positive correlation between the evolution of division of labor, improvements in transaction conditions, and economic development. As Albert Einstein suggested, however, “It is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. . . . It is the theory which decides what we can observe” (quoted in Heisenberg, 1971, p. 31). The new development economics covered in this text might challenge many conventional interpretations of empirical observations and may develop new concepts that lead to unconventional observations. At the fourth level of the hierarchical structure of development economics, economists raise questions that involve value judgments, such as, “Is the outcome of interactions between self-interested decisions (equilibrium) in a competitive market based on the private ownership
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 17
system good for society as a whole?” The analysis at this level is referred to as welfare or normative analysis of economic development. The following examples explain why the scientific approach to analyzing economic development is useful. First, we consider a striking feature of ideas of state-planned economic development which is inconsistent with the scientific approach. In the 1950s, normative analysis of economic development received a great deal of attention from development economists when a sound theoretical foundation for the positive analysis of general equilibrium mechanism of economic development was yet to be established. Many indices were suggested to measure the effects of development on welfare (see Sen, 1988), and many policy prescriptions were made to pursue what was believed to be the best for society in the absence of sound positive analysis. This was partly because development economists were not familiar with the technical substance of inframarginal analysis and general equilibrium models. Also, it was based on the assumption that economists, or the governments for which some economists work, are benevolent central planners who can make value judgments on behalf of individual citizens. Even if the assumption is valid, this approach is naive, since it ignores complicated trade-offs between many variables associated with the indices in raising utility and complicated interactions between conflicting self-interested decisions that somehow trade-off the utility of one person against another’s utility. Hence, in this text, we do not follow this approach. Instead, we follow a scientific approach. That is, we first make assumptions about the environment for economic development, then use mathematics to figure out the general equilibrium development mechanism and establish a connection between intangible behaviors and tangible development phenomena. Then we test the hypothesis generated by thought experiments against observations. We can thus recommend to decision-makers those equilibrium mechanisms that are compatible with empirical observations as working hypotheses. In chapters 3 and 4, we will show that with localized increasing returns and network effects of division of labor the equilibrium network size of division of labor that emerges in the decentralized market is Pareto optimal. The very function of the market is to coordinate self-interested decisions to fully utilize the network effects of division of labor net of transaction costs. In chapters 5, 6, 11, and 13 we will investigate the coordination difficulty of the efficient network of industrial linkage which may occur when global economies of scale exist in a neoclassical framework with a dichotomy between pure consumers and firms, though the market can utilize most of the network effects of industrialization and urbanization. Part III will focus on the endogenous transaction costs caused by interest conflicts and opportunism and their effects on economic development. We will establish the connection between intangible endogenous transaction costs and utility on the one hand, and tangible per capita income and trade volume on the other. Hence, we can use a sophisticated way to infer intangible endogenous transaction costs and distortions and their effects on economic development from tangible development phenomena. Since economic transition and reforms are considered as a subfield of development economics (Roland, 2000), we will apply the theories covered in this text to economic transition in chapter 19. The scientific approach to development economics is based on the extensive application of mathematics. This application can facilitate the division of labor between different generations of economists and students or between specialized fields of economics by raising communication efficiency in debating, teaching, and research. From the point of view of classical development economics, Marshall’s insights into the development implications of division of labor are far superior to his marginal analysis of demand and supply. But the former is not in modern mainstream economics, while the latter is part of the core of modern mainstream economics, because the former is not but the latter is formalized within a mathematical framework. This illustrates the implications of mathematical formalism for the formation of mainstream economics.
18 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
In addition, as Debreu (1991) indicates, mathematics not only provides better tools of the trade for economics, but also may affect economists’ framework for thinking in a profound way. The history of the theory of labor surplus and the literature of high-development economics illustrates his point. According to Lewis (1988) and Ranis (1988), Lewis’s original motivation for developing the theory of labor surplus was to explore the development mechanism that generates evolution in division of labor. According to this idea, the dual structure is between self-sufficient production of goods and commercialized and specialized production of goods, rather than between the agricultural and industrial sectors. But Lewis could not find the right tool to formalize his original idea. We know today that this right tool is the inframarginal analysis of decisionmaking in choosing the level of specialization. As Krugman (1995) points out, proponents of the labor surplus model could not even play with a tractable general equilibrium model with increasing returns. In the 1950s and 1960s, most development economists could only barely manage general equilibrium models with constant returns to scale. They were not familiar with inframarginal analysis of this kind of model either. Hence, Lewis, Fei, and Renis used marginal analysis of the model with constant returns to scale to formalize their ideas. As a result, their final models are far away from classical development economics and from their own original thinking. The ad hoc assumption of disequilibrium in the labor market and exogenous technical progress or capital accumulation in the industrial sector becomes the driving force of economic development in their models. We shall show in chapters 3, 4, and 6 that their original ideas can be appropriately formalized using inframarginal analysis of the Ricardian and Smithian models with endogenous specialization. Krugman (1995) indicates that high-development economics about circular causation, coordination problems of the network of industrial linkages, and economies of scale was more interesting than the model of labor surplus. But economists could not manage general equilibrium models with economies of scale to formalize high-development economics in the 1950s. Krugman attributes the success of the labor surplus model compared to high-development economics to the latter’s low level of analytical formalism. In this text, we will show that many ideas of high-development economics can be formalized using general equilibrium models with increasing returns. Stories based on the models are much more interesting than those based on labor surplus models. This history of development economics demonstrates that some insightful ideas may not be included in mainstream development economics if they are not appropriately formalized within a mathematical framework. A limited capacity in managing mathematical formalism was very often a bottleneck in development economics. Since the application of mathematics in the research of economic development is a gradual evolutionary process, usually the most simple and thereby very unrealistic mathematical models are developed before more sophisticated and realistic ones. Hence, it is common that very ingenious ideas are too complicated to be formalized by any mathematical models that can economists’ command, while tractable models are too simple and naive. Therefore the following two extremes are inappropriate: One is to worship mathematical formalism and ignore nonmathematical insights into economic development. The other is to totally ignore the implications of mathematical formalism. As development economics becomes part of the core of modern mainstream economics, it becomes universally applicable. This implies, on the one hand, that it is applicable not only to less-developed countries, but also to developed countries. On the other hand, the economic mechanisms that drove economic development in Britain, western Europe, and the US in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are, to a great extent, the same as those driving the economic development of east Asia and other currently developing countries. Poverty in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Britain, in eighteenth-century France, and in nineteenth-century Japan was, to a great extent, the same as that in currently less-developed countries. Chapters 3 to
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 19
6 and 19 will use inframarginal analysis of evolution of division of labor to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the latecomer to industrialization and their evolution over different development stages. The relationship between income distribution, endogenous transaction costs, and economic development will be examined in chapters 3 to 6 and 9. The general equilibrium analysis yields some predictions that are substantially different from the economics of underdevelopment which was quite popular in the 1950s and 1960s. Many new development phenomena caused by globalization and the information revolution are the very features of economic development in the developed world. The questions at the end of this chapter give several examples of new features that can be analyzed by the new development economics. We can not only figure out the mechanism that enables the poor to catch up to the wealthy, but also predict some of the megatrends of future economic development. Examples of the megatrends given in the questions are the increasing income share of the resource cost in handling noise in information transmission, and the higher risk of coordination failure in an increasingly more integrated and larger network of division of labor and exchanges. This trend causes increases in frustration and mental pressure, which might enlarge the market for counseling and psychoservices in the new century. Since this text resurrects the spirit of classical development economics in a modern body of analytical formalism, its spirit is older and its body is younger than neoclassical development economics. The new development economics is, we hope, particularly powerful in analyzing the new development phenomena of networking and globalization.
Key Terms and Review • • • •
Classical development economics vs. neoclassical development economics The scientific approach to development economics Positive, normative, and empirical analyses of economic development Why is general equilibrium analysis essential for understanding the mechanisms for economic development? • Marginal analysis vs. inframarginal analysis of economic development • Why is inframarginal analysis essential for formalizing classical development economics?
Further Reading Classical development economics: Turgot (1766), Groenewegen (1977), Lewis (1988), Sen (1988), Petty (1671, 1683), Marshall (1890), Smith (1776), Meier and Seers (1984), Robbins (1968), North and Thomas (1970); Neoclassical development economics: Sen (1983), Arndt (1989), Bliss (1989), Bhagwati (1984), Lewis (1955, 1984), Livingstone (1983), Meier and Seers (1984), Adelman (1961), Meier (1994), Stern (1989), Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Fleming (1955), Nurkse (1952), Scitovsky (1954), Fei and Renis (1964), Myrdal (1957), Hirschman (1958), Chenery (1979), Kuznets (1966), Kaldor (1957); Criticisms of neoclassical development economics: Stiglitz (1989), Bhagwati (1984), Stigler (1976), Kornai (1991, 1992), Young (1928), Krueger (1995, 1997), Behrman and Srinivasan (1995), World Bank (1991, 1996, 1997), Cheung (1970), Coase (1960); Economics of property rights and transaction costs: Coase (1937, 1946, 1960), Cheung (1970, 1983), Barzel (1982, 1985, 1997), Buchanan (1975), Milgrom and Roberts (1992), Hart (1995), Bolton and Scharfstein (1998), Gibbons (1998), Holmstrom and Roberts (1998), Yang and Wills (1990), Maskin and Xu (1999); The new school of economic history: North (1981, 1990, 1994), McNeill (1974), Mokyr (1990, 1993), Landes (1998), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986), MacFarlane (1988), Braudel (1984), Fairbank (1992), Weber (1927, 1961, 1968), Baechler (1976), Chandler (1990), Pipe (1999); General
20 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION equilibrium models with economies of scale: Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989), Krugman (1991, 1995), Fujita and Krugman (1995), Krugman and Venables (1995); Literature of endogenous growth: Judd (1985), Lucas (1993), Romer (1987, 1990, 1993), Grossman and Helpman (1995), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), Aghion and Howitt (1998); Literature of endogenous specialization: Young (1928), Stigler (1951, 1976), Houthakker (1956), Rosen (1978, 1983), Becker (1981), Yang and S. Ng (1998); Constitutional economics: Buchanan (1989, 1991).
QUESTIONS Classical development economics 1
2
3
Following Marshall, Young (1928) described the technical progress associated with division of labor as a development in which a production process becomes fragmented and disintegrates into specialized tasks while new machinery is introduced to perform these tasks. In his comment on Knight (1921), he stated clearly that: “You [Knight] miss the point, I fear, of Marshall’s ‘external economies.’ They are the economies (in general) of greater specialization and div. of labor” (quoted in Blitch, 1983, p. 362). See also Blitch (1995) for a detailed account of Young’s perspectives on external economies. Compare this defense of Marshall to Young’s criticism of Marshall’s notion of external economies of scale, and discuss the connection and differences between economies of division of labor and economies of scale. Use the following examples to criticize technology fundamentalism and saving and investment fundamentalism. China’s telecommunications market is monopolized by the state telecommunications company. Hence, despite very advanced technology and equipment, which are superior even to those in many developed countries, the prices of telecommunications services are 2 to 600 times those in the US. Due to weak protection and enforcement of intellectual property, many Chinese software companies are unable to survive, despite a large population size that might be associated with a very large market for Chinese software. Automobile manufacturing technology is now available to the Chinese as it was to Ford in 1903 (when the Ford Motor Company was established). Currently, per capita income in China is not lower than it was in the US in 1908 (when the Ford Model T came onto the market). But why couldn’t a Chinese counterpart to the Ford Motor Company appear in the twentieth century? You may assume that Mr. Ford is now in China, at the age of 16. The following conditions indicate that he cannot set up his company, and cannot make a fortune from his Model T. Use this example to illustrate whether the policy prescriptions of classical development economics are relevant to the currently developing country. a) Mr. Ford was a country boy when he moved to Detroit, Michigan in 1879. If the young Ford were now in rural China and wanted to move to a city, he would not be able to get permanent residential registration in a Chinese city. Without this registration, he would have to pay a much higher rent for housing, and would even be unable to get housing at all in some large Chinese cities. Also, an automobile manufacturing company would be fined severely by the government if it hired him. Hence, his chances of learning automobile manufacturing skills would be very slim. Suppose that Mr. Ford had already set up his Ford Motor Company in a Chinese city. He would have to bribe the government officers for urban residential registration of his employees from rural areas.
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 21
4
5
The rationing of houses and a state-monopolized land distribution system mean that he would have a very difficult time providing housing for his employees. b) Mr. Ford could successfully sell his Model T in the 1910s because of his dealer franchise network, which created a high level of division of labor between production and distribution and between franchisees at different localities. But in China, any private wholesale and retail network cannot operate without a license issued by a government committee, which is usually headed by the government officer who monopolizes the local wholesale and retail network. The interest conflict between any private wholesale and retail network and the state monopoly in that wholesale and retail network implies that Mr. Ford would have a very slim chance of approval for his dealer franchise network from the government committee. In the US at the beginning of the twentieth century, more than a hundred start-ups of motor vehicle manufacturing companies created a competitive environment that nurtured Mr. Ford’s success. There is no such free entry into automobile manufacturing in China. China has an approval system for setting up firms. In other words, the automatic registration system which has been institutionalized in the Western world since the nineteenth century is not available in China. In addition, in China there is a list of sectors in which domestic private firms are not allowed to operate. This list includes banking, automobile manufacturing, telecommunications, railroad, and freeway construction. Hence, Mr. Ford would be unable to set up his company at all if he were an entrepreneur in China in the 1990s. c) State opportunism and a predatory government policy in China engender a government monopoly in the capital market, imposing arbitrary fees and expropriatory taxes on private firms. This implies that even if Mr. Ford got the chance to set up his Ford Motor Company, he might be unable to get adequate capital and to make a profit. The state-monopolized banking system implies that personal checks and many other mediates of exchanges are not available to many ordinary Chinese. This substantially limits the market for Ford’s cars. d) Ford’s lobbying campaign to promote a better infrastructure under a democratic system utilizes “externality” associated with infrastructure. But the state monopoly on constructing infrastructure in China and restriction on free association generate a lot of rent-seeking activities and opportunistic behavior. Mr. Ford would not have much of a chance to promote a motor-related infrastructure in China. e) In China, local government monopoly in many sectors fragments the Chinese market. Local governments’ monopolistic distribution systems carry out a protection policy that restricts the sale of goods produced by those firms that are not under local government control. Mr. Ford would have a hard time penetrating the fragmented local markets. Some economists treat the study of specialization and division of labor as a subfield of economics. Comment on this view in connection to Houthakker’s assertion (1956, p. 182) that “there is hardly any part of economics that would not be advanced by a further analysis of specialization.” Use some examples to discuss his points. Smith and Turgot used the general equilibrium view of division of labor and economic development to criticize the mercantilists’ partial equilibrium view on the relationship between trade and development. According to this mercantilists’
22 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
view, a great trade surplus would contribute to a country’s wealth. Hence, the government should manipulate the terms of trade by using tariff and other trade policies. According to Smith’s general equilibrium view, as domestic division of labor within a country or international division of labor between countries increases, wealth will be increased. Since demand and supply are two sides of division of labor, worries on trade deficit and shortages of foreign exchange are groundless, provided the gains from division of labor and trade are not outweighed by transaction costs. The policy based on this view of development is intended to reduce the barriers of trade and transaction costs and let the invisible hand play its role in coordinating division of labor. Use this example to discuss why the notion of division of labor is a general equilibrium concept, and why Young (1928) considered marginal analysis of demand and supply that is separated from the analysis of decisions in choosing levels of specialization as a partial view. The new school of economic history 6
7
Compare the British experience of successful development in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries with the following facts. In some less-developed countries, government behavior is predatory and expropriatory. Government officers use the coercive power of the government apparatus and their taxing power to steal citizens’ property. A typical example is the Duvalier government’s behavior in Haiti during the 1950s and 1960s. According to the World Bank (1997, p. 149), the economic pillars of Haiti’s predatory state were expropriation, extortion, tax inflation, and corruption. Significant resources were devoted to protecting Duvalier himself – 30 percent of total government expenditures during the first half of the 1960s. Agriculture, particularly coffee, was heavily taxed. Some sources estimate that Duvalier transferred more than US$7 million a year out of Haiti for personal purposes. Large-scale bribing also took place, through deals with foreign investors on projects that often never materialized. Extortion under the veil of “voluntary” donations was institutionalized under some political movements. According to Summers (1992), in a sub-Saharan African country, the government pursued a patronage recruitment policy for government employment and favoritism in issuing trade licenses. Then it purposely distorted exchange rates and prices in favor of the relatives’ trade businesses. In China during the 1960s and 1970s, the government used its monopoly in the banking sector, in the distribution network, in the urban real estate sector, and in other important sectors to pursue tangible and intangible rents. The approval system for setting up private firms, the strict licensing system for setting up firms for foreign trade, and the monopolized job assignment system were used by the government to discriminate against private businesses. A procurement system that compelled peasants to sell underpriced agricultural goods to government agents, and the residential registration system, which restricted rural residents’ mobility, were used to pursue the interests of urban residents, including the government elite, at the expense of rural residents (see Yang, Wang, and Wills, 1992). In this process, industrialization and economic development became hostages to state opportunism. North (1958, 1981, p. 166) observes that “productivity increase as a result of declining transaction costs had been going on since at least 1600, when the Dutch flute [a specialized merchant cargo ship] was used in the Baltic trade and subsequently adopted on other routes. The declining transaction costs – a result of reduced piracy,
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 23
8
9
increases in size of ships, growing trade, and reduced turnaround time – led to substantial productivity growth beginning 150 years (at least) before the Industrial Revolution; and they, more than technological change, were responsible for productivity increases.” Compare this view of technical progress to technology and investment fundamentalism, which claims that investment in research and development is the main engine of economic development. Comment on Landes’ (1998, p. 31) discussion on the institutional conditions for economic development: “It has been suggested that this end to danger from without launched Europe on the path of growth and development. Others would argue that freedom from aggression is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Growth and development call for enterprise, and enterprise is not to be taken for granted. Besides, medieval Europe did not lack for impediments to such initiatives. . . . Linked to the opposition between Greek democracy and oriental despotism was that between private property and ruler-owns-all. Indeed, that was the salient characteristic of despotism, that the ruler who was viewed as a god or as partaking of the divine, thus different from and far above his subjects, could do as he pleased with their lives and things, which they held at his pleasure. And what was true for the ruler was true for his henchmen. The martial aristocracy typically had a monopoly of weapons, and ordinary folk were careful not to offend them, arouse their cupidity, or even attract their attention; to look them in the eye was an act of impudence that invited severest punishment.” Use the following documentation of the differences between China and Europe to explain the differences in their development performances in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Landes (1998, pp. 34–6): “The concept of property rights went back to biblical times and was transmitted and transformed by Christian teaching. The Hebrew hostility to autocracy, even their own, was formed in Egypt and the desert.” “Despotisms abounded in Europe, too, but they were mitigated by law, by territorial partition, and within states, by the division of power between the center (crown) and local seigneurial authority. Fragmentation gave rise to competition, and competition favored good care of good subjects. Treat them badly, and they might go elsewhere. Ecumenical empires did not fear flight, especially when, like China, they defined themselves as the center of the universe. There was no other place to go.” Fairbank (1992): “Oriental societies, organized under centralized monolithic governments in which the bureaucracy was dominant in almost all aspects of large-scale activity – administrative, military, religious, and economic – so that no sanction for private enterprise ever became established . . .” Imperial governments carried out the industrial policy of limiting commerce and promoting agriculture. Fairbank (1992, p. 179): “The merchant was kept in check by the official as an ally whose activities could be used and milked in the interest of either the officials personally or of the state. As Etienne Balazs pointed out, commercial transactions were always subject to the superintendence and taxation of the officials. Government monopolies of staple articles, like salt and iron in ancient times, or like tea, silk, tobacco, salt, and matches more recently, expressed the overriding economic prerogatives of the state. No merchant class had been allowed to rise independently and encroach upon these prerogatives. This was ensured in practice by the official disregard for private property. This meant that official patronage and support were necessary to protect any big commercial undertaking. The result was a close community of interest between the merchant and the official. . . . In short, capitalism
24 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
10
11
failed to prosper in China because the merchant was never able to become established outside the control of the landlord gentry and their representatives in the bureaucracy. In feudal Europe the merchant class developed in the towns. Since the landed ruling class were settled in their manors upon the land, the European towns could grow up outside the feudal system instead of being integrated in it.” Analyze the driving force of the evolution of capitalist institutions with connection to the following historical facts. Weber (1968, pp. 1212–64): Trade and cities are the progenitors of modern capitalism. Towns precede princes. Occidental cities had the following unique features. Cities emerged before the nation states. They had fortifications, markets, their own courts of law, and in part, autonomous law, association structure, partial autonomy (privileges, corporate rights). In Asia, cities were princely fortresses. In the Occident, “urban landed property was always alienable without restriction, inheritable, unencumbered with feudal obligations or obligated only to fixed rental payments . . . In Asia and in the ancient world, this distinctive treatment of urban land settlement cannot be observed with similar regularity.” Magical caste was absent in Occidental cities. The city as an institutionalized association and a “territorial corporation” protected properties from the sovereign. It provided, under merchant governance, freedom for serfs, religious minorities, and new ideas. According to McNeill (1974), the lack of an overarching sovereign under feudalism led to horizontal contractual relations. Strong monarchies in England and France consolidated after the rise of towns (also, certainly, in German lands). The rise of the limited state implies that monarchs were too weak to snuff out dissent, opposition, and countervailing pressures. The increasing consolidation of states (England, France, Prussia, Hapsburg Spain) was generally not enough to undermine internal pluralism, corporate intermediaries, etc. Hence, state consolidation generally expanded internal markets. “As a general rule, a measure of expansion in foreign trade preceded the laborious unification of the internal market.” An expanding internal market supported the commercialization of agriculture (specialization within agriculture). Hoffman and Norberg (1994, p. 305) comment, “In sum, all of the monarchs of early modern Europe had to confront powerful obstacles to their will; none raised revenue without negotiation, consultation, and sometimes bribery.” “Absolutist regimes despite their pretentions were not able to borrow or tax at will. Only governments with strong representative institutions could extract huge revenues and borrow large sums. Taxation and despotism were in the end incompatible.” “In the end, liberty was a necessary precondition for the emergence of a strong state, a state of wealth and power” (p. 310). Discuss the institutional conditions for economic development using the following documentation of the differences between Britain and France. Letters from England by Voltaire (in exile in England, 1726–9) already revealed the differences between England and France. Letter 9, “On the Government”: “A man is by no means exempt from paying certain taxes here simply because is a noble or because is a priest. All taxes are fixed by the House of Commons which, though only second in rank [to the House of Lords], is first in prestige. The Lords and the Bishops may well reject the Bill from the Commons for taxation, but they may not change anything in it; they must either pass or reject it out of hand. When the Bill is confirmed by the Lords and approved by the King, then everybody pays. Everyone gives, not according to his rank (which is absurd) but according to his income. There is no arbitrary tax or capitation, but a real tax on landed property.” Letter 10, “On Commerce”: “In France, [the Marquis] loftily despises a business man, and the business man so
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 25
12
13
14
often hears people speak disparagingly of his profession that he is foolish enough to blush.” According to Mokyr (1990, pp. 234–50), the differences between Britain’s patent laws and the French government prize system for invention, and between people-made Common Law and government-made civil laws explain the differences in development performance between Britain and France in the eighteenth century. Landes (1998) also notes more limited private rights to land in France than in Britain in the seventeenth century. A forthcoming manuscript by North and Weingast on the comparison between North American and Latin American growth over the last three centuries suggests that state opportunism (predatory and expropriatory taxation and authoritarian regimes) in Latin America explains the great difference in the development performance between North America and Latin America. Comment on their view. Use Landes’ (1998, p. 222) following discussion to assess technology and saving fundamentalism of economic development in connection with Young’s view on the relationship between technological progress, the extent of the market, and division of labor. “The contribution of high consumption to technological progress struck contemporaries, and more of them as the British advance grew. Without taking a course in Keynesian economics, French merchants understood that mechanization made for high wages, that high wages made for increased demand for manufactures, and that effective demand made for increased prosperity. ‘Thus, by the working of a system that seems paradoxical, the English have grown rich by consuming’ [Daniel Defoe, 1728]. Paradoxical indeed: such dispendious habits ran against the old wisdom that counseled thrift and abstemiousness, habits congenial to French peasants compelled to avarice. One result was a manufacture that aimed at a large national and international market and focused on standardized goods of moderate price – just the kind that lent themselves to machine production. ‘The English,’ wrote Charles marquis de Biencourt, ‘have the wit to make things for the people, rather than for the rich,’ which gave them a large and steady custom.” According to North and Weingast (1989), the Constitutional Monarch and parliamentary democracy that emerged from the British Glorious Revolution in 1688 provided a credible government commitment to a constitutional order. This significantly reduced the government’s predatory behavior. Hence, endogenous transaction costs caused by rent-seeking and opportunism were reduced and long-term political stability could be secured. North argues (1981, pp. 158–68) that “Toynbee wrote, ‘The essence of the industrial revolution is the substitution of competition for the medieval regulations which had previously controlled the production and distribution of wealth.’ It is true that the decline in mercantilist restrictions including repeal or reform of the Statute of Artificers, poor laws, acts of settlement, usury laws, navigation acts, [corn laws], and so forth is part of the story. Particularly significant to the development of more efficient markets, however, is the better specification and enforcement of property rights over goods and services; and in many cases much more was involved than simply removing restrictions on the mobility of capital and labor – important as those changes were. Private and parliamentary enclosures in agriculture, the Statute of Monopolies establishing a patent law, and the immense development of a body of common law to better specify and enforce contracts also are part of the story.” According to Mokyr (1993, p. 47), “Many of the obsolete laws and regulations that encumbered progress (for example by mandating precise technological practices in detail) were revoked. In 1809 Parliament revoked a sixteenth
26 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
century law prohibiting the use of gig mills in the wool-finishing trade, and five years later it did away with one of the pillars of regulation, the Statutes of Artificers and Apprentices.” As he notes (Mokyr, 1990, p. 268; 1993), secured rights to residual returns of firms reduced transaction costs in setting up firms and encouraged specialized entrepreneurial activities, and secured rights to intellectual property directly improved transaction conditions for technological progress and encouraged specialized invention of new technology. When patent laws were not enough to protect entrepreneurial ideas and rights to inventions, the institution of the firm was used to protect intellectual rights via residual rights of the firm and trade secrets. A stable and nonpredatory tax system and the government’s laissez faire policy encouraged business activities and the evolution of division of labor. The liberation of civil society with respect to the State and the separation of Crown’s coffer from the Bank of England enriched the creativity of society and restrained rent-seeking. Free association (i.e., setting up private firms needed no approval or license from the government) improved transaction conditions for the evolution of the institution of the firm. Hence, transaction costs were significantly reduced, the level of division of labor in inventing and other activities increased, and new producer goods and related new technology emerged. Is the development experience of Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries relevant to currently developing countries? Why did neoclassical development economists not pay enough attention in the 1950s to this successful development experience? Neoclassical development economics 15
16
Some development economists argue that mainstream economics on the function of the market is not applicable to developing countries because of the nonexistence of many markets in less-developed countries. Lio (1998; see ch. 10 below) shows that if inframarginal analysis is used to formalize classical development economics, the equilibrium number of active markets and degree of marketization can be endogenously determined by the equilibrium level of division of labor and trading efficiency. Use this example to discuss the relationship between classical development economics and neoclassical development economics. Some development economists suggest using many direct measures of welfare to assess the development performance of a country. Use the scientific approach to assess this method in connection with the following discussion. India’s per capita GNP is higher but life expectancy is lower than in China. Which country’s people have higher utility? This is a question that has no well-defined, unique answer. According to one index of the living standard which is a weighted average of per capita GNP, house affordability, pollution, traffic congestion, the crime rate, and other variables that affect welfare, Japan has the highest welfare and the US is ranked number seven, behind Australia. But many Americans who have experience of Japan would not agree with this ranking. In other words, there are a lot of possible substitutions (trade-offs) between each pair of development indices. Only an individual knows her own utility maximization problem which efficiently trades off one against the others among these indices. Such a utility maximization problem is intangible to the government decision-maker. The trade-off between an individual’s utility and that of others’ is even more complicated. Not only is the government planner unable to figure it out, but even if she can, it is impossible for her to balance them in a
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 27
17
18
19
20
benevolent way. Olsen (1996) and Dowrick and Nguyen (1989) use the net flow of migrants between the two countries to identify per capita utility difference between them. Analyze under what conditions this approach to assessing development performance is more reliable than the neoclassical approach discussed above. The infant industry argument claims that protectionist tariffs are essential for industrialization of a less-developed country because of economies of scale, learning by doing, and the network effect of industrial linkage. But some economists argue that the infant industry argument boils down to the argument of an imperfect capital market. In the absence of a developed capital market, protectionist tariffs are essential for industrialization. Comment on these views in connection with Hume’s (1748, “Of Money,” pp. 34–5) following the classical view on investment. “There seems to be a happy concurrence of causes in human affairs, which checks the growth of trade and riches, and hinders them from being confined entirely to one people; as might naturally at first be dreaded from the advantages of an established commerce. Where one nation has gotten the start of another in trade, it is very difficult for the latter to regain the ground it has lost; because of the superior industry and skill of the former, and the greater stocks of which its merchants are possessed, and which enable them to trade on so much smaller profits. But these advantages are compensated in some measure, by the low price of labor in every nation which has not an extensive commerce, and does not much abound in gold and silver. Manufactures therefore gradually shift their places, leaving those countries and provinces which they have already enriched, and flying to others, whither they are allured and are again banished by the same cause.” Dodzin and Vamvakidis (1999) have found empirical evidence for a positive correlation between the degree of openness and the income share of the industrial sector in developing agricultural economies. Use this evidence to assess the theory of the infant industry, which claims that protectionist tariffs are essential for industrialization of an agricultural society. Recent equilibrium models of saving and credit (see chapter 16 below) show that the rationale for saving, investment, and interpersonal loans is based on the gains from the intertemporal trade of goods. Saving and investment cannot take place if transaction costs (moral hazard, adverse selection, and other types of transaction costs) outweigh the gains from intertemporal trade. Use this general equilibrium view to analyze worries about the shortage of investments in developing countries and capital flight from less-developed countries. An ingredient of failed development policies prevailing in the 1950s was reliance on state-owned enterprises for industrialization. This policy failure was generated by ignorance of the function of private residual rights of firms, which has been explored by the new theory of the firm and transaction costs discussed in chapters 8 and 9 below. A comprehensive government investment program based on Harrod– Domar’s investment fundamentalism and input–output analysis is evidence for the ignorance of the function of the market in coordinating division of labor, which is investigated in chapters 4, 7, and 8 below. A discriminatory development policy that promotes industrialization at the cost of rural residents’ welfare was due to state opportunism that took economic development hostage in pursuing the interests of the elite at the cost of the powerless. Analyze the mechanism of political economy for this policy prescription in connection with Krueger’s related analysis of rentseeking (1995, 1997).
28 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
21
22
23
24
25
26
Krueger (1995, p. 2511) indicates that the pessimism of many neoclassical development economists over the contribution of trade to economic development is based on the argument of elasticity, which implies that the income share of demand for primary goods from less-developed countries declines due to an income elasticity of less than 1. Krueger argues that protectionist tariffs based on this pessimism are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The model in chapter 4, below, shows that regardless of the income elasticity of demand for any good, as the transaction cost coefficient for a traded good increases, the general equilibrium jumps from a structure with trade and high aggregate productivity to autarky with low aggregate productivity. Use this result to analyze why the elasticity argument is not a general equilibrium view of development, and why it might be misleading. Why did neoclassical development economics pay no attention to the difference between the successful development experience of Britain and the relatively unsuccessful development experience of France in the eighteenth century? (See Mokyr, 1990, pp. 234–50 and 1993 for comparison of the two.) Many policy prescriptions suggested by neoclassical development economics are similar to mercantilism, which was rejected by the successful development experience of Britain in the eighteenth century and by classical development economics as represented by Smith. Why was the mercantilists’ mistake repeated in the 1950s and 1960s? In the 1950s, many development economists worried about the capability of developing countries in obtaining foreign exchange and investment. If the developing country concerned was a large one (such as India or China), they worried that the world market could not absorb goods exported from this country. Why are the worries groundless from a general equilibrium view? In the 1950s, the governments in Soviet Union, China, and India set up many specific development targets, such as increases in per capita income, life expectancy, literacy, medical aid, public utilities, output levels of steel, machine tools, and grain; per capita consumption of cloth, education, housing, and investment; increases in nutrition levels, and decreases in infant mortality (see, for instance, Behrman and Srinivasan, 1995). Early development economics generally followed this central planning idea of economic development. Some indices to measure economic development, such as the indices of inequality of income distribution, of illiteracy, of infant mortality, and of life expectancy, were developed in accordance with this idea. Is such thinking about economic development consistent with scientific analysis? Some neoclassical development economists claim that many markets are absent in less-developed countries, so that distortion in the latter is greater than in developed countries. But according to the economics of property rights and endogenous externality (see ch. 10 below), the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs implies that better transaction conditions in developed countries may generate more transactions and more aggregate distortion in society as a whole. Use this example to discuss why we need inframarginal analysis of the general equilibrium network of division of labor to investigate the development mechanism. Some development economists argue that the experience of capitalist economic development in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century western Europe is not sufficient for successful economic development. They point to Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Latin America as examples of unsuccessful capitalist economic development. Use the differences in institutions between these countries and Britain to assess this argument. For instance, the longtime political monopoly of the ruling party in
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 29
Egypt generates state opportunism, while India’s state-planned industrialization encourages rent-seeking and other opportunism. The applicability of development economics to developed countries 27
28
29
30
According to Buchanan (1991), state opportunism is not only an obstacle for economic development in developing countries, but also a burden of economic development in developed countries. He argues that the game between constitutionalists, who are concerned with constitutional rules based on a collective decision that pursues long-term social welfare, and rent-seekers who pursue the short-term interests of a particular group at the cost of long-term social welfare under given democratic rules, dictates the evolution of constitutional rules, which determine policy-making. An individual may play dual roles as a constitutionalist and a rent-seeker. Use the debates on trade policies, the education systems and the healthcare system in a democratic developed country (the US or Britain) to analyze the effect on economic development in that country of the “super game” in forming constitutional rules and in policy-making. Naisbitt (1990) predicts several megatrends: franchising will be a major business form in the US in the twenty-first century, the income share of counseling and psychoservices will increase, and individuals will be increasingly less specialized. Discuss the possibilities for using new development economics to predict such megatrends and modernization phenomena in developed countries. One of Bill Gates’ 12 rules for the digital revolution is to read all of one’s email (Time Magazine, March 22, 1999, p. 72). This is certainly not an optimum economic decision because of the trade-off between information gains and resource cost in acquiring information. Several Smithian models in this text predict that the income share of information cost increases as information technology improves and negative network effect increases more rapidly than the positive network effect of division of labor and information exchange as the network expands. This implies that increasingly more resources are used for screening and deleting useless information or jargon messages. More importantly, society’s capacity to handle and absorb information increases as what each member knows, as a proportion of the total information that the society knows, decreases. Hence, the simple slogan “information era” may mislead people to think that the more information that one knows, the better. A new development feature in the US in the twenty-first century might be that it becomes increasingly difficult to make decisions to achieve an efficient trade-off between the positive and negative network effects of information exchange. Comment on this view in connection with the dramatic and rapid negative network effects of the computer virus on modern economic life. A striking development phenomenon in developed countries, documented in Lio (1996), is the concurrent increase in market leisure time and working time, and decrease in self-sufficient working time. This phenomenon implies that as individuals are more specialized in their professional jobs, they increase the purchase of services that used to be self-provided. This tendency is associated with increasing income from the market. According to the Franchise Annual 1999, this will make the sector that offers time-saving services to the two-income family the fastest growing sector in the next 30 years. Explain why the Lio model predicts the concurrent development phenomena as a consequence of the expansion of the network of division of labor.
30 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION
31
32
An interesting development phenomenon in developed countries is documented by a survey in The Economist (Sept. 5–11, 1998, pp. 4 –7). The survey found that the probability that a motorist gets in a traffic jam is higher in the US cities which are upgrading their transportation infrastructure the fastest. North (1958, 1986) also finds empirical evidence for this phenomenon, that income share of transaction costs increases as transaction conditions are improved. This implies that as communication technology is improved and productivity of the computer sector increases, the income share of expenditure on computers and communications increases rather than decreases. This implies that increasingly more time and resources will be consumed in handling jargon and in searching and screening. Use classical ideas on network effects of division of labor to analyze this modern development phenomenon. A development phenomenon noted by Naisbitt (1990) is the rapid development of franchise networks in the US and other developed economies. He claims: “Franchising is the single most successful marketing concept ever.” According to the International Franchise Association (1997), “More than 550,000 franchise businesses dot the American landscape, generating more than $800 billion in sales, with a new franchise business opening somewhere in the US every 8 minutes each business day.” Among three types of franchise – a products franchise, a brand name franchise, and a business format franchise – the last one grows much faster than the other two. In 1999, 4,177 business format franchises in the US are listed in Franchise Annual. Most of them were franchised after 1960. One of them has 20,000 to 22,000 units. It seems that classical development economics can explain this phenomenon very well. Most business format franchises (the fast food franchise networks McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken are two of them) involve the division of labor between thinking and doing. The franchiser specializes in providing know-how (intangible intellectual property, which is very commonly associated with an operation manual and training programs). The franchisee specializes in providing tangible goods or services, buying intangible know-how from the franchiser. Sometimes, a franchise network involves deep division of labor between the sector providing roundabout production equipment and the sector providing final services. For instance, the know-how (McDonald’s “bible”) provided by the McDonald’s franchiser includes the purchase of very specialized cooking equipment that can utilize a high level of division of labor between the roundabout sector and the final sector to improve productivity. Also, the know-how provided by the Precision Tune franchiser includes the purchase of very specialized equipment for testing and fixing car engines. If Smith applied his theory to analyze the franchise, he might say something as follows. The high level of division of labor within a particular franchise network generates high productivity on the one hand, and high transaction costs of tangible and intangible properties on the other. The common opportunism in the network is that the franchisee no longer wants to pay a franchise fee once she has acquired the necessary know-how. The franchise contract uses a hostage mechanism to restrict such opportunism. The typical franchise contract has a special clause allowing the franchiser to unilaterally terminate the contract if the franchisee does not pay the franchise fee, which might be 9 percent of the sales revenue of the franchise. Within a certain period of time after the termination, the franchisee is not allowed to compete with the franchiser in a specified territory and in specified activities. This hostage mechanism significantly reduces the transaction costs caused by infringement
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 31
33
upon the intellectual property rights of the franchiser, so that productivity gains from a larger network of division of labor become more likely to outweigh transaction costs. From this point of view, the boom of franchise networks in the developed countries is the evolution of division of labor between the production of intellectual property and of tangible services. This new development phenomenon has the same economic mechanism as that for Smith’s pin factory. This boom of franchise networks is associated with the recently popular business practices of downsizing, disintegration, outsourcing, contracting out, and focusing on core competencies, which are considered puzzling, since their concurrence to performance progress is incompatible with the neoclassical concept of economies of scale. In chapter 8 of this text, we will use a Smithian model to explain concurrent increases in productivity and division of labor and the decrease in the average size of firms. Up to 1999, more than a thousand new business practices in Internet commerce (e-commerce) have been granted patents. One of them pays reviewers for clicking on Internet messages. This generous pricing policy makes money from a rapid expansion of network connections which repays the company in a roundabout way. The variety of possible pricing structures of a business network increases more than proportionally as the network of transactions expands, since the number of pricing structures is nm where m is the number of traded goods and n is the number of goods directly priced in this network. Marginal cost pricing does not work for choosing the efficient one from many pricing structures since decision variables and prices discontinuously jump between different pricing and network configurations. Use this example to illustrate why inframarginal analysis is essential for understanding many of the new development phenomena in the networking and globalization era.
Notes 1 According to Lewis (1988), “The theory of economic development established itself in Britain in the century and a half running from about 1650 to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776).” Hagen (1980, p. 72) also claims that “Adam Smith was a growth theorist.” Sen (1988, p. 10) indicates that “Petty is regarded, with justice, as one of the founders of modern economics and specifically a pioneer of quantitative economics. He was certainly also a founder of development economics. Indeed, in the early contributions to economics, development economics can hardly be separated out from the rest of economics, since so much of economics was, in fact, concerned with problems of economic development. This applies not only to Petty’s writings, but also to those of the other pioneers of modern economics, including Gregory King, François Quesnay, Antoine Lavoisier, Joseph Louis Lagrange, and even Adam Smith. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was, in fact, also an inquiry into the basic issues of development economics.” 2 Petty (1671, I, pp. 260–1) noted that specialization contributes to skillful clothmaking and pointed out that the Dutch could convey goods cheaply because each of their ships was specialized for a specific function. In another place, Petty gave a more striking example of the division of labor in the manufacture of a watch. Turgot (1751, pp. 242–3) linked the development of division of labor with concurrent increases in inequality of income distribution and in living standards for even the humblest member of society. 3 According to North (1981, pp. 158–68) and Groenewegen (1977), Britain’s domestic liberal policy regime and France’s liberal reforms under Turgot preceded Smith’s advocacy for the role of the invisible hand which was followed by Britain’s liberal international trade regime. 4 Economists agree to disagree about the theory of economic history. Hence, the hypotheses on development history reviewed in this chapter are only a sample of many competing ones.
32 C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 5 According to La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vishny (forthcoming), common law, which emerges spontaneously from litigation rather than being made by government, is more conducive than civil (continental) law, which is government created, to economic development. However, since major west European countries have increasingly imitated the constitutional judiciary ( judicial review) in the US, the constitutional orders of common law and the continental system have been converging. 6 See Beasley (1995) for a detailed analysis of the economic, political, and social reforms of the Meiji period. 7 The era of nineteenth-century free trade is usually dated from 1846, when Britain unilaterally liberalized by repealing the Corn Laws. In fact, liberalization had begun earlier, with the abolition of export duties in 1842 and the reduction of import duties in 1842 and 1845. The next decisive step was the Cobden–Chevalier Treaty of 1860, which liberalized British–French trade. The new German Reich was established by Bismarck on free trade principles and low tariffs in 1879. It is often suggested that this free trade era ended in 1879 with a renewed wave of protectionism, starting with Bismarck’s acceptance of the famous tariff on bread and iron, which raised import duties on agriculture and steel. Higher tariffs soon followed in France and Italy. In fact, even with these tariff increases, average tariff rates remained low until the First World War, and nontariff barriers (for example, quotas and exchange controls) were virtually non-existent. According to data assembled by Capie (1983, table 1.3, p. 8), average tariff revenues as a percentage of total imports stayed below 10 percent in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom; between 10 and 20 percent in Italy; between 20 and 30 percent in the United States; and between 20 and 40 percent in Russia. 8 See Eichengreen and Flandreau (1994, p. 9). The countries on the gold or silver standards in 1908 included, in Europe: the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Romania; in North America: the United States and Canada; in Central America: Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, and Costa Rica; in South America: Peru, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, and Argentina; in Asia and the Middle East: the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and Persia. The national currencies were convertible into gold in all cases except the following: Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Brazil, and Venezuela. The Italian and Australian currencies were stable though not convertible. 9 See Thorp (1984) for very insightful essays on the country-by-country experience. 10 Just as Baechler (1976) considers the rivalry between sovereignties as the driving force of the evolution of capitalist institutions in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, Krueger (1995) considers the rivalry between governments in the international arena as the driving force for the return to liberalization reforms in the late twentieth century. 11 The changing zeitgeist is captured by Keynes in his remarkable lecture “National SelfSufficiency,” delivered in Ireland in 1933, when the world was in the depths of the Great Depression (Keynes, 1933). In the lecture, Keynes rejects the commitment to free trade and the international harmonization of institutions, declaring the late nineteenth-century experience a massive, and apparently inevitable, failure. In Keynes’ view, the international system led to war by stoking competition among the leading powers: “The protection of a country’s existing foreign interests, the capture of new markets, the progress of economic imperialism – these are a scarcely avoidable part of a scheme of things which aims at the maximum geographical diffusion of capital wherever its seat of ownership” (Keynes, 1933, p. 236). For this reason, countries are best linked by ideas and culture, not economic and financial entanglements. Keynes writes: “I sympathise, therefore, with those who would minimise, rather than with those who would maximise, economic entanglements between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel – these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national” (Keynes, 1933, p. 236). 12 In comparison to communism and fascism, the welfare state was a much more successful response to the Great Depression. 13 Zaleski (1980) documents Soviet planners’ mimicry of Western production patterns. Lenin’s works, for instance (1939), indicate that he was very familiar with the features of industrialization in a developed capitalist economy. 14 Sachs and Warner (1995a) document the surge of protectionism at the end of the nineteenth century. Chapter 3 in this text uses the Ricardian model to explain the phenomenon; the inframarginal analysis has simultaneously endogenized trade regime and the equilibrium level of market integration.
C HAPTER 1: I NTRODUCTION 33 15
16
17
18 19
20
21
For instance, Arndt (1989), Bliss (1989), Bhagwati (1984), Hirschman (1958), Lewis (1984), Livingstone (1983), Meier and Seers (1984), Sen (1983), and Stern (1989) consider development economics as a field which applies economics to less-developed countries. In the 1950s the governments in the Soviet Union, China, and India set many specific development targets, such as increases in per capita income, life expectancy, literacy, medical aid, accessibility of public utilities, output levels of steel, machine tools and grain, per capita consumption of cloth, education, housing, investment, and nutrition levels; see, for instance, Behrman and Srinivasan (1995). The optimum solution to a decision problem is a corner solution if some decision variables take on their upper or lower bound values. The optimum solution is an interior solution if all decision variables do not take on the bound values. Marshall assumed concavity (diminishing marginal utility), which implies but is not implied by quasi-concavity of a utility function. Though neoclassical marginal analysis is used by many economists to criticize the state-planned development strategies proposed by early neoclassical development economics, our text will show that inframarginal analysis can provide a much more powerful analytical vehicle. Coase (1946, p.173) noted “a consumer does not only have to decide whether to consume additional units of a product; he has also to decide whether it is worth his while to consume the product at all rather than spend his money in some other direction.” He applies this inframarginal analysis to criticize marginal cost pricing rule (1946) and Pigou’s marginal analysis of externality (Pigou, 1940 and Coase, 1960). Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962) coined the term “inframarginal analysis.” Koopman (1957) and Arrow, Enthoven, Hurwicz, and Uzawa (1958) are among those economists who initiated formal inframarginal analysis in economics. Becker (1981) and Rosen (1977) are among those economists who initiated formal inframarginal analysis of specialization and division of labor. The application of inframarginal analysis to a decision problem can be found in Kendrick (1978), Little and Mirrless (1980), Becker (1981), and Rosen (1983). Its application to the theory of incomplete contracts can be found in Grossman and Hart (1986) and Hart (1995). The application of inframarginal analysis to general equilibrium models can be found in Yang and Wills (1990), Yang and Borland (1991), Dixit (1987, 1989), Yang and Shi (1992), Yang and Ng (1993), and in chapters in this text. Yang and S. Ng (1998) provide a recent survey of inframarginal analysis of division of labor. Recent development economics texts, for instance Ray (1998) and Meier (1995), cover part of the literature on endogenous transaction costs, such as Stiglitz’s models of moral hazard and tenancy. But they do not cover the literature of endogenous externality, commitment game models, the economics of property rights and transaction cost, and the new school of economic history.
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 35
PART I Geography and Microeconomic Mechanisms for Economic Development
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 37
GEOGRAPHY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2
2.1 UNEVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD Two centuries after the start of modern economic growth, a large portion of the world remains mired in poverty. Some benefits of modern development, especially gains in life expectancy and reduced infant mortality, have spread to nearly all parts of the world, though huge and tragic discrepancies remain in even these areas. In material well-being, however, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), the yawning gaps are stunning and show few signs of amelioration. According to the valuable data assembled by Angus Maddison for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (1995), western Europe outpaced Africa in average per capita GDP by a factor of around 2.9 in 1820, and by a factor of 13.2 by 1992. More stunningly, Madison puts the African per capita income in 1992 at $1,284 dollars (measured in 1990 PPP adjusted dollars), which is essentially identical to Maddison’s estimate of the average GDP per capita in western Europe in 1820, $1,292. One area of the developing world, Asia, showed significant progress during the past thirty years, with average incomes rising from around $1,212 in 1965 to $3,239 in 1992 on the Maddison data.1 In Africa, however, the levels of income in the 1990s were about the same as in 1970. (Maddison puts Africa’s average income at $1,289 in 1971 and $1,284 in 1992.) In Latin America and the Caribbean, average income levels in 1992 ($4,820) were only 6.6 percent higher than in 1974 ($4,521). Figure 2.1 (from Gallup and Sachs, 1998) shows the global map of GDP per capita as of 1995 (using PPP-adjusted estimates from World Bank 1997). Two geographical correlates of economic development are unmistakable. First, the countries in the geographical tropics are nearly all poor.2 Almost all high-income countries are in the mid- and high latitudes. Second, coastal economies are generally higher income than the landlocked economies. Indeed, outside of Europe, there is not a single high-income landlocked country, though there are 29 nonEuropean landlocked countries. In the next chapter, we will analyze the relationship between individuals’ utilities (per capita real income), per capita GDP, the extent of the market, aggregate productivity, and the equilibrium level of division of labor. We shall show that GDP relates closely to the notion of extent of the market which coevolves with the level of division of labor. Per capita GDP overstates per capita real income (utility) not only because it ignores effects of general price level, but also it includes transaction costs that reduce utility. On the
Figure 2.1 World GDP per capita 1995
38 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 39
other hand per capita GDP also understates per capita real income because it excludes most of self-sufficient or noncommercial income. This underestimation negatively relates to the level of division of labor. Gallup and Sachs (1998) have also made three observations about population density from data compiled in their research. First, there is no simple relationship between population density and income level. They find densely populated regions that are rich (western Europe) and poor (India, Indonesia, and China), and sparsely populated regions that are both rich (Australia and New Zealand) and poor (the Sahel of Africa). Second, the coastlines and areas connected to the coast by navigable rivers are more densely populated than the hinterlands (we will use this term to refer to regions more than 100 km from the coast or from an oceannavigable waterway). If we multiply GDP per capita and population density, we can calculate GDP density, measured as GDP per km2. As shown by Gallup and Sachs, the coastal, temperate, Northern Hemisphere economies have the highest economic densities in the world. Four of these areas – western Europe, northeast Asia (coastal China, Japan, and Korea), and the eastern and western seaboards of the US and Canada – are the core economic zones of the modern world. These regions are the overwhelming providers of capital goods in global trade, the world’s financial centers, and the generators of a large proportion of global production. If we take the regions within the US, western Europe, and temperate-zone east Asia that lie within 100 km of the coastline, these areas account for a mere 3 percent of the world’s inhabited land area, 13 percent of the world’s population, and at least 32 percent of the world’s GDP measured at purchasing power parity. According to recent data of the World Trade Organization (1995), just 11 countries in North America, western Europe, and east Asia, with 14 percent of the world’s population, account for remarkable 88 percent of global exports of capital goods (machinery and transport equipment). For purposes of discussion, we define a tropical country as one in which half or more of the land area is within the geographical tropics. There are 72 tropical countries, with 41 percent of the world population, and 78 nontropical countries, with 59 percent of the world population. Among the tropical countries, the simple average of 1995 GDP per capita (not weighted by country population) is $3,326. Among the nontropical countries, the average is $9,027, or nearly three times greater. It is convenient to divide the nontropical countries into two subgroups, the temperate-zone economies and the subtropical economies. For our purposes, we define subtropical as countries in which half or more of the land area is tropical or subtropical ecological zones, but in which the country’s land area is more than half outside of the geographical tropics. There are 15 subtropical economies, and 63 temperate-zone economies. While the tropical countries have mean income of $3,326, the subtropical countries have mean income of $7,874, and the temperate-zone economies have a mean income of $9,302. Among the economies that were not socialist in the postwar period, the geographical divide is even sharper: nonsocialist tropics, $3,685; nonsocialist subtropics, $9,248; and nonsocialist temperate, $14,828. Of the top thirty countries ranked by 1995 PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, only two are tropical, and these two are tiny: Hong Kong and Singapore. Four are subtropical, and 23 are temperatezone. The two tropical countries account for a mere 1.0 percent of the combined population of the top 30 countries. Using geographic information system data, we can also examine the proportion of the population living in the geographical tropics in the top 30 countries, taking into account that four of the top thirty countries that we have not counted as tropical (Australia, Chile, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates) have a part of their populations in the tropical region. Making this adjustment, the tropical share of the top-30 population is 2.3 percent. Nearly all landlocked countries in the world are poor, except for a handful in western and central Europe which are deeply integrated into the regional European market, and connected by low-cost trade.3 (Even mountainous Switzerland has the vast bulk of its population in the
40 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 2.1 Geographical characteristics of selected regions
Continent GDP/PC Total population 2
Sub-Saharan Africa
Western Europe
East Asia
South Asia
Transition economies
Latin America
1,865
19,230
580
383
10,655
1,471
3,902
5,163
1,819
1,219
400
472
Total land area (million km )
24
3
14
4
24
20
Land in tropics (%)
91
0
30
40
0
73
Population w/in 100 km of coast (%)
19
53
43
23
9
42
Population w/in 100 km of coast or river (%)
21
89
60
41
55
45
Landlocked population (%) Distance to core market (km)
28
4
0
2
21
3
6,237
922
3,396
5,744
2,439
4,651
Coastal density (pers/km2)
40
109
381
387
32
52
Interior density (pers/km2)
22
125
91
287
16
18
low-elevation cantons north of the Alps, and these population centers are easily accessible to the North Atlantic by land and river-based traffic.) There are 35 landlocked countries in the world with population greater than 1 million, of which 29 are outside of western and central Europe. Of these 29 countries, the richest is 38th(!), Botswana, which owes its pride of place to well-managed diamond mines. The second richest is 68th, Belarus. The difference in means is striking: the landlocked countries outside of western and central Europe have an average income of $1,771, compared with the non-European coastal countries, which have an average income of $5,567. Of course, geography is not everything. Even geographically favored countries, such as temperate-zone, coastal North Korea, or well-located Czechoslovakia, failed to thrive under a socialist economic and political system. Nonetheless, development surely seems to be favored among the temperate-zone economies, especially the subset that: (1) is in the Northern Hemisphere; (2) has avoided socialism; and (3) has avoided being ravaged by war. In total, there are 78 nontropical economies, of which 7 are in the Southern Hemisphere: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Lesotho, New Zealand, South Africa, and Uruguay (all in the temperate zone). Gallup and Sachs (1998) classify 46 countries as socialist during the postwar period, of which 31 are in the North temperate zone, and four are in the North subtropical zone. They also classify 12 nontropical countries as war-torn. There are 12 nontropical landlocked countries outside of Europe, of which 10 were socialist and 2 were not. With these definitions, Gallup and Sachs find the following. There are 23 countries with the most favored combination of geography and politics – Northern Hemisphere, temperate zone, coastal, nonsocialist, and nonwar-torn – with an average income of $18,000. In fact, 21 of these countries have an average GDP per capita above $10,000, with Turkey and Morocco being the only exceptions.4 Using a multiple regression estimate for the 78 nontropical countries, average incomes per capita are reduced by an estimated $4,785 for being in the subtropics; $3,590 for being in the Southern hemisphere; $10,053 for being socialist; and $5,190 for being landlocked. A summary of geographical characteristics by major region is shown in table 2.1. For each region, they show the average GDP per capita, total population and land area, and several key variables that we will find to be closely related to economic development: the extent of land in the geographical tropics, the proportion of the region’s population within 100 km of the
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 41
coastline or within 100 kilometers of the coastline or ocean-navigable river,5 the percentage of the population that lives in landlocked countries, the average distance by air (weighted by country populations) of the countries within the region to the closest “core” economic areas,6 the density of human settlement (population per km2) in the coastal region (within 100 km of the coastline) and the interior (beyond 100 km from the coastline). Some important characteristics are the following. First, sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region, has several characteristics closely associated with low income in general: a very high concentration of land in the tropics, a population heavily concentrated in the interior (only 19 percent within 100 km of the coast); with more than a quarter of the population in landlocked countries (the highest of any region); very far from the closest “core” markets in Europe; and with low population densities in the coastal and interior regions. By contrast, western Europe, the richest region shown, is nontropical; heavily concentrated near coastal areas; with almost no population in landlocked regions; and with moderate population density. South Asia and the transition economies (of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union) are, like sub-Saharan Africa, also heavily concentrated in the interior rather than the coast. India’s great mass of population, for example, lives in the Gangetic valley, often hundreds of kilometers from the coast. South Asia is, of course, partly tropical and densely populated (indeed the most densely populated in the world), while the transition economies are nontropical and also the least densely populated region. Latin America is the other highly tropical region, with low population densities, and with a moderately coastal population. The United States has two enormous advantages for development: a relatively high proportion of population near the coast (38 percent within 100 km of the coast, and a remarkable 67 percent if oceannavigable river systems are included), and a temperate-zone landmass. These patterns prompt the following questions. How much has geography mattered for economic growth, once we control for economic policies and institutions? What is the general equilibrium mechanism for economic development that involves the interplay between geography, urbanization, institutions, and evolution of division of labor? If geography mattered in the past, what difference does it still make via the equilibrium mechanism today? Based on the evidence provided by Gallup and Sachs (1998), we believe that geography continues to be of importance for economic development, alongside the importance of economic and political institutions. From an analytical point of view, we believe that geographical considerations should be reintroduced into development economics, which so far has almost completely neglected geographical themes. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 discusses a range of theoretical approaches linking geography and economic development. Section 2.3 provides cross-country empirical evidence for the linkages.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n
What is the relationship between geographic conditions, transaction costs, level of division of labor, and per capita real income of a country? What is the relationship between geographic conditions, quality of public institutions, government policy regime, and development performance of a country?
2.2 GEOGRAPHY AND DIVISION OF LABOR While geography has been much neglected in the past decade of formal econometric studies of cross-country performance, economists have long noted the crucial role of geographical factors.
42 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Indeed, though Adam Smith (1776) is most remembered for his stress on economic institutions, Smith also gave deep attention to the geographic correlates of growth. (Smith should also be remembered for his recognition that Europe’s first-mover military advantage gave it an ability to impose huge costs on other parts of the world.7) Smith saw geography as the crucial accompaniment of economic institutions in determining the division of labor. Smith’s logic, of course, started with the notion that productivity depends on specialization, and that specialization depends on the extent of the market. The extent of the market in turn depends both on the freedom of markets as well as the costs of transport. And geography is crucial in transport costs: As by means of water-carriage a more extensive market is opened to every sort of industry than what land-carriage alone can afford it, so it is upon sea-coast, and along the banks of navigable rivers, that industry of every kind naturally begins to subdivide and improve itself, and it is frequently not till a long time after that those improvements extend themselves to the inland part of the country. (p. 25)
In view of the crucial role of transport costs, Smith notes that: All the inland parts of Africa, and that part of Asia which lies any considerable way north of the Euxine [Black] and Caspian seas, the antient Sycthia, the modern Tartary and Siberia, seem in all ages of the world to have been in the same barbarous and uncivilized state in which we find them at present. The sea of Tartary is the frozen ocean which admits of no navigation, and though some of the greatest rivers in the world run through that country, they are at too great a distance from one another to carry commerce and communication through the greater part of it. There are in Africa none of those great inlets, such as the Baltic and Adriatic seas in Europe, the Mediterranean and Euxine seas in both Europe and Asia, and the gulphs of Arabia, Persia, India, Bengal, and Siam, in Asia, to carry maritime commerce into the interior parts of that great continent . . . (p. 25)
Great thinkers such as Braudel (1972, 1981–4) and McNeill (1963, 1974), and important recent historians such as E. L. Jones (1981) and Crosby (1986), have placed the geography and climate of Europe at the center of their explanations for Europe’s preeminent success in economic development. Braudel points to the key role of the Mediterranean-based and northAtlantic coastal economies as the creative centers of global capitalism after the fifteenth century. McNeill similarly stresses Europe’s great advantages in coastal trade, navigable rivers, temperate climate, and suitable disease patterns as fundamental conditions for European takeoff and eventual domination of the Americas and Australasia. Crosby details the advantages of the temperate zones in climate, disease ecology, and agricultural productivity. Two important essays, one by the Council on Foreign Relations (Lee, 1957), and one a generation later by Kamarck (1976) for the World Bank, synthesized these arguments in excellent surveys on Tropical Development, which have been largely ignored by the formal modelers of economic development. Historians have also stressed the changing nature of geographical advantage over time, as technology changes. In early civilizations, when transport and communications were too costly to support much interregional and international trade (and virtually any oceanic trade), geographical advantage came overwhelmingly from agricultural productivity rather than from access to markets. Therefore, early civilizations almost invariably emerged in highly fertile river valleys such as the Nile, Indus, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze rivers. These civilizations produced high-density populations that in later eras were actually disadvantaged by their remoteness from international trade. Northern Europe could not be densely settled before the discovery of appropriate technologies (e.g. the moldboard plow in the Middle Ages) and tools to fell the great northern forests (Landes, 1998). Similarly, as the advantages of overland trade and coastal-based trade between Europe and Asia gave way to oceanic commerce in the
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 43
sixteenth century, economic advantage shifted from the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, to the north Atlantic. In the nineteenth century, the high costs of transport of coal for steam power meant that early industrialization almost invariably depended on proximity to coal fields. This advantage of course disappeared with the discoveries of petroleum refining, oil and hydro-based electricity production, and reduced cost of bulk transport. Railroads, automobiles, and air transport, as well as all forms of telecommunications, surely reduced the advantages of the coastline relative to the hinterland, but according to the evidence below, the advantages of sea-based trade remained. To summarize, we can say that leading historians and economists have long recognized geography as a crucial scaffolding for economic development, even though geography has been neglected in most recent empirical studies of comparative development. Leading thinkers have pointed to four major areas in which geography will play a fundamental and direct role in economic development: transport costs, human health, agricultural productivity (including animal husbandry); and proximity and ownership of natural resources (including water, minerals, hydrocarbon deposits, etc.). The factors may also have indirect effects, if first-mover advantages or population densities affect subsequent growth dynamics through agglomeration economies or other feedback mechanisms.8 The models in this text have formalized Smith’s ideas that geography affects transportation cost, which determines the extent of the market, which determines the level of division of labor, which determines in turn productivity and development performance. We develop Smithian static and dynamic equilibrium models to explore the intimate relationships between geography, trading efficiency, the equilibrium network size of division of labor, the extent of the market, urbanization, and productivity. In the models, the equilibrium network size of division of labor is determined by all individuals’ networking decisions. The networking decisions determine each player’s numbers of traded goods and trade partners. The tradeoff between transaction costs and positive network effects of division of labor on aggregate productivity determines the equilibrium level of division of labor and equilibrium aggregate productivity. Coastal areas and areas that are close to navigable rivers have a greater scope for trading-off economies of specialization against transaction costs than landlocked areas, so that the extent of the market and the equilibrium level of division of labor are greater in the former than in the latter. In chapter 11 we shall develop several Smithian models of urbanization. These models show that the geographical conditions that are favorable for transportation will generate great economies of agglomeration. This implies a fast coevolution of urbanization and division of labor. In chapter 12, several Smithian models with an endogenous number of producer goods and endogenous degree of production roundaboutness show that geographical conditions that are favorable for transportation will generate a larger equilibrium number of producer goods, a greater degree of production roundaboutness, and more outsourcing trade. In chapter 14, a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium model shows such favorable geographical conditions can speed up spontaneous coevolution of division of labor and the extent of the market. It predicts that those countries in islands or coastal areas will enter takeoff stage of economic development earlier than hinterland or landlocked areas do. The prediction of the models is consistent with the empirical observation documented in Radelet and Sachs (1998b) that only those developing countries with good transport access to world markets have been able to establish assembly-type industries and to adopt laborintensive export-oriented industrialization patterns. So far we have stressed that geography may influence economic development directly through transportation efficiency and level of division of labor. Geography can have another potent effect by affecting the choice of economic policies and institutions. Countries with favorable geographical conditions for transportation, for example, may choose more open trade policies
44 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
than countries with unfavorable geographical conditions for transportation. The Ricardian model with transaction costs and an endogenous trade policy regime in chapter 3 provides a formal general equilibrium mechanism that predicts the relationship between geography and government policies. In that model, there is a trade-off between the positive network effect of division of labor on aggregate productivity, transportation costs, and distortions caused by tariffs. As transportation efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium discontinuously jumps from autarky first, to the partial division of labor where one country produces two goods and the other country completely specializes in producing one good, then to the complete division of labor where each country produces only its comparative advantage good. For the partial division of labor, the terms of international trade are determined by the domestic terms of trade in the less-developed country which is not completely specialized. In the absence of tariffs, all gains from trade will go to the developed country that completely specializes. Hence, the less-developed country can use import tariffs to obtain most gains from trade by altering the terms of international trade. But the developed country will hurt itself by imposing any positive tariffs. Hence, in this transitional stage of economic development, unilateral free trade in the developed country coexists with unilateral protection tariffs in the less-developed country. As transportation efficiency is improved, the equilibrium is associated with the complete division of labor in which two countries have incentive to engage in Nash tariff bargaining, in order to avoid a tariff war which will exhaust gains from trade. Such Nash tariff negotiation will generate bilateral free trade. This general equilibrium mechanism which simultaneously determines the trade policy regime and level of division of labor can tell the following story about the relationship between geography and policy regime. Transportation efficiency is higher in an island or coastal economy than in a hinterland or landlocked economy. Hence, the equilibrium level of division of labor is higher in the former than in the latter. The higher level of division of labor is associated with a free trade policy regime, while the low level of division of labor is associated with unilateral protectionist tariffs. If two countries, such as Britain and France, are coastal, their favorable geographical conditions for transportation generate a high level of division of labor between them. As a result, each country can increase the share of gains from trade that it receives by increasing import tariffs to manipulate terms of trade. Such a tariff war will generate deadweight that exhausts all gains from trade. Therefore, both countries will have an incentive to adopt a multilateral free trade regime via Nash tariff negotiations. In chapter 3, we will extend the Ricardian model with two countries to the case with three countries. It will be shown that favorable geographical conditions for transportation will increase the number of countries that might be involved in international trade. This increase in the number of potentially trading countries creates pressure to exclude the country with higher tariffs from trade even if this country has a comparative advantage in producing a good. This implies that favorable geographical conditions will increase the potential number of trading countries and thereby press all countries to adopt free trade policy.
2.3
EMPIRICAL LINKAGES OF GEOGRAPHY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2.3.1 Geographical correlates of economic development The basic theories in this volume point to two broad categories of geographical factors of deep significance: transport costs, and production condition parameters that affect the degree of comparative advantage. Consider first the transport costs. Remarkably, despite the likely
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 45
importance of transport costs for economic development, there are no adequate measures of transport costs for a large sample of developed and developing countries. The best that we could obtain for a large number of countries is the IMF estimates of the CIF/FOB margins in international trade. These margins measure the ratio of import costs inclusive of insurance and freight (CIF) relative to import costs exclusive of insurance and freight (FOB). There are several problems with these measures, the most important being that: (1) they are only crudely estimated by the IMF staff; and (2) they depend on the composition of imports, and thus are not standardized across countries. Nonetheless, the CIF/FOB margins are informative, and predictive of economic development. The CIF/FOB margin for 1995 is 3.6 percent for the US, 4.9 percent for western Europe, 9.8 percent for east Asia, 10.6 percent for Latin America, and a whopping 19.5 percent for sub-Saharan Africa.9 Gallup and Sachs estimate an equation relating the CIF/FOB band to the distance of the country to the “core” areas of the world economy (Distance, measured in thousands of kilometers), and to the accessibility of the country to sea-based trade, by including a dummy variable for non-European landlocked countries (Landlocked): CIF/FOB = 1.06 + 0.010 Distance (1,000 km) + 0.11 Landlocked (84.9) (3.0) (2.4) N = 83, R2 = 0.32[10] As expected, there is a penalty both for distance from the core economies and for being landlocked. Each 1,000 km raises the CIF/FOB margin by 1.0 percentage points; being landlocked raises the CIF/FOB margin by 11.1 percentage points. We will show later that the CIF/FOB margin is indeed predictive of income levels and economic development. Regressing CIF/FOB on the proportion of the population within 100 km of the coast (Pop100km), Gallup and Sachs also find a negative effect, but when they include both Pop100km and Landlocked, Landlocked has more explanatory power. The coefficient on Pop100km remains negative, as expected, but drops in magnitude and is statistically insignificant. We saw in table 2.1 that the various regions in the world differ markedly in locations of their populations relative to the seacoast and navigable rivers. African populations especially are far from the coastline, while Europe is overwhelmingly coastal. Indeed, Africa has the highest proportion of landlocked population of any continent in the world, and especially in east Africa, the populations are heavily in the interior (beyond 100 km of the coast) even in countries with coastlines such as Kenya (coastal population equals 6 percent of the total), Mozambique (40 percent), Sudan (2 percent), and Tanzania (16 percent). The situation is made worse by the fact that Africa’s interior regions are not accessible by ocean-navigable vessels, since the river systems in Africa almost all face impassable barriers (e.g. cataracts, shallows, etc.) that prevent the entry of ocean-going vessels into the interior of the continent. The notion that the coastal access has a large effect on trade and development is plausible given what we know about the growth patterns of the most successful developing countries in the period after 1965. Almost without exception, fast-growing developing countries have based their rapid growth on labor-intensive manufacturing exports. And almost without exception, such activities have expanded in port cities or export zones close to ports. As shown in Radelet and Sachs (1998b), almost all countries with macroeconomic success in labor-intensive manufacturing exports have populations almost totally within 100 km of the coast. Geographical conditions affect the equilibrium degree of urbanization and the equilibrium level of division of labor via their effects on transportation conditions (see chapter 11). Most large cities other than garrison towns or administrative capitals typically grow up on coastlines or ocean-navigable rivers. Therefore, countries with neither coastlines nor navigable rivers
46 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
tend to have less urbanization, and less growth. A simple regression estimate for 149 developed and developing countries in 1995 shows that more ocean-accessible regions in the world are indeed also more urbanized, as are economies closer to the economic core regions. In a simple regression Gallup and Sachs find: %Urban = 132.3 + 17.1 Pop100km − 10.8 LDistance (10.8) (3.6) (7.1) N = 149, R2 = 0.29 where %Urban is population share of urban residents, Pop100km is the proportion of the population within 100 km of the coast, and LDistance is the log of the distance to the core areas. A second major dimension of productivity linked to geography is the prevalence of infectious disease. As shown in Gallup and Sachs (1998), malaria, with an estimated incidence of between 200 and 500 million cases per year (WHO, 1997a), is almost entirely concentrated in the tropics. There is no effective prophylaxis or vector control for malaria in the areas of high endemicity, especially sub-Saharan Africa. Earlier methods of vector control are losing their effectiveness because of increased resistance of the mosquitoes to insecticides. Standard treatments are also losing effectiveness because of the spread of resistance to chloroquine and other antimalarial drugs. The geographical extent of malaria is determined mostly by the ecology of the parasites (different species of malaria Plasmodia) and the vectors (different species of Anopheles mosquitoes). Malaria was brought under control since 1945 mainly in temperate-zone and subtropical environments, where the foothold of the disease (both in terms of the mosquito population and the parasite endemicity) was more fragile. Gallup and Sachs (1998) also show the extent of endemic malaria in 1946, 1966 and 1994, with its gradually retreat to the core tropics. Using data from the World Health Organization, they construct a measure of malaria intensity. A simple regression of malarial intensity on ecological zones shows that it is most intense in the tropics and somewhat less in the subtropics (relative to all other ecozones). There is also a strong “sub-Saharan Africa” effect. Malarial Intensity (scale 0 to 1) = −0.01 + 0.3 Wet Tropics + 0.5 Dry Tropics + 0.4 Wet Subtropics + 0.2 Dry Subtropics (0.7) (2.0) (4.9) (3.9) (1.5) +0.5 sub-Saharan Africa, (6.7)
N = 148, R2 = 0.74
The pattern for malaria is common for a range of infectious diseases, whose vectors of transmission depend on the tropical climate. Many diseases that are carried by mosquitoes (dengue, yellow fever, and lymphatic filariasis in addition to malaria), mollusks (e.g. schistosomiasis), and other arthropods (onchocerciasis, leishmaniasis, trypanosomiasis, Chagas’ disease, and visceral filariasis), are endemic in the tropical ecological zones and nearly absent elsewhere. While data on disease burdens by country are generally not available, the recent massive study by Murray and associates on the burden of disease (Murray and Lopez, 1996), confirms the heavy tropical concentration of infectious disease as a cause of death. A third major correlate of geography and productivity is the link of climate and agricultural output. Gallup’s (1998) estimates of agricultural productivity suggest a strong adverse effect of tropical ecozones on the market value of agricultural output, after controlling for inputs such as labor, tractors, fertilizer, irrigation and other inputs. Gallup (1998) suggests that tropical agriculture suffers a productivity decrement of between 30 and 50 percent compared with temperate-zone agriculture, after controlling as well as possible for factor inputs.
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 47
2.3.2 Geography and levels of per capita income Gallup and Sachs (1998) have examined the linkage of output to geography both in levels and rates of change of GDP. They start with the simplest specification, writing the log level of per capita income as a function of three underlying geographical variables: (1) Tropicar, the percentage of land in the geographical tropics; (2) Pop100km, the proportion of the population within 100 km of the coastline; and (3) LDistance, the minimum log-distance of the country to one of the three core regions, measured specifically as the minimum log-distance to New York, Rotterdam, or Tokyo. This relationship are estimated three times: for Maddison’s GDP estimates for 1950 and 1990, and for the World Bank’s PPP GDP estimates for 1995 on the subset of countries for which Maddison’s data are available. In all three regression estimates, reported in Table 2.2 output is a positive function of Pop100km, and a negative function of Tropicar and LDistance. The magnitude of the effects tends to increase over time, as expected. In 1950, the “penalty” for Tropicar was −0.69, signifying that tropical areas were only 50 percent (= exp(−0.69)) of per capita income of the nontropical areas controlling for the other factors. By 1995, the effect has risen to −0.99 (or 37 percent of the nontropical areas). Similarly, the benefit of a coastal population rose from 0.73 in 1950 to 1.17 in 1995. The suggestion is that being tropical, landlocked and distant was bad already in 1950, and adverse for growth between 1950 and 1995. Table 2.2 Levels of GDP
Tropical area (%) Pop100km (%) LDistance
(1) lgdp50
(2) lgdp90
(3) lgdp95
−0.69 (4.13)
−0.99 (5.78)
−0.99 (5.10)
0.71 (4.02)
1.00 (5.43)
1.09 (5.27)
−0.22 (2.56)
−0.39 (4.39)
−0.34 (3.41)
(4) lgdp95
0.85 (3.63)
(5) lgdp95 (non-Africa)
1.21 (4.17)
(6) lgdp95
0.36 (2.53) 0.03 (0.55)
Shipping Cost (CIF/FOB)
−2.28 (2.32)
−13.50 (4.66)
Malaria index 1994 (0–1)
−1.55 (6.60)
−1.26 (2.69)
−1.15 (7.65)
Log hydrocarbons per person
0.01 (1.84)
0.01 (1.75)
0.01 (1.85)
Socialism
−0.05 (0.31)
New state (0–3)
−0.06 (0.98)
Trade Openness (0–1)
0.23 (7.38)
Public Institutions (0–10)
0.55 (3.17)
Constant
9.07 (13.58)
11.19 (16.26)
10.98 (14.10)
10.84 (9.82)
22.64 (7.42)
6.71 (11.06)
Observations R2
129 0.38
129 0.58
129 0.50
83 0.69
52 0.56
97 0.88
Note: Absolute value of t-statistics in parentheses.
48 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
We now turn in more detail to the 1995 data, for which we have a wider range of possible explanatory variables. This simple level equation for GDP per capita on a PPP-basis in 1995 is first estimated, for the 150 countries with population greater than 1 million. Then growth equations for the period 1965–90 are considered. The explanatory variables are grouped into three broad categories: (1) variables related to transport costs and proximity to markets; (2) variables related to ecological zone; and (3) variables related to economic and political institutions. In regression (4) of table 2.2, the explanatory variables are limited to a parsimonious set of four variables closely linked to geography: the prevalence of malaria; transport costs as measured by the CIF/FOB margin; the proportion of the country’s population near the coastline; and the endowment of hydrocarbons per capita. These four variables alone account for 69 percent of the cross-country variation in per capita income, and are all with the expected sign and statistically significant (hydrocarbons only at the 10 percent level). High levels of GDP per capita are associated with the absence of malaria; low transport costs; a coastal population; and a large endowment of hydrocarbons per capita. Of course, these associations are hardly a proof of causality. Not only might the explanatory variables be proxies for left out variables (e.g. malaria may be proxying for a range of tropical diseases or other liabilities), but there could also be reverse causation, in which high incomes lead to the control of malaria, or to a reduction of transport costs. In regression (6), variables related to political and economic institutions are included: Socialism, which is a dummy variable for socialist economic institutions; New State, which measures the proportion of time under colonial rule; Public, which measures the quality of governmental institutions; and Open, which measures the proportion of time between 1965 and 1990 that the country is open to international trade. These variables relate to endogenous transaction costs. The relationships between endogenous transaction costs, institutions, evolution in division of labor, and economic development will be investigated in chapters 8, 9, and 10 in Part II. It is found, in line with many recent studies, that openness and quality of public institutions are highly correlated with the level of income. The socialist variable is not significant, probably because of the strong collinearity with Open and because of the smaller data set once Gallup and Sachs include the Public variable (since that variable is not available for most of the socialist economies). Newly independent countries also do not have significantly lower income levels. If the malaria index is not included, the new state variable is highly significant, which suggests the possibility that the heavy burden of disease in tropical Africa and Asia made these regions more susceptible to colonization. Gallup and Sachs find, importantly, that both policy and geography variables are strongly correlated with the level of 1995 per capita GDP. Remember that geography may be even more important than suggested by this equation, since there are reasons to believe that favorable geography plays a role in inducing growth-promoting institutions such as open trade and an efficient public bureaucracy. We examine this linkage, briefly, below.
2.3.3 Geography and growth of per capita income We now examine the forces of convergence and divergence by estimating a cross-country growth equation that allows for the possibility of catching-up effects. Gallup and Sachs (1998) have run a Barro regression. They estimate a model of average annual growth during 1965–90 conditional on per capita income levels in 1965. The dates are determined by data availability. For the purposes of the growth equations, they use the Penn World Tables for measures of PPP-adjusted GDP per capita. They test whether growth is affected by the initial income level (negatively in the case of convergence, positively in the case of divergence), as well as by geographical variables holding constant the initial income and other policy and institutional variables.
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 49
Table 2.3 GDP growth (1) gr6590
(2) gr6590
(3) gr6590
(4) gr6590
(5) gr6590 (TSLS)
(6) gr6590
(7) gr6590
GDP p.c. 1965
−2.3 (7.70)
−2.4 (8.02)
−2.5 (8.06)
−2.6 (7.87)
−2.7 (7.60)
−2.3 (7.41)
−2.4 (7.09)
Years of secondary schooling
0.3 (1.75)
0.2 (1.77)
0.2 (1.32)
0.2 (1.34)
0.2 (1.15)
0.1 (0.81)
0.1 (0.89)
Log life expectancy 1965
6.6 (7.23)
5.5 (6.21)
4.3 (4.45)
3.3 (3.60)
2.4 (1.79)
4.1 (4.53)
3.4 (3.89)
Trade openness 1965–90 (0–1)
1.9 (5.49)
1.9 (4.79)
1.7 (4.79)
1.7 (4.70)
1.7 (4.39)
1.8 (4.79)
1.8 (4.66)
Public institutions (0–10)
0.3 (3.08)
0.3 (2.63)
0.3 (3.32)
0.4 (3.92)
0.5 (3.66)
0.3 (3.20)
0.4 (3.47)
LDistance
0.0 (0.24)
Pop100km (%)
1.0 (3.07)
0.9 (3.01)
0.8 (2.64)
0.6 (1.91)
−0.9 (2.28)
−0.6 (1.35)
−0.5 (1.09)
−0.4 (0.82)
−0.7 (1.89)
−0.5 (1.44)
−1.2 (2.15)
−2.0 (3.60)
−2.6 (3.87)
−0.9 (1.86)
−1.6 (2.89)
−2.5 (3.93)
−4.5 (2.12)
Tropical area (%) Malaria index 1966 dMal6694
−1.9 (2.94)
Log coastal density
0.3 (4.91)
0.2 (4.34)
Log inland density
−0.1 (2.26)
−0.1 (1.60)
Constant
−8.9 (2.90)
−4.1 (1.17)
1.3 (0.34)
5.9 (1.57)
9.8 (1.76)
0.7 (0.19)
4.1 (1.08)
Observations R2
75 0.71
75 0.75
75 0.77
75 0.80
75 0.78
75 0.80
75 0.82
Note: Absolute value of robust t-statistics in parentheses.
They start with a baseline equation similar to those in Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), in which average annual growth between 1965 and 1990 is a function of initial income in 1965; the initial level of education in 1965 (measured by average years of secondary school in the population); the log of life expectancy at birth in 1965; the openness of the economy to international trade; and the quality of public administration (regression (1) of table 2.3). Evidence for conditional convergence, and standard results for the other variables are found: average growth rate is an increasing function of education, life expectancy, openness, and the quality of public administration. In regression (2) of table 2.3, Tropicar and Pop100km are highly significant and of the expected sign. All other things equal, annual growth is 0.9 percentage points lower in tropical countries than in nontropical countries. Landlocked countries (Pop100km = 0) experienced 1.0 percentage points slower growth than coastal economies. Interestingly, the LDistance variable is not significant. This suggests that distance to the core may be endogenously determined by openness and quality of public institutions
50 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 2.4 Levels and changes in malarial prevalence between 1966 and 1994, by ecozone Predominant ecozone Temperate (N = 57)
Malaria index 1966 (0 –100)
Average change 1966–94
0.2
−0.2
27.8
−8.8
Subtropical (N = 42)
61.7
−5.0
Tropical (N = 21)
64.9
0.5
Desert (N = 23)
Note: Countries are classified by their predominant ecozone from the following groupings: Temperate (temperate, boreal, and polar ecozones), Desert (tropical and subtropical deserts), Subtropical (nondesert subtropical), and Tropical (nondesert tropical). The index and average reduction are unweighted averages over countries.
during the period. If those two variables are dropped, then LDistance has the expected negative sign with statistical significance (not shown). In regression (3) of table 2.4, Ldistance is dropped and a measure of malaria at the beginning of the period is added. Initial malaria incidence has a dramatic correlation with poor economic performance. Countries that had severe malaria in 1966 grew 1.2 percentage points per year slower than countries without falciparum malaria, even after controlling for life expectancy. The estimated effect of being in the tropics becomes smaller than it was without the malaria variable, and insignificant. Clearly, the malaria variable is picking up the explanatory power of the tropics variable. The effect of initial life expectancy is also reduced, though still large and significant. In fact, none of the countries in the sample with 100 percent of their land area subject to falciparum malaria were able to eradicate it completely over this period. The reductions in malaria were largest in the countries with the least malaria in 1966. The temperate ecozones were effectively free of falciparum malaria in 1966. The reductions in malaria occurred in the desert (nontemperate) regions, and the subtropics. There was a small increase in the malaria index for countries in tropical ecozones. The change in malaria incidence could be partly due to economic growth if growth provided countries with the economic resources and institutional wherewithal to carry out effective control programs. To account for the possible impact of economic growth on malaria reduction, Gallup and Sachs instrument the malaria change with four subtropical ecozone variables and two desert tropical ecozone variables. Regression (5) shows that the estimated impact of malaria on growth increases when change in malaria is instrumented. There is no indication that faster growth is the cause of malaria reduction. Some of the countries that have had the largest increases in malaria, like India and Sri Lanka, have had steady, if unspectacular, economic growth over this period. Likewise some countries with dramatic decreases in malaria, like Namibia, had almost no economic growth. It is only after controlling for other relevant variables that the effect of malaria reduction on growth becomes apparent. The index of malaria, and malaria change, may be more than just a measure of malaria. It may be picking up the incidence of other tropical diseases not well indicated by the average life expectancy and tropical area. Among tropical diseases, malaria is widely recognized to be the most important, but the malaria index may also be a proxy for scourges like onchocerciasis, filariasis, and trypanosomiasis. Malaria occurs throughout the tropics, but severe malaria is heavily concentrated in subSaharan Africa. Africa currently has 90 percent of the estimated cases of malaria each year (WHO, 1997a), and it is the only region of the world where falciparum malaria predominates.
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 51
In regression (6) agglomeration effects are tested. The basic idea is to see how economic growth depends on the extent of the market which is associated with the level of division of labor according to Young (1928). A plausible measure of extent of the market is GDP per km2 within the economy in the initial year, 1965. Gallup and Sachs (1998) separate GDP per km2 on the coast and GDP per km2 in the interior, for reasons discussed earlier: high population density on the coast is likely to be associated with an increased division of labor due to a favorable transport condition, while high population density in the interior is likely to be associated with disintegrated economy and low level of division of labor due to an unfavorable transport condition. Note that ln(GDP density) = ln(GDP per km2) = ln(GDP per capita) + ln(Population per km2), and since ln(GDP per capita) is already a regressor, population density or GDP density can enter interchangeably into the regression. For countries in which the entire population is within 100 km of the coast, the interior population density is put at zero. For countries in which the entire population is farther than 100 km from the coast, the coastal population density is put at zero. Pop100km is also dropped as a separate regressor, since Pop100km is highly collinear with the two population density variables. The 1994 measures of Pop100km and the 1965 population levels for the country are used as a whole to calculate the population densities in the coastal and interior regions. The regression estimate is revealing. It shows that higher coastal population density is associated with faster growth, while higher interior population density is associated with lower growth. Thus, there appear to be economies of agglomeration, which are generated by network effects of division of labor, at play in the coastal regions. Large populations appear to be a net disadvantage for inland economies since adverse transportation conditions generate a low level of division of labor and a low level of market integration. Hence, a large population is divided among isolated local economies with inferior development performance. The Smith–Young models in chapters 7, 11, and 12 provide theoretical prediction of this phenomenon. With separate inland and coastal agglomeration effects in regression (6), the estimated effect of malaria becomes less precise, slipping to a 7 percent significance level. On the other hand, if initial malaria and malaria change are included as in regression (7), they are both strongly significant, but the diminishing returns of interior population density loses statistical significance. The limits of the degrees of freedom in data are pushed, but the results suggest that both malaria prevalence and inland population concentrations are detrimental to growth. General conclusions from the growth equations are as follows. First, both institution and geography variables matter. There is no simple “geographic determinism” nor a world in which only good institution matters. The tropics are adverse for growth, while coastal populations are good for growth. The tropical effect seems to be strongly related to the prevalence of malaria. This could be the true direct and indirect effect of that disease, or more likely, a proxy for a range of tropical maladies geographically associated with malaria. The access to coast seems to matter in lowering transport costs and in allowing for agglomeration economies and related division of labor. A dense coastal population is actually seen to be favorable to economic growth during 1965–90, while a dense interior population is adverse. If we summarize the implications on a region by region basis, we conclude the following. Africa is especially hindered by its tropical location; by its high prevalence of malaria; by its low proportion of the population near the coast; and by the low population density near the coast. Europe, North America, and east Asia, the core regions, by contrast, are favored on all three counts. South Asia is burdened by a high proportion of the population in the interior, a very high interior population density, and a large proportion of the land area in the tropics. The transition economies of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, many of which are landlocked, are burdened by a very low proportion of the population near the coast and very low population density near the coast, but these countries are benefited by lack of exposure to tropical disease. Finally, Latin America is moderately coastal, but with relatively low coastal
52 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
population densities. Also, Latin America has a moderate exposure to the problems of tropics, including the prevalence of malaria.
2.3.4 Geographical effects on economic policy choices We have noted in the theoretical section that geography may affect economic policy choices by altering the trade-offs facing government. Two coastal countries may prefer high levels of specialization, so that they face a tariff war between countries with high levels of specialization since they can both manipulate terms of trade using tariff policies. This generates incentives for both countries to achieve bilateral free trade via Nash tariff negotiations. As a result, coastal governments may choose a free trade regime. An inland country may choose a low level of specialization due to adverse transportation conditions. As a result, a revenuemaximizing inland sovereign may choose to impose harsh trade taxes, thereby getting more gains from trade by manipulating terms of trade. In this section, we briefly explore this idea with the data at hand, focusing on the choice of openness versus closure to trade in the period 1965–90 as affected by geography. The first step is to check the underlying notion: that the responsiveness of growth to openness actually depends on geography. So far, Open and the geography variables are entered in a linear manner, not allowing for interactions. To check the possibility of interactions, Gallup and Sachs estimate the basic regression equation for three sets of countries: all, coastal (Pop100km ≥ 0.5), and hinterland (Pop100km < 0.5), and check the coefficient on the Open variable. Since degrees of freedom in this exercise are lost, Gallup and Sachs estimate the barebones growth equation, in which annual average growth between 1965 and 1990 is a function of initial income, Openness, malaria in 1966, the change in malaria between 1966 and 1995, and the log of life expectancy in 1965. The results for the Open coefficient (β) are as follows (robust t-statistics in parentheses): All economies (N = 92), β = 2.6 (6.8); coastal economies (N = 46), β = 3.3 (6.5); hinterland economies (N = 46), β = 1.4 (2.5). We see that the growth responsiveness to trade seems to be more than twice as high in coastal economies. The next step is to see whether more coastal economies in fact choose more open trade policies. This Gallup and Sachs do by regressing the extent of openness during 1965–90 on the proportion of land within 100 km of the coast (Land100km), Tropicar, and the initial income level: Open6590 = −1.12 + 0.23 Land100km − 0.18 Tropicar + 0.19 lnGDP1965 (3.2) (2.1) (2.0) (4.5) N = 106, R2 = 0.44 There does indeed seem to be something to this line of reasoning, though the results are at best suggestive, and should be tested more carefully in later work. The early liberalizers, on the whole, were the coastal economies. This is certainly evident in east Asia, where countries such as Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, all opened their economies to trade early in the 1960s, much before the other developing countries. Two important geographical characteristics affect coevolution of division of labor and institutions via their impacts on transportation condition and trading efficiency. Coastal regions, and regions linked to coasts by ocean-navigable waterways, are strongly favored in development relative to the hinterlands. Landlocked economies may be particularly disadvantaged by their lack of access to the sea, even when they are no farther than the interior parts of coastal economies, for at least three reasons: (1) cross-border migration of labor is more difficult than
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 53
internal migration; (2) infrastructure development across national borders is much more difficult to arrange that similar investments within a country; and (3) coastal economies may have military or economic incentives to impose costs on interior landlocked economies. All of the three factors affect the trading efficiency of a landlocked country, so that as predicted in chapter 3, coevolution of division of labor and institutions is slower in such a country. High population density seems to be favorable for economic development in coastal regions with good access to internal, regional, and international trade. This may be the result of the interplay between increasing returns in construction of transportation infrastructure, network effects of division of labor, and transportation efficiency. Gallup and Sachs’ results show population density in the hinterland has no such advantages, and a net disadvantage. As shown in the Chu model (see exercise 14 in chapter 7), the coexistence of a high population density and favorable geographic conditions for transportation will reduce per capita investment in transport infrastructure and increase demand for infrastructure. This will make a professional infrastructure sector emerge from enlarged scope for trading-off the benefit of increasing infrastructure expenditure against its cost in terms of reducing resources allocated to direct production. The professional infrastructure raises trading efficiency, thereby enlarging the scope for trading-off the positive network effect of division of labor on aggregate productivity against transaction costs. This leads to a larger network of division of labor, higher aggregate productivity, a greater degree of trade dependence, a greater market extent, more market integration, and higher aggregate productivity. Also, several general equilibrium mechanisms developed in chapters 7 and 11 show that if geographical conditions are favorable for transportation, then a high population density is associated with an integrated market and a high level of division of labor, so that aggregate productivity is high. If geographical conditions are unfavorable for transportation, then a high population density is associated with many separated local markets and a low level of division of labor, so that aggregate productivity is low. We thus see that economies are likely to bifurcate on two pathways. The hinterland will be characterized by a negative correlation between economic development and population growth. The coastline will be characterized by a positive correlation between economic development and population growth. The two systems will interact through ever-greater pressures on migration from the hinterland to the coast. As we have discussed, tropical regions are hindered in development relative to temperate regions, probably because of higher disease burdens and limitations on agricultural productivity. Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 11 will explore general equilibrium mechanisms that predict the phenomena. In those chapters we shall draw the distinction between endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage and analyze the effect of exogenous differences in geographic conditions on economic development and urbanization. Endogenous comparative advantage may emerge between ex ante identical individuals or countries. We shall show that the interplay between endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages generates very complicated stories about effects of geography on economic development and urbanization.
Key Terms and Review • The effects of the following geographic conditions on economic development: temperate zones, tropics, landlocked regions, coastal regions, regions close to ocean-navigable waterways • The relationship between geographical conditions, transaction costs, quality of institutions, the level of division of labor, and development performance
54 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Further Reading Gallup and Sachs (1998), Gallup (1998), Capie (1983), Kindleberger (1973), Reynolds (1985), Jeffrey Williamson (1992, 1993), Smith (1776), Yang and Borland (1991), Sachs, Yang, and Zhang (1999), Cheng, Sachs, and Yang (2000), Braudel (1972, 1981–4), Crosby (1986), E. Jones (1981), Kamarck (1976), Lee (1957), McNeill (1963, 1974), Murray and Lopez (1996), Radelet and Sachs (1998b), WHO (1997), World Bank (1997), CIA (1996, 1997), Curtin (1989).
QUESTIONS 1 According to E. L. Jones (1981, pp. 226–7), Europe’s very considerable geological, climatic, and topographical variety endowed it with a dispersed portfolio of resources. This conduced to long-distance, multilateral trade in bulk loads of utilitarian goods. Taxing these goods was more rewarding than appropriating them. Bulk trade was also favored by an abnormally high ratio of navigable routeways to surface area. Use the theories reviewed in this chapter to explain this historical fact. 2 Many scholars agree to the claim that “Fundamental springs of capitalist expansion are, on the one hand, the coexistence of several political units within the same cultural whole and, on the other, political pluralism which frees the economy” (see chapter 1). Several explanations are proposed for the ability of this geopolitical structure to persist for a long period of time. One is to attribute it to particular geographical conditions of western Europe and the Mediterranean which are favorable for long-distance trade between city-states and unfavorable for unification wars. Around the Mediterranean and the English Channel, a great portion of highly populated areas were either coastal or island. The favorable conditions for trade were crucial for the emergence and evolution of capitalist institutions ( Jones, 1981, p. 233). In contrast, east Asian geopolitical structures ensured the hegemonism of Chinese culture prior to the invasion of Occidental cultures. Use the historical facts to analyze the relationship between political pluralism, the absence of overarching political power, institutional experiments, economic development, and geography. 3 Baechler (1976, pp. 93–5) surmises that Britain’s geographic condition ensured that it could avoid war with other countries, had low defense expenses, was able to preserve its unique Anglo-Saxon culture and common law tradition, and had transportation advantage for trade. Use this hypothesis to speculate on why Japan, Taiwan, and other island countries enter takeoff stage earlier than many inland countries. Find some counterexamples (for instance, Cuba). Use the counterexamples to analyze the effects of institutions and geographical conditions. 4 Explain why Singapore has a much better development performance than other tropic countries. 5 Smith did not discuss culture and economic development in any detail in The Wealth of Nations, but it seems clear that, in line with much thinking of the Scottish Enlightenment, he viewed human nature as universal, and did not view culture as a primary differentiating factor in economic development. After all, Smith saw the “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another” as universal, not culturally specific. For example, Smith never bemoans the lack of entrepreneurial zeal in one place or another as an explanation for poor economic performance. Later
C HAPTER 2: G EOGRAPHY
6
7
8 9
10
11
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 55
thinkers such as Max Weber attributed the formation of the capitalist spirit to Protestant moral codes. Landes (1998) attributes Judaic-Christian culture to formation of the concept and institutions of private property. Recent empirical evidence for effects of culture on economic development can be found in La Porta, Lopezde-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vishny (forthcoming). They suggest that the Catholic tradition has a negative effect and Protestant tradition has a positive effect on development performance, and that the common law tradition has a positive and civil law tradition a negative effect on development performance. Discuss possible development mechanisms for coevolution of culture, institutions, and per capita real income. In connection with the discussion on the relationship between geopolitical structure and institutional evolution in western Europe, analyze why landlocked Austria and Switzerland have a much higher per capita income than other landlocked countries. Bearing in mind that the relationship between socialist experiment and economic development is analyzed in chapter 19, consider why landlocked Austria and Switzerland have much higher per capita income than the landlocked Czech Republic, Hungary, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovakia, and Russia. Analyze how geographical conditions affect the transition performance of ex-socialist economies in connection with the analysis in chapter 19. Though Gallup and Sachs (1998) did not find strong evidence that distance from the core markets is endogenously determined by other variables, it is still subject to speculation that the formation of the core markets is endogenously determined by other geographical conditions and coevolution of institutions and division of labor. Bearing in mind the models in chapters 3, 7, 11, 12, and 14, conduct thought experiments about possible development mechanisms that may explain the formation of core markets. In chapters 5, 11, and 13, we will see that several general equilibrium models of high development economics with economies of scale predict that a large population will generate a higher degree of urbanization, a higher degree of industrialization, a higher productivity, a larger average size of firms, a higher per capita real income, a larger number of available goods, and a higher growth rate of per capita real income. But the Smith–Young models we consider in chapters 4, 7, 11, 12, and 14 show that if transport conditions are good, a large population size is associated with a high level of division of labor and a highly integrated market, so that productivity, degree of urbanization, industrialization and trade dependence, per capita real income and its growth rate are high, and the number of available goods is large. If transport conditions are not good, a large population size is associated with a low level of division of labor and many segregated local markets, so that productivity, degree of urbanization, industrialization and trade dependence, per capita real income, and its growth rate are low, and the number of available goods is small. Use the empirical evidence in this chapter to test these theoretical hypotheses. You may want to relate your discussion to the empirical evidence for rejecting various scale effects in Liu and Yang (2000), Y. Zhang (1999), the National Research Council (1986), Dasgupta (1995), C. Jones (1995a, b), reported in chapters 5, 13, and 14. Design a regression of reform performance on the geographical conditions of different provinces in China, different countries in eastern Europe, or other newly independent states. Test the claims made in this chapter.
56 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Notes 1 These figures refer to the unweighted average of per capita GDP of nine countries: China, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. 2 The geographical tropics refers to the area between the Tropic of Cancer (23.45 N latitude) and the Tropic of Capricorn (23.45 S latitude), the band in which the sun is directly overhead at some point during the year. 3 The landlocked countries in western and central Europe are Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovakia, and Switzerland. 4 Morocco is just on the borderline of classification as a subtropical country, with 48 percent of the population in the tropical and subtropical ecozones. 5 Using geographical information system (GIS) data, the coastal population is calculated in two ways. First, all land area within 100 kms of the open sea, except for coastline in the arctic and subarctic region above the winter extent of sea ice (National Geography Society (NGS), 1995) are taken, and the population within that area is measured. Additionally, river systems that accommodate oceangoing vessels on a regular basis (e.g. the Saint Lawrence Seaway and the Mississippi River) are identified, and land areas within 100 kms of such navigable rivers are added. Since data of direct costs of transport for these river systems are not available, there are inevitably difficulties in classification, as some ostensibly ocean-navigable rivers impose very high costs for such transport. Due to the classification difficulties and the greater empirical relevance of coastal access alone, the population and land area near navigable rivers are not used in the rest of the chapter. 6 Gallup and Sachs (1998) experimented with a number of distance measures, all of which produced similar outcomes. They therefore chose the simplest: the smallest distance of the country’s capital city to one of the following three cities: New York, Rotterdam, or Tokyo. 7 He noted that “all the commercial benefits” to the East and West Indies that might have resulted from increased trade “have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes” occasioned by European military advantage, which enabled the Europeans “to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries.” 8 See chapter 11 for the definitions of various types of agglomeration economies and their relationship with the equilibrium level of division of labor. 9 The data refer to unweighted country averages for the respective regions for the countries for which IMF data are available. 10 Absolute values of t-statistics are in parentheses below the coefficients, and N is the number of observations.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 57
DRIVING FORCE I – EXOGENOUS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADING EFFICIENCY
3
3.1 USE OF THE CONCEPT OF GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM TO FIGURE OUT MECHANISMS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The first question that development economics must address is: why can the wealth of a nation increase for a fixed amount of an available resource or why can the degree of scarcity be reduced by individuals’ decisions in choosing their pattern of organization? Many economists have answered these questions by pointing to exogenous technical progress, which is defined as technological changes that raise productivity and are independent of individuals’ decisions. In the Solow model (1956), the driving force of long-run growth in per capita income is such progress. A necessary condition for increases in productivity, per capita income, and output share of industrial goods in the Fei–Renis model (1964) is exogenous technical progress in the industrial sector. This method of explaining economic development is not interesting because we have known since Adam Smith that individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization can endogenously determine the wealth and productivity of a nation. Smith made a vague guess about the mechanism for economic development. He proposed the well-known Smith theorem: (1) division of labor is the mainspring of economic progress (1776, ch. 1, bk. I); (2) division of labor is dependent on the extent of the market (ch. 3, bk. I); and (3) the extent of the market is determined by transportation conditions (bk. I, pp. 31–2). If we specify a state equation that entails a positive relationship between productivity and transaction conditions, then it is not an interesting economic model, since this is equivalent to specifying total factor productivity as a function of time, as in the Solow model. An economic model of development must specify some trade-offs in decision-making, such that the efficient balance of the trade-offs endogenously determines productivity. In other words, a very high productivity, like a very low productivity, is not efficient because of the trade-offs, which imply that there are costs for the extremely high productivity. Hence, in order to formalize Smith’s conjecture, our job is to formalize some trade-off in individuals’ decisions of their levels of specialization. This task is not easy, since individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization involve corner solutions. Moreover, in order to understand a mechanism of economic development
58 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
for society as a whole, we have to use a concept of general equilibrium that involves corner solutions to figure out the trade-offs in the marketplace. The equilibrium as a consequence of interactions between individuals’ decisions is, of course, much more complicated than individuals’ decisions. There are several reasons that the concept of general equilibrium is essential for investigating mechanisms for economic development. First, economic development involves interactions between prices and quantities. Not only are all individuals’ decisions in choosing quantities produced and consumed determined by prices, but market prices are also determined by all individuals’ decisions about quantities. In addition, there are interdependencies between markets for different goods and factors and between different individuals’ decisions. These interdependencies relate to circular causation, network effects of industrial linkages, and related decisions in different sectors that concern high-development economists. There are infinite feedback loops between each pair of endogenous variables. For instance, as the price of a final good changes, the demand curve for labor will shift. This shift will change the price of labor, which will shift the demand curve for that final good. That shift will in turn change the price of that good, thereby shifting the demand curve for labor again. This feedback between the two markets will continue endlessly, though feedback effects attenuate after each round of feedback. Marshall’s partial equilibrium analysis considers only interactions between price and quantity in the market for a single good or factor and ignores all of the feedback loops, therefore generating misleading predictions. Hence, a partial equilibrium model is not a good vehicle for investigating mechanisms of economic development. Some partial equilibrium model of urban–rural migration is an example of this point. In the model, structural changes and migration between the rural and urban areas are explained by the wage differential between the two areas. But the wage differential is exogenously fixed. The feedback loops between wage, income, demand, and supply are all ignored. We cannot tell from this model why there is such a wage differential, nor what the mechanism is for economic development. The second reason for using a general equilibrium model to investigate mechanisms for economic development relates to network effects of division of labor. Adam Smith considered division of labor to be a main driving force of economic development. But as Young (1928) and Yang and Ng (1998) indicate, the benefits of division of labor are network effects. An individual’s decision in choosing her level of specialization determines not only her productivity, but also the extent of the market for others’ produce, thereby putting a constraint on others’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization. The concept of network is by nature intimately related to the concept of general equilibrium. We cannot understand network effects by looking only at part of the network. In this chapter, we will show that a network of division of labor involves individuals’ corner solutions. Hence, marginal analysis for the interior solution does not work and inframarginal analysis is essential for investigating mechanisms of economic development. Either a static or dynamic general equilibrium model can be used to study the mechanism for economic development. Comparative statics of the static general equilibrium model explain changes in endogenous variables by changes in parameters representing tastes and the technical, natural, and social environments. Endogenous variables may include prices, productivity, economic structure, and some institutional features of the economy. Some parameters may represent exogenous institutional conditions as well. If productivity increases and economic structure changes in response to changes in some parameters, the chain of causation based on comparative statics of general equilibrium can explain the mechanism of economic development as the consequence of interactions between self-interested decisions (behavior). Simple partial equilibrium models cannot count all feedback loops based on such interactions. Simple decision models cannot explain the consequence of all direct and indirect interactions between selfinterested decisions.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 59
If dynamic general equilibrium models are used to study mechanisms for economic development, some dynamics of general equilibrium may generate economic development in the absence of exogenous changes in parameters. Comparative dynamics of general equilibrium can be used to investigate changes in dynamics in response to changes in parameters. Hence, dynamic general equilibrium models may have a higher degree of endogenization, which is supposed to imply more explanatory power. However, dynamic general equilibrium models are more difficult to manage than static general equilibrium models. In order to solve for dynamics or comparative dynamics of general equilibrium, stronger assumptions are essential for keeping the models tractable. This implies that the tractable dynamic general equilibrium models may have a lower degree of endogenization than do tractable static general equilibrium models. Therefore, we have a trade-off between advantages and disadvantages of static and dynamic general equilibrium models. This text will show that static general equilibrium models may be more powerful for investigating mechanisms of economic development that involve interesting and sophisticated structural changes. In this chapter, we use inframarginal analysis of the Ricardian and Heckscher–Ohlin models to investigate a general equilibrium mechanism for economic development. The story behind the formal model runs as follows. There are technological comparative advantages between two types of individuals. This implies that even if one type of individual is less productive in producing all goods than an individual of another type, the productivity difference between the two types is not the same across goods. Thus, the second type of individual can specialize in producing a good with a smaller productivity difference, so that all individuals may gain from a division of labor and trade that generates a higher aggregate productivity than in autarky. We define comparative advantage based on ex ante differences of production conditions between individuals as exogenous comparative advantage. In this text, ex ante means “before individuals have made decisions” and ex post means “after individuals have made decisions, and the economy has settled down in equilibrium.” If all individuals prefer diverse consumption, then there is a tension between utilization of comparative advantages and diverse consumption. Some individuals must specialize in producing one good in order to exploit exogenous comparative advantage. But the specialization of production and diversification of consumption imply that individuals must trade. If trade involves transaction costs, then there is a trade-off between transaction costs and economies of division of labor generated by comparative advantages. The trade-off can be used to endogenize productivity. The production possibility frontier (PPF) is achieved when at least one type of individual completely specializes in producing one good. If a transaction cost coefficient for one unit of goods traded is large, then transaction costs caused by trade outweigh productivity gains from it. Hence, the equilibrium is autarky where production takes place below the aggregate PPF, since the marginal rates of substitution and marginal rates of transformation must be equalized for each individual. If the transaction cost coefficient is small, then productivity gains outweigh transaction costs caused by the division of labor, so that the equilibrium is the division of labor which is associated with the PPF. Since the trade-off between exploitation of comparative advantage and transaction costs can be used to explain the equilibrium aggregate productivity by the trading efficiency parameter, the aggregate productivity is endogenized even if the production function does not change. This general equilibrium approach to explaining productivity changes is much more interesting than technological fundamentalism, which explains productivity progress by changes in production functions, for it explains productivity changes as a consequence of interactions between self-interested decisions. If governments are introduced into this simple model, it can be used to predict their behavior in choosing tariff rates and in choosing amongst unilateral protectionist tariffs, unilateral laissez faire policy, and tariff negotiation. As transaction conditions are improved, the general equilibrium
60 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
shifts from autarky to the partial division of labor, where one country completely specializes in producing one good and the other country produces two goods, then to the complete division of labor, where each country completely specializes in producing one good. For the partial division of labor, terms of international trade are determined by the production conditions in the country producing two goods. Hence, gains from trade all go to the country producing one good in the absence of tariffs. Thus, the country producing two goods can use tariffs to manipulate terms of trade in order to get a greater share of the gains. But the country producing one good will only hurt itself by imposing tariffs on imported goods, since this will increase the price of goods purchased by domestic residents. This implies that when the partial division of labor occurs in equilibrium, unilateral protectionist tariffs in the country producing two goods coexists with a unilateral laissez faire policy in the country producing one good. If the complete division of labor occurs in equilibrium, each country can get a greater share of gains from trade by increasing tariffs. But as the tariff rates in the two countries become sufficiently high, gains from trade can be exhausted by the deadweight caused by the tariff in the rent-seeking game. Hence, both countries may prefer tariff negotiation in a Nash bargaining game that generates trade liberalization. This explains the coexistence of unilateral protectionist tariffs and a unilateral laissez faire policy regime in the early stages, and tariff negotiation that generates bilateral trade liberalization in the later stages, of economic development. The driving force of this shift in trade policy is the improvements in transaction conditions that can be achieved via a better legal system, a better transportation infrastructure, urbanization, or a better banking system. The shift of trade policy from protectionist tariffs to trade liberalization is sometimes referred to as a shift from an import substitution to an export substitution strategy (see Bruton, 1998). Some development economists (for instance Palma, 1978, Bauer and Yamey, 1957) call the phenomenon of increasing income difference between the two countries as the equilibrium shifts from autarky to the partial division of labor, “underdevelopment.” Protectionist tariffs are often suggested as a policy instrument to avoid underdevelopment. But the Ricardian model with transaction costs and tariffs indicates that improvements of transaction conditions can shift equilibrium from the partial division of labor to the complete division of labor, which not only generates more gains from trade but also a more equal distribution of gains from trade. Many economists try to find empirical evidence for or against the claim that terms of trade are worsening for developing economies. Some of them try to measure adverse effects of worsening terms of trade on economic development (see, for instance, Morgan, 1970 and Kohli and Werner, 1998). Recent empirical evidence provided by Sen (1998) shows that economic development and deteriorating terms of trade may concur. We shall show that in the process of moving to a high level of division of labor, a country may receive more gains from trade even if its terms of trade deteriorate. This is because an expansion of the network size of division of labor can generate productivity gains that outweigh the adverse effect of the terms of trade deterioration. This story can be extended to the Heckscher–Ohlin model with comparative endowment advantage and transaction costs. If the ex ante difference in production conditions comes from differences in production functions between individuals, then we say there is exogenous comparative technological advantage, which will be investigated in sections 3.2–3.5. If it comes from differences in factor endowments between individuals, then we say there is exogenous comparative endowment advantage, which will be studied in section 3.6. If two countries have different factor endowments, then they can employ the difference to increase equilibrium aggregate productivity. But if transaction efficiency is low, the efficient trade-off between exploitation of comparative endowment advantage and transaction costs entails autarky and low productivity. As transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium aggregate productivity and level of division of labor increase.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 61
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n
n n n n n n
n n
What are the differences between the general equilibrium mechanism and partial equilibrium mechanism for economic development? What are the differences between economic development caused by exogenous technological changes and economic development caused by individuals’ decisions in choosing their patterns of specialization? What is the distinction between absolute and comparative advantages? How can we measure division of labor and economies of division of labor? How can evolution of division of labor and related structural changes take place? What are the differences between the structural changes caused by evolution of division of labor and structural changes caused by exogenous technical changes? Why may unilateral protectionist tariffs and a unilateral laissez faire regime coexist in a transitional period from autarky to a high level of international division of labor? Why may an income differential between countries first increase and then decline as the economy develops from autarky to an intermediate level of trade dependence, then to a high level of trade dependence? What is the distinction between a comparative technological advantage and a comparative endowment advantage? What is the driving force for a policy shift from protectionist tariffs to trade liberalization?
3.2
A RICARDIAN MODEL WITH EXOGENOUS COMPARATIVE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE AND TRANSACTION COSTS
Before David Ricardo, economists did not pay attention to the distinction between absolute and comparative advantages. An individual has absolute advantage in producing good i if her labor productivity in good i is greater than that of the other individual. Ricardo (1817) drew economists’ attention to the distinction between this measure and the concept of comparative advantage. If person 2 is absolutely less productive than person 1 in producing both goods x and y, but the difference in productivity between the two individuals is greater for good y than for good x, then person 2 has a comparative advantage in producing good x, since her absolute disadvantage is relatively smaller in producing x than in producing y. Ricardo argued that as long as such a comparative advantage exists, a country having no absolute advantage in producing any good nonetheless can gain from trade, as can the other country which enjoys absolute advantage in all lines of production. Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage is regarded as the foundation of modern trade theory. However, the Ricardian model has not attracted the attention it deserves. This lack of attention is attributable to the fact that conventional marginal analysis is not applicable to the Ricardian model because of corner solutions. There are two ways to set up the Ricardo model. One is to specify a dichotomy between pure consumers and firms. However, in the Ricardian model each country is a consumer as well as a producer. Hence, the corner solution may be chosen by a country. This specification will entail multiple general equilibria based on several structures of corner and interior solutions of countries. Since in the Walrasian regime, firms’ profit is always zero in each and every structure, firms do not care about choice of structure. Pure consumers cannot choose the structure of production. Therefore, the local equilibrium in each structure can be a general equilibrium. This multiplicity of general equilibria renders comparative statics analysis of general equilibrium impossible (see Dixit and Norman, 1980, p. 38).
62 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
The second way to set up the Ricardian model is to use a Smithian framework. In this framework, each individual is specified as a consumer-producer, so that each individual can choose her level of specialization. In this framework, the general equilibrium is one of several corner equilibria, which efficiently trades-off economies of division of labor generated by exogenous technical comparative advantage against transaction costs. Hence, an inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium will generate very rich and interesting stories about economic development and trade. If the Ricardian model is specified within the neoclassical dichotomy between pure consumers and firms, domestic trade and international trade are not based on the same rationale: domestic trade is always necessary, while international trade is induced by exogenous comparative advantage. If the transaction efficiency coefficient for domestic trade and that for international trade are the same, then international trade is always Pareto superior to autarky. The framework of consumer-producers not only avoids multiple equilibria, but also allows the model to explain international trade by individuals’ choices of their patterns of specialization. Within this framework, even when the domestic and international transaction cost coefficients are the same, individuals still choose whether or not to engage in international trade, and autarky can be the unique general equilibrium structure when the transaction cost coefficient is large. There are many ways to define transaction costs. One general definition of transaction costs is to assume a delivery function of goods such that the amount of goods that arrives at the destination is a function of the amount of goods that departs from the origin, and of other inputs essential for the delivery (see Hahn, 1971 and Kurz, 1974). The delivery function describes the technical conditions governing transactions. The difference between the amounts of goods at the origin and at the destination, together with any inputs employed in the delivery process, can be considered as transaction cost. This specification of transaction costs involves a notoriously unmanageable set of indices of destinations and origins. This index set, compounded with corner solutions, makes it impossible to work out comparative statics of general equilibrium. Thus the general equilibrium implications of transaction costs in the models with this otherwise appealing specification of transaction costs cannot be explored. Hence, a specification of so-called “iceberg” transaction cost is often used to work out the general equilibrium implications of transaction costs. In a system involving iceberg transaction costs, an individual receives the fraction k when she buys one unit of a good, or pays one dollar when she buys goods with value of k dollars, where k ∈[0, 1]. If sellers of goods pay transaction costs, then they receive the fraction k of each dollar paid by the buyers. These specifications imply that the fraction 1 − k of goods or their value disappears in transit because of transaction costs. These transaction costs can take the form, for example, of transportation costs, costs in implementing transactions, storage costs, and costs caused by nonpunctual delivery. However, the transaction cost coefficient 1 − k is considered an exogenous transaction cost that can be seen before individuals have made their decisions. There are two common definitions of endogenous transaction cost. According to the more general definition, all transaction costs are considered endogenous whose levels can be seen only after individuals have made their decisions. In the consumer-producer models with iceberg transaction costs, although the transaction cost coefficient 1 − k is exogenous, the total transaction cost for each consumer-producer, and thus for society, is endogenous in terms of this general definition, since the number of transactions is endogenized in the model of consumer-producers. The second, narrower, definition of endogenous transaction cost relates to a specific type of endogenous transaction costs, namely those that are caused by a departure of general equilibrium from the Pareto optimum. Hereafter, we will adopt this second definition of endogenous transaction cost unless otherwise indicated. Endogenous transaction cost is the focus of chapters 9 and 10.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 63
Example 3.1: The Ricardian model with exogenous comparative technological advantage and transaction costs. Consider a world consisting of country 1 and country 2. The set of consumerproducers is assumed to be a continuum with mass M1 + M2 where Mi is the measure of individuals in country i. This assumption implies that the population size is very large, so that we would not have an integer problem when individuals are divided between different occupation configurations. Example 9.10 in chapter 9 will show that, for a finite set of consumerproducers, Walrasian equilibrium may not exist. For that case, Nash bargaining might be essential for coordinating the division of labor. The individuals within a country are assumed to be identical. Hence, two countries may be considered as two groups of ex ante different individuals. As consumer-producers, the individuals consume two goods, x and y, and decide their own configurations of production and trade activities. The utility function for each individual of group i or in country i is: Ui = (xi + kx id )β( yi + ky id )1−β
(3.1)
where xi, yi are quantities of goods x and y self-provided, x id, y id are quantities of the goods bought from the market, and k is the transaction efficiency coefficient. Assume that the production functions for a consumer-producer in country i are: x ip ≡ xi + x is = aix lix
and
yip ≡ yi + y is = aiyliy
(3.2)
where x ip and y ip are respective output levels of the two goods produced by a person in country i and lij is a type i-individual’s amount of labor allocated in producing good j. We call lij the level of specialization of a type i-individual in producing good j. aij is a type i-individual’s labor productivity in producing good j. The labor endowment constraint for a person in country i is lix + liy = 1. Let country 1 have comparative advantage in producing good x, thus
a1x a2 x > a1 y a2 y
(3.3)
The individuals’ transformation curves for a1x = 2, a1y = 1, a2x = 3, a2y = 4 are drawn in figure 3.1. CD is the transformation curve of an individual in country 1 and AB is the transformation curve of an individual in country 2. Here, an individual in country 2 has absolute advantage in producing both goods. The consumption, production, and trade decisions for an individual in country i involve choosing six variables xi, x is, x di , yi, y is, y id ≥ 0. Since zero values are allowed, there are 26 = 64 combinations of zero and positive values of the 6 variables. Since buying and selling the same good incur unnecessary transaction costs, x is and x di cannot both be positive, and y is and y id cannot both be positive. Thus, the budget constraint is either px x is = py y id or px x di = py y is. Hence, we first rule out 48 combinations that satisfy any of the following conditions, which violate the budget constraint. x is = 0 and y id > 0; x is > 0 and y id = 0; x id = 0 and y is > 0, x di > 0 and y is = 0. Four more combinations that involve selling and buying the same good can be ruled out. Then from the remaining 12 combinations, we use the positive utility constraint (Ui = (xi + kx id)β( yi + ky id )1−β > 0) to rule out 7 combinations that involve xi = x di = 0 or yi = y id = 0. We will show later that 2 combinations that involve specialization in an individual’s comparative disadvantage good cannot occur in general equilibrium. Now we are left with 3 types of configurations, listed as follows: Configuration A i (autarky) is shown in figure 3.2. This configuration is defined by xi , yi > 0, x is = x id = y is = y id = 0, i = 1, 2, which implies self-providing all goods. If all individuals choose configuration A, this social pattern of organization is called structure A.
64 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS y E
F
A
C
H
0
D
B
G
x
Figure 3.1 Economies of division of labor based on exogenous technical comparative advantage
y1
A1
x1
x
x1 (xy/y)1
y2
A2
y1
x2
x2
x
x
(xy/x)2
(x/y)1
y2
y country 1 country 2 Structure Ba
Structure A
x1
( y/x)2
y
y2
y
y2
country 1 country 2 Structure Bb
( y/x)2
(x/y)1 x1 country 1
country 2 Structure C
Figure 3.2 Configurations and structures
The configuration of partial specialization in the comparative advantage good, denoted by (xy/y)1 and (xy/x)2, is shown in figure 3.2. Configuration (xy/y)1 is relevant for individuals in country 1 and is defined by x1, y1, x 1s, y 1d > 0, x 1d = y 1s = 0, which implies self-providing goods x and y, selling good x, and buying good y; configuration (xy/x)2 is relevant to individuals in country 2 and is defined by x2, y2, x 2d, y 2s > 0, x 2s = y 2d = 0, which implies self-providing goods x and y, selling good y, and buying good x. The configuration of complete specialization in the comparative advantage good, denoted by (x/y)1 and (y/x)2, is shown in figure 3.2. Configuration (x/y)1 is defined by x1, x 1s, y 1d > 0, x 1d = y1 = y 1s = 0, which implies self-providing and selling good x and buying good y; configuration (y/x)2 is defined by y2, y 2s , x 2d > 0, y 2d = x2 = x 2s = 0, which implies self-providing and selling good y and buying good x. The notion of occupation configuration can be virtualized from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In its 1939 edition, there were 17,500 occupational titles. In 1977, 2,100 occupational
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 65
titles were added, and 840 more were added in 1996. In 1991, a new section including many computer-related occupations was added. As population is divided among the occupation configurations, a certain structure of division of labor for society as a whole occurs. For a two-country-two-good economy, we may define division of labor as a structure where, at least, individuals in one country choose a pattern of specialization and the configurations of individuals in the two countries are not the same. This definition implies that specialization is not sufficient for the division of labor. If population is divided between configurations (y/x)1 and (y/x)2 (two types of person specialize in producing y), this is not associated with division of labor. Similarly, specialization of two types of person in producing good x involves specialization, but no division of labor. There are two structures involving partial division of labor. Structure Ba consists of (xy/y)1 and (y/x)2 and structure Bb is composed of (x/y)1 and (xy/x)2. The structure of complete division of labor, C, consists of configurations (x/y)1 and (y/x)2. Suppose there is only one person in each country. The aggregate production schedules for the four structures are shown in figure 3.1. We will show later that if autarky occurs in equilibrium, the aggregate production schedule occurs on the line EG. For structure Ba, an individual in country 1 completely specializes in producing x and an individual in country 2 produces two goods. The aggregate transformation curve for this structure is the segment EF in figure 3.1. This segment can be obtained by moving individual 2’s transformation curve CD up to point E on the vertical axis. The aggregate transformation curve for structure Bb is FG, which can be obtained by moving individual 1’s transformation curve AB to the right to point G on the horizontal axis. The aggregate production for structure C is point F in figure 3.1. Production schedule EHG is associated with the division of labor with comparative disadvantage. Later we will show this production schedule never takes place in equilibrium. To understand the distinction between occupation configuration and structure of division of labor, you may consider the university where you are studying. The first decision that you have to make when you get into the university is to choose a major. If you choose economics as your major, then you do not go to chemistry and physics classes, but instead take classes in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and econometrics. This decision chooses an occupation configuration. We call such a decision an inframarginal decision, since decision variables are not continuous between occupation configurations. They discontinuously jump between 0 and a positive value as you shift between majors. After you have chosen a major, you allocate your limited time between the fields in this major. The resource allocation decision for a given occupation configuration is called a marginal decision, since standard marginal analysis can be applied to this type of decision. The aggregate outcome of all students’ choices of majors in a university generates a division of students among majors and fields, which is equivalent to a structure of division of labor in our model. The general equilibrium of the world economy is defined as a resource allocation and a structure of trade network that satisfy the following: (1) each individual maximizes utility at a given set of prices with respect to configurations and quantities of production, trade, and consumption; (2) the set of prices clears the market. The individuals make their utility maximization decisions based on inframarginal analysis. Inframarginal analysis means that for each configuration, individuals apply marginal analysis to solve for the optimum quantities of consumption, production, and trade, and then apply total cost–benefit analysis to compare their utilities across all configurations and choose the configuration that gives the highest utility. Here, the marginal analysis is your decision to allocate your time between different fields after you have chosen a major and the total cost–benefit analysis is your decision to choose a major. Marginal analysis is about “how much” and total cost–benefit analysis is about “yes or no.” If you say “yes” to a major, you spend time studying it. If you say
66 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
“no” to a major, you do not allocate any time to it. There is a local or corner equilibrium for a given structure and the general equilibrium is one of the four corner equilibria. Because of the complexity of inframarginal analysis, we need a two-step approach to solve for equilibrium. We first apply nonlinear programming to solve the individuals’ utility maximization problems and use the market clearing condition to find the local equilibrium for each of the four structures, we then use total cost–benefit analysis to identify the general equilibrium. For instance, given structure Ba, the decision problem for individuals choosing configuration (xy/y)1 in country 1 is: Max
x1 , x1s y1 , y1d , l1x , l1 y
s.t.
U1 = x1β( y1 + ky 1d)1−β x1 + x 1s = a1x l1x ,
y1 = a1y l1y
y = px ,
l1x + l ly = 1
d 1
s 1
where all decision variables can be positive or zero and p ≡ px /py is the price of x in terms of y. Note that variables underneath the symbol Max are decision variables. Inserting all constraints into the utility function to eliminate x1, y1, y 1d, l1x yields: U1 = (a1x l1x − x 1s)β [a1y(1 − l1x) + kpx 1s ]1−β. It is not difficult to see that ∂U1/∂l1x > 0 for any positive l1x if p > a1y /ka1x and if the optimum value of x 1s is given by ∂U1/∂x 1s = 0. This implies that the utility can always be increased by increasing l1x if p > a1y /ka1x, or the optimum value of l1x is at its upper-bound value. Due to the endowment constraint of working time, this implies that an individual should not produce y and should specialize in producing x if p > a1y /ka1x. That is, individuals in country 1 should choose configuration (x/y)1 instead of configuration (xy/y)1 if p > a1y /ka1x. Following a similar reasoning, it can be shown that individuals in country 1 will choose configuration A1 instead of (xy/y) if p < a1y /ka1x. Hence, individuals in country 1 will choose (xy/y)1 only if the market relative price satisfies p = a1y /ka1x. This condition is analogous to the zero-profit condition in a standard general equilibrium model with constant returns to scale. With the condition, the first-order condition ∂U1/∂x 1s = 0 yields the optimum value of x 1s as a function of l1x. Inserting it into the constraints in the original decision problem, we have: p = a1y /ka1x, y1 = a1y (1 − l1x),
x1 = βa1x,
x1s = a1x (l1x − β),
y1d = a1y (l1x − β)/k
Let us work out the intuition behind this nonlinear programming. If the price of x in terms of y, discounted by transaction cost in the world market, is lower than a type-1 individual’s marginal rate of transformation a1y /a1x in autarky, then the optimum decision is to choose autarky, producing both x and y. If p > a1y /ka1x, then utility of l1x always increases as l1x increases. Hence, the optimum decision is to specialize in producing x. But for p = a1y /ka1x, the individual is indifferent between autarky and configuration (xy/y)1. Hence, configuration (xy/y)1 will be chosen if the market clearing condition in equilibrium ensures that demand and supply of occupation configuration (xy/y)1 can be realized. In configuration (xy/y)1 there is a trade-off between the quantity of x self-provided x1 and quantity sold x 1s. The former directly contributes to utility and the latter indirectly increases utility by increasing more good y that is exchanged from x 1s. The efficient balance of the trade-off is determined by the first-order condition which implies that the marginal direct utility cost of x 1s equals the marginal indirect utility of x 1s.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 67 Table 3.1 Four corner equilibria in the Ricardian model Structures
A
Relative price (px/py)
Relevant parameter interval
N.A.
Per capita real income (utility) Country 1
Country 2 U2(A) ≡
U1(A) β
≡ (βa1x) [(1 − β)a1y] Ba
k < k1 ≡
a1y/ka1x
1−β
U1(A)
k < k2 ≡
U2(A) (k2a2y a1x/a2x a1y)β
M1a1y(1 − β)/βM2a2y < 1 Bb
(βa2x)β[(1 − β)a2y]1−β
U1(A)(k2a2y a1x/a2x a1y)1−β
U2(A)
βM2a2y
U1(A)[βkM2a2y
U2(A)[(1 − β)kM1a1x
÷ M1a1x(1 − β)
÷ M1a1y(1 − β)]1−β
÷ M2a2xβ]β
ka2y/a2x
M2a2xβ/(1 − β)M1a1x < 1 C
In this solution, the optimum value of l1x is indeterminate. Its equilibrium value will be determined by the market clearing condition. This is analogous to a standard equilibrium model with constant returns to scale technology where the zero-profit condition determines prices, and the market clearing condition, together with demand functions, determines equilibrium quantities. The decision problem for an individual in country 2 is:
Max U2 = (kx 2d )βy21−β d s
x 2 y2 , y 2
s.t.
y2 + y 2s = a2y,
y 2s = px 2d
The first-order conditions imply: x2d =
ka2 y a1x a1 y
β,
y2 = (1 − β)a2y,
y 2s = px 2d = βa2y
where p = a1y /ka1x is the equilibrium price of good x in terms of good y. From the market clearing condition M1x 1s = M2x 2d, we obtain l1x = (ka2y M2β/a1y M1) + β, which is less than 1 (an individual’s endowment of labor) if and only if (or iff for short) a2y /a1y < M1(1 − β)/M2βk. That is, structure Ba can be chosen iff a2y /a1y < M1(1 − β)/M2βk. Using the same approach as we used above, we can find the corner equilibria for Structure A, Bb and C. The results are summarized in table 3.1.
3.3
ANALYSIS OF DECISIONS VERSUS EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT
A general equilibrium is the outcome of interactions between individuals’ self-interested decisions which might be in conflict with others’. In a standard equilibrium model, individuals choose quantities of goods to be produced, traded, and consumed for given prices, while equilibrium prices are themselves determined by all individuals’ decisions on quantities of goods and factors. A general equilibrium is a consequence of the interactions between prices
68 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
and quantities of goods and factors. In a model of endogenous specialization, each individual’s decision problem involves multiple configurations, as there are many possible combinations of these individual configurations. Hence, the model of endogenous specialization features multiple corner equilibria. Since each individual chooses only the optimal of the multiple corner solutions, the general equilibrium is one of multiple corner equilibria. The notion of general equilibrium in the model of endogenous specialization relates not only to all interactions between prices and quantities, between the markets for different goods, and between individuals’ self-interested decisions, but also to the mechanism that simultaneously determines the size of the network of division of labor, demand and supply as two aspects of that network, productivity, and per capita real incomes. Network effect relates to the following phenomenon. In a system comprising many interdependent subsystems, the efficiency of the whole system is determined not only by each individual’s productivity, but also by the number of participants in the network. Each individual’s decision-making is dependent on the number of participants in a network, which is in turn determined by all individuals’ decisions of participation in the network, though this interdependence may occur indirectly through the price system. It was, indeed, the network effects of the division of labor that Smith and Young focused on in their classic works. Smith was more interested in the function of the invisible hand in coordinating the division of labor, in utilizing the network effects, and in promoting economic development than in its function in allocating resources for a given pattern of division of labor and given productivity. Young (1928) emphasized several times that the benefits of division of labor are network effects rather than effects of the scale of a firm or a sector. The effects can be analyzed only by taking the division of labor as a whole. The economic analysis that separates the investigation of demand and supply from that of decisions in choosing patterns of specialization does not help us in understanding the development implications of division of labor. From the model in this chapter, it can be seen that if each individual, as a consumer, prefers diverse consumption, then the individual cannot specialize if all other individuals choose autarky. In this situation, the person cannot sell what she wants to sell and cannot buy consumption goods that she does not produce. This implies that each individual’s level of specialization determines not only her own productivity, but also the extent of the market for the produce of others, thereby determining the others’ productivities and levels of specialization. This is a typical network effect. The focus of the current chapter is on how the price system simultaneously sorts out the network size of division of labor, the extent of the market, productivity, and per capita real income. In daily life, we hear many managers and other decision-makers stating that demand is dependent on per capita real income. According to Young, this is a one-sided view that misses the nature of the network of division of labor. From a complete view of network effects, we can see that the extent of the market (effective demand) determines productivity and thereby per capita real income too. Certainly the question whether the network size of division of labor determines an individual’s decision in participating in the trade network and prices, or each individual’s participation decision determines the network size of trade and prices, or prices determine all individuals’ participation decisions and network size of trade, is analogous to the question: did the egg generate the hen, or the hen the egg? The notion of general equilibrium is a powerful device for illuminating the mechanism that simultaneously determines all of the interdependent phenomena. This chapter provides a framework within which the development implications of the network effects of the division of labor can be understood. In order to study the function of the price system, consideration of an individual’s decisionmaking, as in the previous section, is not enough since price is a social phenomenon, the consequence of a spontaneous social invention of an institution. It was invented by the invisible hand. The invisible hand here implies interaction of many individuals’ self-interested decisions.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 69
Hence, there is no suggestion that the invisible hand is not affected by individuals’ decisions. What is implied, rather, is that the invisible hand is determined by all individuals’ selfinterested decisions. However, no single individual decision-maker can determine the outcome of the interactions between myriad individual decisions in a free market environment. Economists call the outcome, as we have observed already, general equilibrium, or equilibrium for short. In many cases, the notion of equilibrium is associated with the market clearing condition (demand equals supply). But it is not necessarily so. For instance, a sequential equilibrium in Qian’s game model (1994) is associated with shortage. Also, equilibrium may not necessarily imply a steady state. In chapters 13, 14, and 15, the notion of dynamic equilibrium will be used to show that an equilibrium as the outcome of interactions of individuals’ dynamic optimum decisions generates spontaneous evolution in endogenous variables. From the concept of configuration, we can see that for society as a whole, combinations of configurations may generate many structures of division of labor. The market clearing condition in each structure yields a corner equilibrium and the general equilibrium is only one of them. Each corner equilibrium sorts out the resource allocation problems for a given structure of division of labor and given productivity, while the general equilibrium sorts out the efficient structure of division of labor and problems of economic development. Economic development relates to the concept of equilibrium since the former is a consequence of interaction between individuals’ decisions. We shall show that discontinuous jumps of the general equilibrium between corner equilibria as a result of changes in parameters will generate economic development. Hence the distinction between corner equilibrium and general equilibrium is essential for investigating microeconomic mechanisms of economic development. A general equilibrium is a corner equilibrium in which no individual has an incentive to deviate from the configuration that she chooses under the corner equilibrium-relative prices. Now, we apply the total cost–benefit analysis and the definition of general equilibrium to prove that a structure where the countries export their comparative disadvantage good cannot be a general equilibrium structure. Consider the structure where individuals in both countries completely specialize in their comparative disadvantage good, i.e., individuals in country 1 export good y (choose configuration (y/x)1), and individuals in country 2 export good x (choose configuration (x/y)2). For this structure to occur in general equilibrium, configuration (y/x)1 must be most preferred by individuals in country 1, and configuration (x/y)2 most preferred by individuals in country 2, that is, the following conditions must hold: U1( y/x) > U1(x/y) which holds iff p < (a1y /a1x)k 2β−1
and
U2(x/y) > U2( y/x) which holds iff p > (a2y /a2x)k 2β−1 The two inequalities jointly imply (a2x /a2y) > (a1x /a1y) which contradicts the assumption (a2x /a2y) < (a1x /a1y). Similarly, it can be shown that other structures involving specialization in comparative disadvantage goods cannot occur in general equilibrium. Next, we apply the total cost–benefit analysis and the definition of general equilibrium again to find out under what conditions each of the structures listed in table 3.1 occurs in general equilibrium. Consider structure Ba first. Structure Ba is the general equilibrium structure if the following three conditions hold. First, under the corner equilibrium-relative price in this structure p = a1y /ka1x, individuals in country 2 prefer specialization in y (configuration ( y/x)) to the alternatives, namely autarky (configuration A) and specialization in x (configuration (x/y)). In other words, the following conditions hold: U2(y/x) ≥ U2(A) which holds iff k ≥ k0 ≡ [(a2x /a2y)/(a1x /a1y)]0.5
(3.4a)
U2(y/x) ≥ U2(x/y) which holds iff k ≥ k3 ≡ [(a2x /a2y)/(a1x /a1y)]
(3.4b)
0.5/β
70 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 3.2 General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics of the Ricardo model Parameter Intervals
Equilibrium structure
k > k0
k < k0
A
M1/M2 > (a2x a2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β)
M1/M2 < (a2x a2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β)
k ∈(k0, k1)
k ∈(k1, 1)
k ∈(k0, k2)
k ∈(k2, 1)
Ba
C
Bb
C
where k0 ≡ (a2x a1y /a1x a2y)0.5, k1 ≡ (1 − β)a1y M1/βa2y M2, k2 ≡ βa2x M2/(1 − β)a1x M1.
Second, general equilibrium requires that all individuals in country 1 prefer configuration (xy/y) to the alternatives, that is: U1(xy/y) ≥ U1(x/y) which holds iff a1y /a1x ≥ kp = a1y /a1x
(3.5a)
U1(xy/y) ≥ U1( y/x) which holds iff 1 ≥ k
(3.5b)
Third, no individual in country 1 is completely specialized in x, i.e.: l1x < 1, which holds iff k < k1 ≡ a1y M1(1 − β)/a2y M2β As k3 ≥ k0, it follows that conditions (4.4)–(4.6) hold if k ∈(k0, k1). Since k0 < k1 holds iff M1(1 − β)/M2β > [(a2x a2y)/(a1x a1y)]0.5, the corner equilibrium in structure Ba is the general equilibrium if k ∈(k0, k1) and M1(1 − β)/M2β > [(a2x a2y)/(a1x a1y)]0.5, where k1 ≡ a1y M1(1 − β)/ a2y M2β. Similarly, we can identify the conditions for other structures to occur in general equilibrium. These conditions are summarized in table 3.2. Table 3.2 reads that if k < k0, the general equilibrium structure is autarky (structure A). If k > k0 and M1 /M2 > (a2x a2y/a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β), the general equilibrium occurs in structure Ba if k < k1, and in structure C if k > k1. If k > k0 and M1 /M2 < (a2x a2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β), the general equilibrium occurs in structure Bb if k < k2, and in structure C if k > k2. It is important to note that the structures are compared within relevant parameter subspaces. For instance, structure Ba can be chosen only if M1 /M2 < (a2y /a1y)β/(1 − β). In this text we define level of division of labor for society by all individuals’ levels of specialization and diversity of occupation configurations. If all individuals’ levels of specialization in a structure are not lower than their levels of specialization in another structure, and some individuals have higher levels of specialization in the former than in the latter, we say that the level of division of labor in the former structure is higher than in the latter. If all individuals’ levels of specialization are not lower in a structure than in another structure, but the diversity of occupation configurations in the former is greater than in the latter, we say that the level of division of labor is higher in the former than in the latter. If some individuals’ levels of specialization in a structure are higher than in another structure, but other individuals’ levels of specialization in the former are lower than in the latter, then it is much more difficult to compare the levels of division of labor in the two structures. A more rigorous definition of level of division of labor that is applicable to the comparison can be found in Yang (2000). Table 3.2 implies that as the transaction efficiency coefficient increases from a small value to k0, and then to k1 or k2, the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to partial division of labor, then to complete division of labor. Whether the transitional structure is Ba or Bb depends on the relative size of the two countries compared to relative tastes and relative productivity. Such discontinuous jumps of equilibrium structure and endogenous variables across corner equilibria
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 71
in response to changes of parameter are referred to as inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. Since we assume (a1x /a2x) > (a1y /a2y) or country 1 has comparative advantage in producing good x, we can take r = r1r2 ≡ (a1x /a2x)/(a1y /a2y) as a measure of the degree of exogenous technical comparative advantage. A derivative of k0, k1, k2 with respect to r1 and r2 yields: ∂k0/∂r1, ∂k0/∂r2,
∂k1/∂r2, ∂k2/∂r1 < 0
This implies that for a given value of k, the greater the degree of comparative advantage, the more likely k > ki (i = 0, 1, 2) or the more likely the equilibrium level of division of labor is higher. A close examination of all conditions for structure C to be the general equilibrium indicates that they require either that 1 > k1 and M1/M2 > (a2x a2y/a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β), or that 1 > k2 and M1 /M2 < (a2x a2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β). The two conditions imply that the requirement for C to be equilibrium is either: (a2y /a1y)β/(1 − β) > M1 /M2 > (a2x a2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β)
or
(a2y /a1y)β/(1 − β) < M1 /M2 < (a2x a2y /a1x a1y) β/(1 − β) 0.5
This implies that the relative population size of the two countries is neither too large nor too small. Since individuals in one country have a higher level of specialization in structure C than in structure Ba or Bb and since the level of division of labor positively relates to individuals’ levels of specialization, structure C has a higher level of division of labor than structure Ba or Bb. Our result implies that the more the relative population size is in balance with relative tastes and relative productivity, the more likely the equilibrium level of division of labor is higher. Now we consider the implications of inframarginal comparative statics for development economics. To this end, we need to work out a production schedule in autarky. If autarky is the general equilibrium, then marginal rate of substitution equals marginal rate of transformation for each individual. This implies: βyi/(1 − β)xi = aiy /aix
or
(x1/a1x)/( y1/a1y) = β/(1 − β) = (x2/a2x)/( y2/a2y)
where the subscript i represents country i. This, together with the production functions xi = aix liy , yi = aiy liy, and the endowment constraint lix + liy = 1 imply that l1x = l2x = β, l1y = l2y = 1 − β. Using all of the conditions to eliminate taste parameter β, or using the production functions, the endowment constraints, and the conditions l1x = l2x and l1y = l2y, we can then show that the equilibrium production schedule in autarky must satisfy: Y = y1 + y2 = (a1y + a2y)[1 − X/(a1x + a2x)],
where X = x1 + x2.
This is the line EG in figure 3.1. The slope of this line is dY/dX = −(a1y + a2y)/(a1x + a2x), which is between −a1y /a1x and −a2y /a2x. In other words, this line is flatter than line FG and steeper than line EF in figure 3.1. Hence, production takes place at a point on EG if autarky is the general equilibrium. The exact position of the equilibrium production schedule on EG is dependent on the value of taste parameter. From figure 3.1, we can see that the aggregate production possibility frontier (PPF) is EFG. Since straight line EG is lower than the PPF, the aggregate productivity in autarky is lower than that for the division of labor which is associated with the PPF. As transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium aggregate productivity will discontinuously jump from line EG to the PPF. The difference between EFG and line EG can then be defined as economies of division of labor.
72 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
It is interesting to see that there exist economies of division of labor even if there are no economies of scale or the aggregate production set is convex in the Ricardian economy. The aggregate production set is the area enclosed by the vertical and horizontal axes, lines EF and FG and its boundaries in figure 3.1. This implies productivity chosen by the decision-makers in the equilibrium will endogenously increase as transaction conditions are improved. If transaction efficiency is low, then the high productivity associated with the PPF is not Pareto efficient because of the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs. Rosen (1978) calls economies of division of labor superadditivity, which is a kind of economies of interpersonal complementarity. It implies that equilibrium aggregate productivity for society increases as the equilibrium network size of division of labor increases. Buchanan (1994) calls this “generalized increasing returns” and Allyn Young (1928) calls it “social increasing returns,” which may exist in the absence of economies of scale. Individuals’ levels of specialization and the diversity of individuals’ occupation configurations are two aspects of the network. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium provides a general equilibrium mechanism for economic development. In this mechanism, exogenous comparative advantage and trading efficiency are driving forces of economic development. Exogenous changes in production functions or endowments are not needed for the economic development if transaction conditions are improved. Also, exogenous changes in tastes are not needed for structural changes in this economic development process. Suppose that transaction efficiency is improved from a level lower than k0 to a level higher than k0, then to a value of k greater than k1 or k2. Then the general equilibrium jumps from autarky, to the partial division of labor, then to the complete division of labor. In autarky each individual produces all goods that she consumes and there is no division between different occupations, such as that between farmers and manufacturers. As transaction conditions are improved, different professional occupations emerge from the evolution of division of labor. This process can be considered as structural change. Suppose x is food and y is cloth. Since the number of professional farmers in structure C is smaller than the number of individuals producing food, which is the population size in autarky, the structural change caused by evolution of division of labor looks like a transfer of labor from the traditional agricultural sector to the industrial sector. But in essence the structural change is a process in which each individual’s level of specialization increases and the degree of diversity of occupation configurations increases, the degree of market integration increases, the number of markets for different goods increases, new traded goods emerge, the degree of interpersonal dependence and connection increases, the extent of the market and related network size of division of labor rise, the degree of production concentration increases, and productivity increases. As the general equilibrium jumps from Ba to C due to improvements in transaction conditions, occupation configuration (xy/y), is replaced with new occupation configuration (x/y), which has a higher level of specialization than (xy/y). This process of destructive creation (Schumpeter, 1934) – a further example of which would be the replacement of craftsmen by specialized workers in large firms as described by Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 145– 84), Mokyr (1990, 1993, pp. 26–110), and Marx (1867), involves emergence of new occupations and the disappearance of old ones. It can be quite painful if the transitional costs are considered. We now consider the received wisdom that as the terms of trade of a country deteriorate, the gains that this country receives from trade will fall. Many development economists consider worsening terms of trade to be a cause of underdevelopment. The inframarginal comparative statics of our model show that this is not a general equilibrium view and might be misleading. Consider tables 3.1 and 3.2. Suppose that M1/M2 > (a2xa2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β) and the initial value of k is k′ ∈((a2x a1y /a1x a2y)0.5, (M1/M2)(a1y /a2y)β/(1 − β)). Hence, the equilibrium structure is Ba where country 1 exports x and imports y at the relative price px /py =a1y/k′a2y. Assume now that
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 73
the transaction efficiency is improved, so that the value of k is k″ > (M1 /M2)(a1y /a2y)β/(1 − β), which is greater than k′. Hence, the equilibrium jumps to structure C where the relative price is (M2/M1)(a2y /a1x)β/(1 − β). This implies that country 1’s terms of trade deteriorate as the improvement in transaction efficiency drives the equilibrium to jump from Ba to C, if k′ < (M1/ M2)(a1y /a2y)(1 − β)/β. It is straightforward that the parameter subspace for such a structural change is not empty. Therefore, as transaction efficiency is improved within this parameter subspace, country 1’s per capita real income increases from autarky level despite deteriorated terms of trade. This is because improvements in transaction conditions will expand network of division of labor and raise equilibrium aggregate productivity, so that productivity gains might outweigh the deterioration of terms of trade. The inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium can be summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 3.1: The general equilibrium structure is determined by the two countries’ relative productivity, relative preference, relative population size and the level of transaction efficiency. Given other parameters, improvements in transaction efficiency can make the general equilibrium structure jump from autarky to partial division of labor and then to complete division of labor. For given transaction conditions, relative population size, and relative tastes for the two goods, the greater the degree of comparative advantage, the more likely the equilibrium level of division of labor is higher. For given transaction conditions, the more the relative population size is in balance with relative tastes and relative productivity, the more likely the equilibrium level of division of labor is higher. As the equilibrium level of division of labor increases, the equilibrium aggregate productivity for society as a whole increases. In the process of moving to a higher level of division of labor, a country may receive more gains from trade even if its terms of trade deteriorate. It is interesting to note that the general equilibrium market price may not be determined by the conventional marginal cost pricing rule in the model with exogenous comparative advantage. When structure Ba (or Bb) is the general equilibrium, the market price of good x in terms of y equals country 1’s (or country 2’s) marginal opportunity cost including (or excluding) transaction cost. When structure C is the general equilibrium, the market price of x in terms of y is determined by the total demand and supply in both countries and does not equal either country’s marginal opportunity cost of producing x. This observation substantiates Coase’s argument (1946) that one should use total cost–benefit analysis in addition to marginal analysis in price determination. Other examples of nonmarginal cost pricing can be found in chapter 4 in this text, in the literature of industrial organization (see Tirole, 1989, ch. 3), and in the labor contract literature (Azariadis, 1975, Baily, 1974, and Gordon, 1974). In the Ricardian model, an increase in k (or a decrease in the transaction cost coefficient 1 − k) can increase total transaction costs because the increase in k can generate a jump of the general equilibrium from a low level to a high level of division of labor and increase the number of transactions. This implication of transaction costs can be used to explain why the income share of transaction costs increases as transaction efficiency is improved. North (1986) has found empirical evidence for this phenomenon. In order to formalize Smith’s conjecture that the invisible hand can efficiently coordinate individuals’ decisions in choosing their patterns of specialization, we must prove that the general equilibrium is Pareto optimal. The Pareto optimum is a resource allocation and a network structure of division of labor in which no individual can increase her utility without reducing others’ utilities. A revealed preference argument can be used to prove that in the Ricardo economy with consumer-producers, the general equilibrium is Pareto optimal. The logic of the proof can be outlined as follows.
74 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
We may use an argument of negation to establish the first welfare theorem. Suppose that the equilibrium is not Pareto optimal, so that there exists a feasible resource allocation that is Pareto superior to the general equilibrium resource allocation. This implies that at least one individual’s utility is greater in this alternative allocation than in equilibrium, and other individuals are at least indifferent between the equilibrium and the alternative allocation. We now specify artificial budget constraints for all individuals’ consumption, production, and trade flows given by the alternative allocation under the equilibrium prices. The person receiving greater utility in the alternative allocation must pay more than her income in the alternative allocation under the equilibrium prices since, by the definition of optimization, her optimum decision under the equilibrium prices cannot achieve more utility than in the equilibrium. All other individuals must have a binding budget in the alternative allocation under the equilibrium prices. By aggregating all individuals’ artificial budget constraints and canceling prices, it can be shown that the aggregate endowment constraint is violated. Hence, the alternative allocation is infeasible. This establishes the first welfare theorem. The first welfare theorem implies that the most important function of the market is to coordinate all individuals’ decisions in choosing their patterns of specialization to utilize positive network effect of division of labor net of transaction costs. Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998) have proved an existence theorem of general equilibrium for a general class of models of endogenous specialization. In their model, the set of ex ante different consumer-producers is a continuum, preferences are rational, continuous, and increasing, and both constant returns and local increasing returns are allowed in production. The Ricardian model in this chapter and the Smithian model with economies of specialization in chapter 4 are just special cases of their model. They have also established the first welfare theorem and the equivalence between the set of competitive equilibria and economic core for this general class of models of endogenous specialization. The results imply that if transaction costs outweigh exogenous comparative advantage in a structure or if the corner equilibrium in this structure is not Pareto optimal, then there is coordination difficulty in getting self-interested decision-makers to choose the constituent occupation configurations in this structure. In that case a set of relative prices to support individuals’ Walrasian decisions choosing constituent occupation configurations in this structure does not exist. The first welfare theorem implies not only resource allocation for a given structure of division of labor is efficient, but also the structure of division of labor is efficient in equilibrium. We call a corner equilibrium an efficient resource allocation for a given structure of division of labor, and call the general equilibrium structure of division of labor an efficient organization or organism. The concept of organization efficiency relates to inframarginal analysis of economic development. The concept of allocation efficiency relates to marginal analysis of resource allocation. It can be shown that for the model of endogenous specialization, general equilibrium may not exist if the number of individuals is not a continuum because of an integer problem (see example 9.10 in chapter 9).
3.4
PER CAPITA REAL INCOME, GDP, GNP, AND PPP
Many development economists measure development performance by per capita gross domestic product (GDP) or per capita gross national product (GNP) and their growth rates. GDP is the market value of an economy’s domestically produced goods and services. GNP equals GDP plus the net factor income from abroad. Many development economists are critical of using per capita GNP as a measure of development performance. They suggest using some social index that includes life expectancy, the literacy rate, infant mortality, and inequality of income distribution. There are many problems with this measurement method. First, unequal income
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 75
distribution might be caused either by distortions or by evolution in division of labor. For instance, government monopoly power in the banking sector and many other sectors generates an inefficient level of division of labor and a related narrow extent of the market, which is associated with extremely unequal income distribution, as in, for instance, China. But under a constitutional order and fair competition, the evolution of division of labor may generate a new professional occupation of entrepreneurial activity. The professional entrepreneurs’ job is to experiment with various patterns of economic organizations and to take the risk of the experimenting (see chapter 15). Entrepreneurs may make a fortune and they may go bankrupt. Bankruptcy implies a negative income (maybe negative infinity, in the case of committing suicide), while a successful venture may make the entrepreneur very rich, despite the fact that the expected income of the entrepreneur is nearly same as it would be in other lower risk occupations. Hence, inequality of income distribution will increase as the professional entrepreneur emerges from a high level of division of labor. As long as free entry and free pricing prevail, such an increase in inequality might be welfare enhancing for society as a whole. The index of life expectance, the literacy rate, and infant mortality are problematic gauges of welfare since there are many possible trade-offs between each pair of the variables. Individuals’ welfare maximization relates to the efficient balance of the trade-offs rather than maximization or minimization of the value of any single one of them. The ultimate concern of welfare analysis is individuals’ utilities. Hence, we define utility as per capita real income. We now use our simple Ricardian model to show that per capita real income differs from per capita GNP, so that measuring development performance by per capita GNP might be misleading. Suppose parameter values are within the subspace defined by k ∈ (k0, k1) and M1/M2 > (a2x a2y /a1x a1y)0.5β/(1 − β), such that structure Ba occurs in equilibrium. In this simple model per capita GNP is the same as per capita GDP because of the absence of trade in labor. Following common practice in calculating GNP, most self-provided services are not counted as part of GNP. Hence, per capita GNP in terms of good y in country 1 is I1 = px 1s = (M2a2yβ/M1) − (a1y β/k), where the equilibrium value of p is given in table 3.1 and x 1s = a1x (l1x − β) is given by the decision problem for configuration (xy/y)1 and the equilibrium value of l1x = (ka2y M2β/a1y M1) is given by the market clearing condition for structure Ba. Per capita GNP in country 2 is I2 = y 2s = a2yβ, given by the decision problem for configuration (y/x)2. Similarly, we can find per capita GNP in structure C: I1 = M2a2yβ/M1 and I2 = a2yβ. From table 3.1, it is easy to determine that per capita real incomes in the two countries in structure Ba are: U1(Ba) = (βa1x)β[(1 − β)a1y]1−β,
U2(Ba) = (βa2x)β[(1 − β)a2y]1−β(k2a2y a1x /a2x a1y)β
U1(C) = (βa1x)β[(1 − β)a1y]1−β[βkM2 a2y /M1a1y(1 − β)]1−β U2(C) = (βa2x)β[(1 − β)a2y]1−β[(1 − β)kM1a1x /M2 a2x β]β It is not difficult to verify that when equilibrium occurs in structure Ba, U1(Ba) > U1(C), I1(Ba) < I1(C)
and
U2(Ba) > U2(C), I2(Ba) = I2(C).
In other words, welfare comparison between different patterns of division of labor in terms of per capita real income (utility) is inconsistent with that in terms of per capita GNP. This shows that the analysis of development performance based on the notion of per capita GNP might be misleading. There are two reasons for misinformation of the calculation of welfare from per capita GNP. First, this notion does not count or it understates self-provided services. Hence, it may overstate welfare in a country with a high level of division of labor in comparison to a country with a low level of division of labor, which is associated with a high level of self-provided services. Second, transaction cost has a negative effect on per capita real income.
76 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
But transaction costs and the income of the sector providing transaction services are counted as part of per capita GNP. Hence, per capita GNP overstates the welfare of a country with a high level of division of labor that is associated with a high level of transaction cost. For instance, the per capita GNP of the US was 40 percent higher than that of Australia in 1997. Also, we can see that the level of division of labor in the US was higher than in Australia. As an example, many writers in the US depend on specialized publicity agents for publishing business, while such a specialized service is not much available in Australia. But the difference in per capita real income between the two countries is much smaller than the figures of per capita GNP suggest, according to many individuals who had experience of living in both countries in 1997. This is partly because the figure misses some noncommercialized real incomes in Australia which are commercialized in the US and partly because it ignores the fact that each individual in the US pays more transaction costs (caused by a higher level of division of labor in the US) than each Australian. This higher transaction cost is counted as part of per capita GNP, but has a negative direct effect on per capita real income (utility). The real wages in terms of good y are different between the two countries in a structure with trade. Consider structure Ba. Let the value of x produced by a person in country 1 in terms of y be equal to wage; we have p(x1 + x 1s ) = w1l1x where w1 is the wage rate in country 1. This, together with equilibrium values of p, x1, x 1s, l1x, yield the equilibrium wage rate in country 1, w1 = a1y /k. Similarly, we can find the equilibrium wage rate in terms of good y in country 2, w2 = a2y. It can be shown that w1(Ba) > w1(C) for k ∈(k0, k1) and w2(Ba) = w2(C). Recalling that U1(Ba) > U1(C), I1(Ba) < I1(C) and U2(Ba) > U2(C), I2(Ba) = I2(C) when equilibrium occurs in structure Ba, or when k ∈(k0, k1), we can see that welfare analysis in terms of wage rates is closer than that in terms of per capita GNP to that in terms of per capita real income. In this general equilibrium model, we can consider the nominal exchange rate between the two countries as 1 if they use the same currency. We can consider w1/w2 as a real exchange rate in terms of the price difference in labor between the two countries. If the wage rate in a country is adjusted by this exchange rate, then the price of labor would be the same in the two countries. This kind of adjustment is referred to as an adjustment according to purchasing power parity (PPP). Hence, the adjustment of per capita GNP according to PPP in Maddison (1995) makes the adjusted per capita GNP closer to per capita real income. But as we have shown in this example, adjusted per capita GNP according to PPP is still different from per capita real income. Our discussion here does not consider the effects of inflation on measurement of development performance. We will consider this in chapter 17, which introduces money into a Smithian general equilibrium model.
3.5
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE POLICY
In the early stages of economic development in the sixteenth century, the governments of some European countries used protectionist tariffs as a vehicle for rent-seeking in international trade (see, for instance, Ekelund and Tollison, 1981). This mercantilism was replaced by a free trade regime in some European countries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. According to Smith (1776), a laissez faire regime is more conducive to economic development than protectionist tariffs. But after the Second World War, many governments in developing countries still used protectionist tariffs as a means to increase their share of gains from trade by manipulating the terms of trade. This trade policy is sometimes referred to as import substitution strategy. In contrast, the governments in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other developing countries use tax holidays, export-processing zones, and other policy instruments to reduce tariffs. This trade liberalization policy is sometimes referred to as an export-oriented development strategy. Many economists argue that trade liberalization which involves tariff reduction is a powerful
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 77 Table 3.3 Corner equilibrium solutions Structure
A Ba
Price px/py
Relevant parameter subspace
N.A. a1y(1 + t1)/k1a2x
k1 < D1(1 − β)a1y M1
Individual utility Country 1
Country 2
(βa1x)β[(1 − β)a1y]1−β
(βa2x)β[(1 − β)a2y]1−β
≡ U1(A)
≡ U2(A)
[(1 + L1xt1)/(1 + β)t1]U1(A)
[k1k2(a1x a2y) ÷ (a1y a2x)]βT 1βU2(A)
÷ βa2y M2 Bb C
k2a2y/(1 + t2)a2x
k2 < D2βa2x M2
[k1k2(a1x a2y)
U2(A)[1 + (1 − L2x)t2]
÷ (1 − β)a1x M1
÷ (a1y a2x)]1−βT 1−β 2 U1(A)
÷ [(1 − β)t2]
(1 + βt1)βa2y M2
[k1T3 βa2y M2/(1 −
[k2T4(1 − β)a1x M1
÷ (1 − β)[1 +
β)a1y M1]1−βU1(A)
÷ βa2x M2]βU2(A)
(1 − βt2)]a1x M1 where D1 ≡ (1 + t1)[1 + (1 − β)t2]/(1 + βt1),
D2 ≡ (1 + βt1)(1 + t2)/[1 + (1 − β)t2],
L1x ≡ β + (1 + βt1)k1βa2y M1/a1y M2[1 + (1 − βt2)](1 + t1) > β, T1 ≡ {(1 + t2)/[1 + (1 − β)t2]}(1−β)/β/(1 + t1)[1 + (1 − β)t2)], L2x ≡ β − [1 + (1 − β)t2]k2(1 − β)a2x M1/a1x M2(1 + t2)(1 + βt1)] < β, T2 ≡ [(1 + t1)/(1 + βt1)]β/(1−β)/(1 + t2)(1 + βt1), T4 ≡ {(1 + t2)/[1 + (1 − β)t2]}
T3 ≡ [(1 + t1)/(1 + βt1)]β/(1−β)/[1 + (1 − β)t2],
/(1 + βt1).
(1−β)/β
engine of economic development (Krueger, 1997; World Bank, 1996). Recently, bilateral and multilateral tariff negotiations have become a driving force for trade liberalization. The question is, why is free trade difficult to realize, and trade negotiation essential for trade liberalization, if free trade is mutually beneficial? Why do some governments choose unilateral protectionist tariffs but others a unilateral laissez faire regime? How can we use general equilibrium models to explain government policy shifts from protectionist tariffs to free trade or tariff negotiation that leads to trade liberalization? This section will introduce government tariffs into the Ricardian model to address these questions. Example 3.2: A Ricardian model with an endogenous trade regime (Cheng, Sachs, and Yang, 2000). Based on the model in section 3.2, suppose that the government in country i (i = 1, 2) imposes an ad valorem tariff of rate ti, and transfers all tariff revenue equally to all individuals in country i. In this case, individuals’ budget constraint, for instance, for configuration (x/y), changes from px x s = py y d to px x s + Ri = (1 + ti)py y d, where ti is the tariff rate in country i and Ri is the tariff revenue received by each resident in country i. Individuals take the amount of transfer as given. At equilibrium, the total transfer equals total tariff revenue. Also, we assume that the transaction efficiency coefficient for country i is ki , which may be different between countries. Using the same procedure as in section 3.3, we can solve for the corner equilibrium for each structure. The corner equilibrium solutions are presented in table 3.3. It is easy to see that if t1 = t2 = 0 and k1 = k2, table 3.3 reduces to table 3.1. If t1 = t2 = 0, the Ricardian model predicts that the country that produces both goods does not get any gains from trade. This result can be clearly seen in table 3.1 – when the general equilibrium occurs in structure Ba (or Bb), individuals in country 1 (or country 2) that produces both goods x and y get the same level of utility as they do in autarky.
78 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
The story is different when tariffs are introduced. With reference to table 3.3, if the general equilibrium occurs in structure Ba (or Bb), individuals in the country producing both goods get a higher utility than they do in autarky. Moreover, in structure Ba, ∂U1/∂t1 > 0 (or in structure Bb, ∂U2/∂t2 > 0), that is, given the tariff rate of the country producing one good, the country producing two goods can improve its own welfare by raising its tariff rate. This is because the latter country determines the terms of trade and can improve them by imposing a tariff, thereby obtaining a larger share of the gains from trade. The country producing two goods gains at the expense of its trading partner, and it can be shown that ∂U2 /∂t1 < 0 in structure Ba and ∂U1/∂t2 < 0 in structure Bb. If the country producing two goods imposes a sufficiently high tariff, the other country may want to withdraw from trade, in which case both countries are hurt. In contrast to the country producing two goods, the completely specialized country has no influence on the terms of trade. As a result, it only hurts itself by imposing a tariff, as can be derived from table 3, ∂U2/∂t2 < 0 in structure Ba and ∂U1/∂t1 < 0 in structure Bb. If both countries can influence the terms of trade (as in structure C), then the gains of trade are shared between the two countries. However, since ∂U1/∂t1 > 0 and ∂U2/∂t2 > 0 in structure C, i.e., each country can benefit from raising its own tariff given the other country’s tariff rate, each country will be tempted to raise its own tariff as much as possible. But if they both raise their tariff, both may be worse off. It can be shown that in structure C ∂U1/∂t2 < 0 and ∂U2/∂t1 < 0, and that U1 converges to 0 as t2 tends to infinity and U2 converges to 0 as t1 tends to infinity. This implies that, as a country sufficiently increases its tariff, the other country will not only be marginally worse off, but will also discontinuously (inframarginally) jump from trade to autarky. The above analysis is conducted within the Walrasian regime. To analyze the behavior of the governments in the two countries, we examine two other regimes: a Nash game and a Nash tariff bargaining game. (If you are not familiar with the two concepts, you might refer to sections 9.3 and 9.4 in chapter 9 below.) Suppose first that the governments in the two countries play a Nash game. Each government chooses its own tariff rate to maximize home residents’ utility, taking as given the tariff rate in the foreign country and the Walrasian decisions of all individuals. For each structure (A, Ba, Bb, or C), a Nash corner equilibrium can be calculated. The Nash general equilibrium is one of four Nash corner equilibria. Consider structure Ba first. Since ∂U2/∂t2 < 0 in this structure, the equilibrium strategy of country 2’s government is to impose zero tariff. Since ∂U1/∂t1 > 0 and ∂U2/∂t1 < 0, the equilibrium strategy of country 1’s government is to impose as high a tariff as possible, provided each individual in country 2 will not deviate from configuration (y/x). If the Nash corner equilibrium in structure Ba is the Nash general equilibrium, each individual in country 2 is slightly better off than in autarky and most gains from trade go to country 1. In other words, the Nash corner equilibrium in the tariff game in this structure generates a distribution pattern of gains from trade that is opposite to the distribution in the absence of a tariff, where all the gains go to country 2. This Nash corner equilibrium is not Pareto optimal because of the deadweight loss caused by the tariff. But the distortion caused by the tariff converges to zero as gains from trade net of transaction costs go to zero. If each government can choose any level of tariff (including a zero tariff ), the Walrasian equilibrium with no tariff will not occur when structure Ba is chosen in general equilibrium, because country 1’s government has an incentive to deviate from that “equilibrium” by increasing the tariff. Since structure Bb is symmetric to Ba, we can obtain a similar result: a Nash tariff game will reverse the distribution pattern of gains from trade and will generate distortions. Now, consider structure C. Since ∂U1/∂t1 > 0, ∂U2/∂t1 < 0, ∂U1/∂t2 < 0, ∂U2/∂t2 > 0 in this structure, the Nash corner equilibrium strategy of each government in this structure is to
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 79
impose as high a tariff as possible, provided the individuals in the other country will not deviate from their specialization configurations. This implies that the gains from the complete division of labor in this structure will be almost exhausted by the deadweight loss caused by the tariff war. If the Nash general equilibrium occurs in this structure, this equilibrium may generate a very significant welfare loss to both countries. This is a typical prisoners’ dilemma: mutually beneficial gains cannot be realized because of coordination difficulty between self-interested rational decisions (see section 9.5 in chapter 9). Now suppose the two governments play a Nash tariff bargaining game. This game maximizes a Nash product of the net gains of the two countries with respect to the tariff rates of the two countries. Each country’s net gain is the difference between each individual’s realized utility and her utility at a disagreement point. The Nash tariff negotiation equilibrium can be solved in two steps: (1) a restricted Nash bargaining game is solved for a given structure, taking another structure as a disagreement point; (2) the two governments bargain over the choice of structure. The Nash product in structure C, with autarky as a disagreement point, is V = V1V2 = [U1(C) − U1(A)][U2(C) − U2(A)] where Ui (C) and Ui (A) are given in table 3.3. The Nash bargaining corner equilibrium in structure C is given by maximizing V with respect to t1 and t2. The two first-order conditions ∂V/∂t1 = ∂V/∂t2 = 0 generate (1 + t1)(1 + t2) = 1. Since t1, t2 ≥ 0, the condition generates the solution of the Nash tariff negotiation game: t *1 = t 2* = 0. This implies that the Nash tariff negotiations will generate a bilateral laissez faire regime. But this regime cannot be achieved in the absence of tariff negotiations because of conflict of interest. Although in this Nash bargaining game no risk is specified, the players’ attitude towards risk “plays a central role” (Osborne and Rubinstein, 1990, p. 10). As long as uncertainty exists about other players’ behavior, there is a chance that negotiations will break down. Thus, each government intends to maximize its expected utility gain in the negotiation. In fact, the Nash product can be interpreted as a player’s expected utility gain, with the probability of reaching an agreement being approximated by the utility gain(s) of the other player(s). According to this view of Nash (1950), the Nash bargaining solution is the outcome of a noncooperative game despite the fact that the gains are shared fairly among players. If each government can decide whether or not to participate in a tariff negotiation game, then it is clear that when structure Ba or Bb occurs in general equilibrium, it must be a Nash equilibrium with no tariff negotiation, since the country producing two goods can get the most gain from a unilateral tariff. When structure C occurs in general equilibrium, the general equilibrium must involve tariff negotiation since both governments prefer tariff negotiation to tariff war. Clearly, the two countries receive more net gains in the tariff negotiation game than in the tariff war since the Nash tariff bargaining equilibrium, which coincides with the Walrasian equilibrium with no tariff, is Pareto optimal. This result explains why it is difficult to realize a laissez faire regime even if it is good for all countries. When the sovereignty of a country can be used to seek rent in international trade via taxation power, the coordination difficulty of a prisoners’ dilemma makes tariff negotiation essential for fully exploiting the mutually beneficial gains from trade. Following the method in the previous section, we can show that in the model with an endogenous choice of regimes, the general equilibrium discontinuously jumps from autarky to structure Ba or Bb, then to structure C as the transaction efficiency coefficient k increases. From the column within a relevant parameter subspace in table 3.3, we can see that in the transitional stage from A to C, the country with low transaction efficiency and/or a large population produces two goods. This provides a formal theory that predicts the positive correlation between favorable geographic conditions for transportation and the openness of government policy, reported in chapter 2.
80 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Summarizing the above analysis, we have: Proposition 3.2: In a model with two governments that can choose tariff levels and decide whether or not to participate in tariff negotiations, if partial division of labor occurs in equilibrium, that equilibrium is a Nash tariff equilibrium with no tariff negotiations. Most gains from trade go to the country producing both goods and having lower transaction efficiency. If complete division of labor occurs in equilibrium, it is a Nash tariff negotiation equilibrium that generates a bilateral laissez faire regime. Proposition 3.2 may be used to explain two phenomena. First, despite the distortions caused by tariffs, they may be used by a government in a less-developed economy with low transaction efficiency to get a larger share of gains from trade, since the Walrasian equilibrium terms of trade with no tariffs may be very unfavorable to that country. Second, when transaction conditions are inadequate, so that the equilibrium is associated with an intermediate level of division of labor, a country (which has a low transaction efficiency and does not completely specialize) may prefer a unilateral tariff, whereas the other country (which has a higher transaction efficiency and completely specializes) may prefer a unilateral laissez faire regime. But as transaction conditions improve, all countries may prefer tariff negotiations to a unilateral tariff. In the sixteenth century, unilateral tariffs were advocated by Mercantilists as a means of rent-seeking in international trade. They gave way to trade liberalization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in some European countries. However, even after the Second World War, many governments in developing countries still adopted unilateral tariff protection. More recently, tariff negotiations have become increasingly prevalent. Some economists use the Walrasian model to explain the emergence of laissez faire regimes, but the model cannot explain why other trade regimes persisted in many countries for a long period of time. Other economists use the theory of import and export substitution to explain the transition from unilateral tariffs to trade liberalization (see, for instance, Balassa, 1980), but the theory cannot explain why a laissez faire regime was unstable even between developed countries; why unilateral protectionist tariffs and a laissez faire regime may coexist; or why tariff negotiations may be necessary for free trade and for the exploitation of the gains from trade. Proposition 3.2 in this chapter seems to offer a more plausible response to the above questions, as well as to why unilateral tariffs prevailed in the early stages of economic development; and why trade liberalization is preferred in the later stages of economic development. In the next example, we extend the simple 2 × 2 Ricardian model to include a third country, country 3, to show that a country may be excluded from trade despite the existence of a comparative advantage between that country and another country. Example 3.3: A Ricardo model with three countries. Let’s assume that transaction conditions are different from country to country such that k1, k3 > k2, where ki is the transaction efficiency coefficient in country i. We intend to show that a country that does not have a comparative advantage over two other countries in any single good, and/or that has a low transaction efficiency, can be excluded from trade. Suppose that the production functions in country i (i = 1, 2, 3) are the same as in (3.2) and that (a3x /a3y) < (a2x /a2y) < (a1x /a1y), i.e., country 1 has a comparative advantage in producing good x relative to the other two countries; country 2 has a comparative advantage in producing x relative to country 3 and a comparative advantage in producing good y relative to country 1; and country 3 has a comparative advantage in producing y relative to the other two countries. We will consider only the case where the trading countries are completely specialized. For reasons similar to those discussed in example 3.2, all structures involving trade in comparative
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 81
disadvantage goods cannot occur in general equilibrium. We now prove that if a structure involves trading between only two of the three countries, the two trading countries must be country 1 and country 3. In other words, the country with the lowest transaction efficiency and/or no comparative advantage over the other two countries in any single good may be excluded from trade. We first prove that it is impossible either that only country 1 and country 2 trade, or that only country 2 and country 3 trade. To do so, we use the argument of negation. Suppose that only countries 1 and 2 trade. This can occur in general equilibrium only if individuals in country 2 prefer specialization in y (or configuration ( y/x)) to autarky and individuals in country 3 prefer autarky to specialization in y. That is, the following inequalities hold: U2(y/x) > U2(A) which holds iff p < (a2y /a2x)k2
and
U3(y/x) < U3(A) which holds iff p > (a3y /a3x)k3. where the indirect utility functions for different configurations are from table 3.1. The two inequalities jointly imply (a2x /a2y k2) < (a3x /a3y k3), which contradicts the assumption (a2x /a2y) > (a3x /a3y) and k2 < k3. Suppose, instead, that only countries 2 and 3 trade. This can occur in general equilibrium only if: U2(x/y) > U2(A) which holds iff p > a2y /a2x k2
and
U1(x/y) < U1(A) which holds iff p < a1y /a1x k1. The two inequalities jointly imply (a1y /a1x k1) > (a2y /a2x k2), which contradicts the assumption (a1x /a1y) > (a2x /a2y) and k2 < k1. Hence, if only two countries trade, they must be countries 1 and 3. Next, we examine the conditions under which the structure involving trade between only countries 1 and 3 occurs in general equilibrium. The conditions are: U1(x/y) > U1(y/x) which holds iff p > (a1y /a1x)k 12β−1, U1(x/y) > U1(A) which holds iff p > a1y /a1x k1, U2(x/y) < U2(A) which holds iff p < a2y /a2x k2, U2(y/x) < U2(A) which holds iff p > (a2y /a2x)k2, U3(y/x) > U3(A) which holds iff p < (a3y /a3x)k3, U3(y/x) > U3(x/y) which holds iff p < (a3y /a3x)k 32β−1, where p = a3y M3β/a1x M1(1 − β) is the corner equilibrium-relative price in this structure. The six inequalities together imply Min{a2y /a2x k2, (a3y /a3x)k3} > a3y M3β/a1x M1(1 − β) > Max{a1y /a1x k1, (a2y /a2x)k2}. The parameter subspace satisfying this condition is certainly not empty. For instance, if k2 is sufficiently close to 0 and k1 and k3 are sufficiently close to 1, then the above condition becomes (a3y /a3x)k3 > a3y M3β/a1x M1(1 − β) > a1y /a1xk1, or (a1x /a3x)k3 > M3β/M1(1 − β) > a1y /a3y k1, which holds only if k3k1[(a1x /a1y)/(a3x /a3y)] > 1. This condition can be satisfied if the relative population size is not too far away from a balance with relative tastes, if the two countries’ transaction conditions are sufficiently good, and if the degree of comparative advantage (measured by (a1x /a3x)(a3y /a1y)) between the two countries is great.
82 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Summarizing the above analysis, we obtain: Proposition 3.3: In a 3 × 2 Ricardian model within a certain parameter subspace, it is possible that the country that has no comparative advantage in producing any good over both of its potential trading partners and/or that has very low transaction efficiency will be excluded from trade. This proposition can accommodate the opinions expressed by both sides in a recent debate on international competitiveness. Krugman (1994) argues that a nation should focus on promoting free trade and that an emphasis on international competitiveness can be “a dangerous obsession.” Sachs (1996) and Prestowitz (1994), on the other hand, contend that international competitiveness plays an essential role in improving national welfare. If international competitiveness is measured by a country’s transaction efficiency, then proposition 3.3 confirms that competitiveness matters: it implies that comparative advantage is not enough for realizing gains from trade. A country can be excluded from trade even if it has comparative advantage over another single country when its transaction efficiency is low and/or it has no comparative advantage to both of its other potential partners in producing the same good. However, the proposition also supports Krugman’s argument that a country should focus on promoting free trade and improving transaction efficiency. In our model, the promotion of free trade can be done through reducing tariff and nontariff barriers to trade so as to improve transaction efficiency k. If k is extremely low, no trade occurs and absolute and comparative advantage does no good for trade. Since in our model the improvement of the transaction efficiency coefficient through trade liberalization policies can generate a jump of general equilibrium from a low to a high level of division of labor, the argument for free trade is even stronger than the conventional marginal analysis suggests. Therefore, international competitiveness and free trade are important factors contributing to a country’s welfare. Krugman’s emphasis on trade liberalization is particularly relevant if the pursuit of international competitiveness is used as an excuse for impeding free trade. Introducing tariffs into the model in this section, it can be shown that when all governments are allowed to choose their tariff level and when the partial division of labor occurs in general equilibrium, the country with a higher tariff and/or a worse transaction condition (a small value of k) will be excluded from trade. Hence, in a world economy with many governments, each country will reduce tariffs to avoid exclusion from trade. This implies that, even in a partial division of labor, tariff rates will be reduced by competition between governments in similar countries. On the other hand, since a greater value of k will increase the number of countries involved in international trade, which will in turn ensure a multilateral free trade regime even if the partial division of labor occurs in general equilibrium, a sufficiently great increase in k in the country that was excluded from trade can then ensure a zero tariff rate for all countries, even if the general equilibrium is associated with the partial division of labor. This result implies that there are two possible explanations for a shift of trade regime from protectionist tariffs to trade liberalization. The first is to attribute such a shift to the increase in the level of division of labor (a shift from partial to complete division of labor), which is caused by improvements in transportation conditions. The second is to attribute such a shift to the increase in the number of countries that are involved in international trade, which is caused by improvements of the transaction conditions in those countries which were excluded from trade. An increase in k can be generated by improvements in transportation conditions (the emergence of new transportation technology or the development of transportation infrastructure) and/or by institutional changes (the emergence of a legal system that more effectively protects property rights or the emergence of a more competitive and efficient banking system).
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 83
3.6
COMPARATIVE ENDOWMENT ADVANTAGE AND TRANSACTION EFFICIENCY
In this section we consider the Heckscher–Ohlin (HO) model with two countries differing in endowments and transaction conditions. The HO model can be used to show that in the absence of Ricardo’s technical comparative advantage, economies of division of labor may arise from exogenous differences in endowment between countries. Some core neoclassical trade theorems can be based on the HO model. In this section, we work out an inframarginal as well as marginal comparative statics of general equilibrium of the HO model to show that as transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium levels of division of labor and productivity increase. In particular, comparative statics that relate to the Heckscher–Ohlin (HO) theorem, the Stolper– Samuelson (SS) theorem, and the factor price equalization (FPE) theorem are examined. Example 3.4: The HO model with transaction costs. Consider the HO model with transaction costs and with comparative endowment advantages between two countries. Perfect competition prevails in both goods and factor markets, and factors are mobile within a country but immobile between countries. Country i (i = 1, 2) is endowed with labor Li and capital Ki, which can be used to produce two consumer goods x and y. The decision problem of a representative consumer in country i is: Max: Ui = X iθ Y 1−θ i ,
pix xi + pjx xji + piy yi + pjy yji = wi Li + ri Ki
s.t.
where Xi ≡ xi + ki xji and Yi ≡ yi + ki yji are respective amounts of the two goods consumed, pst is the price of good t in country s, xi and yi are respective amounts of the two goods purchased from the domestic market in country i, xji and yji are respective amounts of the two goods, purchased from a foreign country, or delivered from country j to country i, wi and ri are wage rate and rental of capital in country i, respectively. xi , xji , yi , yji may be 0, or corner solutions are allowed. Because of transaction costs, the prices of the same good may differ between the two countries. The price of imported good t to country s, pst, can be considered as CIF (import price inclusive of insurance and freight) and the price of exported good t from country s, pst, can be considered as FOB (import price exclusive of insurance and freight) to the importing country. Since corner solutions are allowed, a consumer’s decision is configuration dependent as in previous sections. In addition to autarky, there are 8 different trade structures in the HO model. Using the first letter to denote goods produced by country 1, the second letter to denote goods produced by country 2, and the subscript i to denote country i, we have the following structures, as shown in figure 3.3: x1 y2 (country 1 produces x and country 2 produces y); y1x2 (country 1 produces y and country 2 produces x); xy1 y2 (country 1 produces both goods and country 2 produces y);
xy
xy
x y yx1xy2 y x xy1 yx2
xy
xy
xy
y
x y xy1 y2 y x y1xy2
Figure 3.3 Possible trade structures
y
x
xy
xy
x y x1xy2 y x xy1x2
xy
x
x
y
x y x1 y2 y x y1x2
y
x
84 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
xy1x2, x1xy2, y1xy2, yx1xy2 (each country produces two goods and country 1 exports x and imports y); xy1 yx2 (each country produces two goods and country 1 exports y and imports x). The last two structures are referred to as interior structures since they are based on interior solutions for each country. The first six structures involve the corner solutions of at least one country, and are thus referred to as corner structures. Our concept of interior structure relates to the concept of the diversification cone, developed in the 1950s (see Lerner, 1952, and McKenzie, 1955). It is defined as the range of factor endowments within which a country produces both goods for given prices. We first consider structure yx1xy2 where x21 = y12 = 0. The first-order conditions for the decision problems of representative consumers in the two countries (∂u1/∂x1)/(∂u1/∂y1) = p1x /p1y,
(∂u1/∂x1)/(∂u1/∂y21) = p1x /p2y,
(∂u2/∂x2)/(∂u2/∂y2) = p2x /p2y,
(∂u2/∂x12)/(∂u2/∂y2) = p1x /p2y,
yield: p2y = k1 p1y = k1,
p1x = k2 p2x.
We assume that good y produced in country 1 is the numeraire, so that p1y = 1 and denote p = p1x, so that p2x = p/k2 and p2y = k1. Assume that the production functions for x and y in country i are: x is = L αix K ix1−α;
yis = L iyβ K iy1−β
where x is and y is are the respective output levels of the two goods, Lij (i = 1, 2; j = x, y) is the amount of labor and Kij is the amount of capital allocated to produce good j in country i. Constrained by its production technology, the representative firm producing x in country i maximizes its profit, i.e., Max πix = pix x is − wi Lix − ri Kix = pix L αix K1−α ix − wi Lix − ri Kix. Lix , K ix
The decision problem for the representative firm producing y is similar. Because of the constant returns to scale, the optimum quantities of both goods supplied and factors demanded are indeterminate. But the first-order conditions for the four decision problems of the two types of firms in the two countries ∂πi/∂L ij = wi ,
∂πi/∂Kij = ri ,
i = 1, 2, j = x, y
can be used to express factor prices and relative factor allocation as functions of relative prices of goods: w1/r1 = (a1y B/a1x Ap)1/(β−α)
and
w2/r2 = (a2x Ap/a2y Bk1k2)1/(β−α).
(3.6)
where A ≡ αα(1 − α)1−α, B ≡ ββ(1 − β)1−β. The market clearing conditions for factors in each country Lix + Liy = Li
and
Kix + Kiy = Ki ,
i = 1, 2,
together with the first-order conditions for firms’ decisions, can then be used to solve resource allocations also as functions of the relative prices of goods:
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 85
Lix = [αβri Ki /(β − α)wi] − [α(1 − β)Li /(β − α)],
Kix = [(1− α)wi Lix /αri],
Liy = [αβ/(β − α)]{[(1 − α)Li/α] − (riKi /wi)},
Kiy = [(1 − β)wi Liy /βri].
where the relative prices of factors are functions of the relative price of goods, p, as given in (3.6). The world market clearing condition for good x x1 + x2 + x12 = x 1s + x 2s then determines the equilibrium relative price of goods, p. Note that the market clearing condition for good y is independent of this equation due to Walras’s law. Without loss of generality, we assume that β > α. It is easy to show that in the equilibrium, Kix /Lix > Kiy/Liy iff β > α. Hence, the assumption implies that the x industry is capital-intensive and the y industry is labor-intensive. We assume also that country 1 is relatively capital abundant, or that K2/L2 < K1/L1. We first consider the world general equilibrium in structure yx1xy2, then consider structure xy1 yx2, and identify the parameter subspaces for autarky and corner structures to be general equilibrium. The interior equilibrium in structure yx1xy2 is summarized as follows: Xi = A[βKi − (1 − β)Li/γ]γ α/(β − α), Yi = B[(1 − α)(Li/γ) − αKi]γ β/(β − α), Lix = [α/(β − α)][βKiγ − (1 − β)Li], (3.7a)
Liy = [β/(β − α)][(1 − α)Li − αKiγ], Kix = (1 − α)Lixwi/ri α, p = Bγ
(β−α)
/A,
Kiy = (1 − β)Liy wi/riβ,
r1/w1 = (Ap/B)1/(β−α),
r2/w2 = (Ap/k1k2B)1/(β−α),
where A ≡ αα(1 − α)1−α, B ≡ ββ(1 − β)1−β, γ≡
[1 − β + (β − α)θ]L1 + [1 − β + (β − α)θ/k2 ](k1k2 )(1− α )/(β − α ) L 2 [β(1 − θ) + αθ]K1 + [β − (β − α)θ/k2 ](k1k2 )(1− α )/(β − α )K2
,
(3.7b)
Xi and Yi are respective amounts of the two goods consumed by the representative consumer in country i, that is, X1 = x1, X2 = x2 + k2x12, Y1 = y1 + k1 y21, Y2 = y2. The HO theorem (Heckscher, 1919; Ohlin, 1933) states that a country exports the goods whose production uses its abundant factor intensively. In terms of the model in this section, the HO theorem, together with the assumption that β > α (the x sector is capital intensive), implies that country 1 exports good x and imports y if K1/L1 > K2/L2. Considering all possible structures, this implies that structure yx1xy2, xy1 y2, x1xy2, or x1 y2, as shown in figure 3.3, occurs at general equilibrium. Letting the equilibrium values of Lix and Liy be greater than or equal to 0, we can partition the nine-dimension space of parameters β, α, θ, Ki, Li, and ki into subspaces. For instance, letting Lix , Liy > 0 for i = 1, 2, we can identify the parameter subspace for an interior structure as the general equilibrium structure, and letting Lix, L1y > 0 and L2y = 0, we can identify the parameter subspace for structure xy1x2 as the general equilibrium structure. All possible trade structures are illustrated in figure 3.3, where the left circle in each panel represents country 1 and the right circle represents country 2; lines between circles represent goods flows. In figure 3.3 the distinction is drawn between the interior structure xy1 yx2, in which country 1 exports y and country 2 exports x, and the structure yx1xy2, in which country 1 exports x and
86 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
country 2 exports y. The two structures are interior structures, but the former is inconsistent with the HO theorem. Structures xy1x2, y1xy2, y1x2 are incompatible with the HO theorem; in those cases, the capital-abundant country 1 exports the labor-intensive good y. We first identify the condition under which the parameter subspaces that enable the three structures to be general equilibrium structures are empty. Letting Lix, L1y > 0 and L2y ≤ 0 in (3.7a), we can see that structure xy1x will be chosen only if K2/L2 > K1/L1, which contradicts the assumption K2/L2 < K1/L1. Hence, we can see that the parameter subspace for structure xy1x2 to be chosen is empty if: K2/L2 < K1/L1
and
β > α.
(3.8)
Similarly, we can prove that structures y1xy2, y1x2, which are incompatible with the HO theorem, cannot be general equilibrium structures if (3.8) holds. We can also show that the parameter subspaces for other structures as equilibrium structures are not empty if (3.8) holds. For an interior structure to occur in equilibrium, it must be true that L1x > 0; L1y > 0; L2x > 0; L2y > 0. These conditions are equivalent to: γ ∈((1 − β)L1/βK1, (1 − α)L1/αK1), which holds only if β > α
(3.9a)
γ/(k1k2) ∈ ((1 − β)L2/βK2, (1 − α)L2/αK2), which holds only if β > α
(3.9b)
γ ∈((k1k2)
(1 − β)L2/βK2, (1 − α)L1/αK1), which holds only if (1 − α)L1/αK1 > (k1k2)1/(β−α)(1 − β)L2/βK2
(3.9c)
γ ∈((1 − β)L1/βK1, (k1k2)1/(β−α)(1 − α)L2/αK2), which holds only if (k1k2)1/(β−α)(1 − α)L2/αK2 > (1 − β)L1/βK1
(3.9d)
1/(β−α)
where γ is given in (3.7b) and ∂γ/∂k1 > 0 and ∂[γ/(k1k2)]/∂k2 < 0. (3.9a) implies that k1 is neither too great nor too small, and (3.9b) implies that k2 is neither too great nor too small. (3.9c) implies that transaction efficiencies in two countries (k1k2) are not too great and comparative endowment advantage K1L2/L1K2 is not too great compared to other parameters. (3.9d) implies that transaction efficiency (k1k2) is not small and comparative endowment advantage K1L2/L1K2 is not small. Hence, structure yx1xy2 occurs in equilibrium if transaction efficiencies in two countries are neither too great nor too small and if comparative endowment advantages are neither too significant nor too trivial. Now we consider the dividing line between structure yx1xy2 and autarky. Since both structures satisfy Lij > 0 for i = 1, 2 and j = x, y, we have to calculate the domestic excess demand for x and y to identify the dividing line. Inserting the equilibrium prices into the domestic demand and supply functions for goods yields: x 1s ≥ X1 iff γ ≥ γ1 ≡ [(β − α)θ + 1 − β]L1/K1[β(1 − θ) + αθ]
(3.10a)
y 2s ≥ Y2 iff γ ≤ γ2 ≡ [(β − α)θ + 1 − β](k1k2)1/(β−α)L2/K2[β(1 − θ) + αθ]
(3.10b)
The two semi-inequalities imply that: γ2 ≥ γ ≥ γ1 which holds only if γ2 ≥ γ1
(3.11)
It is not difficult to see that γ2 > γ1 iff η ≡ (k1k2)1/(β−α)μ = (k1k2)1/(β−α)(K1L2/K2L1) > 1,
(3.12)
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 87
where η is a product of transaction efficiencies in the two countries and μ which represents the degree of comparative endowment advantage. It is obvious for k1k2 = 1, γ2 > γ1 iff (3.8) holds. Hence, if (3.8) holds and transaction costs in two countries do not outweigh comparative endowment advantage, then structure yx1xy2 may occur in equilibrium. As k1 and k2 decrease from 1, γ2 tends to γ1. If k1 and k2 are sufficiently small, it will be true that γ2 = γ1, which implies γ2 ≥ γ ≥ γ1 holds only if γ = γ1 = γ2. Recalling (3.10), this implies that the domestic excess demand in both countries is 0, or that autarky occurs in equilibrium. Hence, the dividing line between structure yx1xy2 and autarky is η = (k1k2)1/(β−α)(K1L2/K2L1) = 1. For η ≤ 1, autarky occurs in equilibrium. (3.12), together with (3.9c), imply that structure yx1xy2 occurs in equilibrium only if β(1 − α)/α(1 − β) > η > 1. Alternatively, we can verify that autarky occurs in equilibrium if transaction efficiency in either country is sufficiently low. First, note the facts that dγ/dk1 > 0 and for k1k2 = 1, γ > γ1. This implies that as k1 decreases from 1 to 0, γ monotonously decreases from a value greater than γ1 toward γ1. As γ reaches γ1, the equilibrium price in structure yx1xy2 becomes the same as that in autarky. Hence, as k1 becomes sufficiently close to 0, country 1 chooses autarky and, therefore, the general equilibrium is autarky. Similarly, we can prove that as k2 becomes sufficiently close to 0, country 2 chooses autarky and, therefore, the general equilibrium is autarky. Therefore, if transaction efficiency in either country is too low, the general equilibrium will be autarky. As transaction efficiencies increase, the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to a structure with trade. In order to rule out structure xy1 yx2, we assume x12, y21 = 0 and x21, y12 > 0 in the consumer’s decision problem. Following the same procedure for solving for the local equilibrium in structure yx1xy2, we can show that the equilibrium prices in this structure are p1y = 1, p1x = p, p2x = k2, p2y = k1 p and that domestic excess demand for x in country 1 and for y in country 2 are positive only if μ = (K1L2/K2L1) < (k1k2)1/(β−α), which is incompatible with the assumption (3.8) for ki ∈[0, 1] and β > α. This implies that the parameter subspace for structure xy1 yx2 to occur in equilibrium is empty, or that this structure is ruled out from the set of candidates for equilibrium structures. Following this method, we can show that the parameter subspace for structure x1xy2 to occur in equilibrium is given by: (1 − α)L1/αK1 < γ < (1 − α)L2(k1k2)1/(β−α)/αK2 (1 − α)L2/αK2 > γ/(k1k2)
1/(β−α)
> (1 − β)L2/βK2.
and
(3.13a) (3.13b)
(3.13a) holds only if k1k2 is sufficiently large and the degree of comparative endowment advantage, K1L2/L1K2, is not too great compared to other parameters. Since d[γ/(k1k2)1/(β−α)]/dk2 < 0, (3.13b) implies that k2 is neither too great nor too small, and the degree of comparative endowment advantage, K1L2/L1K2, is not too small compared to other parameters. Hence, the general equilibrium occurs in structure x1xy2 if transaction efficiency in country 2 and comparative advantage are neither too high nor too low, while the transaction efficiency is great in country 1. In other words, country 1 completely specializes and country 2 produces two goods if k1 is great compared to k2. Since international terms of trade are determined by the domestic terms of trade in country 2 in this structure, most gains from trade go to the country producing one good.
88 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 3.4 General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics η
β(1 − α)/α(1 − β)
The parameter subspace for structure xy1 y2 to occur in equilibrium is given by: (1 − β)L1/βK1 < γ < (1 − α)L1/αK1
and
(1 − α)L2(k1k2)1/(β−α)/αK2 > γ > (1 − β)L1/βK1.
(3.14a) (3.14b)
(3.14b) holds only if k1k2 is sufficiently large and the degree of comparative endowment advantage, K1L2/L1K2, is not too small. Since dγ/dk1 > 0, (3.14a) implies that k1 is neither too great nor too small, and the degree of comparative endowment advantage, K1L2/L1K2, is not too great. Hence, the general equilibrium occurs in structure xy1 y2 if the transaction efficiency in country 1 and comparative advantage are neither too high nor too low, while the transaction efficiency is great in country 2. In other words, country 1 produces two goods and country 2 completely specializes if k2 is great compared to k1. Following this method, we can identify the parameter subspace necessary for each structure to be an equilibrium structure, as summarized in table 3.4, where η ≡ (k1k2)1/(β−α)μ = (k1k2)1/(β−α)(K1L2/K2L1), and β(1 − α)/α(1 − β) > 1 > α(1 − β)/β(1 − α) > 0. η is a product of transaction efficiencies in the two countries and μ, which represents the degree of comparative endowment advantage. Table 3.4 suggests that under our assumption (3.8), autarky and four different trade patterns can occur in equilibrium depending on parameter values. All four trade patterns feature country 1 exporting good x. (It can be shown that if we reverse our assumption (3.8), the other four trade patterns will occur in equilibrium, each featuring country 1 exporting good y.) All corner structures in table 3.4 are consistent with the HO theorem. For instance, in structure xy1 y2, capital-abundant country 1 exports the capital-intensive good x and laborabundant country 2 exports labor-intensive good y, as shown in figure 3.3. We can see that for each corner structure, the market clearing condition ensures a trade pattern that is unambiguous about which country exports which good. This implies that the HO theorem holds for all corner structures in table 3.4, even if parameter values shift between the parameter subspaces that demarcate the structures. Following the same approach to analyzing the Ricardian model in the previous sections, it can be shown that the equilibrium production schedule in autarky is lower than the PPF, since autarky imposes the constraint that marginal rate of substitution and marginal rate of transformation must be equalized within each country. Hence, as transaction conditions are improved, the aggregate productivity jumps as a result of an increase in the equilibrium levels of division of labor and trade. Another general equilibrium mechanism for economic development is: as transaction conditions are improved, equilibrium productivity increases due to exploitation of more comparative endowment advantages between countries or between different groups of individuals. You are asked in exercise 8 below to introduce comparative technological
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 89
advantages into the HO model to reestablish proposition 3.4, and to prove that the HO theorem may not hold in the model with comparative technological and endowment advantages and transaction costs. The inframarginal comparative statics are summarized as follows. Proposition 3.4: If transaction efficiency is sufficiently low in any country and/or comparative endowment advantage is small, autarky occurs in equilibrium. If transaction efficiencies in two countries are slightly improved and/or the degree of comparative advantage slightly increases, the equilibrium shifts to a low level of division of labor with each country producing two goods. If the transaction efficiency is further improved in one country and/or the degree of comparative advantage increases further, the equilibrium shifts to a dual structure wherein this country completely specializes and gets the most gains from trade, while the other country produces two goods. As transaction efficiencies in two countries and/or the degree of comparative advantage are sufficiently increased, the equilibrium jumps to a high level of division of labor, where each country produces only one good and gains from trade are shared by the two countries. This evolution in division of labor and trade dependence increases the equilibrium aggregate productivity. Table 3.4 and (3.7) show that for k1 = k2 = 1, international trade will make factor prices in the trading countries equalize, even though the factors themselves are immobile across countries (Samuelson, 1948), if the comparative endowment advantage and transaction efficiencies in the two countries are neither great nor small, or if the interior structure yx1xy2 occurs in equilibrium. It is easy to show that the factor price equalization does not hold if k1 and k2 are not 1 (transaction cost is not zero). In addition, the factor price may not be equal if a corner structure occurs at equilibrium or if transaction efficiency in any country and/or comparative endowment advantage are too great or too small. In exercise 11 (below) you are asked to show that if total factor productivity is different from country to country and from good to good, then relative factor price may be different even in the interior structure yx1xy2 in the absence of transaction costs. The SS theorem was derived from an interior structure in the HO model, in which both countries produce both goods and the commodity price is assumed to be exogenous. The theorem states that if the price of the capital-intensive (or labor-intensive) good rises, the price of capital (or labor) rises, and in greater proportion to the commodity price increase, while the price of labor falls (or that of capital rises), but necessarily in greater proportion to the commodity price increase (Stolper and Samuelson, 1941). The theorem is wildly at odds with empirical evidence. (Grossman and Levinsohn (1989) show that the specific factors model captures reality more closely than the SS theorem for many US industries.) Since the price of a country’s comparative advantage good rises with the opening-up of international trade, a corollary of the SS theorem is that international trade benefits a country’s abundant factor and hurts its scarce factor, so that a tariff benefits a country’s scarce factor. This prediction is inconsistent with the common sense that the protection of labor-intensive industries may shift the distribution of income marginally in favor of workers, but will lower overall income, and on balance, therefore, will normally hurt them. On this view, the SS theorem provides a theory to explain the income distribution effect of international trade. The inframarginal comparative statics in table 3.4 imply that common sense might be closer to reality than the SS theorem. Our iceberg transaction cost is equivalent to a tax system that uses all tax revenue to pay the bureaucrats who collect the tax. Hence, our model can be used to analyze the effects of a tariff that incurs significant bureaucratic costs. The SS theorem ignores the possible inframarginal effect of tariff and transaction costs on a discontinuous shift of trade structure. As shown in
90 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
table 3.4, tariff and associated transaction costs may generate jumps between autarky and structures x1 y2 and yx1xy2 that may be inconsistent with the SS theorem. Proposition 3.4 implies that as the transaction efficiency in a country unilaterally decreases compared to another country, the general equilibrium may shift from structure x1 y2 to an asymmetric structure where this country produces two goods and most of the gains from trade go to the other country. This is because in an asymmetric structure, terms of international trade are determined by terms of domestic trade in the country producing two goods. This formalizes the common sense that even if a tariff may marginally change terms of trade and increase income of scarce factors, it may inframarginally hurt all home residents by reducing level of trade and associated gains. Finally, we prove that even within the interior structure, the SS theorem may not hold if price movements are caused by changes in transaction conditions. Suppose that the equilibrium occurs in structure yx1xy2 so that the equilibrium prices are given by (3.7). Country 2’s terms of trade are P ≡ p2y /p1x = k1/p, where p2y is the price of good y in country 2 in terms of good y in country 1, and p ≡ p1x is the price of good x in terms of good y in country 1. The differentiation of (6d) yields: d(r2/w2)/dk2 = ∂(r2/w2)/∂k2 + [∂(r2/w2)/∂P](dP/dk2) where ∂(r2/w2)/∂k2 < 0, ∂(r2/w2)/∂P < 0, and dP/dk2 = −k1dp/p2dk2 is ambiguous, since dp/dk2 is positive within a parameter subspace and negative within the other subspace. If dp/dk2 > 0, the sign of ∂(r2/w2)/∂k2 is opposite to that of [∂(r2/w2)/∂P](dP/dk2). Therefore, the SS theorem may not hold if the indirect effect of a change in k2 on r2/w2 dominates the direct effect. The prediction of the SS theorem even within the diversification cone may be wrong if price movements are caused by changes in transaction conditions, because some feedback loops between price differentials, transaction conditions, production, and consumption in the two countries are ignored by the SS theorem. In exercises 12–16 you are asked to prove that the SS theorem may not hold even within the diversification cone if price movements are caused by changes in nonneutral technological changes, or by changes in total factor productivity in a model with comparative technological and endowment advantages. Also, you are asked to verify that the SS theorem may not hold in a corner structure and may not hold if price movements are caused by inframarginal shifts of trade structure.
Key Terms and Review • Absolute vs. comparative advantages • Level of specialization and level of division of labor • Economies of division of labor generated by exogenous comparative productivity advantage • Economies of division of labor generated by exogenous comparative endowment advantage • Comparative statics of decisions vs. comparative statics of general equilibrium • Marginal comparative statics vs. inframarginal comparative statics • Why may a country receive more gains from trade even if its terms of trade deteriorate? • Implications of inframarginal analysis of the Ricardian model and the HO model • The HO theorem, the SS theorem, the factor price equalization theorem, and the conditions under which these hold
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 91
Further Reading Ricardian model: Dixit and Norman (1980), Ethier (1988), Gomory (1994), Cheng, Sachs, and Yang (2000). Mercantilism, import substitution, and export-oriented development: Ekelund and Tollison (1981), Balassa (1980), and Bruton (1998), and references there. Theory of dependence and underdevelopment: Palma (1978), Meier (1995, p. 109), Bauer and Yamey (1957), and references there. Inframarginal analysis and rejection of marginal cost pricing: Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962), Coase (1946, 1960), Rosen (1978, 1983), Yang and Ng (1993), Azariadis (1975), Baily (1974), Liebowitz and Margolis (1994), Tirole (1989). Neoclassical trade theory and core (HO, SS, RY, FPE) theorems: Dixit and Norman (1980), Dornbusch and Samuelson (1977), Ethier (1988), Deardorff and Stern (1994), Jones (1965), Heckscher (1919), McKenzie (1955), Lerner (1952), Ohlin (1933), Rybczynski (1955), Samuelson (1948, 1953), Stolper and Samuelson (1941), Uzawa (1959). The Ricardian model with economies of scale: Gomory (1994), Sachs, Yang, and Zhang (1999a), Cheng, Liu, and Yang (2000). The debate about competitiveness: Krugman (1994a,b), Prestowitz et al. (1994), Sachs (1996a,b). The relationship between trade and income distribution: Sachs (1996c), Krugman (1995). Political economics of trade policy, and strategic trade models: Cheng, Sachs, and Yang (2000), Krueger (1974, 1997), World Bank (1996, 1997), Conybeare (1987), Grossman and Richardson (1986), Grossman and Helpman (1995a,b), Johnson (1954), Krugman (1986), Pincus (1975), Riezman (1982), Mayer (1981, 1984). The Nash bargaining game: Nash (1950), Osborne and Rubinstein (1990). Trade policy and dual structure: Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989), Yang (1991, 1994, 1996), Cheng, Sachs, and Yang (2000). Deteriorated terms of trade and development: Dudley (1986), Sen (1998), Morgan (1970), Kohli and Werner (1998). Empirical tests of the core trade theorems: Bowen, Leamer, and Sveikauskas (1987), Trefler (1993, 1995), Grossman and Levinsohn (1989), Leamer (1984), Leontief (1956). “Anything possible” theorem: Debreu (1974), Mantel (1974), Sonnenschein (1973), or see Mas-Collell et al. (1995, ch. 17).
QUESTIONS 1 An economics student claims that the extent of the market and demand are determined by income. Why did Allyn Young criticize this as a partial view? Why did he argue not only that division of labor depends upon the extent of the market, but also that the extent of the market depends on the level of division of labor? What is the relationship between the Young theorem and the notion of network effect, and why is the notion of general equilibrium essential for formalizing the Young theorem? 2 What is the difference between the concept of economies of division of labor and economies of scale? What is the network effect of division of labor? 3 From the model in example 3.1, we can see that if the partial division of labor occurs in equilibrium, the country with lower transaction efficiency and/or larger population size will produce two goods (see the column of relevant parameter subspaces in table 3.3). This implies that the country will receive no gains from trade in the absence of tariffs and will have an incentive to pursue unilateral protectionist tariffs. There are many ways to interpret this result. For instance, the US is a large country, so that it can use tariffs to get a greater share of gains from trade if asymmetric partial division of labor occurs between the US and a smaller country. As another example, New Zealand is a small country with a low transaction efficiency (because it is far away from other countries). Hence, for either of the two cases, the US or New Zealand can use protectionist tariffs to get more gains from trade. But after the Second World War, the US opened its market to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China, so that the international division of labor among these countries developed drastically, and the US and these other countries gained tremendously from free trade. New Zealand does not pursue protectionism either.
92 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
4
5
6
7
8
9
Use the possible evolution from partial division of labor to complete division of labor in the model in this chapter to explain the success of these countries’ trade policies. The Lewis model (1955) and the Fei and Renis model (1964) explain economic development as a process in which labor is transferred from the agricultural to the industrial sector. Compare this view of economic development to Lewis’s original idea, formalized by the Ricardian model in this chapter, that economic development is an evolutionary process of commercialization. An increase in each person’s level of specialization and an increase in the diversity of occupation configurations are two aspects of this evolution. There is a debate between Krugman (1994a,b) and Prestowitz et al. (1994) about the international competitiveness of countries (see also Sachs, 1996). One side of the debate argues that according to Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, competitiveness which relates to absolute advantage does not matter in exploiting gains from trade. Assume in example 3.1 that (1 − β)M1/βM2 = 1, and show that structure C cannot be general equilibrium if one country has no absolute advantage, even if k = 1 (there is no transaction cost). Under this condition, Ba or Bb is the equilibrium where one country obtains no gain from trade. Discuss possible trade conflicts and related distortions, and the implications of absolute advantage for avoiding such endogenous transaction costs. According to Jones (1981, pp. 226–7), Europe’s considerable geological, climatic, and topographical variety endowed it with a dispersed portfolio of resources. This conduced to long-distance, multilateral trade in bulk loads of utilitarian goods. Taxing these was more rewarding than appropriating them. An abnormally high ratio of navigable routes to surface area also favored bulk trade. Use the model in this chapter to elaborate this historical fact. France imposed high protectionist tariffs on goods imported from Britain prior to its industrialization, and gave preferential trade status to less-developed trade partners after its industrialization in the nineteenth century (see Landes, 1998). Many developed countries currently use this policy to promote their trade with lessdeveloped countries. Use the model in example 3.2 to explain why this policy might be good for both developed and less-developed countries. According to Mokyr (1990, p. 254; 1993, p. 34), Britain had a comparative advantage in entrepreneurial and skilled production activities, and thus imported inventions and inventors from, and exported entrepreneurs and technicians to, the industrializing enclaves of the Continent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In addition to the inventions that Britain imported from the Continent, it imported some inventors, including Isambard Brunel, Friedrich Koenig, and the Swiss engineer J. G. Bodmer. E. Jones (1981) and Baechler (1976) indicate that the comparative advantage of British entrepreneurs was created by a variety of political systems in Europe, some of which encouraged entrepreneurial activities while others encouraged sciences. Such a created comparative advantage is called an endogenous comparative advantage (see chapters 4 and 5 below). The comparative advantage studied in this chapter is exogenous comparative advantage. Give some examples in which comparative advantages appear to be exogenous, but may be endogenously created by a variety of institutions and cultures. One way to specify increasing returns to scale based on the neoclassical dichotomy between consumers and firms in the Ricardian model can be found in Gomory
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 93
10
11 12
13
14
15
(1994). That specification causes Pareto rankable multiple general equilibria, since pure consumers cannot choose between occupation patterns, while pure producers do not care about the choice because of zero profit in all structures. Discuss the implications for trade theory of the difference between the Smithian framework and the neoclassical framework with a dichotomy between pure consumers and firms. Some economists argue that the statement that improvements in transaction conditions can increase trade sounds like a tautology. Use the model in this chapter to show that the exact formula for substitution between relative population size, relative tastes, relative productivity, and transaction efficiency in raising the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity can be worked out from the inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium model with comparative advantage and transaction costs. Also, use the fact that improvements in transaction efficiency may increase total transaction costs to comment on the above argument. Conduct the following thought experiment. Suppose many goods are introduced into the Ricardian model in example 3.1. Each of the two countries has two types of individuals. Under what conditions might international trade emerge from domestic trade? Baran (1957; see also Palma 1978) argued that the integration of developing economies into the world economy is necessarily achieved through an interminable metropolis–satellite chain, in which the surplus generated at each stage is successively drawn off toward the center. “If it is satellite status which generates underdevelopment, then a weaker or lesser degree of metropolis–satellite relations may generate less deep structural underdevelopment and/or allow for more possibility of local development.” Use the evolution of division of labor from autarky to the partial division of labor, where gains from trade go to one country, then evolve to the complete division of labor, in the model in this chapter, to predict the underdevelopment phenomenon, which implies divergence of income difference between countries in the transitional stage. Comment on the theory of dependence and underdevelopment. Recently, North used the difference in institutions and policies between North America and Latin America to explain the difference of development performance between the two regions. You might use the cases of Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand in connection with the Ricardian and HO models to explain why a peripheral position may be associated with successful economic development based on globalization and liberalization. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Britain and France were developing economies. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were less-developed economies in a peripheral position compared to Britain and France. What are their development experiences? Are they applicable to currently less-developed economies? Why do many development economists ignore these development experiences? Assume that in the models in this chapter there are two types of individuals in each country. Use the models to explain dual structure, and sequential divergence and convergence of income distribution between the two types of individuals in the economic development process. Compare this explanation to the theory of labor surplus (Lewis, 1955) which explains dual structure by disequilibrium in the labor market caused by institutionally fixed wages. The Indian and Chinese governments carried out the following import substitution strategy in the 1950s and 1960s. They imposed a high tariff on imported manufactured consumer goods, manipulated terms of trade using trade quota, trade licenses,
94 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
16
17 18 19
20
21
and other instruments, and overvalued the local currency in favor of importing capital goods and of exporting primary goods. These governments restrict the role of the market in facilitating economic development through various regulations, government planning, state ownership of firms, and monopoly of firms owned or backed by the government in many important businesses. The Japanese government carried out an export promotion policy before the Second World War, manipulating tariffs and local currency exchange rates to promote importation of producer goods and exportation of manufactured consumer goods. South Korea likewise followed this so-called export-oriented development strategy in the 1960s and 1970s. Such a policy regime is very similar to the mercantilism of sixteenth-century Europe. The government of Hong Kong, on the other hand, followed a laissez faire policy which is very similar to the British government’s policy regime in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Taiwanese government instituted various policies, such as tax holidays and duty-free and tariff exemption processing zones, to promote export of manufactured goods and import of related inputs. Use the models set out in this chapter to assess the benefits and costs of these different strategies for economic development. Analyze the roles of policy, institutional experimentation, and competition between different governments in discovering policies and institutions that are conducive to economic development. According to the models in this chapter, economic development is a process of evolution of the market network and the emergence of new markets for new traded goods. Bearing the models in mind, comment upon the following statement: In developing economies there is not a perfect market system, so that development experiences in market economies in western Europe and the US are not applicable to developing economies. Use the Ricardian model to explain why new markets emerged and the market system evolved in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain, and why market expansion is difficult in some sub-Saharan economies. Why is the concept of economies of scale neither sufficient nor necessary for the existence of economies of division of labor? Sometimes the HO theorem is proved under the assumptions that the interior structure is the general equilibrium and factor prices are exogenously given. Discuss the legitimacy of these assumptions in a general equilibrium analysis. Although we can prove that the SS theorem may not hold even if each country produces two goods, our proof is based on a specific version of the HO model with Cobb– Douglas utility and production functions. Use the “everything possible” theorem, which states that it is impossible to identify comparative statics of general equilibrium in the absence of the explicit specification of a model (Sonnenschein, 1973, Mantel, 1974, and Debreu), to discuss the trade-off between the generality of functional forms and the predictive power of the model that is based on comparative statics of general equilibrium. Use the HO model to analyze dual structure in a transitional period from autarky to a trade structure with complete specialization of each country. Can the feature of a transitional dual structure be used to explain the so-called underdevelopment phenomenon, which implies that the relative position of the less-developed country deteriorates as international trade and productivity increase? Per capita gross national product (GNP) and its growth rates have been used as one of the major measures of development performance. Assess the appropriateness of this measure in connection with the models in this chapter.
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 95
EXERCISES 1 Prove that the equilibrium production schedule in autarky equilibrium occurs on line EG in figure 3.1. 2 Assume a dichotomy between pure consumers and firms in each country in the Ricardian model in example 3.1. Then solve for equilibrium. Discuss the implications of this specification for multiple general equilibria. Identify the conditions under which the Pareto optimum equilibrium is the same as the general equilibrium in the Ricardian model in example 3.1. 3 Assume that transaction conditions differ between the two countries in example 3.1. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. Show that the country with a lower transaction efficiency receives no gains from trade in a structure with the partial division of labor. Identify the parameter subspace within which improvements in transaction conditions may generate concurrence of deteriorated terms of trade of a country and an increase of gains that this country receives from trade. If a country’s trading efficiency ki is considered to be a measure of its competitiveness, use your result to assess Krugman’s claim that competitiveness does not matter for exploiting gains from trade. 4 Assume that the utility function in example 3.1 is U = ln(x + kx d ) + aln( y + ky d ). Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the impact of transaction conditions on the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity. 5 Assume that k1 = k2, a1x = 2, a1y = a2x = M1/M2 = β/(1 − β) = 1 in the model in example 3.2. Explicitly solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. Analyze the impact of the interplay between governments’ decisions and the market on the equilibrium level of division of labor and welfare. If each government maximizes the total utility instead of the per capita utility of all its home residents, will your results change? (Hint: the exponentially weighted Nash product with each country’s population shares as weights will be maximized in this case.) 6 Assume that aij is the total factor productivity of good j in country i. Work out comparative statics of general equilibrium and show that the HO theorem holds if country 1 has both comparative technological and endowment advantage in producing good x, or if its comparative endowment advantage dominates its comparative technological disadvantage. Use your results to analyze why the prediction of the HO theorem is inconsistent with empirical findings 50 percent of the time (Trefler, 1995). 7 Assume that k = 1 in the model in example 3.4, but the government taxes each dollar used to import goods from the foreign country and then distributes the tariff revenue equally among all domestic residents. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the impact of the tax on the equilibrium level of division of labor, productivity, and welfare. 8 Assume that in the HO model, the production functions and endowment constraints are specified for each consumer-producer. Solve for the general equilibrium and its marginal and inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the implications of the difference between this version and the original version of the HO model. 9 Consider the HO model in example 3.4. Assume that Kij is a sector j specific capita in country i and its amount is a given constant. Solve for the general equilibrium of the specific factor model and its inframarginal comparative statics.
96 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The SS theorem states that if the price of a capital-intensive (or labor-intensive) good rises, the price of capital (or labor) rises. Use the model in example 3.4 to show that the theorem holds within the diversification cone if the changes in prices are caused by changes in taste or endowment parameters. Suppose ki = 1 and aij is the total factor productivity of good j in country i in the HO model. Verify the solutions of local equilibria in several structures. Autarky: pi = (aiy/aix)(ri/wi)β−α/A, ri/wi = Li μ/Ki, xi = aix A(βμ − 1 + β)L αi K 1−α i /(β − α)μ, yi = aiy β(1 − α − αμ)L iβK1−β i /(β − α)μ, Kix = (1 − α)(βμ − 1 + β)Ki/(β − α)μ, Kiy = (1 − β)(1 − α − αμ)Ki/(β − α)μ, Lix = αKix ri/wi(1 − α), Liy = βKiy ri/wi(1 − β); structure x1 y2: p = θa2y L2β K 21−β/a1x Lα1 K 21−α(1 − θ), r1/w1 = (1 − α)L1/αK1, w1 = αθa2y L 2βK 1−β 2 / L1(1 − θ), r2/w2 = (1 − β)L2/βK2, w2 = βa2y (K2 /L2)1−β, x1 = a1x L 1αK 1−α , y 1 2 = −α/(β−α) K1(a1x Ap)β/(β−α) − a2y L 2βK1−β 2 , structure xy1 y2: p is given by F ≡ (a1y B) (1/μ)(a1y B)(1−α)/(β−α)L1(a1xAp)(β−1)/(β−α) − {θ(β − α)/[β − θ(β − α)]}a2y L 2βK1−β 2 = 0, r1/w1 = (a1x Ap/a1y B)1/(β−α), w1 = a1x Ap(a1y B/a1x Ap)(1−α)/(β−α), r2/w2 = (1 − β)L2/K2β, w2 = a2y B[βK2/L2(1 − β)]1−β. Also in structure xy1 y2, it can be shown that ∂F/ ∂p > 0, ∂F/∂θ > 0, ∂F/∂a1x > 0, ∂F/∂a1y < 0, ∂F/∂a2y < 0, dp/dθ = −(∂F/∂θ)/ (∂F/∂p) < 0, dp/da1x = −(∂F/∂a1x)/(∂F/∂p) < 0, dp/da1y = −(∂F/∂a1y)/(∂F/∂p) > 0, dp/da2y = −(∂F/∂a2y)/(∂F/∂p) > 0, dp/dKi < 0, dp/dLi > 0 for i = 1, 2. Here, μ ≡ [(β − α)θ + 1 − β]/[β − θ(β − α)] > 0, and A ≡ αα(1 − α)1−α and B ≡ ββ(1 − β)1−β. Based on your result in the previous exercise, prove that for ki = 1 and aij = 1 the SS theorem may not hold within the interior structure if changes in prices are caused by a change in α. Then assume that aij ≠ 1 and prove that the SS theorem may not hold within the interior structure if price movements are caused by changes in aij. Prove that for ki = 1, the SS theorem may not hold when equilibrium jumps from autarky to structure x1 y2 or from structure yx1xy2 to structure x1 y2, but that the theorem always holds when equilibrium jumps from autarky to an interior structure with partial international division of labor. Prove that if a corner equilibrium with the complete specialization of each country is the general equilibrium, then changes in the parameters of taste, production, and endowments can generate movements of price that are inconsistent with the SS theorem. If a corner equilibrium with a dual structure is the general equilibrium, then changes in the relative factor price in the country producing both goods, and in the relative commodity price, that are caused by changes in the taste parameter are consistent with the SS theorem. But the corresponding unchanged relative factor price in the specialized country is inconsistent with the SS theorem. There exists a parameter subspace such that changes in production parameters and endowments will generate movements of prices within this corner structure that are inconsistent with the SS theorem. The Rybczynski (RY) theorem is derived within the interior structure (diversification cone) and assuming exogenous commodity prices. It states that at given commodity prices, if the endowment of some resource increases, the industry that uses that resource most intensively will increase its output, while the other industry reduces its output (Rybczynski, 1955). Assume ki = 1 in the HO model in example 3.4. Prove that the RY theorem does not hold in the interior structure and that the output of both industries can increase in response to an increase in the endowment of some factor. Define type I partial equilibrium analysis as analysis assuming exogenous prices of goods (or factors) and investigating changes in factor prices (or output) in response to changes in prices of goods (or endowment parameters). Define type II
C HAPTER 3: E XOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 97
17
partial equilibrium analysis as analysis confined within the interior structure and ignoring discontinuous jumps of general equilibrium between different trade patterns. Use your answers in the previous exercises to analyze why type I and type II partial equilibrium analyses could be misleading. Bhagwati and Dehejia, 1994 – factor reversal theorem: Assume that the production functions in example 3.4 are x is = (L αix + K αix)1/α and y is = (L βiy + K βiy)1/β. Show that the equilibrium-relative factor in producing a good may be reversed (a good changes from capital intensive to labor intensive) as the relative price of goods changes.
98 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
DRIVING FORCE II – ENDOGENOUS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADING EFFICIENCY
4
4.1 ENDOGENOUS VERSUS EXOGENOUS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES William Petty (1671, I, pp. 260–1) noted that specialization contributes to skillful clothmaking and pointed out that the Dutch could convey goods cheaply because they specialized each ship for a specific function. In another place, Petty gave a more striking example of the division of labor in the manufacture of a watch. Joseph Harris (1757) and Josiah Tucker (1755, 1774) referred directly to the productivity implications of the division of labor, the possibilities for the subdivision of labor, and the intimate relationship among a greater variety of goods, production roundaboutness, and a higher level of division of labor. Before Smith, a number of works recognized the advantages of division of labor in improving the skill (or human capital, in modern terms) of individual workers in reducing the time and effort involved in having to switch from one production operation to another, and in facilitating the invention of machinery. They also recognized the role of the market and population size in permitting specialization. These included the works of Denis Diderot (1713), an anonymous author (1701, p. 591), Henry Maxwell (1721, p. 33), and Josiah Tucker (1755, 1774). Smith (1776) called public attention to the central role of specialization and division of labor in economic analysis by systematically investigating their implications for economic development and prosperity. All the classical ideas about the development implications of specialization relate to the concept of absolute advantage, as defined in the previous chapter. Since Ricardo (1817) proposed the concept of comparative advantage, many economists have believed that the concept is more general than that of absolute advantage. But as Yang and Borland (1991) and Yang (1994) have pointed out, Smith’s absolute advantage is endogenous, and can exist between ex ante identical individuals in the absence of Ricardian exogenous comparative advantage. According to Smith (1776, p. 28), the differences in productivity between individuals in producing different goods are the consequence, rather than the cause, of division of labor. This chapter will focus on the development implications of endogenous absolute and comparative advantages. It is not difficult to perceive the importance of specialization and division of labor for economic development. In the absence of social division of labor, you would have to produce
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE 99
all of the food, housing, furniture, cars, television sets, and airplanes whose services you wished to consume. What a crazy world it would be. Productivity in such a world would be as low as in an ancient society. Indeed, productivity would be zero in the case of such technologically complex items as cars, TV sets, and airplanes, which could not be produced by one person. The most important difference between a developed economy and a less-developed economy is that the former has a much higher level of division of labor than the latter. This implies that in a developed economy, most individuals are more “professional” or more specialized than their counterparts in a less-developed country. The degree of commercialization (the ratio of consumption purchased from the market to total consumption, including self-provided consumption) is higher in the former than in the latter. For instance, the degree was 0.3 in rural China prior to reform, and is now higher than 0.8 (see Yang, Wang, and Wills 1992). The ratio of transaction volume to income was 0.2 in 1869, and was 9.28 in 1997 in the US (US Department of Commerce, 1975, 1998). (Transaction volume comprises domestic wholesale and retail trade, foreign trade, and financial transactions.) This implies that an average American who conducted business transactions of $0.2 in 1869 would have to have conducted transactions of $9.28 in 1998 to get $1 in income. This increase in the ratio certainly reflects an increase in division of labor that raises transaction volume faster than income. Also, in a less-developed economy, the diversity of different occupations is much smaller than in a developed economy. If you check commercial telephone directories in any state in the US in the past fifty years, you can see that the variety of occupations has been drastically increasing. Many new occupations, such as those related to computing, emerge every year. When Kang Youwei, a leading reformist during China’s Qian dynasty, visited Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, his first impression of the difference between industrialized Europe and less-developed China was that each European individual bought and sold much more than did her Chinese counterpart. In other words, he was impressed by the high degree of commercialization in European countries (see Kang, reprinted in 1980, pp. 12–13). In terms of Smith’s academic jargon, the first difference Kang perceived between developed and less-developed economies was the difference in level of division of labor. In this chapter, we use a simple Smithian model with endogenous comparative advantage to formalize the Smithian mechanism for economic development. The assumption of a very large population size, together with the further assumption that economies of specialization are localized increasing returns, imply that a Walrasian regime prevails in the economy. All decision-makers are price takers, and equilibrium prices are sorted out by a Walrasian auction mechanism. The assumption that individuals are ex ante identical is a very strong one, since we rarely see two persons exactly the same in the real world. However, as Smith suggested, many differences between specialists that appear to be ex ante differences are, in fact, ex post differences, which are acquired as individuals choose different occupations. The assumption that individuals are ex ante identical helps to highlight the development implications of endogenous comparative advantages. In the Ricardian model in the preceding chapter, if all individuals are ex ante identical in all aspects, the economic stories will be too trivial to make any sense to us (i.e., the economy is always in autarky and all individuals’ consumption and production plans are exactly the same). But we shall show that in the Smithian model, even if all individuals are ex ante identical in all aspects, ex post differences will emerge endogenously from the evolution of division of labor. This enables many interesting stories to be told that cannot be predicted by the Ricardian model, such as the emergence of professional middlemen, money, business cycles, unemployment, the firm, and a hierarchical structure of production and transactions. These all result from the evolution of division of labor, even in the absence of ex ante differences among individuals. The implications of ex ante cum ex post differences between individuals for economic development will be explored in chapter 5.
100 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
In section 4.2, the model is specified and many possible configurations of specialization are examined. Section 4.3 investigates individuals’ decisions, their comparative statics, and general equilibrium and its comparative statics. In section 4.4, we use more examples to further investigate the features of the Smithian model. In section 4.5, we investigate determinants of trade pattern in a model of endogenous comparative advantage.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n
n n n n n n n n
Why is the decision problem of choosing an occupation configuration and level of specialization much more complicated than the decision problem to allocate resources for a given occupation configuration? Why are demand and supply two sides of the division of labor? Why is it inappropriate to separate the analysis of demand and supply from the analysis of individuals’ decision-making in choosing levels of specialization? What is the difference between marginal analysis of problems of resource allocation and inframarginal analysis of problems of economic development? Why did Young claim that the extent of the market and level of division of labor are two sides of the same coin? What are the network effects of division of labor and their implications for economic development? How does the market coordinate the division of labor, utilize the network effects of the division of labor, and solve problems of economic development? Why are scarcity and productivity endogenous in Smithian equilibrium models? Why do markets for many goods and services not exist in a less-developed economy, and under what conditions will the markets emerge from the economic development process?
4.2 CONFIGURATIONS AND CORNER SOLUTIONS IN A SMITHIAN MODEL Example 4.1: A simple Smithian model with endogenous comparative advantage. Example 9.10 in chapter 9 will show that for a finite set of consumer-producers, Walrasian equilibrium may not exist. In that chapter, we shall investigate the function of Nash bargaining in eliminating endogenous transaction costs caused by the integer problem in a Walrasian regime. In this chapter, we assume that the set of consumer-producers is a continuum with mass M. This implies that the population size in the economy is very large. Hence, we will not have an integer problem with the numbers of different specialists. Each consumer-producer has the following utility function: u = (x + kxd )( y + ky d )
(4.1)
where x and y are respective amounts of goods x and y that are self-provided, x d and y d are respective amounts of the two goods that are purchased from the market, 1 − k is the iceberg transaction cost coefficient, or k is an exogenous trading efficiency coefficient, which represents the conditions governing transactions. k relates to infrastructure conditions, degree of urbanization, transportation conditions, and the general institutional environment. Each consumer-producer’s production functions and endowment constraint are: x p = x + x s = l xa , lx + ly = 1
y p = y + y s = l ya ,
a>1
(4.2a) (4.2b)
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
101
y 2 E H
F
1 A J
C
I G 0
B
1
2
x
Figure 4.1 Economies of division of labor based on endogenous absolute and comparative advantage
where x p and y p are respective amounts of the two goods produced, x s and y s are respective amounts of the two goods sold, and li is an individual’s share of labor allocated to the production of good i and thus represents her level of specialization in producing good i. Here, we assume that all individuals are ex ante identical, and that they have the same production functions for every good and the same endowment of working time. This implies that there is no exogenous comparative advantage. Let x ip denote individual i ’s output of good x, y ip individual i ’s output of good y, and lij individual i ’s level of specialization in producing good j. We say that there are economies of specialization for an individual in producing a good if her labor productivity increases with her level of specialization in producing that good. Since a > 1, it is easy to see that there are economies of specialization for each individual in producing each good. Consider the transformation curves for two individuals. On the basis of (4.2), we work out the transformation function for individual i as follows: y ip = (1 − x ip 1/a)a,
xip, y ip ∈[0, 1]
The first- and second-order derivatives of y ip with respect to x ip indicate that the transformation curve AB is downward sloping (negative first-order derivative) and convex (positive secondorder derivative), as shown in figure 4.1. Diminishing marginal opportunity costs and increasing marginal rate of transformation are the features of this transformation curve. This implies that the amount by which y must be decreased for each marginal unit increase of x diminishes as x increases. Alternatively, it implies that each unit of y can be transformed into increasingly larger increments of x. Now let us draw the aggregate production schedules for different structures in the economy for two individuals. Since all individuals are ex ante identical, they must have the same labor allocation pattern if each of them self-provides all goods in autarky. The aggregate production schedule for autarky in this model, which is defined by (4.2) and l1x = l2x , l1y = l2y , can be drawn as curve ECG in figure 4.1. A point J of curve ECG can be obtained by letting OJ = 2OI along ray OH. All such points constitute curve ECG. If one individual completely specializes in producing y and the other produces any mix of x and y, then the aggregate transformation curve is shown by curve EF. Similarly, we can work out the aggregate transformation curves FG for a structure where an individual completely specializes in producing x and the other produces any mix of x and y. The aggregate transformation curve for the division of labor is
102 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
thus curve EFG. Economies of division of labor are then the difference between curve EFG and curve ECG, shown as the shaded area. Figure 4.1 provides a basis for defining endogenous absolute and comparative advantage. In this model, all individuals are ex ante identical, so that there is no ex ante difference in productivity or endowment between the two individuals, that is, there is no exogenous comparative advantage. If the two individuals are in autarky, then the production pattern is the same for both. Therefore, their productivity for each good is the same. But if they choose complete division of labor (point F in figure 4.1), for instance, if individual 1 produces only x and individual 2 produces only y, then x 1p = 1, y 1p = 0, x 2p = 0, y 2p = 1. This implies that person 1’s labor productivity in producing x is greater than person 2’s, and person 2’s labor productivity in producing y is greater than person 1’s. These ex post productivity differences between ex ante identical individuals result from their decisions to choose different production patterns. Such differences in productivity, arising from individuals’ choices concerning patterns of specialization, represent endogenous comparative advantage. For this specific example, the endogenous comparative advantage is also endogenous absolute advantage. On the one hand, a person’s economies of specialization in producing a good are positively related to diseconomies in her scope of activities. On the other hand, a firm’s operation scope and its members’ levels of specialization can increase at the same time if all individuals’ levels of specialization, the number of different specialists, and the number of different specialties within the firm increase simultaneously. Since specialization and diversity of professional activities are two sides of the division of labor, simultaneous increases in levels of specialization of all individuals and in the number of different professional jobs within a firm can be seen as an increase in the level of division of labor within the firm. Hence, if a firm’s higher productivity is generated by a higher level of division of labor associated with higher levels of specialization of all members (entailing a narrower scope of each individual’s activities) and a greater variety of professional jobs within the firm (entailing a broader scope of the firm’s activities), then it can be said that there exist economies of division of labor. An individual’s budget constraint is: px x s + py y s = px x d + py y d
(4.3)
where pi is the price of good i. Hence, the left-hand side of (4.3) is income from the market and the right-hand side is expenditure. Since corner solutions are allowed, we have the nonnegativity constraint: x, x s, x d, y, y s, y d, lx , ly ≥ 0
(4.4)
This constraint distinguishes the nonlinear programming from the classical mathematical programming. Each consumer-producer maximizes utility in (4.1) with respect to x, x s, x d, y, y s, y d, lx , ly subject to the production conditions given by (4.2), the budget constraint (4.3), and the nonnegativity constraint (4.4). Since lx and ly are independent of the values of the other decision variables, each of the 6 decision variables can take on 0 and positive values. When a decision variable takes on a value of 0, a corner solution is chosen. Table 4.1 lists several possible profiles of zero and positive values of the 6 decision variables. The number of all possible profiles is 26 = 64. Since the optimum values of the decision variables are discontinuous across the profiles, there is no method that can solve for the optimum decision in only one step. A general procedure in solving for this kind of nonlinear programming problem is as follows. First, the Kuhn–Tucker theorem and other conditions for the optimum decisions are used to rule out as many profiles as possible. Then, marginal analysis is applied to each of the remaining candidates for the optimum decision. Finally, the local maximum values of the objective function are compared across the candidates to identify the globally optimum
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
103
Table 4.1 Profiles of zero and positive values of the 6 decision variables x
xd
xs
y
yd
ys
+ 0 0 + • + 0
+ + + 0 • 0 0
+ + 0 0 • 0 0
+ 0 0 0 • 0 0
+ + + + • 0 0
+ + + + • + +
decision. This is referred to as inframarginal analysis. Let us take the first step, which is to prove the following theorem: Theorem 4.1: The optimum decision can be achieved by selling not more than one good. It does not involve selling and buying the same good, and does not involve buying and producing the same good. This theorem is referred to as the Wen theorem. Wen proves this theorem for a class of the Smithian general equilibrium models with general utility and production functions (see Wen, 1998). We will use the theorem frequently in this text. Proof: Claim 1: The optimum decision does not involve selling and buying the same good. Substituting the budget constraint (4.3) for x s in (4.2a) and eliminating x in (4.1) with (4.2a) yields: u = {l xa − [x d + py( y d − y s )/px] + kx d }( y + ky d ). Differentiating this expression with respect to x d yields:
∂u 0.
According to the Kuhn–Tucker condition, this implies that when x, x s > 0, the optimum value of x d is 0. This is intuitive: the optimum value of x d must be 0 if u always decreases as x d increases. Hence, x d and x s cannot be positive at the same time. Following the same deduction, but eliminating y s and y instead of x s and x from the above expression of u, it can be shown that y d and y s cannot be positive at the same time. Claim 2: The optimum decision does not involve buying and producing the same good. Suppose x d > 0. It follows from claim 1 that x s = 0. From the budget constraint, it follows that y s > 0, if x s = 0. We can use claim 1 again to obtain that y d = 0, if y s > 0. A positive utility requires y > 0. Now, plugging the budget constraint and the production function of y into the utility function yields: a ⎧ 1 ⎡⎛ ⎤ p ⎫⎪ ⎞ ⎪ a ⎢ u = ⎨x + k ⎜1 − x ⎟ − y⎥ y ⎬ y ⎠ ⎢⎣⎝ ⎥⎦ px ⎪ ⎪⎩ ⎭
Differentiating u twice yields: ∂2u >0 ∂x 2
∀x > 0.
104 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
This violates the second-order condition of the interior maximum point of x. Hence, the optimum x is at a corner: either x = 0, or x = l xa = 1. x = 1 is incompatible with a positive y which is required by a positive utility. Therefore, the optimum value of x is zero if x d > 0. Claim 3: An individual sells at most one good. We use the argument of negation. Suppose claim 3 does not hold. An individual sells two goods, that is, x s, y s > 0. It follows from claim 1 that x d = y d = 0. This violates the budget constraint, since the individual sells but does not buy. Therefore, it is impossible that x s, y s > 0. Claims 1–3 suffice to establish Theorem 4.1. Q.E.D. Theorem 4.1 is intuitive. Selling and buying the same good involve unnecessary transaction costs and therefore are inefficient. Selling two goods is also inefficient because it prevents the full exploitation of economies of specialization. Theorem 4.1, together with the budget constraint and the requirement that utility be positive, can be used to radically reduce the number of candidates for the optimum decision from 64 to only 3. For instance, the first profile of zero and positive values of the 6 decision variables in table 4.1 is associated with the unique interior solution. This profile, which involves selling and buying the same good, obviously violates the Wen theorem. This implies that in the Smithian model, an interior solution cannot be optimal, so that the marginal analysis for the interior solution is not applicable. The second, third, and fourth profiles violate claim 1 in the Wen theorem, while the fifth and sixth profiles violate the budget constraint and the requirement for a positive utility level. We call a profile of zero and positive decision variables that satisfies the Wen theorem a configuration. For each configuration, there is a corner solution. Each individual applies marginal analysis to solve for a corner solution in a configuration. Each corner solution gives the optimum resource allocation for a given level and pattern of specialization. Then each individual conducts total benefit–cost analysis across configurations to choose the optimum corner solution. To choose the optimum configuration is to choose the optimum level and pattern of specialization. This involves the decision of whether or not to engage in a certain activity. This is a decision about “yes” or “no.” The marginal analysis for each corner solution is to allocate resources between those activities an individual has already decided to engage. It is a decision about “how much,” after you have already said “yes” to the first type of question. As your career develops, you will see that your peers will have very different lives from one another according to their different occupations. To choose an occupation and a level of specialization in that chosen occupation is to choose a configuration. There are three configurations that an individual needs to consider: Autarchy, or configuration A, is defined by x, y, lx, ly > 0, x s = x d = y s = y d = 0. This configuration implies that all quantities of goods that are self-provided are positive and all quantities of goods that are traded are zero. The decision problem for configuration A is:
i)
ii)
Max: u = xy
x, y, lx , l y
s.t.
x = l xa ,
y = l ya,
lx + ly = 1
(4.5a)
Those letters that do not denote decision variables are parameters. Here, we have used the production function and working time constraint in (4.2). Inserting all constraints into the utility function, (4.5a) can be converted to the following nonconstrained maximization problem: Max: u = l xa(1 − lx)a lx
(4.5b)
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
105
The first-order condition for an interior optimum:
du = al xa−1(1 − lx)a − al xa(1 − lx)a−1 = 0 dlx yields that the optimum lx is 1/2. In terms of natural language, the marginal condition for the marginal analysis implies that the efficient trade-off between the quantity of labor allocated to produce x and that allocated to produce y are achieved if the marginal direct utility of an increase in lx equals its indirect marginal cost in terms of utility loss caused by a decrease in y. The marginal analysis is relevant only if a configuration is given. It does not work for solving for the optimum configuration. Inserting lx = 1/2 into u = l xa (1 − lx )a yields the maximum value of utility that can be achieved in autarky, namely u(A) = 2−2a, where u(A) is called per capita real income in autarky. The first-order condition tells you that lx = 1/2 is the interior extreme point, but does not tell you if it is the interior maximum or minimum point. If the curve of u is convex rather than concave, then the first-order condition gives a minimum rather than a maximum point. For the nonconstrained maximization problem, the second-order condition is that at lx = 1/2, which is given by the first-order condition: ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ 1 − lx lx ⎞ a−1 a−1 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) = − − + − 2 al l a a ⎥ < 0. ⎢ x x ⎜ ⎟ 1 − lx ⎠ dl 2x ⎝ lx ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣
d2 u
This condition implies that the function u = l xa (1 − lx )a is concave at lx = 1/2. It is easy to verify that the above inequality holds for lx = 1/2. If the utility function is associated with the convex curve, then the second-order condition cannot hold. In terms of natural language, this means that there is no real trade-off for the decision problem, that is, the optimum decision is a corner solution in which all labor is allocated to the production of either x or y. In the real world, some resource allocation problems for a given level and pattern of division of labor do not actually involve a real trade-off despite appearances to the contrary, because the second-order condition for the interior optimum may not be satisfied. In this circumstance, the compromise between the conflicting forces that is given by the first-order condition may be too conservative and may not be efficient. Even if the second-order condition for a local maximum is satisfied, a local maximum may not be the global maximum. For instance, an individual may achieve higher productivity and utility if she chooses complete specialization lx = 0, or lx = 1. Hence, we consider the two configurations of specialization next. The first configuration with specialization is (x/y), implying specialization in producing good x, selling x, and buying y. It is defined by x, x s, y d, lx > 0, x d = y s = y = ly = 0. This definition, together with (4.1) to (4.4), can be used to specify the decision problem for this configuration: Max: u = xky d x, x s, x d
s.t.
x + x s = l xa, py y = px x d
lx = 1
s
(production conditions) (budget constraint)
Plugging the constraints into the utility function to eliminate lx, x, and y d yields the nonconstrained maximization problem:
Max: u = (1 − x s ) k x
s
px x s py
106 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 4.2 Three corner solutions Configuration
Corner demand
Corner supply
Self-provided quantities
Level of specialization
Indirect utility function
A (x/y) (y/x)
0 y d = px/2py x d = py/2px
0 x s = 1/2 y s = 1/2
x = y = 1/2 x = 1/2 y = 1/2
lx = ly = 1/2 lx = 1, ly = 0 lx = 0, ly = 1
uA = 2−2a ux = kpx/4py uy = kpy/4px
The decision problem involves the trade-off between two opposite effects of an increase in x s. The individual’s utility increases with x s through an increase in revenue generated by the sale of good x, while her utility decreases with x s through a decrease in the self-provided quantity of good x. The optimum decision maximizes utility by efficiently trading off the benefit against the cost. The first-order condition for marginal analysis, du/dx s = 0, gives the optimum decision for configuration (x/y) as follows.
1 xs = , 2
yd =
py 1 kp , x s = , ux = x . 2 px 2 4 py
It is easy to verify that the second-order condition for the interior maximum is satisfied, that is, d2u/d(x s )2 < 0 when the first-order condition holds. Here, the quantity demanded is a decreasing function of the price of goods purchased and an increasing function of the price of goods sold. Also, demand is an increasing function of supply. This last feature of demand and supply is referred to by Young (1928) as the law of reciprocal demand, which implies that demand and supply are two sides of the division of labor. If individuals choose autarky, there are no demand and supply in the marketplace, since selfdemand is self-supply. If an individual chooses specialization in producing x, then she demands good y and supplies good x. According to Young, an analysis of demand and supply that is separated from the analysis of individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization is only a partial view, incompatible with the concept of general equilibrium and therefore often misleading. Following the procedure used in solving for the corner solution for configuration (x/y), the corner solution for configuration (y/x) can be solved as follows: 1 ys = , 2
xd =
py , 2 px
uy =
kpy 4 px
From the corner solutions for the two occupation configurations, we have seen that the utility of a specialist producer of a good increases with the price of this good and decreases with the price of the good she buys. This is referred to as the law of specialization. An individual’s demand and supply functions are ultimately determined by her decision in choosing the optimum one from many corner solutions. Since the optimum values of all decision variables are discontinuous across configurations, an individual must compare locally maximum utility levels in all corner solutions to find the optimum corner solution. Table 4.2 summarizes the information of three corner solutions. On the basis of this information, an individual compares utility levels across configurations. She will choose configuration (x/y), that is, specialization in x, if: ux ≥ uA and ux ≥ uy
or
kpx /py ≥ 22(1−a) and px /py ≥ 1.
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
107
She will choose configuration (y/x), that is, specialization in y, if uy ≥ uA and uy ≥ ux
kpy /px ≥ 22(1−a) and py /px ≥ 1.
or
The two conditions can hold simultaneously only if k > k0 ≡ 22(1−a)
and
py /px = 1.
(4.6)
Since the division of labor can be realized only if both occupation configurations (x/y) and (y/x) are chosen, and because of network effect of specialization, an individual will choose specialization only if (4.6) holds. When the relative price satisfies this condition, individuals are indifferent between the two configurations, since utility would be the same in both. In equilibrium, utility equalization between different occupations must hold, since individuals are ex ante identical in all aspects. The individual will choose configuration A, that is, autarky, if ux < uA
and
uy < uA
or if
k22(a−1)
k0, and autarky will be chosen if k < k0. Here, we ignore ex ante differences in transaction and production conditions that generate unequal real incomes between individuals. We will consider this in chapter 5. However, the utility equalization condition is more realistic than it appears. Take a businessman and his secretary as an example. Nominal incomes between them are very unequal. Everybody knows that the businessman (if successful) can make more money, so that competition to get into business school is much more intensive than that for entry to a school for secretarial training. The more intensive competition generates intangible disutility, as well as a greater financial burden since business schools rarely provide scholarships. More importantly, the businessman takes a considerable risk of bankruptcy, which may even cause suicide (implying an infinitely large negative real income). If you count all the tangible and intangible benefits and costs, the difference in real income between the businessman and his secretary is much smaller than it seems to be.
108 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
If there is free entry into every occupation, utility equalization will hold. Inserting px /py = 1 into the indirect utility function ux or uy yields: ux = uy = uD =
k 4
where uD is per capita real income for the division of labor, which depends on the transaction efficiency parameter k but does not depend on relative price. Hence, an individual’s demand and supply functions are given by the corner solution in configuration A if k < k0, and are given by the corner solutions in configuration (x/y) or (y/x) if k > k0. As k increases from a value smaller than k0 to a value greater than k0, demand and supply discontinuously jump from 0 to positive levels as functions of relative prices due to an increase in individuals’ levels of specialization. This is referred to as the Smithian law of demand, which is distinguished from the neoclassical law of demand. The analysis of the discontinuous shift of optimum decisions between configurations in response to changes of parameters is called inframarginal comparative statics of decision problems, which are distinguished from marginal comparative statics of the decisions. The inframarginal comparative statics of demand and supply are based on total cost–benefit analysis between corner solutions. For a given configuration, marginal analysis generates marginal comparative statics of the decisions. For instance, in configuration (y/x): dx d/d(px /py) = −0.5( px /py)−2 < 0. This implies that as the price of good x increases relative to that of good y, the quantity demanded of good x by each specialist in y falls. This is referred to as the neoclassical law of demand. The analysis of how the optimum decisions continuously change within a given configuration in response to changes in parameters is called marginal comparative statics of decisions. The marginal comparative statics of the decisions are concerned with changes in the efficient resource allocation for a given configuration of specialization in response to changes in parameters within a given parameter subspace that demarcates this configuration. The inframarginal comparative statics of the decisions relate to changes in the efficient configuration of specialization as parameters shift between the subspaces that demarcate the configurations. In summary, marginal comparative statics of the decisions relate to marginal analysis, resource allocation, demand, and supply for a given configuration of specialization, and given aggregate demand. In contrast, inframarginal comparative statics of the decisions relate to inframarginal analysis of the level of specialization, which determines the extent of the market, the size of the network of division of labor, and aggregate demand (which will be defined later on). Problems of resource allocation closely relate to marginal analysis of relative quantities of goods produced and consumed and relative prices for a given network size of division of labor and related productivity. Problems of economic development relate to the question of how equilibrium productivity or its reciprocal (the degree of scarcity) is determined by individuals’ decisions in choosing their patterns of specialization and by the interactions of decisions in the marketplace. Hence, inframarginal comparative statics relate to the problems of economic development. A common practice in neoclassical economics is to separate the analysis of demand and supply from the analysis of individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels and patterns of specialization. As discussed before, this is because economists were not familiar with the mathematical tools for handling corner solutions, which are essential for the endogenization of individuals’ levels of specialization, when Marshall formalized classical economic thinking within a mathematical framework based on marginal analysis and on the dichotomy between pure consumers and firms. Unfortunately, many economists still show remarkable insistence
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
109
on maintaining the neoclassical dichotomy and marginal analysis, despite the fact that many mathematical instruments for handling corner solutions are now available and the neoclassical framework is no longer essential for mathematical modeling. This chapter shows that we can abandon the neoclassical dichotomy and apply inframarginal analysis to study individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels and configurations of specialization. The spirit of classical analysis of demand and supply as two sides of division of labor can then be resurrected in the body of Smithian general equilibrium models.
4.3 HOW THE MARKET COORDINATES DIVISION OF LABOR TO UTILIZE NETWORK EFFECTS AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Combinations of the three configurations considered in the preceding section generate two organization structures, or structures for short. A configuration is equivalent to a major that a university student chooses and a structure is equivalent to the division of students among majors in the university. All individuals choosing configuration A (autarky) constitute a structure involving no market, no prices, no interdependence, and no interaction between individuals. The division of M individuals between configurations (x/y) and (y/x) constitutes a structure with division of labor, denoted D, where there are two markets for two goods sold by two types of specialists. Let the number of individuals choosing (x/y) be Mx and the number choosing (y/x) be My. Strictly speaking, when the set of individuals is a continuum, we should call the number of a particular type of specialists the measure of this type of specialists. There is a corner equilibrium for each structure. A corner equilibrium is defined by the relative price of the two traded goods px /py, and the numbers of the two types of specialists, Mx and My, that satisfy the market clearing condition and utility equalization condition for a given structure. In a corner equilibrium, individuals maximize their utility with respect to configurations in the given structure and with respect to quantities of goods produced, traded, and consumed for the given corner equilibrium-relative price and the numbers of individuals selling the two goods. According to the definition of corner equilibrium, the corner solution in configuration A chosen by M individuals is the corner equilibrium in structure A, where the market clearing condition always holds, since self-demand and self-supply are two sides of self-provided quantities in the structure. In structure D, free choices between configurations (occupations) and utility maximizing behavior will establish the utility equalization condition. From table 4.2, it can be seen that the indirect utility function of a specialist in x is an increasing function of px /py , and the indirect utility function of a specialist in y is a decreasing function of px /py, as shown in figure 4.2 where p ≡ px /py. Hence, the utility equalization condition is associated with the intersection point E in figure 4.2. The upward-sloping straight line in figure 4.2 is an x specialist’s indirect utility function, which looks like a supply curve. The downward-sloping curve is a y specialist’s indirect utility function, which looks like a demand curve. The corner equilibrium-relative price in structure D is determined by the intersection point between the two curves. If the relative price px /py is at point B, then the utility of a specialist in x is greater than that of a specialist in y, so that all individuals will specialize in x and nobody will specialize in y. This implies that the corner equilibrium in structure D cannot be established. Therefore, the utility equalization condition determines the corner equilibrium-relative price of traded goods in structure D, that is: ux = kpx /4py = uy = kpy /4px
or
px /py = 1.
110 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
ux
uy
ux = kpx /4py
E
u*
uy = kpy /4px
0
p*
B
px /py
Figure 4.2 Indirect utility functions and corner equilibrium-relative price
We will show that if the model is not symmetric, then the corner equilibrium-relative price is determined by relative tastes and relative production and transaction conditions. In structure D, the market demand for good x is: X d ≡ My x d = My py /2px ,
(4.8a)
while the market supply of good x is: X s ≡ Mx x s = Mx /2
(4.8b)
where x d = py /2px, and x s = 1/2 are given by table 4.2. The market demand function for x not only exhibits the demand law (i.e., the quantity demanded of a good decreases as its price increases relative to that of the good sold by the buyer), but is also an increasing function of the number of specialists in y. The market supply function of x is an increasing function of the number of specialists of x. If the C–D utility function is replaced with the constant elasticity of substitution (CES) utility function as shown in section 4.4, then the market supply function will exhibit the supply law (i.e., the quantity supplied of a good increases with the price of this good relative to that of the good bought by the seller). In a Walrasian regime, prices are determined by a Walrasian auction mechanism. The Walrasian auctioneer calls a set of relative prices of all traded and nontraded goods. All individuals report to the auctioneer their optimum quantities of goods to be traded for the given set of prices. Then the auctioneer adjusts relative prices according to excess demands, raising or lowering the price of a good according to whether its excess demand is positive or negative. This tatonnement process continues until the excess demands for all goods tend to 0. This is referred to as a centralized pricing mechanism. The Walrasian auction mechanism will establish the market clearing condition for good x: X d = My py /2px = X s = Mx /2,
or
px /py = My /Mx
(4.8c)
This equation implies that competition in the market and free choice of configurations establish an inverse relationship between the relative prices of goods x and y and the relative numbers of individuals selling goods x and y.
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
111
Table 4.3 Two corner equilibria Structure
Relative price
A
dy/dx = 1
D
px /py = 1
Number of specialists
Mx = My = M/2
Quantities of goods
Per capita real income
x = y = 0.5a
2−2a
x = y = xs = ys = xd = y d = 1/2,
k/4
Free choice with respect to configurations (occupations), together with free choice of quantities to produce, trade, and consume, are the driving forces that establish a corner equilibrium. Summing up all individuals’ budget constraints, we can express the excess demand for x as a function of the excess demand for y even if the market is not cleared. Hence, the market clearing condition for good y is not independent of that for good x. Thus, we do not need to consider that market clearing condition. This is referred to as Walras’s law which states that for n traded goods and factors, there are only n − 1 independent market clearing conditions. The market clearing condition for x, the utility equalization condition, and the population equation Mx + My = M yield the corner equilibrium in structure D: px /py = 1,
Mx = My = M/2.
Inserting the corner equilibrium-relative price of traded goods back into demand and supply functions and indirect utility functions yields the corner equilibrium quantities to produce, trade, and consume and the corner equilibrium utility level, which we call per capita real income, denoted by uD. The corner equilibrium values of endogenous variables are no longer functions of prices. Due to symmetry, per capita real income depends only upon the parameter k. x = y = x s = y s = x d = y d = 1/2,
uD = k/4.
For an asymmetric model, all the endogenous variables will depend upon the parameters of relative transaction and production conditions and relative tastes for the two goods. We call the corner equilibrium values of endogenous variables, including the relative price of traded goods and the numbers of individuals selling different goods, a resource allocation for a given structure. A corner equilibrium sorts out resource allocation for a given structure. In the Smithian framework, there are multiple corner equilibria, and the general equilibrium is only one of these. All the information about the two corner equilibria in structures A and D is summarized in table 4.3. We distinguish per capita real income, which is the corner equilibrium value of the indirect utility function in a structure, from the indirect utility function, which is the optimum value of utility for a configuration. We now further examine the nature of the pricing mechanism in the Walrasian regime in the Smithian model. Though we use a Walrasian auction mechanism to describe the pricing mechanism, this centralized pricing mechanism is not essential in the Smithian framework. The Walrasian pricing mechanism in the Smithian framework can be decentralized. In the Smithian framework, prices are determined by all individuals’ self-interested decisions in choosing their occupation configurations. In principle, individuals are allowed to choose prices. But interactions between self-interested decisions in choosing occupation configurations will nullify any attempts to manipulate prices, as long as nobody can manipulate the numbers of individuals choosing various occupation configurations. As shown in (4.8c), the market relative
112 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
price of the two traded goods is inversely determined by the corresponding relative number of individuals selling the two goods and the relative outputs of individual sellers. Since an individual’s output level is trivial compared to the very large number of individuals who can choose any occupation configuration, the relative price cannot be manipulated by an individual’s output level as long as the relative number of different specialist producers cannot be manipulated. This justifies the price-taking behavior for each individual, despite the assumption that each individual is allowed to choose prices. In the Smithian model, the tatonnement process is a negative feedback mechanism. Suppose that the relative price px /py is higher than the equilibrium price. Then it must be true that ux > uy, so that individuals will shift from configuration (y/x) to configuration (x/y). This reduces My/Mx , and therefore reduces px /py through (4.8c). This adjustment will continue until the equilibrium is established. A general equilibrium is defined by a set of relative prices of traded goods, a set of numbers of individuals choosing different configurations that constitute a structure, and individuals’ quantities of goods produced, traded, and consumed that satisfy the following conditions: (i) each individual’s decision with regard to quantities and configuration maximizes her utility for the given equilibrium-relative prices of traded goods and the given equilibrium numbers of individuals choosing different configurations; (ii) the set of relative prices of traded goods and numbers of individuals choosing different configurations clear markets for all traded goods and equalize all individuals’ utilities. It is easy to see that a corner equilibrium satisfies these two conditions for a general equilibrium, except that individuals’ choices of configurations are confined within a given structure. Hence, the general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium, in which each constituent configuration is preferred by those choosing it over alternative configurations. From (4.6) and (4.7), we can see that individuals prefer either of the two specialization configurations to autarky if k > k0 and p = 1. Also, (4.6) and (4.7) imply that if k < k0, a relative price does not exist that ensures higher utility in both configurations of specialization than in autarky. Hence, the division of labor between two types of professional occupations is impossible to be coordinated via a relative price. This implies that the general equilibrium is autarky if k < k0. In summary, our two-step procedure to solve for a general equilibrium in the Smithian model runs as follows. A corner equilibrium is first solved for each structure. Then individuals’ utilities under the corner equilibrium prices are compared between configurations to identify a parameter subspace within which each constituent configuration of this structure is at least as good as any other alternative configuration. Within this parameter subspace, this corner equilibrium is a general equilibrium. As the parameter space is partitioned, we can identify within each of the parameter subspaces which corner equilibrium is the general equilibrium. It can be seen that as the number of goods increases, the number of possible structures increases more than proportionally. As a result, the two-step approach to solving for general equilibrium becomes very cumbersome. Sun, Yang, and Yao (1999) have generalized the Smithian model to the case with very general preferences and production and transaction conditions, and have developed a much simpler two-step approach to solving for general equilibrium. Their two-step procedure needs the concept of Pareto optimum corner equilibrium, which is the corner equilibrium with the greatest per capita real income. They have shown that general equilibrium exists if the set of consumer-producers is a continuum, and that a general equilibrium is the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium. Hence, we can solve for corner equilibrium for each feasible structure, then compare per capita real incomes between corner equilibria to identify the general equilibrium. The following theorem is the theoretical foundation of this two-step approach. Yang (1988) proves this theorem for a specific Smithian model. Sun, Yang, and Yao have proved this theorem for a general class of Smithian models with ex ante identical consumer-producers. For simplicity, we call it the Yao theorem.
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
113
Theorem 4.2 (Yao theorem): For an economy with a continuum of ex ante identical consumer-producers with rational, continuous, and convex preferences, and production functions displaying economies of specialization, and individual specific limited labor, a Walrasian general equilibrium exists, and it is the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium. Proof of the Yao theorem: Since the proof of the existence of equilibrium is very cumbersome, we provide here only the proof of the second part of the Yao theorem (i.e., the general equilibrium is the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium). Without loss of generality, we may assume that goods {1, . . . , n} are traded at any corner equilibrium. Denote this corner equilibrium E. Here, n ≤ m, and m is the number of all traded and nontraded goods. Assume that the values of prices for these traded goods are ( p1, . . . , pn ) in this corner equilibrium and the general Now without loss of generality, we may equilibrium values of the prices are ( p *, 1 . . . , p *). n assume that: p */p 1 1 = max{p*/p j j, j = 1, . . . , n} j
which implies for j = 1, . . . , n, *j ≥ p1/pj . p */p 1
(4.9)
The Wen theorem implies that an individual does not sell other goods if she sells good 1. Also, we have noted that the indirect utility function is an increasing function of the price of a good sold and a decreasing function of the prices of goods purchased. This together with (4.9) imply that the utility for selling good 1 under p* is not lower than that under p. Thus, under p*, an individual can do at least as well as those individuals selling good 1 at the corner equilibrium under p if she chooses the same production and trade plan as theirs. It follows that: u1( p*) ≥ u1( p) = u( p),
(4.10)
where u1( p*) is an individual’s utility from a configuration in the corner equilibrium E under the general equilibrium prices, u1( p) is her utility from this configuration under the corner equilibrium prices in E, and u( p) is the per capita real income in the corner equilibrium E. The last equality in (4.10) is due to utility equalization in any corner equilibrium. But by the definition of general equilibrium, any configuration chosen by any individual in general equilibrium generates at least the same utility as in any alternative configuration under the general equilibrium prices. This implies: u( p*) ≥ u1( p*)
(4.11)
where u( p*) is per capita real income in general equilibrium. (4.10) and (4.11) together imply u( p*) ≥ u( p), that is, per capita real income in general equilibrium is not lower than in any corner equilibrium. In other words, the general equilibrium is the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium. Q.E.D. We will use the Yao theorem frequently in this text. For the model in this section, the Yao theorem implies the following inframarginal comparative statics. Proposition 4.1: The general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium in structure D if uD > uA, or if k > k0 ≡ 22(1−a), and is autarky if k < k0.
114 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
k
1 k = 22−2a k > k0 k < k0 0
1
a
Figure 4.3 Partition of parameter space
Since economies of specialization are individual specific, or increasing returns are localized, we can apply the argument of revealed preferences used in chapter 3 to prove that a general equilibrium in this model is Pareto optimal. The rigorous proof of the first welfare theorem for a broad class of general equilibrium models allowing endogenous as well as exogenous comparative advantages can be found in Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998). This result implies that the most important function of the market is to coordinate individuals’ decisions in choosing their patterns of specialization, in order to fully exploit positive network effect of division of labor net of transaction costs. If transaction costs outweigh economies of division of labor, coordination of the division of labor between various occupations will fail, so that the general equilibrium is autarky. If economies of division of labor outweigh transaction costs, the market can always utilize positive network effect of division of labor. Hence, in this model, coordination failure of division of labor comes from transaction costs. According to the first welfare theorem, either in the case of coordination failure or in the case of coordination success of division of labor, we have market success, due to the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs. Proposition 4.1 has partitioned a two-dimensional space of parameters k and a into two subspaces, as shown in figure 4.3. Since we assume k ∈[0, 1] and a ≥ 1, the feasible space of parameters is the region below horizontal line k = 1, above the line k = 0, and on the right side of the vertical line a = 1, including the boundaries of the region in figure 4.3. The curve k = 22−2a partitions the parameter space into two subspaces, one of them above the curve and the other below the curve. If values of parameters are within the first subspace, the corner equilibrium in structure D is the general equilibrium; if values of parameters are within the second subspace, the corner equilibrium in autarky is the general equilibrium. Figure 4.4 provides an intuitive illustration of proposition 4.1. Panel (a) denotes two representative individuals choosing autarky and panel (b) denotes two representative individuals choosing (x/y) and (y/x), respectively. The circles denote individuals; directed lines denote flows of goods. As transaction efficiency k increases from a value smaller than k0 to a value larger than k0, the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to the division of labor between two specialists. Such a jump in turn generates discontinuous jumps of all endogenous variables, emergence of markets for two goods, and of demand and supply from the division of labor, and an increase in the size of the network of the market. We call this phenomenon exogenous evolution in division of labor, since it never takes place in the absence of an exogenous change in parameters. An increase in individuals’ specialization and an increase in diversity between different occupation configurations are two facets of the evolution.
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
y
A
x y
y
A
x
(a) Structure A, autarky
ys
yd
xd
xs
x/y
y/x
115
x
(b) Structure D, division of labor
Figure 4.4 Autarky and division of labor
As a result of this evolution, aggregate demand jumps from 0 to a positive value, the total transaction cost for society jumps from 0 to (1 − k)(Mx y d + My x d ) = (1 − k)M/2, and the aggregate production schedule jumps from a lower to a higher position, as indicated in figure 4.1, while the level of specialization of each individual increases from 1/2 to 1. An individual’s labor productivity of the good sold increases from 0.5a−1 (< 1) to 1, and her labor productivity of the good purchased decreases from 0.5a−1 to 0. But all individuals’ productivities in each good are the same in autarky, which is the general equilibrium for k < k0. This implies that productivity difference between ex ante identical individuals may emerge if they choose different levels of specialization in producing a good. Hence, we use the term endogenous comparative and absolute advantage to describe the difference in productivity between the buyer and seller of a good caused by the difference in their levels of specialization in producing that good. If the ex ante identical individuals choose the same level of specialization in producing a good, there is no endogenous comparative advantage. Of course, endogenous comparative advantage is not confined to cases involving ex ante identical individuals. The exogenous evolution of division of labor is based on inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. Inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are analogous to the inframarginal comparative statics of individuals’ decisions. That is, the general equilibrium discontinuously jumps between corner equilibria as values of parameters shift between parameter subspaces. The marginal comparative statics of general equilibrium characterize changes of relative prices, of relative quantities of goods and factors, and of utility in response to those changes in parameters that take place within the parameter subspace demarcated by the inframarginal comparative statics. For instance, if k > k0, the general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium in D. If k is increased, equilibrium per capita real income uD = k/4 will increase. For k < k0, the general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium in A. As a is decreased within the parameter subspace k < k0, the equilibrium values of x = y = 0.5a will change. All such changes in the equilibrium values of endogenous variables are marginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. These are changes in equilibrium resource allocation in response to parameter changes for a given structure of division of labor, since each corner equilibrium determines resource allocation for a given structure. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium deal with changes in the structure of division of labor in response to parameter changes, since the general equilibrium determines the equilibrium network structure of division of labor. If there exists a parameter subspace within which a corner equilibrium is the general equilibrium, then within this subspace the marginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are the comparative statics of the corner equilibrium. We define a profile of quantities of goods produced, traded, and consumed by all consumerproducers for a given structure as an allocation of resource for a given structure of division of labor. A corner equilibrium in the Smithian framework sorts out resource allocation for a given structure of organization. We define the task of determining a structure of division of labor as a problem of development, which relates to all individuals’ configurations of specialization, the size of the network of division of labor, variety between different occupation configurations, and productivity.
116 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
The general equilibrium sorts out problems of development. The analysis of resource allocation relates to the marginal comparative statics of general equilibrium, while the analysis of economic development relates to the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium.
4.4 MORE EXAMPLES Example 4.2: A general equilibrium model with the CES utility function. In the previous sections, supply functions in configurations with specialization are independent of prices, because of the unitary elasticity of substitution of the C–D utility function. Unitary elasticity of substitution implies that the substitution effect and the income effect cancel each other out in a consumerproducer setting. In this subsection, we use a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) utility function to illustrate the implications of the elasticity of substitution for the law of supply. The CES utility function is specified for each consumer-producer: u = [(x c)ρ + ( y c)ρ]1/ρ,
xc ≡ x + kx d,
yc ≡ y + ky d
where ρ ∈(0, 1) is a parameter of elasticity of substitution. The following features distinguish the CES utility function from the C–D utility function. For the C–D function, the quantity of each consumption good must be positive for maintaining a positive utility. For the CES function, utility is positive even if the quantity of a consumption good is 0, as long as the quantity of at least one of the other consumption goods is positive. The elasticity of substitution is defined as the percentage change of relative quantity for one percentage change of relative marginal utility of two goods. The elasticity of substitution of the CES function can be calculated as follows:
⎛ ∂u/∂y c ⎞ d( x c/y c ) ⎜ ⎟ d ln(x c/y c ) 1 ⎝ ∂u/∂x c ⎠ = . = E= c c ⎛ ∂u/∂y ⎞ 1 − ρ ⎛ ∂u/∂y ⎞ c c d⎜ d ( / ) ln x y ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ∂u/∂x c ⎠ ⎝ ∂u/∂x c ⎠ This formula implies that relative quantities of the two goods consumed will decrease by 1/(1−ρ) percent when the relative price of the two goods increases by one percent. Since the elasticity of substitution is an increasing function of ρ, or dE/dρ > 0, the greater the value of ρ, the greater the elasticity of substitution. Since an individual’s desire for variety in consumption diminishes as the elasticity of substitution increases, the degree of desire for a variety in consumption can be defined by 1/ρ. If we let x c = y c, it is not difficult to see that consumption of two goods always generates a greater level of utility than consumption of a single good, that is, 21/ρx c > x c. We need the assumption ρ ∈(0, 1) to ensure diverse consumption in equilibrium, since ρ < 0 or ρ > 1 implies specialized consumption in autarky equilibrium. Now that you are more familiar with the use of mathematical language in specifying economic models, we can quickly specify an individual’s decision problem based on the CES utility function as follows: Max: u = [(x c )ρ + ( y c )ρ]1/ρ s.t.
x ≡ x + kx c
x+x =l s
d
(utility function)
y ≡ y + ky c
y+y =l
a x
s
lx + ly = 1
(definition of quantities to consume) (production function) (endowment constraint)
px x + py y = px x + py y s
a y
d
s
d
d
(budget constraint)
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
117
Table 4.4 Corner solutions based on the CES utility function Configuration
Quantities self-provided
Corner supply functions
Corner demand functions
Corner indirect utility functions
A1
x=1
0
0
1
0
0
2
xs yd = p
ρ ⎡ ⎤ ⎢1 + ⎛ k ⎞ 1− ρ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎝ p⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
a
A2
⎛ 1⎞ x= y=⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2⎠
(x/y)
ρ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ 1− ρ ⎥ ⎢ x = ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎝ p⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
(y/x)
ρ ⎡ ⎤ y = ⎢1 + (kp) 1− ρ ⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
−1
−1
ρ ⎡ ⎤ ⎛ p ⎞ 1− ρ ⎥ ⎢ s x = 1+⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎝ k⎠ ⎥ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ −ρ ⎡ ⎤ y = ⎢1 + (kp) 1− ρ ⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ s
−1
−1
x = py d
s
1 − aρ ρ
ρ ⎤ ⎡ ⎢1 + (kp) 1− ρ ⎥ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣
1− ρ ρ
1− ρ ρ
where x, x s, x d, y, y s, y d, lx, ly are decision variables and px, py are price parameters. According to the Wen theorem, 5 configurations need to be considered. There are three autarky configurations: A1, in which one good is consumed; A2, in which two goods are consumed; and a third, which is symmetric to A1. The two configurations with specialization are (x/y) and (y/x). The optimum decisions in the various configurations are summarized in table 4.4, where p ≡ py /px is the relative price. To familiarize yourself with inframarginal analysis, you should follow the procedure of the previous sections to solve for the optimum decisions in table 4.4. Let us first consider the marginal comparative statics of the decisions. For a given configuration of specialization, differentiation of the corner supply functions in table 4.4 yields:
dx s < 0, dp
dy s >0 dp
This is referred to as the neoclassical supply law, i.e., the quantity of a good supplied increases with the price of that good. Since p ≡ py /px, the neoclassical supply law implies that the quantity of a good that is supplied not only increases with the price of that good, but also decreases with the price of the good purchased by the specialist supplier. This is consistent with the feature of classical demand and supply analysis: demand and supply are two sides of specialization. It is easy to verify from table 4.4 that neoclassical demand law holds for this model based on the CES utility function.
dx d > 0, dp
dy d k1 ≡ (2(1−aρ)/ρ − 1)(1−ρ)/ρ,
118 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
and will choose A2 (autarky) if k < k1. As transaction efficiency increases from a value smaller than k1 to the one larger than k1, the general equilibrium will jump from autarky to the division of labor. Example 4.3: An asymmetric model. In the model we have discussed, there are too many symmetries. Hence, equilibrium values of endogenous variables are independent of relative tastes and relative production conditions. In this example, we examine the implications of relative tastes and relative production conditions for the equilibrium resource allocation and the level of division of labor. Assume that all ex ante identical consumer-producers have the following utility and production functions: u = (x + kx d )α( y + ky d )1−α, x + x s = l xa,
α ∈(0, 1)
y + y s = l yb .
The corner equilibrium-relative price in structure D is py/px = k1−2α. Its derivative with respect to k is positive when α < 1/2, and is negative when α > 1/2. The corner equilibrium-relative number of the two types of specialists is Mx/My = αk1−2α/(1 − α). Its derivative with respect to k has similar features. The general equilibrium is the division of labor if: 1
⎛ ⎞ 2 α (1− α ) (α a)α a [b(1 − α)]b(1−α ) k > k2 ≡ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ [αa + (1 − α)b]α a+(1−α )b α α (1 − α)1−α ⎠ and autarky if k < k2. The equation k = k2, which involves four parameters, partitions the fourdimensional space of parameters a, b, α, and k into the two subspaces. You should follow the procedure in chapters 3 and 4 to solve for individuals’ decisions, the marginal and inframarginal comparative statics of the decisions, the two corner equilibria, the general equilibrium, and finally, for the marginal and inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium. Comparative statics of general equilibrium describe how the consequences of interactions between self-interested decisions change in response to changes in environment. They differ from comparative statics of decisions. From the corner solutions in table 4.2, we can see that the decisions for a given configuration are functions of relative prices and parameters of production and transaction. For instance, the neoclassical demand law for a given configuration dy d/d( py /px) = − 0.5( px /py)2 is part of the marginal comparative statics of decisions. From the corner solution for a given configuration in example 4.2, we can see that the optimum decision, which is a corner solution in a configuration, is also a function of parameters of tastes and production. If the maximum amount of working time is a parameter rather than a specific number, then the optimum decision is a function of the endowment parameter as well. The inframarginal comparative statics are associated with discontinuous jumps of the optimum decisions between configurations as parameters of prices, tastes, endowments, and production and transaction conditions shift between the parameter subspaces that demarcate different configurations. Hence, the marginal and inframarginal comparative statics of decisions explain the optimum quantities of consumption, production, trade, and the optimum configuration of specialization by parameters of prices, tastes, endowments, and production and transaction conditions. From table 4.2, we can see that comparative statics of decisions may be represented by the following mapping: Parameters of tastes, transaction and production conditions, endowments, prices, numbers of different specialists
⇒
Quantities demanded and supplied, resource allocation, utility, configuration of specialization
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
119
Recalling table 4.3 and proposition 4.1, we can see that the general equilibrium-relative price, numbers of different specialists, and quantities of consumption, production, and trade are determined by parameters of tastes, endowments, population size, and production and transaction conditions. The marginal and inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium explain relative price, numbers of different specialists, structure of division of labor, per capita real income, and resource allocation by the parameters as summarized by the following mapping: Parameters of tastes, endowment, production and transaction conditions, population size
⇒
Quantities demanded and supplied, relative prices, numbers of specialists, structure of division of labor
Hence, prices and numbers of individuals choosing different configurations are explaining parameters in comparative statics of decisions, while in comparative statics of general equilibrium, they are endogenous variables, themselves explained by parameters of tastes, endowments, production and transaction conditions, and population size. It should be noted that comparative statics of decisions relate only to individuals’ occupation configurations, since an individual cannot choose a structure of division of labor for society. Comparative statics of general equilibrium relate to the structure of division of labor for society as a whole, since the general equilibrium is the outcome of interactions among all individuals’ optimizing decisions. It is not difficult to see that inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are a rich source of the explaining power of economic development and related structural changes. The model in example 4.1 is similar to the model in the previous chapter, in that the production possibility frontier (PPF) may not be associated with the Pareto optimum. The general equilibrium structure is A, which is Pareto optimal if k < k0. But the PPF is associated with structure D, not with structure A (recall figure 4.1). The trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs implies that the Pareto optimum that is associated with the utility frontier is not the same as the PPF if transaction efficiency is low. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium and the Pareto optimum move closer to the PPF. The endogenization of aggregate productivity implies that the degree of scarcity is endogenously explained by individuals’ decisions concerning their levels of specialization, and is ultimately determined by trading efficiency. Hence, problems of economic development occupy a central place in the model of endogenous network of division of labor. Although the model in the current chapter is a static model, inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium can explain not only productivity progress, increases in per capita real income and consumption, and other “growth phenomena,” but can also explain the emergence of the market, increases in diversity of economic structure and in the extent of the market, and other “development phenomena.” From figure 4.1, we can see that if transaction efficiency is low, the general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium in autarky and the production takes place on curve ECG, which is lower than the PPF (EFG). As transaction efficiency is sufficiently improved, production schedule jumps from ECG to point F. This generates productivity progress and an increase in the network size of division of labor, which are two aspects of economic development. Example 4.4: Effects of a tax on allocation and organization efficiencies. Consider the Smithian model of example 4.1 with k = 1, and with taxation introduced. A benevolent and efficient government imposes a tax rate t on each dollar of goods sold, then evenly distributes the tax revenue among M consumer-producers. Hence, the income transfer that each individual receives from the government is r = t(Mx x s + My y s)/M if the structure D is the general equilibrium.
120 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Applying inframarginal analysis and using the symmetry of the model, we can solve for the corner solutions in the three configurations A, (x/y), and (y/x). Then the utility equalization and market clearing condition in structure D yields the corner equilibrium in D, as follows: px /py = 1,
Mx = My = M/2,
x = y = 1/(2 − t),
x = y = x = y = (1 − t)/(2 − t), s
s
d
d
uD = (1 − t)/(2 − t)2,
r = (1 − t)t/(2 − t)
where uD is per capita real income in structure D, which is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate t. This implies that the tax causes a distortion resulting in a reduction of utility. The Pareto optimum tax rate is 0. But the corner equilibrium-relative price in structure D is the same as in the corner equilibrium with no tax. Aggregate relative resources allocated to the production of the two goods, Mx /My = 1, and aggregate relative consumption and production of the two goods, (Mx x + My x d)/(Mx y d + My y) = 1, are Pareto optimal. However, each individual’s relative consumption of the two goods is not Pareto optimal. The relative consumption is x/y d = 1/(1 − t) > 1 for an x specialist, and is x d/y = 1 − t < 1 for a y specialist. Also, you can verify that each individual’s resource allocation is inconsistent with the first-order condition for the Pareto optimum problem that maximizes the x specialist’s utility for a constant utility of the y specialist. The tax encourages individuals to allocate too much resource for self-provided consumption, and correspondingly discourages production for and consumption from the market. Hence, this allocation inefficiency may also cause organization inefficiency. Since, by definition, autarky does not involve trade, no tax revenue can be collected in autarky, so per capita real income in autarky is the same as in example 4.1. The general equilibrium will be the corner equilibrium in structure D in the absence of tax when k = 1. But a sufficiently high tax rate will make uD smaller than per capita real income in autarky, 2−2a even if k = 1. If k < 1, then we can show that the critical value of k, which ensures that division of labor will be the general equilibrium, is smaller in the absence of tax than when the tax is imposed. Hence, if k is between the two critical values, then the general equilibrium in the absence of tax is the division of labor, while the general equilibrium in the presence of tax is autarky. This example illustrates the interdependence between allocation efficiency and organization efficiency. The allocation inefficiency caused by the tax also causes an inefficient general equilibrium level of division of labor and an inefficient productivity level. The next example illustrates the conflict between allocation efficiency and organization efficiency in a Smithian model. Example 4.5: Conflict between allocation efficiency and organization efficiency. Suppose that in the model in example 4.1, the utility function is u = (x + kx d )α( y + ky d )1−α. Then we can solve for corner equilibria in autarky and in structure D as follows: uA = [αα(1 − α)1−α ]a uD = [αα(1 − α)1−α ]k2α(1−α), Mx = αk1−2αM/(1 − α + αk1−2α),
px /py = k2α−1, My = (1 − α)M/(1 − α + αk1−2α)
The general equilibrium is the division of labor iff k > k1 ≡ [αα(1 − α)1−α](a−1)/2α(1−α). It is easy to show that the critical value k1 is minimized with respect to α at α = 1/2, and that Mx = My = M/2 at α = 1/2. That is, as the difference between α and 1/2 increases, k1 increases. For a larger
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
121
k1, k is more likely to be smaller than k1, so that autarky instead of the division of labor is more likely to occur in equilibrium. In other words, as the differential in tastes for different goods tends to 0, the general equilibrium is more likely to be the division of labor. This indicates a possible conflict between organization efficiency, which relates to higher productivity and economic development, and efficiency of resource allocation, if one good is more preferred than the other. Under this circumstance, in order to accommodate taste differential, a high level of division of labor and related high productivity may have to be sacrificed. Example 4.6: Free entry and free pricing. In a Smithian model, the power to manipulate the relative numbers of different specialists has a more crucial impact on efficiencies of resource allocation and organization than does the power to manipulate relative prices. This result can be used to criticize Lange’s theory of market socialism, which emphasizes the importance of price flexibility in achieving allocation efficiency. According to the theory of market socialism, the government adjusts prices according to excess demand and directs managers of state enterprises to choose profit-maximizing quantities of outputs and inputs. Many economists have pointed out that self-interested government officials have no incentive to price commodities in accordance with excess demand because of the absence of residual claimants of profits. According to our model in this chapter, even if a system of flexible prices clears the market, self-interested government officials may still manipulate the relative numbers of different specialists, for instance, restricting free entry into the state banking sector and into entrepreneurial activities, such that the market clearing prices of the services provided by the officials are high. This form of market socialism is not much better than the Soviet-style socialist system, under which governmentcontrolled prices do not clear the market and the great excess demand becomes the source of the power of the central planning authorities. The government officials gain a great deal of tangible and intangible benefit from that power.
4.5 PATTERN OF TRADE In this section, we examine the trade pattern in a Smith–Young model of endogenous comparative advantage. In both the Ricardo and Heckscher–Olin models of exogenous comparative advantage in the preceding chapter, the equilibrium pattern of trade is determined by exogenous comparative technology and endowment advantages. But in the Smith–Young model of endogenous comparative advantage, all individuals are ex ante identical in all aspects, so that the equilibrium trade pattern cannot be explained by exogenous comparative advantage. In this section, we specify a Smith–Young model with three goods and show that if not all goods are involved in the division of labor, those goods which have more significant economies of specialization in production and/or higher transaction efficiencies are more likely to be involved in trade. Example 4.7: A model of endogenous comparative advantage with three goods. Consider a model with M ex ante identical consumer-producers. Each of them has the following utility function, production functions, and endowment constraint of labor: u = (x + kx x d )( y + ky y d )(z + kzz d ), x + x s = Max{lx − a, 0}, lx + ly + lz = e
y + y s = Max{ly − b, 0},
z + z s = Max{lz − c, 0},
122 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 4.5 Trade pattern in a model of endogenous comparative advantage Structure
Corner equilibrium prices
Corner equilibrium per capita real income [(e − a − b − c)/3]3
A Pxy
px/py = (kx/ky )0.5[(e − b − c)/(e − a − c)]1.5
(kx ky)0.5[(e − b − c)(e − a − c)]1.5/33
Pxz
px/pz = (kx/kz )0.5[(e − b − c)/(e − a − b)]1.5
(kx kz)0.5[(e − b − c)(e − a − b)]1.5/33
Pyz
py/pz = (ky/kz ) [(e − a − c)/(e − a − b)]
(kz ky)0.5[(e − b − a)(e − a − c)]1.5/33
D
px/py = (kx/ky )1/3(e − b)/(e − a), pz/py = (kz/ky )1/3(e − b)/(e − c)
(kx ky kz)2/3(e − a)(e − b)(e − c)/33
0.5
1.5
where a, b, and c are fixed learning and training costs in producing goods x, y, and z, respectively. The fixed learning cost generates economies of specialization, which implies that average labor productivity increases with a person’s level of specialization in producing a good. Each individual is endowed with e units of labor. The transaction efficiency coefficient for good i is ki. It is assumed that a > b > c and kx > ky > kz. Applying inframarginal analysis, we can solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium, which indicate that the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to the partial division of labor with two traded goods, and then to the complete division of labor with three traded goods as trading efficiency k i improves. There are three corner equilibria for the partial division of labor. In one, denoted as structure Pxy , goods x and y are traded; in structure Pxz, goods x and z are traded; and in structure Pyz, goods y and z are traded. Denoting the complete division of labor D and autarky A, information about the corner equilibria in the five structures is summarized in table 4.5. Applying inframarginal analysis to each individual’s decision in choosing a configuration, it can be shown that under the assumptions that a > b > c, kx > ky > kz, and kx, ky are neither too great nor too small, the general equilibrium structure is Pxy. Individuals have incentives to deviate from their configurations in structure Pxz or Pyz under the corner equilibrium prices in either of the two structures. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium can also be obtained by directly applying the Yao theorem to information in table 4.5. If taste parameters are different across goods, it can be shown that if not all goods are traded, then those goods that are more desirable are more likely to be traded (see exercise 21). The results are summarized in the following proposition about trade pattern in a model of endogenous comparative advantage. Proposition 4.2: If transaction efficiencies are neither too high nor too low, not all goods are traded in equilibrium. Those goods which have more significant economies of specialization in production or higher transaction efficiencies, or are more desirable, are more likely to be traded. This proposition can be used to explain why markets for some goods do not exist. The nonexistence of many markets in developing economies is often used to justify development economics as a field separate from standard microeconomics. The inframarginal analysis of the Ricardian model and the HO model in chapter 3, and the Smith–Young model in this chapter, suggests that the number of active markets in equilibrium can be endogenized in a standard microeconomic framework. Hence, inframarginal analysis can explain why the markets for many goods and services do not exist in a developing economy, and under what conditions the markets will emerge from economic development process.
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
123
Key Terms and Review • Configuration and corner solutions. • Why the decision problem that involves a corner solution is much more complicated than the interior decision • Implications of the Wen theorem for inframarginal analysis • Trade-off in allocating resources for a given configuration of specialization versus trade-off in choosing a configuration of specialization • Marginal analysis of the problem of resource allocation versus inframarginal analysis of the problem of economic development • Relationship between the trade-off in decision-making and the second-order condition • Corner demand function, corner supply function, and corner indirect utility function versus demand function, supply function, and indirect utility function • Demand law, supply law, and the law of specialization • The difference between marginal and inframarginal analyses of demand and supply • Marginal comparative statics versus inframarginal comparative statics of decisions • Network effect of division of labor • How the market coordinates division of labor and utilizes network effect of division of labor • Structure based on configurations and corner equilibrium based on corner solutions • General equilibrium versus corner equilibrium • Marginal versus inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium • The difference between an individual’s demand and supply functions, total market demand and supply functions, and aggregate demand and supply functions • Implications of Walras’s law for solving for a corner equilibrium • Implications of free pricing and free choice between occupation configurations for coordination of the network of division of labor • Why marginal cost pricing may not work in a Smithian general equilibrium model • Allocation efficiency versus organization efficiency • The implications of institution for the equilibrium level of division of labor through its effect on transaction efficiency • Why the Pareto optimum may not be associated with the production possibility frontier • Implications of transaction efficiency for the disparity between the Pareto optimum and the PPF, and for reducing scarcity • Implications of the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs for endogenizing productivity, network size of division of labor, and trade dependence • The relationship between decisions in choosing an occupation configuration and the size of network of division of labor • The Smithian aggregate demand law • Relationship between production and transaction conditions and trade pattern in a Smith–Young model of endogenous comparative advantage
Further Reading The classical literature of specialization: Arrow (1979), Petty (1671), Tucker (1755, 1774), Smith (1776), Turgot (1751), Babbage (1832), Rae (1834), Walker (1874), Groenewegen (1987), Meek and Skinner (1973), Rashid (1986), Stigler (1951, 1976), Anonymous (1701); Inframarginal analysis: Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962),
124 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Coase (1946, 1960), Young (1928), Houthakker (1956), Wen (1998), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993), Yang (1994), Rosen (1978, 1983), Becker (1981), Hadley (1964); Marginal analysis of endogenous specialization: Baumgardner (1988), Becker and Murphy (1992), Tamura (1991), Locay (1990), Kim (1989). Network effects: Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962), Farrell and Garth (1985), Katz and Shapiro (1985, 1986), Liebowitz and Margolis (1994); Criticism of marginal cost pricing: Coase (1946, 1960), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 2), Yang (1988, 1994); Neoclassical general equilibrium models with transaction costs and constant returns to scale technology: Hahn (1971), Karman (1981), Kurz (1974), Mills and Hamilton (1984), Schweizer (1986).
QUESTIONS 1 In the last decade, many shops specializing in changing engine oil have emerged in the US. They are usually organized through franchise networks, which reduce transaction costs caused by a deep division of labor between the franchiser and the franchisees. The franchiser specializes in planning, advertising, designing the operation manual, choosing specialized equipment, and management, while the franchisee specializes in changing engine oil. Since the franchiser specializes in producing intangible intellectual properties, it is very easy for the franchisee to infringe upon the franchiser’s property. (For instance, the franchisee refuses to pay the franchise fee as soon as she has acquired the know-how in the operation manual provided by the franchiser.) Thus, a special form of contract has evolved, which gives the franchiser great discretionary power to terminate the contract, and which increases the degree of specificity of the franchisee’s investment in the business. (For instance, within 15 years after the termination of the contract, the franchisee is not allowed to engage in the engine oilchanging business within a certain territory.) Such clauses provide a mechanism of hostage, which significantly enhances transaction efficiency of intellectual properties of the franchiser. Use the model in this chapter to explain why this type of contract is essential for deepening the division of labor within the sector providing engine oil-change services, and between this sector and the rest of the economy. 2 Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 163–5) provide historical evidence for endogenous comparative advantage and related endogenous productivity progress. According to data on trade and production between 1720 and 1900, it wasn’t simply the case that British production responded to demand from overseas markets, but in addition trade stimulated productivity progress, which created more demand. Use the notion of general equilibrium and the model in this chapter to explain this historical fact. 3 According to E. Jones (1981, p. 267) and North (1981), trade based on exogenous comparative advantage prior to the Industrial Revolution generated endogenous comparative advantage and more trade. Design a model to formalize the interactions between endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages (see chapter 6). 4 Compare the Smithian model in this chapter with the neoclassical model based on the dichotomy between consumers and firms. 5 A businessman found that many hotel and restaurant managers need taped music for their customers, but the latter do not have time to keep track of the constantly changing musical tastes of customers. The businessman specialized in identifying the most popular music, added a margin to the price of the tapes he had chosen, and then sold them to the managers. His business became very successful. Use the model in this chapter to explain how the businessman created demand and supply for professional services by deepening division of labor. If you use neoclassical analysis
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
125
of demand and supply to consider this case, how would you explain the demand and supply of music tapes? Why can’t that analysis predict created demand and supply based on an endogenous level of specialization and productivity, which is the most interesting feature of modern entrepreneurism and economic development? When Lady Thatcher retired as Prime Minister of Britain, she was worried about whether her humble pension would be enough to support the very expensive life-style to which she had been accustomed. She was approached by a company which specializes in cultivating public relations. The contract between her and the agent helped her to make so much money from public speaking throughout the world that she was able to earn much more than she made as Prime Minister. Explain why the division of labor between specialized agents and specialized movie stars, public figures, and singers occurs in the marketplace. Explain why many writers in New York use agencies to find publishers and to sign publication contracts for their commercial books on their behalf, while the division of labor between academic writers and specialized publication agents is not common. In particular, why do academics never use professional publication agents for submitting research papers to refereed journals on their behalf ? What are network effects of division of labor? What is the difference between network effects of division of labor and economies of scale? Why can we not understand demand and supply if we do not understand the network effects of division of labor? Chenery (1979) and Kuznets (1966) explain structural changes by increases in per capita income. Use the concept of network effect of division of labor to analyze interdependencies between structural changes and increases in per capita incomes and between the extent of the market and level of division of labor in connection to Chenery’s and Kuznets’ theory. Before the 1830s, economists rarely used the concept of economies of scale. The notions they used were benefits and costs of specialization and division of labor, which relate, in essence, to the economies of interpersonal complementarity and the network effect of division of labor. At the end of the nineteenth century, the notion of economies of scale became popular. Use the model in this chapter to illustrate why coordination failure caused by economies of scale disappears if the notion of economies of scale is replaced by the notion of economies of specialization and division of labor. Use the model in this chapter to explain why Allyn Young claimed that demand and supply are two sides of division of labor, and why we cannot understand what demand and supply are if we do not understand how individuals choose their levels and patterns of specialization. Use the Wen theorem, which helps to keep inframarginal analysis tractable, to explain why, in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the analysis of demand and supply shifted from inframarginal analysis of decision-making in choosing a level of specialization which is essential for economic development, to marginal analysis of resource allocation for a given level of specialization and productivity. Why is the notion of general equilibrium a powerful vehicle for analyzing the development implications of the network effects of division of labor? What is the difference between the interdependence between quantities of goods chosen by individuals for given prices and the market equilibrium prices, and the interdependence between individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization? In the models in this chapter, improvements in transaction conditions can generate evolution in division of labor. This evolution is associated with structural changes. For instance, the number of professional farmers (producing food x) in structure D
126 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
13
14
15
16
17
18
is smaller than the number of all individuals producing x, which is the population size in autarky. If the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to D because of an improvement in transaction conditions, the resulting structural change appears to be a transfer of labor from the traditional agricultural sector to the industrial sector producing cloth y. Compare this equilibrium mechanism for economic development and structural changes with that in the theory of labor surplus of Lewis (1955) and Fei and Renis (1964). (According to the theory of labor surplus, as technology in the industrial sector exogenously changes or as capital accumulates, labor is transferred from the traditional agricultural sector to the industrial sector.) Suppose a student raises a concern about coordination failure in utilizing the network effects of division of labor in the model in this chapter. She suggests that if there is no central planner, the market cannot select the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium from the multiple corner equilibria. Analyze the coordination mechanism in the marketplace and address her concern. Use your daily experience to explain how the decentralized market coordinates individuals’ decisions in choosing occupation configurations and levels of specialization to utilize the network effect of division of labor. If economies of division of labor outweigh transaction costs, but nobody is willing to choose some occupation configuration, how can the market sort out the coordination problem? Many individuals prefer the occupation configurations of medical doctors, lawyers, and high executive positions in large companies to those of doormen, janitors, and garbage collectors. If all individuals refuse to choose occupations in the latter group, then coordination failure of division of labor occurs. How can the market sort out this coordination problem? In neoclassical marginal analysis, the function of free pricing in equilibriating demand and supply is used to explain how the market coordinates conflicting self-interested decisions. In addition to free pricing, our analysis in this text also emphasizes free choice of occupation configurations in coordinating the division of labor, and inframarginal analysis across occupation configurations in utilizing the network effects of division of labor. Discuss the implications of the difference between inframarginal analysis and marginal analysis of demand and supply. Many development economists argue that due to network effects of industrial linkage, market failure will retard industrialization. Hence, a government policy to pursue big-push industrialization may overcome such coordination failure. Use the model in this chapter to analyze this view. Network effect is a basic feature of division of labor. Smith and Young emphasized the function of the market in coordinating the network of division of labor, though they did not use the word “network.” Why did economists until recently pay no attention to this feature of the market and the function of the invisible hand in coordinating division of labor? Why was network effect not the focus of economics in the nineteenth century nor in most of the twentieth century? Some economists argue that inframarginal analysis of specialization is relevant only to the evolution of division of labor that occurred before the Industrial Revolution. They claim that in a modern economy, each individual is completely specialized and buys everything from the market, so that the assumption of an exogenous level of specialization of individuals is acceptable. Comment on this view in connection with the following cases: a) The emergence of CNN (the Cable News Network) is very much a modern phenomenon. According to the model in this chapter, an improvement in
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
19 20 21
22
23
127
transaction efficiency (which might be caused by new telecommunications facilities) or a spontaneous evolution of division of labor will make commercially viable a higher level of division of labor between specialized media. The corner equilibrium that involves the finer division of labor between CNN (which specializes in reporting news through TV networks) and other media will be the general equilibrium. Whether or not the demand for and supply of CNN’s professional services are “effective” depends on the general equilibrium level of division of labor, since demand and supply are two sides of the division of labor. But this in turn is determined by the efficient balance point between the economies of specialization and transaction costs. b) The Wall Street Journal (“Manufacturers Use Supplies to Help Them Develop New Products,” Dec. 19, 1994, p. 1; see also “Enterprise: How Entrepreneurs Are Reshaping the Economy and What Big Companies Can Learn?” Business Week, Oct. 22, 1993, and “Management Focus,” The Economist, March 5, 1994) reported that each wave of mergers between modern corporations is associated with more specialization and division of labor. In particular, the latest wave of rationalization in the corporate sector has the characteristic that many companies have moved to separate some of their functions from their core business. Services that were once self-provided are now bought from more specialized suppliers. This phenomenon, in the business community variously called deintegration, downsizing, outsourcing, contracting out, and focusing on core competencies, relates to evolution in division of labor. c) The recent boom in franchise networks in the US (see question 1 in chapter 1). d) The development of the market for the automatic toothbrush is a modern phenomenon, one that converts self-sufficient production and consumption of tooth brushing to specialized production of the automatic toothbrush and commercialized consumption. You may analyze the commercialization of the robot. If the production cost of robot has been significantly reduced so that each family can afford to use the robot for housekeeping. Then you may find that the income share of the commercialized housekeeping will be higher than the income share of food or automobiles. Discuss why Young’s insights into the limitations of the concept of economies of scale were not formalized and taught in mainstream textbooks until recently. Why can’t the Herfindahl index of specialization, which is the output share of the main industry of a city or a sector, reflect the level of division of labor of the city or sector? According to Chandler (1990), the economic growth of the United States at the end of the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century was generated by economies of scale and scope. Clarify this statement, using the concept of economies of division of labor that you have learned in this chapter. Specialization has many adverse effects on human life. It can lead to boredom and to narrowing of the mind. It prevents full exploitation of economies of complementarity between different production activities. (For instance, teaching economics generates benefits for economic research.) Nevertheless, we observe that the level of specialization still increases, and companies increasingly use slogans like “We are professional” in their advertisements. Explain this phenomenon. Some economists claim that economies of specialization represent a special case of economies of scale, since the former reflect economies of scale for an individual’s labor. Use what you have learned from this chapter to assess this statement.
128 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
EXERCISES 1 Suppose a < 1 in the production functions (4.2). Draw the transformation curve for each individual, two individuals’ aggregate transformation curves for autarky, and for the division of labor in the x–y plane. Use the graphs to define diseconomies of division of labor. 2 Assume that a = 1 in the production functions (4.2). In the x–y plane, draw the transformation curve for each individual, and the aggregate transformation curves for the respective cases of autarky and division of labor. Use the graphs to define constant returns to division of labor. 3 Suppose a ≤ 1 for good x and a > 1 for good y in the production functions (4.2). In the x – y plane, draw the transformation curve for each individual and the aggregate transformation curves for the respective cases of autarky and division of labor. Use the graphs to identify the condition under which economies of division of labor exist. 4 Use exercise (3) to demonstrate the following propositions: a) Economies of specialization in producing a good are neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of economies of division of labor. b) Economies of division of labor cannot exist in the absence of economies of specialization in producing all goods. c) Economies of division of labor cannot exist if the diseconomies of specialization in producing x dominate the economies of specialization in producing y. d) Economies of division of labor must exist if economies of specialization exist in producing all goods. e) Economies of division of labor exist if economies of specialization in producing good y dominate diseconomies of specialization in producing x. In this case, economies of specialization are external economies to the sector producing x. Show that external economies cannot exist if there are no economies of specialization in all sectors. Use your analysis to address the debate between Marshall, Young, and Young’s student Frank Knight. You will recall that Marshall argued that external economies of scale relate to the benefits of division of labor, that Young argued that the concept of economies of scale is a misrepresentation of that benefit, and that Knight argued that economies of scale that are external to all firms constitute an “empty box.” 5 Assume that three individuals have the production system given in (4.2). Follow the method used in figure 4.1 to draw aggregate production schedules for autarky, for the case wherein two people are not completely specialized, for the case in which one person is completely specialized, and for the case in which two persons are completely specialized. 6 Consider production function x ay b = L, where a, b > 0, and L is the amount of labor used to produce goods x and y. Use the implicit function theorem to show that for a constant L, dy/dx < 0 and d2y/dx 2 > 0, i.e., the transformation curve is convex to the origin. The production function has no definition at x = 0 and y = 0. Explain why this production function is not suitable for describing economies of specialization. 7 Explain why the neoclassical Cobb–Douglas production function y = K aLb is not suitable for describing economies of specialization.
C HAPTER 4: E NDOGENOUS C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
8 Assume that the production functions in (4.2) are x p = Max{lx − a, 0} and y p = Max{ly − b, 0}. Draw an individual’s transformation curve and the twopersons’ aggregate production schedules for autarky and division of labor. Are there economies of division of labor if b = 0? 9 Assume that the production functions in (4.2) are x p = Max{l xα − a, 0} and y p = Max{l yα − b, 0}. Draw an individual’s transformation curve and the two persons’ aggregate production schedules for autarky and division of labor. Analyze the difference between the case with α > 1 and the case with α < 1. Identify the condition for the existence of economies of division of labor. 10 Becker 1981, Rosen 1983: An individual maximizes the difference between benefits and costs of learning. V = w1k1t + w2k2(1 − t) − C(k1, k2) with respect to t, which is the time allocated to produce good 1, and ki, which is the learning and training level in activity i, where C is the total learning and training cost, 1 − t is the amount of time allocated to produce good 2, and wi is a given benefit coefficient for activity i. Solve for two corner solutions with specialization and the interior solution with no specialization. Draw the distinction between technical complementarity (∂2C/∂k1∂k2 > 0) between two learning activities in producing two goods and social complementarity based on economies of specialization. Investigate the conditions under which economies of division of labor exist in the model with both technical and interpersonal complementarity. 11 Assume that the decision problem is the same as in examples 4.2 and 4.3, but that k = 1 and that the government taxes each dollar of goods sold at the rate t, then evenly distributes the tax revenue among the population. Solve for all corner solutions and identify the conditions under which each of them is the optimum decision. Use marginal and inframarginal comparative statics to analyze the effect of the tax. 12 Assume that the production functions in (4.2) of example 4.1 are x + x s = l xa, y + y s = l yb , a ≠ b. Solve for equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 13 Assume that in exercise 12, k = 1 and the government taxes each dollar of good x that is purchased, then evenly distributes the tax revenue among the buyers of good x. Use the marginal and inframarginal comparative statics to analyze the effect of the tax on demand and supply. Compare your answer to that of exercise 11. 14 Consider the model in example 4.7. Identify the parameter subspace within which improvements in transaction conditions generate concurrence of deteriorated terms of trade of an occupation configuration and an increase in gains that an individual choosing this occupation receives from trade. 15 Lio 1998: Suppose that the utility and the production functions are the same as in (example 4.1). But there is a minimum consumption amount for good x, given by x + kx d ≥ x0, x0 ∈(0, 1 − a). How many configurations must be considered? Solve for the corner solution for each of them. 16 Suppose that in the equilibrium model in example 4.1, the production functions are x p = lx − a and y p = lx − b, and the utility function is u = (x + kx d )α( y + ky d )1−α where i p is the output level of good i. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 17 Suppose that in the equilibrium model in this chapter, the utility function is of the CES type and the time endowment constraint is lx + ly = 1 − c if an individual consumes one good, and is lx + ly = 1 − 2c if an individual consumes two goods. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics.
129
130 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
18
19
20 21
Assume that in example 4.1 the transaction efficiency coefficient for good i is ki and 1 > kx > ky > 0. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the implications of the difference in transaction efficiency for the equilibrium-relative price. Why is the effect of the difference in transaction efficiency different from the effect of the difference in tax rate on the equilibriumrelative price? Chu and Wang, 1998, Ng and Yang, 2000: Suppose that in exercise 16, α = 0.5 and the production function of x is modified as x p = lx − a − s∑ y p where s is an externality parameter. This specification implies that there is a negative externality of production of y on production of x. Suppose that the government taxes sales of good y at the tax rate t, then returns the tax revenue to the buyers of y. Solve for the corner equilibrium for structure D, then solve for an individual’s utility value when she chooses specialization (or autarky) and all other individuals choose D (or A). Then solve for the corner equilibrium in a structure where the population is divided among autarky and specialization in x and y. Find general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Show that within a certain parameter space, Pareto improving Pigouvian tax does not exist. Use your answer to justify Coase’s claim that Pigou’s marginal analysis of effects of tax on the distortions caused by externality is misleading and inframarginal analysis is essential for the analysis of the distortions. Work out the algebra for proving proposition 4.2. Suppose that a = b = c in example 4.7, but the respective taste parameters for the three goods are α > β > γ, where α + β + γ = 1. Solve for inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium.
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 131
DRIVING FORCE III – ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND TRADING EFFICIENCY
5
5.1 ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT When Marshall (1890) and other economists tried to formalize classical economics concerning development implications of division of labor, they could not find the analytical tools appropriate to well define division of labor. As discussed in chapter 3, the concept of level of division of labor is analogous to the concept of utility, which can be defined only as a function of several variables. Level of division of labor is defined in chapter 3 as a function of all individuals’ levels of specialization and the diversity of occupation configurations. The notion of economies of division of labor is even more difficult to define. Marshall used a one-dimensional variable, the scale of a firm or a sector, to formalize the classical notion of division of labor. He was aware of the inappropriateness of the concept of economies of scale for representing the notion of economies of division of labor; he proposed a new concept of external economies of scale, and argued that external economies of scale are generated by division of labor in society as a whole rather than by the scale of a firm or a sector.1 External economies of scale imply that a firm’s productivity increases as the size of the whole economy or of a sector increases. But according to Allyn Young (1928), Marshall’s concept of external economies of scale is a misrepresentation of the classical concept of economies of division of labor. Since the end of the 1970s there has been a revival of the thinking based on the concept of economies of scale, represented by Dixit and Stiglitz (1977), Ethier (1982), Krugman (1979), Judd (1985), Romer (1986, 1990), Grossman and Helpman (1989, 1990), and Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989; hereafter designated “MSV”). Some of these works (such as some of Romer’s and Ethier’s models) follow Marshall’s idea about external economies of scale. But most of these works use the concepts of internal economies of scale and monopolistic competition. Internal economies of scale exist if a firm’s productivity increases as the size of the firm increases. Although the concept of economies of scale was considered misleading by Young, the research built upon the concept of economies of scale has achieved relative success in explaining many development phenomena, in comparison to conventional development models with constant returns to scale. In the new development models, the trade-off between economies of scale and benefits of a greater variety of goods is used to explain productivity progress in the absence of any exogenous technological changes. A consequence of this trade-off is that an increase in population size or in the size of the economy can enlarge the scope for trading-off economies of scale against the variety of goods in the market, so that both the variety of goods
132 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
and productivity may increase. In particular, Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989, 1991), Ciccone and Matsuyama (1996), and Matsuyama (1991) use this approach to analyze dual economies and industrialization. Their results, based on general equilibrium models with economies of scale and an endogenous number of goods, are more powerful than labor surplus models, and other general equilibrium models with constant returns to scale, in explaining dual economies, structural changes, and industrialization. Recently, Yang (1994), Krugman and Venables (1995), Fujita and Krugman (1995), Baldwin and Venables (1995), Puga and Venables (1998), and Wong and Yang (1998) have introduced transaction costs into general equilibrium models with economies of scale and endogenous number of goods. They show that the trade-off between economies of scale, economies of complementarity, and transaction costs can be used to explain dual economy, structural changes, industrialization, urbanization, productivity progress, and other development phenomena in the absence of exogenous technical changes. Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989) have developed general equilibrium models with economies of scale to explore the implications of multiplicity of equilibria for formalizing the ideas on big-push industrialization in the literature of high-development economics. Kelly (1997) and Sachs and Yang (1999) have introduced transaction costs into the MSV model to endogenize the number of modern versus traditional sectors. In this chapter, we study major models of these two types and compare them to conventional development models of structural duality, labor surplus, industrial linkage externality, and balanced versus unbalanced industrialization. This family of new general equilibrium models of economic development will also be compared with models in chapter 4 in connection to empirical evidence. Section 5.2 uses a simplified version of the Dixit–Stiglitz model to demonstrate basic algebra and illustrate intuition. Section 5.3 uses the Ethier model with transaction costs to analyze structural changes, industrial linkage, and other development phenomena. Section 5.4 uses a version of the MSV model to analyze the implications of multiple equilibria and economies of scale for big-push industrialization. Section 5.5 uses the Sachs–Yang model with transaction costs to study the relationship between evolution in the degree of industrialization and economic development.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n
n n
What are the differences between economies of scale and network effects of division of labor, and the implications of the differences for studies of economic development? What are the differences among the model of labor surplus with constant returns to scale, the equilibrium models with economies of scale and an endogenous number of goods, and the Smithian models with endogenous network size of division of labor? What are the relationships among circular causation, network effects of industrial linkage, big-push industrialization, and the notion of general equilibrium? What are various scale effects and why are they rejected by empirical observations?
5.2 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODELS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN ECONOMIES OF SCALE, CONSUMPTION VARIETY, AND TRANSACTION COSTS The Dixit and Stiglitz (DS) model (1977) is a general equilibrium model that endogenizes the number of consumption goods on the basis of the trade-off between economies of scale and consumption variety. The story behind this kind of model runs as follows. Consider an
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES Japan
US
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 133
Japan
1
2
3
4
x
y
x
y
2
1
(a) Two separate markets
US
x
3
z
4
y
(b) An integrated market
Figure 5.1 Economic development based on economies of scale
economy in which pure consumers prefer diverse consumption, while there are global economies of scale for pure producers (firms) in the production of each good. With the CES utility function, each good individually is not a necessity, so that the number of consumption goods is endogenized in equilibrium. A larger number of consumption goods, on the one hand, implies a higher level of direct utility because of the preference for diverse consumption; but on the other hand, the larger number may imply a lower level of indirect utility because of the higher prices of goods that are associated with smaller scales of production. The trade-off between economies of scale and consumption variety can be used to endogenize the number of consumption goods. As the size of the economy is increased, the scope for trading-off economies of scale against consumption variety is enlarged, so that the number of goods and per capita real income may increase concurrently. If the increase in the size of the economy is interpreted as the merging of two countries into an integrated market, or as the ad hoc opening of international trade between the two countries, then comparative statics of the neoclassical general equilibrium can be used to explore the implications of international trade for productivity, welfare, and consumption variety. We now use the following graph to illustrate the story. In figure 5.1 there are two countries: Japan and the US. In each country there are two individuals. Circles 1 and 2 represent two Japanese and circles 3 and 4 represent two Americans. In panel (a), there is no international trade between the two countries, and in each country there are two firms producing goods x and y, respectively. Each of the two firms sells its produce to each and every domestic consumer and hires one worker. In panel (b), the two countries have merged to form an integrated market, where a Japanese firm sells good x to each and every consumer in both countries, an American firm sells good y to each and every consumer in both countries, and a multinational firm sells a new good z to each and every consumer in both countries. Firm x hires 4/3 Japanese, firm y hires 4/3 Americans, and firm z hires 2/3 Japanese and 2/3 Americans. Hence, the average size of the firm in panel (b) is larger than in panel (a). This implies that the productivity of each firm in panel (b) is higher than in panel (a) because of global economies of scale in production. Also, each consumer in panel (b) consumes three goods, while each consumer in panel (a) consumes only two goods. Hence, international trade may increase per capita real income through two possible channels. It may increase the number of consumption goods for each consumer, and it may improve productivity and thereby reduce prices of all goods through the utilization of economies of scale.2 Gains from trade can arise between two ex ante identical countries in the absence of exogenous comparative advantage in technology and in endowments, and in the absence of differences in tastes between them. However, in order to realize those gains from trade, the two countries have to accept the shifting of workers between different sectors, which may cause temporary
134 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
unemployment in the transitional period. For instance, a Japanese who in panel (a) produces good y before international trade is opened up will lose her job as a producer of good y, and will take a new job in producing good z or x after international trade is opened up in panel (b). Symmetrically, an American who produces good x before the opening of international trade will lose her job as a producer of good x, and will take a new job to produce good z or y after the opening of international trade. Suppose the government, or some interest group, does not want to see the emergence of the new sector or the associated reallocation of labor, because they generate temporary unemployment in the transitional period. If the Japanese government implements an interventionist policy to protect the firm producing good y from bankruptcy caused by international trade, or if an American interest group successfully lobbies Congress to implement a similar policy, then coordination failure in utilizing the gains from international trade will take place. The function of the market, and of a liberalization policy that allows the market to fully play its role, is to avoid such coordination failure. Example 5.1: The Dixit–Stiglitz model with the trade-offs between economies of scale and consumption variety. Consider an economy with M identical consumers. Each of them has the following neoclassical decision problem for consumption: ⎛ n ⎞ Max: u = ⎜ ∑ xiρ ⎟ ⎝ i =1 ⎠
1/ρ
(utility function) (5.1)
n
∑px
s.t.
i i
=1
(budget constraint)
i =1
where pi is the price of good i in terms of labor, xi is the amount of good i that is consumed, n is the number of consumption goods, ρ ∈(0, 1) is the parameter of elasticity of substitution between each pair of consumption goods, and u is utility level. To avoid an integer problem, which may render differentiation impossible, many writers assume that the set of goods is a continuum. If the set of goods is a continuum, all signs for summation should be understood as those for integration. If we take the first-order condition for a continuous number of goods as a proxy for the first-order condition for the integer programming in the model with goods 1, 2, . . . , m, the result based on our discrete specification is equivalent to that based on a continuum of goods. It is assumed that each consumer is endowed with one unit of labor, which is the numeraire. Hence, each consumer’s income from selling one unit of labor is 1, her expenditure on good i n pi xi. Each consumer is a price taker and her decision is pi xi, and her total expenditure is ∑ i=1 variable is xi. It is assumed that the elasticity of substitution 1/(1 − ρ) > 1. It is easy to see that if the quantity of each good consumed is the same, then utility is an increasing function of the number of consumption goods, that is, u = (nx iρ)1/ρ and ∂u/∂n = (1/ρ)n(1−ρ)/ρxi > 0. We need the assumption ρ ∈(0, 1), since for ρ < 0, which implies 1/(1 − ρ) < 1, utility will be a decreasing function of the number of consumption, indicating that individuals do not prefer diverse consumption. If ρ > 1, it can be shown that the first-order conditions for the optimum decisions and market clearing conditions will yield a negative number of goods (see equation 5.8). The first-order conditions for the consumer’s decision problem are: (∂u/∂xi)/(∂u/∂xj) = pi/pj
and
(5.2a)
n
∑px
i i
i =1
=1
(5.2b)
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 135
(5.2a) is the rule that relative marginal utility equals relative price, which implies the Gossen rule (i.e., the marginal utility of a dollar spent on different goods is the same) as well as the rule that the marginal rate of substitution equals the relative price. Concretely, (5.2a) is: xj p −ρ/(1−ρ) pi xi = p1/(1−ρ) j i Summing up the two sides of the equation with respect to i, and using the budget constraint (5.2b), yields: 1 = ∑ pi xi = p1j/(1−ρ) xj ∑ pi−ρ/(1− ρ) i
i
From this equation, the demand function for good j can then be solved: ⎡ ⎤ xj = 1/ ⎢ p1j/(1− ρ) ∑ p iρ/(ρ −1) ⎥ = 1/np ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ i
(5.3)
where the second equality is obtained by using the symmetry condition pj = pi for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n. This can be expressed as:
ln xj = − [ln pj /(1 − ρ)] − ln ∑ p ρi /(ρ −1) i
where ∑ i p iρ/(ρ−1) includes one pj. Hence, the own price elasticity of demand for good j is: ∂ ln x j /∂ ln pj = − [1/(1− ρ)] − ∂ ln ∑ p ρi /(ρ −1) /∂ ln pj i
⎧ = − [1/(1−ρ)] − ⎨[ρ/(ρ − 1)] p1j /(1− ρ) ⎩
∑p i
ρ /( ρ −1) i
⎫ ⎬ ⎭
Using the symmetry condition pj = pi for all i, j = 1, 2, . . . n again, we obtain the Yang–Heijdra (YH, 1993) formula for the own price elasticity of demand in the DS model: ∂ ln xi/∂ ln pi = −[1/(1 − ρ)] + [ρ/(1 − ρ)n] = −(n − ρ)/(1 − ρ)n.
(5.4)
Dixit–Stiglitz (1977) made an ad hoc assumption that the number of goods is infinitely large, and accordingly ignored the term ρ/(1 − ρ)n, so that their expression for the elasticity is −1/(1 − ρ). Their assumption is not legitimate, since the number of goods in this model is endogenous and is very large only for a certain range of parameter values. The negative effect of international trade on prices cannot be worked out with their formula for the own price elasticity of demand. In exercise 6, you are asked to show that if the production function is homogeneous in the DS model, then the DS formula for own price elasticity of demand entails nonexistence of equilibrium. But if the YH formula is used, a well-defined equilibrium exists for a particular parameter subspace. Next, we consider the pure producers’ decision problems. Because of global increasing returns to scale, only one firm can survive in the market for a good. If there are two firms producing the same good, one of them can always increase output to reduce price by utilizing further economies of scale, thereby driving the other firm out of the market. Therefore, the
136 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
monopolist can manipulate the interaction between quantity and price to choose a profitmaximizing price. Freedom to produce new goods, however, is assumed. This will drive to zero the profit of a marginal firm that has the lowest profit. Any positive profit of the marginal firm will invite a potential entrepreneur to set up a new firm to produce a differentiated good. For a symmetric model, this condition implies zero profit for all firms. This significantly simplifies the algebra and makes the DS model attractive. Assume that the production function of good j is: Xj = (Lj − a)/b, so that the labor cost function of good j is: Lj = bXj + a
(5.5)
The first-order condition for the monopolist to maximize profit with respect to output level and price implies that: MR = pj[1 + 1/(∂lnxi/∂lnpi)] = MC = b where MR and MC stand for marginal revenue and marginal cost, respectively. Inserting the expression for the own price elasticity of demand ∂lnxi /∂lnpi, given in (5.4), into the first-order condition yields: pj = b(n − ρ)/ρ(n − 1).
(5.6)
The zero-profit condition implies: pj Xj = bXj + a.
(5.7)
The general equilibrium is given by (5.3a), (5.6), (5.7), and the market clearing condition Mx = X, which involve the unknowns p, n, x, X. Here, the subscripts of variables are skipped because of symmetry. Hence, the general equilibrium and its comparative statics are: n = ρ + [M(1 − ρ)/a],
dn/dM > 0,
dn/dt < 0
p = bM/ρ[M − a],
dp/dM < 0,
dp/dt > 0
x = ρ[M − a]/bM[(1 − ρ)M + (1 + t)ρ],
dx/dt < 0
X = Mx,
dX/dt < 0
dX/dM > 0,
u = ρ{[(1 − ρ)M/a] + ρ}
[M − a]/bM,
(1−ρ)/ρ
(5.8)
du/dM > 0.
It can be shown that the equilibrium labor productivity of each good is the reciprocal of the equilibrium price of each good. Comparative statics substantiate the story presented in the first part of this section, that is, the equilibrium number of consumption goods, productivity of each good, and per capita real income increase and the price of each good falls as the size of the economy increases. Now, let us compare the DS model with the neoclassical models with constant returns to scale and with the Smithian models in chapter 4. First, the DS model can generate gains from trade even if all countries are ex ante identical, or even if exogenous comparative advantage is
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 137
absent. The gains from trade based on economies of scale are referred to by Grossman and Helpman (1990) as acquired comparative advantage. Hence, Krugman (1979) applies the DS model to explain the Linder pattern of trade, which suggests that trade volume between ex ante similar developed countries is much greater than that between ex ante different developed and less-developed economies. The Linder pattern of trade is inconsistent with the neoclassical trade model with constant returns to scale and with the theory of exogenous comparative advantage, which predicts that trade volume is greater between ex ante different countries than between similar countries. Second, the DS model predicts that an increase in population size has positive effects on economic development because of economies of scale. This prediction is referred to as type I scale effect. Type I scale effect is consistent with the data of the early economic development of the US, Australia, and New Zealand, and with Hong Kong’s data after the Second World War. In contrast, Solow’s neoclassical growth model and other neoclassical models with constant returns to scale predict that an increase in population will have a negative impact on economic growth. This prediction is consistent with the data of many African countries and with the prereform data in China and India. The National Research Council (1986) and Dasgupta (1995) reject the type I scale effect on the grounds of empirical evidence. The model can simultaneously explain the equilibrium number of goods and per capita real income by the size of an economy, and has more explanatory power than many neoclassical models with a fixed number of goods. If we define the extent of the market as the product of per capita aggregate market demand for all goods and population size, then the DS model has endogenized the extent of the market. Since each pure consumer’s aggregate demand for all goods is determined by the number of goods, the DS model has endogenized the extent of the market by endogenizing the number of goods. Many economists use this feature of the DS model to explain aggregate demand and related macroeconomic phenomena. If we define the level of division of labor by each individual’s level of specialization, the number of traded goods in society, and the degree of production roundaboutness, then the DS model has endogenized one aspect of division of labor: the number of traded goods. However, it has not endogenized individuals’ levels of specialization and production roundaboutness. Let us examine the implications of the difference between the DS model and the Smithian model. Assume, in figure 5.1(a), that each of consumers 1 and 2 sells half her labor to each of the two Japanese firms. Since obviously, this implies that each individual is not specialized, we call this allocation of labor a pattern of nonspecialization. Suppose, alternatively, that each of the two consumers sells all her labor to a firm. Since now each individual is completely specialized, we call this allocation of labor a pattern of complete specialization. In the general equilibrium of the DS model, the two patterns of labor allocation generate the same values of all endogenous variables (relative prices, output levels, productivity of each good, and consumption of each good by each person), since the two patterns of division of labor generate the same scale of each firm. In other words, individuals’ levels of specialization in equilibrium are not well-defined, so that individuals’ levels of specialization have no productivity implications. In this kind of model, productivity is determined by the scale of firms rather than by individuals’ levels of specialization. Hence, the DS model cannot explain individuals’ levels of specialization. As a result, many interesting development phenomena that are explained by the Smithian models, such as evolution in division of labor and specialization and the emergence of the firm, money, and business cycles, cannot be predicted by the DS model. In the DS model, separate markets, as indicated in figure 5.1(a), can never exist in equilibrium if transaction conditions are the same between all individuals, because of the positive effect of population size on per capita real income, and because of the fact that each pure consumer will buy all goods that are produced. Hence, the DS model cannot endogenize the degree of market integration. In contrast, Smithian models in examples 7.1 and 7.2 have endogenized the degree
138 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
of market integration and the emergence of international trade from domestic trade. Therefore, the Smithian model is referred to by Smythe (1994) as endogenous trade theory. Moreover, the population size does not play an active and positive role in promoting productivity in a Smithian model, where productivity is determined by the level of division of labor, which is determined by transaction efficiency. Hence, high transaction efficiency, due to a good legal system, explains productivity progress in Hong Kong, the US, and Australia, where population growth passively provides more scope for evolution in division of labor (i.e., the number of different occupations cannot exceed population size). The low transaction efficiency in prereform China and India and in some African countries explains the low per capita real income that coexists with a large population size. In a Smithian model, productivity progress and the emergence of new goods and technology in equilibrium can be achieved by the merging of many separate local communities into an increasingly more integrated network of division of labor, even if the population size is fixed. Hence, the Smithian model does not have a scale effect. Empirical evidence against the DS model is provided by Liu and Yang (2000), who show that productivity increases and the average size of firms decreases in many countries. In contrast, the DS model predicts that productivity goes up if and only if the average size of firms increases. This is referred to as type II scale effect. But the DS model may be extended to endogenize the degree of market integration by appropriately specifying a fixed transaction cost in setting up a trade connection or by specifying differences of transaction conditions between international and domestic trade, between countries, or between firms. Example 6.3 illustrates how this can be done. Ethier extends the DS model to endogenize the number of producer goods and productivity by specifying a tradeoff between economies of scale in producing producer goods and economies of complementarity between the producer goods in raising productivity of the final good. This kind of model can be used to explain dual economy and structural changes in economic development. The next section illustrates how this can be achieved.
5.3 THE ETHIER MODEL WITH TRANSACTION COSTS Before you become mired in the algebra and lose your capacity for economic thinking, let us first outline the story behind the model. There are two final consumption goods in an economy with M identical consumers. One of them is food that is produced by labor, with constant returns to scale technology. The other is a manufactured good that is produced from a composite producer good and labor, with a production function of constant returns to scale. The composite producer good is a CES function of quantities of many producer goods. There are economies of complementarity between the producer goods in raising productivity of the final manufactured good. Hence, total factor productivity of the final manufactured good is an increasing function of the number of producer goods employed. There are global economies of scale in producing each producer good. The markets for the two final goods are competitive, while the market for producer goods is monopolistically competitive. If transaction costs are introduced into the economy, there is a trade-off between economies of scale and transaction costs, in addition to the trade-off between economies of scale and economies of complementarity. As the population size increases, the scope for trading-off one against others among economies of scale, economies of complementarity, and transaction costs is enlarged in the market. Hence, the number of producer goods increases, productivity of producer goods increases, and per capita real income increases. In particular, through the linkage between the final manufacturing sector and the intermediate sector, the labor price of the final manufactured
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 139
good declines, the total factor productivity of the manufactured good rises, and the relative output level of the manufacturing sector to the agricultural sector increases. Due to the tradeoff between economies of scale and transaction cost, improvements in transaction conditions will generate a decrease in the labor price of the manufactured good and an increase in relative output of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. The effects of an increase in population size on the general equilibrium productivity and relative output of the industrial and agricultural sectors are similar to development implications of labor surplus in the labor surplus model. However, an exogenous change in technology in the industrial sector and the ad hoc disequilibrium labor price are essential for structural changes in the labor surplus model. In contrast, in the Ethier model, structural changes can take place in the absence of any exogenous technical changes and of disequilibrium labor price. Compared to rough conjecture on the role of linkage between different sectors in economic development, the Ethier model explores the general equilibrium nature of economic linkage between the final manufacturing sector and the intermediate sector, as well as the implications of the linkage for economic development and structural changes. In many rough conjectures on the role of industrial linkages in industrialization (see, for instance, Rosenstein-Rodan 1943, Nurkse 1953), demand and supply of a sector depend on production conditions in another sector. The “external effects” of the linkage may be ignored by the market, or cannot be utilized because of coordination failure in a decentralized market. Hence, the government’s industrial policies may promote industrialization and economic development. In the general equilibrium model of this section, we shall show not only that demand and supply of each sector depend on demand and supply of each other sector, but also that prices and quantities are interdependent. In addition, there are infinite feedback loops between sectors, between prices and quantities, and between decisions of all players. The very function of the market is to transmit information about the interdependencies based on industrial linkages. The function of the market is much more powerful than we realize, and much more powerful than the government’s capacity to figure out the implications of the linkages. This prediction of the Ethier model is different from conventional wisdom related to debates on balanced versus unbalanced industrialization. Some development economists argue that because of interdependencies of different industrial sectors, government policy should promote balanced and big-push industrialization (see Lewis 1955, Nurkse 1953, Rosenstein-Rodan 1943, Scitovsky 1954, Thirwall 1994). Other development economists argue that because of the effects of linkage, a policy to promote unbalanced industrialization should be adopted (see Streeten 1959, Hirschman 1958). If we interpret the increase in productivity and in the number of industrial sectors as industrialization, then the Ethier model shows that the essential conditions for successful industrialization are a large population size in an integrated world market and favorable transaction conditions. These conditions can be provided through liberalization, internalization, and open-door policies. If transaction conditions are unfavorable and the population size in the integrated world market is small, then the equilibrium productivity is low and the number of professional industrial sectors is small, because of the trade-offs between economies of scale, economies of linkage complementarity, and transaction costs. According to this model, many conventional industrial policies that manipulate industrial structure via increasing transaction costs are detrimental to economic development. Example 5.2: The Ethier model with an endogenous number of producer goods and transaction costs. Consider an economy with M identical consumers. A representative consumer’s decision problem is: Max: u = (kz)1−α (ty)α
s.t.
py y + pz z = 1
(5.9)
140 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
where u is a consumer’s utility level, y is the quantity of the agricultural good consumed (such as food), z is the quantity of the manufactured consumption good (such as a car), and k and t are respective transaction efficiency coefficients of the agricultural and manufactured goods. Each consumer is endowed with one unit of labor, which is the numeraire. The size of the labor force (which is the population size as well) is M and the price of good i in terms of labor is pi. The demand functions for the two goods are: Y d = My d, y d = α/py,
Z d = Mz d, z d = (1 − α)/pz
(5.10)
where Z d and Y d are respective market demand and z d and y d are respective individual demand for the two goods. A representative firm of food producers maximizes the following profit subject to a given set of prices of goods and factors and a production function with constant returns to scale: Max: πy = pyY s − L yd ,
s.t.
Y s = AL yd
(5.11)
where Y s is the output level of y, and L yd is the amount of labor allocated to the production of food. The equilibrium conditions in the market for z are: p *y = 1/A
(zero-profit condition for good y)
Y* = Y s = Y d = α AM
(equilibrium quantity of y)
L = αM
(equilibrium quantity of labor employed to produce y)
d y
(5.12)
where Y s is market supply, which is determined by market demand Y d, Y* is the equilibrium quantity of good y, L dy is the equilibrium quantity of labor employed to produce y, and p*y is the equilibrium labor price of good y. A representative car manufacturer maximizes the following profit, subject to a given set of prices of goods and factors and a production function displaying constant returns to scale and economies of complementarity between different producer goods employed to produce cars: β/ρ
n
Max: πz = pz Z − ∑ pi xi − Lz , i =1
s.t.
⎤ ⎡n Z = ⎢∑ (kxi )ρ ⎥ L1z−β ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ i =1
(5.13)
where k is the transaction efficiency coefficient of each producer good, xi can be considered as all kinds of professional machine tools, and the elasticity of substitution 1/(1 − ρ) is assumed to be larger than one, that is, ρ ∈(0, 1). Since the total factor productivity of z increases with the number of specialized machine tools n, this production function displays economies of complementarity between producer goods employed to produce z. The elasticity of substitution increases with ρ and the degree of economies of complementarity between different producer goods inversely relates to the elasticity of substitution. Hence, 1/ρ can be interpreted as the degree of economies of complementarity. For the decision problem with constant returns to scale, only two of the zero-profit condition and the two first-order conditions for xi and Lz are independent. We can use the two first-order conditions, ∂πz/∂Lz = ∂πz/∂xi = 0, to establish the connection between the quantity of labor demanded and the quantity of x demanded. Lzd = (1 − β)pxnx/β
(5.14)
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 141
where the symmetry of the model is used. Using the zero-profit condition in producing z and (5.14), we can obtain an expression of pz Z in terms of px x: pz Z = px nx/β.
(5.15)
Using the production function of z and (5.14), we can obtain another expression of pz Z pz Z = pz nβ(1−ρ)/ρ(kx)β[(1 − β)px nx/β]1−β.
(5.16)
Let the two expressions be equal. We can then establish a connection between the equilibrium prices of z and x. pz = p xβ/n β(1−ρ)/ρ(1 − β)1−β(kβ)β.
(5.17)
If this condition is not satisfied, then the firm will either not produce z or demand an infinitely great amount of labor, which is incompatible with equilibrium due to limited supply of labor. Using (5.15) and the demand function for y in (5.10), we have: px nx = β(1 − α)M
(5.18)
where M is the population size. The firm selling producer good i maximizes the following profit with respect to the price and quantity of good i, subject to a given production function with global economies of scale: Max: πix = pi Xi − Lix,
s.t.
Xi = (Lix − a)/b,
or
Lix = a + bXi
(5.19)
where Xi is the quantity of good i supplied by the monopolist and Lix is the amount of labor hired by the firm producing good i. All decision problems for firms selling other n − 1 producer goods are symmetric to (5.19). Due to the complete symmetry of the model, we will skip subscript i when no confusion is caused. The market for producer goods is monopolistically competitive. Using Yang–Heijdra’s formula in (5.4), the own price elasticity of the demand for producer good i is: E ≡ ∂ log xi /∂ log pi = −(n − ρ)/(1 − ρ)n. The first-order condition MR = MC for a producer of a producer good yields MR = px[1 + (1/E )] = b = MC, or: px = (n − ρ)b/(n − 1)ρ.
(5.20)
This, together with the zero-profit condition AC = [(a/X ) + b] = px, yields: nX = (n − 1)ρa/b(1 − ρ).
(5.21)
Letting x in (5.18) equal X in (5.21), the two equations yield: px = β(1 − α)(1 − ρ)bM/a(n − 1)ρ.
(5.22)
142 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
(5.20) and (5.22) imply: n = ρ + β(1 − α)(1 − ρ)M/a.
(5.23)
Inserting (5.23) back into (5.22) yields the equilibrium value of px. Plugging this value into (5.17) yields the equilibrium labor price of z. Differentiating this expression of the equilibrium price of z with respect k and M, respectively, we have: dpz/dM < 0
and
dpz/dk < 0.
(5.24)
We are interested in the effects of changes in the population size M and transaction efficiency k on the number of producer goods n, prices of goods, relative size of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, productivity, and per capita real income. Let us use (5.10) to (5.24) to work out the equilibrium expressions of the variables: Rzy = Y/Z = (1 − α)/αApz,
n = ρ + β(1 − α)(1 − ρ)bM/a, TFPz = nβ/ρ,
LPy = A,
px = β(1 − α)bM/ρ[bMβ(1 − ρ)(1 − α) − a],
LPx = X/(a + bX) = ρ(n − 1)/b(n − ρ) = ρ[β(1 − ρ)(1 − α)M − a]/β(1 − α)bM,
(5.25)
u = (αtA)α[k(1 − α)/p1−α z ] where TFPz is the total factor productivity of good z, LPj is the labor productivity of producer good j, Rzy is relative output level of final manufactured goods and agricultural good, and u is equilibrium per capita real income (i.e., utility). Comparative statics of the equilibrium are summarized as follows: dpx/dM < 0, dpz/dM < 0,
(5.26a) dpz/dk < 0,
(5.26b)
dpy/dM = 0,
(5.26c)
dn/dM > 0,
(5.26d)
dTFPz /dM = (dTFPz /dn)(dn/dM) > 0, dRzy /dM = (dRzy/dpz)(dpz/dM) > 0, du/dM = (du/dpz)(dpz/dM) > 0,
dLPx /dM > 0,
(5.26e)
dRzy /dk = (dRzy /dpz)(dpz/dk) > 0,
(5.26f)
du/dk = (∂u/∂pz)(dpz/dk) + (∂u/∂k) > 0,
(5.26g)
where (5.26d) is used to derive (5.26e), and (5.26b) is from (5.24) and is used to derive (5.26f) and (5.26g). (5.26) yields the following proposition. Proposition 5.1: The equilibrium labor prices of the industrial goods (z and x) decrease, the equilibrium total factor productivity of the manufactured good and labor productivity of producer goods increase, the equilibrium relative output level of the industrial and agricultural sectors increases, and the equilibrium level of per capita real income increases as the population size increases. The labor price of the manufactured good decreases, and relative output level of the industrial and agricultural sectors and per capita real income increase as transaction efficiency of industrial goods is improved.
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
x1
x2 x1
y y y
x2
x3
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 143
x1
x2
x3
x4
x2
z z y
x1
OF
y z
(a) n = 2
z
z
y
z (b) n = 3
y
z (c) n = 4
Figure 5.2 Structural changes, industrialization, and economic development in the Ethier model
If we interpret the increase in the number of producer goods and related productivity progress and emergence of new goods as industrialization, the model is more powerful than conventional development models in explaining economic development, industrialization, and related structural changes. It can predict the following concurrent phenomena of economic development as transaction conditions are improved or as the population size in the integrated world market increases. Productivity of the final manufactured goods and intermediate goods increases, the number of producer goods increases as new producer goods emerge, relative output of the industrial and agricultural sectors increases, relative price of the industrial and agricultural goods decreases, and per capita real income increases. According to this model, the best policy to promote industrialization and economic development is to pursue liberalization, internalization, and openness, which improve transaction conditions, reduce trade barriers, and increase the population size in the integrated world market. The topological properties of the linkage network in the Ethier model cannot be appreciated from standard graphs of demand and supply curves. Hence, we use figure 5.2 to highlight economic development and structural changes predicted by that model. In figure 5.2, each circle with xi represents workers producing a producer good, a circle with z represents farmers producing the agricultural good, a circle with y represents workers producing the final manufactured good, thin lines represent goods flows, and thick lines represent the path of structural change in economic development caused by an increase in population size in the integrated world market or by improvements in transaction conditions. From the graphs and the specification of the model, it is clear that the whole economy is always integrated and each individual’s level of specialization is not endogenized. This model cannot explain the following development phenomena. From (5.12), (5.15), and (5.18), it can be shown that the income shares of the final manufacturing sector, the intermediate sector, and agricultural sector in terms of value of labor are (1 − α)(1 − β), (1 − α)β, and α, respectively. They are independent of transaction condition, population size, and production conditions. Hence, the process of transferring labor from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector as an aspect of industrialization cannot be predicted by the model in the absence of changes of relative tastes. Note that relative physical output Rzy in (5.25) and (5.26) is different from relative value and relative employment. The former can be explained by transaction conditions and population size, but the latter does not change in the absence of exogenous changes in relative tastes in the model. More importantly, the equilibrium degree of market integration, individuals’ levels of specialization, and the degree of commercialization never change in this model. Similar to the DS model, this model generates type I scale effect that is rejected by empirical evidence. Casual observations indicate that there are increasing returns to specialization and division of labor in the agricultural sector. The level of division of labor in the agricultural sector evolves over time, although this evolution is slower than in the industrial sector. It is ad hoc to assume that
144 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
agricultural production does not have increasing returns and cannot use roundabout productive machines and tractors. Hence, the model in this section does not provide a convincing description of a mechanism for economic development. It has a higher degree of endogenization than do the conventional development models, but it cannot formalize Smith’s conjecture about the intimate relationship between an increase in income share of the industrial sector and evolution of division of labor. According to Smith, this increase is not caused by relative taste change or by exogenous technical changes. Rather, it is caused by a faster evolution of division of labor in the industrial sector, which has lower transaction costs and seasonal coordination costs than does the agricultural sector. We will formalize this conjecture in chapter 12.
5.4 THE MURPHY–SHLEIFER–VISHNY (MSV) MODEL OF BIG-PUSH INDUSTRIALIZATION Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989) are among the economists who first realized the implications of the equilibrium model with global economies of scale for exploring the coordination problem in industrialization process pertinent to the work of Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Fleming (1955), Nurkse (1952), Scitovsky (1954), and others. Their model of big-push industrialization has two distinct features: (a) Each good can be produced using either a cottage technology with constant returns to scale or a modern technology with a fixed cost that generates global economies of scale. This implies that the price of any good is determined by the zero-profit condition for the cottage firm, so that prices cannot transmit information about modern firms’ production conditions to consumers. This price misinformation may generate distortions. (b) All firms choosing modern technology make a decision on entry into production, given other modern firms’ entry decisions. Two equilibria may coexist. In one of them, all modern firms are active, so that their profit creates income for owners who can sustain the market for goods produced by all modern firms. In the other, all modern firms are inactive, so that income from zero profit cannot support a sufficiently large market for any good produced by a single modern firm. Hence, staying out of the market is the optimum decision for each modern firm. In other words, the expectation of others’ decisions is self-fulfilled. Example 5.3: The Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny model of big-push industrialization. There is a continuum of goods with mass 1. Two types of production functions are available to any firm in producing each good. Xj = Lj is a traditional technology in producing good j. Xj = (Lj − F)/b is a modern technology in producing good j, where Xj is the output level and Lj is the amount of labor employed in producing good j. F is a fixed production cost and b is a variable labor cost in producing a good. A worker in a cottage firm has the decision problem: Max: uc = exp
1
ln x(q)dq] 0
1
subject to the budget constraint
p(q)x(q)dq = yc = (Π/L) + wc ,
0
where each consumer is endowed with one unit of labor, yc is a cottage worker’s income, and wc is her wage rate. Assume that the cottage worker’s labor is the numeraire, so that wc = 1. Π is the total dividend, which equals the total profit of n modern firms. It is assumed that ownership of firms is equally distributed among the population. Here, n ∈[0, 1] and Π = nπ, where π is each active modern firm’s profit. The population size is assumed to be L. The decision problem for a worker in a modern firm is:
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
⎡ Max: um = exp ⎢ ⎢ ⎣
1
0
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 145
⎤ ln x(q)dq⎥ − v, ⎥ ⎦
1
subject to the budget constraint
p(q)x(q)dq = ym = (Π/L) + w,
0
where ym is a modern worker’s income and w is her wage rate relative to a cottage worker’s wage rate, and v is a utility loss when one works in the modern sector. The two utility maximization problems generate indirect utility functions for the two types of workers. Let the indirect utility functions be equal. We can then obtain equation (6) in MSV (1989a, p. 1011). Hence, we have: w = 1 + v,
yc = (Π/L) + 1,
ym = (Π/L) + w.
Let the amount of labor allocated to a modern firm be Lm. The amount of labor allocated to cottage production is then Lc = L − nLm, where L is total labor supply or population size. The demand function for each good is: x = y/p = y = Lc yc + nLm ym. Because of constant returns to scale for a cottage firm, and free entry for any cottage firm into the production of any good, an active cottage firm receives zero profit, and the price of any good in terms of a cottage worker’s wage rate is p = 1. A modern firm maximizes: π = px − wLm = y(α − 1 − v) − F(1 + v) = (Lm − F)(α − 1 − v) − F(1 + v), where p = 1, x = α(Lm − F) is the production function, x = y is aggregate demand for the good produced by a modern firm, w = 1 + v, and y is aggregate income. This is equation (6) in MSV (1989a, p. 1012). To see the feedback loop between profit, income, demand, and production, note that y = Lc yc+ nLm ym = Lc[(πn/L) + 1] + nLm[(πn/L) + w] = L + πn + nLmv. This implies that income depends on profit, while the above expression of profit suggests that profit depends on demand, which is in turn determined by income. The following features of the MSV model differentiate it from other equilibrium models with global economies of scale and monopolistic competition. In the MSV model, global economies of scale in a modern sector imply that each active modern firm is a monopolist. But this monopolist takes the price of its produce as given because of the existence of a competitive fringe of firms. In the MSV model, there are infinite equilibria within a certain parameter subspace. If all other modern firms choose not to produce, a modern firm’s optimum decision is not to produce. Hence, no industrialization is an equilibrium. If all other modern firms choose to operate, a modern firm’s optimum decision is to operate. This is another equilibrium of complete industrialization. Finally there is a zero-profit equilibrium in which a measure of modern firms n ∈ (0, 1) produce positive quantities of their goods. Since which firms produce and which do not in any of this kind of zero-profit equilibria is indeterminate and the number of firms is a continuum, there are infinite equilibria. We now consider the three types of equilibria one by one. Suppose that Lm = 0 and n = 0 (i.e., no industrialization), so that each consumer receives one unit of income and y = L. Hence, profit is negative if and only if: L < Fα(1 + v)/(α − 1 − v).
(5.27)
146 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
This implies that if (5.27) holds, any individual modern firm that unilaterally industrializes receives negative profit, provided all other modern firms are not active. Hence, the equilibrium is n = 0 (no industrialization) if (5.27) holds. If all modern firms produce, then nLm = L, Lc = 0, n = 1, and the profit becomes: π = px − wLm = α(L − F) − L(1 + v) which is positive, if and only if L > Fα/(α − 1 − v). This implies that for n = 1 (i.e., complete industrialization), any individual modern firm’s profit is positive if L > Fα/(α − 1 − v). But there is no more room for further industrialization, because the upper bound of n is 1. Therefore, for L ∈(Fα/(α − 1 − v), Fα(1 + v)/(α − 1 − v)), there are at least two equilibria. One of them is n = 0 and π = 0, and the other is n = 1 and π > 0. Since the equilibrium prices of all goods are the same between the two equilibria, but per capita income is higher in complete industrialization than in the equilibrium with nonindustrialization, it can be shown that for L ∈(Fα/(α − 1 − v), Fα(1 + v)/(α − 1 − v)), the equilibrium with n = 1 is Pareto superior to the equilibrium with n = 0. Indeed, there are many other equilibria that generate zero profit for all firms. Letting the profit equal 0 yields: Lm = Fα/(α − 1 − v).
(5.28)
Using the labor market clearing condition Lc + nLm = L, we can find: Lc = [(α − 1 − v)L − Fnα]/(α − 1 − v).
(5.29)
Inserting Lm, given by (5.28), into the production function for a modern firm x = α(Lm − F) yields the quantity supplied by the modern firm. Inserting (5.28) and (5.29) into the demand function for a good, x = y = Lc yc + nLm ym, we can get the quantity demanded, where yc = (Π/L) + 1 = 1 and ym = (Π/L) + (1 + v) = 1 + v. Letting demand equal supply, we can find the zeroprofit equilibrium: n = [(1 + v)/v] − [(α − 1 − v)L/vFα], which is between 0 and 1 if L ∈(Fα/(α − 1 − v), Fα(1 + v)/(α − 1 − v)). The zero-profit equilibrium generates the same welfare as in the equilibrium of non-industrialization, since the cottage worker receives the same utility in the two equilibria and utility is equalized between the two types of workers in the zero-profit equilibrium. The existence of the multiple equilibria can be used to tell the story of big-push industrialization. Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny suggest that if the government coordinates simultaneous investment in all modern sectors, the development trap (i.e., bad equilibrium) can be avoided. This model does not suggest the necessity of government intervention. It implies that the theory cannot predict which equilibrium will occur. If the good equilibrium occurs, government intervention is not needed. It cannot explain why the bad equilibrium has occurred in some African countries while the good one occurred in Britain, which reduced government regulations in the nineteenth century. The possibility for a Pareto inefficient equilibrium to occur is due to the misinformation of price signals in this model. The equilibrium price is determined by the zero-profit condition of cottage firms, so that it cannot transmit information on the production conditions of modern firms to consumers. Hence, consumers may allocate too much of their income to buy goods produced by cottage firms. If the population size is large enough to overcome the misinformation or if L > Fα(1 + v)/ (α − 1 − v), then government intervention is not needed, since unique good equilibrium is n = 1 for that case. As population size increases from a low level to reach the threshold value Fα/(α − 1 − v), the equilibrium degree of industrialization may discontinuously jump from n = 0
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 147
to n = 1 (i.e., big-push industrialization). Consider the parameter subspace L ∈(Fα/(α − 1 − v), Fα(1 + v)/(α − 1 − v)), within which there are multiple equilibria. This kind of multiple equilibria and associated inefficiencies are substantially different from the coordination problems in the prisoners’ dilemma or other models with interest conflicts between decision makers. (See chapters 3 and 9 for models with interest conflicts that generate endogenous transaction costs.) Here, there is no interest conflict between self-interested decisions. Nobody benefits from a bad equilibrium. Nobody suffers, and all consumers and modern firms gain, from a good equilibrium. Hence, a simple talk between entrepreneurs in an industrial association is enough to sort out the coordination problem. And hence, the government’s job is to ensure free association, so that such talk can spontaneously occur. There are many other ways to avoid multiplicity of equilibria. If a modern firm can differentiate its produce from that produced by a cottage firm, the misinformation of price signals can be avoided, so that multiplicity of equilibria may also be avoided. Second, the number of active modern sectors is not endogenized in the MSV model. If that number is endogenized by specifying that the trade-off is between economies of scale and transaction costs, multiplicity of equilibrium may be avoided. Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989a, p. 1003) suggest that transaction cost may be a cause of the development trap. Kelly introduces transaction costs into the MSV model and uses the zero-profit condition to endogenize the number of active modern sectors and the degree of market integration. But because of the zero-profit condition, consumers cannot obtain information from the feedback loop between positive dividend earnings and economies of scale. Hence, consumers’ utility will not increase as the number of active modern sectors increases. In other words, benefits from industrialization are completely eaten up by transaction costs. Sachs and Yang (1999) have devised a method to specify the zero-profit condition for the marginal modern firm and to keep positive profits for other active modern firms. This can endogenize the number of active modern sectors, while keeping the original flavor of the feedback loop between dividend earnings and economies of scale which can be exploited in the MSV model.
5.5 THE SACHS AND YANG MODEL WITH ECONOMIES OF SCALE, ENDOGENOUS DEGREE OF INDUSTRIALIZATION, AND TRANSACTION COSTS Example 5.4: The Sachs and Yang Model (1999). Following MSV, we assume that the set of consumption goods produced by the industrial sector is a continuum with mass M. Each of L consumer-worker-owners has the same CES utility function. Their decision problem is:
⎡ Max: u = ⎢ ⎢ ⎣
m
0
⎤ x( j )ρ dj ⎥ 1/ρ, s.t. ⎥ ⎦
m
p( j )x( j )dj = I = (π + w)
0
where j ∈[0, m] is an industrial good, x( j) is the quantity of good j consumed, and p( j) is the price of good j. Each consumer endowed with one unit of labor has income I, which consists of dividend earning π and wage income w. Labor is assumed to be the numeraire, so that w = 1. Ownership of all firms is equally shared by all consumers. As in the MSV model, p( j) = 1 for all j in equilibrium. Hence, the optimum quantity demanded of good j is the same for all j. Using the symmetry, the solution to the consumer’s decision problem can be found as follows: x = I/m.
148 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
The total market demand is: X d = IL/m = (Π + L)/m,
Π = πL,
(5.30)
where Π is total dividend earning, which is equal to total profit. We now consider the production of x. For each industrial good, there are two available technologies. The modern one exhibits economies of scale, and the traditional one displays constant returns to scale. Because of the existence of the traditional technology, the labor prices of all industrial goods are always 1, so that the quantity demanded is the same for all industrial goods. The production function of the modern sector producing good j is: xj = (Lj − Fj)/b,
F0 = δ,
Fj = γ j > δ for j ∈(0, m)
(5.31)
where xj is the quantity supplied, Lj is the amount of labor allocated to the production of the industrial good, and Fj is the fixed production cost of good j. We assume that the fixed cost differs across modern sectors and that the industrial goods are indexed according to their fixed costs. Industrial good 0 has the smallest fixed cost δ, which is a very small positive number, industrial good m has the largest fixed cost γm, and for j ∈(0, m), Fj = γ j ∈(δ, γm). Here, γ can be considered as a general production condition parameter. As γ decreases, the fixed costs for any modern sector j decrease. A large value of Fj implies that the modern sector j needs a high investment in fixed costs before a positive output can be produced. Hence, index j can be considered as an index of capital intensity of the modern sectors. We assume further that there is a variable transaction cost for each modern firm. The transaction condition differs across countries. The transaction cost incurred by a modern firm in country i is: Ci = ci xj ,
c1 = s,
ci = μi > s for i = 2, 3, . . . , M,
(5.32)
where i = 1, 2, . . . ; M is an index of countries; s, a very small positive number, is the transaction cost coefficient for country 1; and xj is the output level of modern sector j, which is the same in any country and in any sector, as we have shown. The specification implies that two factors determine the transaction cost coefficient: a general transaction condition μ, and a country-specific transaction condition represented by index i. For a larger i, the transaction cost coefficient ci is larger. A country’s geographical condition and institutional and cultural tradition determine its ranking index i. For any given i, the transaction cost coefficient ci decreases as μ decreases. A decrease in μ can be caused by worldwide changes in transportation technology or institutions. We may consider country 1 as the most developed country and country M as the most underdeveloped country. The profit of firm j in country i is: πij = xj − Lj − cixj = (1 − μi − b)xj − γ j
(5.33)
where xj = X d/(1 − ci) is determined by the market clearing condition and demand function given in (5.30). Total dividend earning is equal to total profit of n active modern firms: n
Π=
π dj ij
(5.34)
0
where n ∈(0, m) is endogenously determined. Plugging this expression for total dividend earning into (5.30), total market demand for the good produced by modern firm j can be found as:
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 149
xj = (Π + L)/m
(5.35)
where the number of all industrial goods is m, and the number of active traditional sectors is m − n. (5.33) to (5.35) nicely capture the feedback loop between income, demand, and production conditions. They also capture the idea of big-push industrialization. If the transaction cost is 0, then as more modern firms operate (i.e., n increases), dividend earning and income increase and demand increases, which makes more modern firms profitable. Hence, as population size reaches a threshold level, the equilibrium number of modern sectors, n, jumps from 0 to its upper bound m. But in our model, transaction costs counteract the positive feedback between the extent of the market and economies of scale that can be exploited, so that industrialization may occur gradually as the transaction conditions are improved. Inserting (5.35) into (5.33), then inserting the resulting expression into (5.34), we can conduct integration and then express total income Π + L as a function of n: Π + L = (L − 0.5γn2 )m/[m − αn(1 − b − μi )]
(5.36)
where L − 0.5γ n2 > 0 and m − αn(1 − b − μi)] > 0 are required by positive income. We now consider the zero-profit condition for the most capital-intensive active modern sector n. Letting j equal n in (5.33) and πn = 0, we get the zero-profit condition, πn = (1 − b − μi)xj − γn = 0. Inserting the demand function, given in (5.35), into the zero-profit condition for the marginal active modern firm generates another expression of Π + L: Π + L = γmn/(1 − b − μi)
(5.37)
where 1 − b − μi > 0 is required by positive income. (5.36) and (5.37) together generate the following equation, which gives the equilibrium number of active modern firms n as a function of parameters γ, μ, L, b, i. f (n, α, γ, μ, L, b, i ) = An2 − bn + D = 0
(5.38)
where A ≡ 0.5αγ [1 − b/(1 − μi )], B ≡ γm, D ≡ αL[1 − b/(1 − μi)] are positive. The graph of this quadratic equation of n in the first and fourth quadrants of the n–f coordinates is a convex curve cutting the vertical axis above the horizontal axis, since f (0) = D > 0, f ′(0) = −B < 0, f ″(n) = 2A > 0. The unique minimum point n = B/2A > 0 of this curve is given by f ′(n) = 0. Hence, this curve may have two cutting points on the right half horizontal axis, which defines two equilibria, given by f (n*) = 0. The two solutions of f (n) = 0 are called n1 and n2, respectively, with n2 > n1. Hence, we can see that f ′(n1) < 0 and f ′(n2) > 0 for a convex curve with the unique minimum point that is below the horizontal axis. But we can show that for a positive income, ∂f/∂n = (α/n)[1 − b/(1 − μi )](0.5γn2 − L) < 0 must hold, since positive income in (5.36) requires 1 − b/(1 − μi) > 0 and 0.5γn2 − L < 0. This implies that n2 cannot be an equilibrium. We have then established the claim that there is only one equilibrium in this model. Differentiating (5.38) and using the implicit function theorem, we can identify the comparative statics of the equilibrium number of active modern firms: dn/dL = −(∂f/∂L)/(∂f/∂n) > 0,
dn/dμ = −(∂f/∂μ)/(∂f/∂n) < 0,
dn/db = −(∂f/∂b)/(∂f/∂n) < 0,
dn/di = −(∂f/∂i)/(∂f/∂n) < 0
(5.39)
where ∂f/∂n = (α/n)[1 − b/(1 − μi)](0.5γn2 − L) < 0 and ∂f/∂γ < 0 if (5.38) holds, ∂f/∂b, df/di, ∂f/∂μ < 0, ∂f/∂L > 0. (5.39) implies that there is substitution between transaction conditions and population size in promoting industrialization. For a given μ, a larger population size
150 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
generates a higher degree of industrialization. For a given L, better general transaction conditions generate a higher degree of industrialization. dn/di < 0 implies that the degree of industrialization is lower for a country with the larger transaction cost coefficient, which implies a larger i. This implies that a large country may have a low degree of industrialization if its transaction conditions are very bad. The general equilibrium in country i is summarized as follows: px = 1,
X d = α(Π + L)/m, n
Lx =
{[bα(Π + L)/(1 − c)m] + γ j}dj = [bα(Π + L)n/(1 − c)m] + 0.5γ n
2
0
R ≡ Lx/L,
α(1−ρ)/ρ
u=m
α
(5.40)
α [θ(1 − α)] [(Π/L) + 1], 1−α
(Π/L) + 1 = γmn(1 − μi)/α(1 − b − μi )L, and n is given by (5.38) where u is per capita real income (i.e., equilibrium utility level), (Π/L) + 1 is per capita income in terms of labor, Lx is the amount of labor allocated to all active modern firms, and R ≡ Lx /L is the income share of the modern sector. Differentiating u in (5.40) and using (5.38) and (5.39), it can be shown that: du/dL > 0,
and
du/dμ < 0,
dn/dL > 0,
dn/dμ < 0,
d(m − n)/dL = −dn/dL < 0,
dR/dL > 0,
dR/dμ < 0,
dn/db < 0, d(m − n)/dμ = −dn/dμ > 0.
It is straightforward that the number of active traditional sectors m − n decreases as the population size increases and/or as transaction conditions are improved. Hence, the duality of economic structure is endogenized. Comparative statics can be summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 5.2: As population size increases and/or as general transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium number of active modern sectors, the degree of capital intensity of active modern firms, productivity, and per capita real income increase. For a given general transaction condition and population size, the country with the better country-specific transaction condition has a higher degree of industrialization than do other countries. Suppose general transaction conditions are very bad in the initial time. Then no modern firm operates in any country. As time goes by, general transaction conditions are improved, so that some modern firms operate in the country with the smallest transaction cost coefficient c1 = s. But other countries are not industrialized. As general transaction conditions are further improved, those countries with a slightly larger transaction cost coefficient start industrializing, and the number of active modern firms in each of the industrializing countries increases. As general transaction conditions are further improved, those countries with the worse transaction conditions are eventually industrialized. This process goes on until all countries and all sectors in each country are industrialized. In this model, not only each modern firm’s decision to be active depends on the number of active modern firms, but the equilibrium number of active modern firms is also determined by such decisions. The general equilibrium mechanism simultaneously determines the interdependent variables. Sachs and Yang (1999) have extended this model to the case with many countries. They have shown that not only each country’s decision to participate in international trade is dependent on the network size of international trade and degree of industrialization
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 151
in this network, but also that the network size is determined by all countries’ decisions of participation in the network. Kelly (1997) specifies the time dimension and introduces uncertainty to the transaction condition for setting up a trade connection. His model has endogenized the evolution of the degree of market integration. But this kind of model generates the scale effect. It predicts that productivity goes up if and only if the average size of the firm increases. Empirical evidence in Liu and Yang (2000) rejects the type II scale effect. Also, the National Research Council (1986) and Dasgupta (1995) reject the type I scale effect predicted by this model. As Krugman (1995, p. 21) noted, this kind of model cannot explain the transfer of benefit of economies of scale between sectors through price mechanism and industrial linkages, since prices of all goods are always constant. Although empirical evidence has rejected scale effects predicted by the models in this chapter, there is a lot of empirical evidence that confirms the positive effects of transaction efficiency on economic development and structural changes. This prediction is verified by historical evidence documented in North (1958) and North and Weingast (1989), and by empirical evidence provided in Barro (1997), Easton and Walker (1997), Frye and Shleifer (1997), Gallup and Sachs (1998), and Sachs and Warner (1995a, 1997). North shows that the continuous fall of ocean freight rates significantly contributed to early economic development in Europe. He and Weingast show that it was the institution (i.e., a constitutional monarch and parliamentary democracy) established after the English Glorious Revolution (1688) that ensured the credible commitment of the British government to the constitutional order and that significantly reduced endogenous transaction costs caused by rent-seeking, corruption, and state opportunism. Hence, economic development could take off in the UK in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Barro uses a data set of 100 countries in the period 1965–90 to establish the positive effect of an index of rule of law, which affects transaction conditions on growth rates of per capita real GDP. Easton and Walker use cross-country data to show that growth performance is positively affected by an index of economic freedom. Frye and Shleifer use survey data from Poland and Russia to establish a negative correlation between growth performance and government violation of private property rights. Gallup and Sachs use cross-country data to show that the geographical conditions that affect the transportation efficiency of a country have a very significant impact on per capita income. Sachs and Warner use a data set of 83 countries in the period 1965–90 to establish a positive correlation between growth performance and indices of openness and quality of institutions that affect transaction conditions. Krugman (1995) argues that the ideas about the external effects of industrial linkage, circular causation, and big-push industrialization should be formalized by models with economies of scale. The general equilibrium models with economies of scale in this chapter have successfully captured the general equilibrium flavor of the ideas. But they are not so successful in standing the empirical test because of their emphasis on economies of scale.
Key Terms and Review • Relationships between circular causation, big-push industrialization, network effects of industrial linkages, the notion of general equilibrium • High-development economics and different ways to formalize it • Why various scale effects are rejected by empirical evidences • Differences between the models of labor surplus, the equilibrium models with economies of scale, and the Smithian models of division of labor • Differences between the DS models of monopolistic competition and the MSV models of economies of scale
152 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Further Reading Early ideas on big-push industrialization, balanced versus unbalanced industrialization, linkage externality: Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Fleming (1955), Nurkse (1952), Scitovsky (1954), Myrdal (1957), Hirschman (1958), Sheahan (1958), Sutcliffe (1964), Streetern (1956), Krugman (1992, 1995); Dual structure: Ranis (1988), Lewis (1955), Fei and Ranis (1964); Formal general equilibrium models of structural changes and dual economy with economies of scale: Ciccone and Matsuyama (1996), Krugman and Venables (1995), Baldwin and Venables (1995), Puga and Venables (1998), Gans (1998), Matsuyama (1991), Yang (1994), Weitzman (1994), Wong and Yang (1994, 1998), Yang and Heijdra (1993), Dixit and Stiglitz (1977), Ethier (1982), Krugman (1979, 1980, 1981, 1995), Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989), Kelly (1997), Sachs and Yang (1999); Talking to solve coordination problems: Matsui (1991), Bhaskar (1995), Blume, Kim, and Sobel (1993), Kim and Sobel (1995), Mailath (1998); Empirical evidence against scale effects: Liu and Yang (2000), National Research Council (1986), Dasgupta (1995); Empirical evidence for the positive relationship between development performance and transaction efficiency: Gallup and Sachs (1998), Sachs and Warner (1995, 1997), North (1958), North and Weingast (1989), Barro (1997), Easton and Walker (1997), Frye and Shleifer (1997).
QUESTIONS 1 To what extent can the models in this chapter formalize the Smith theorem, which states that the extent of the market is determined by transportation efficiency and that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market? 2 Discuss the differences between the development implications of transaction costs in the Ricardian model and the Smithian model and that in the models in this chapter. 3 According to one line of argument about infant industry (see, for instance, Scitovsky, 1954), if there are economies of scale, externalities of linkage, and learning by doing, a tariff to protect the infant sector from international competition will improve social welfare and speed up industrialization. Use the models in this chapter to assess the argument in connection with the effect of population size and transaction condition on prices of goods with economies of scale in production. 4 Consider the model in example 5.2. Assume that there are job shifting costs, so that an individual who has just changed jobs is not as productive, at least for a time, as person who has not changed jobs. Suppose that the oil crisis has suddenly reduced transaction efficiency. Analyze what will happen to the equilibrium network size of division of labor and the equilibrium number of goods. Then discuss the possible effects on short-run unemployment, which some economists (such as Friedman) call natural unemployment, and and others call structural unemployment. 5 Many development economists (for instance, Myrdal, 1957) believe that high population growth rates impede economic development in the less-developed countries. But Schultz (1974) argued that in a free market system, individuals’ rational decisions will take care of population growth. Thus, the negative effect of population growth on economic development must be associated with deficient institutions in lessdeveloped economies. For instance, an egalitarian institution of land allocation in the absence of private ownership and free trade of land in China creates incentives for a high birth rate among farmers. Discuss the two different views in connection with the models in chapters 4 and 5, and the empirical evidence that there is a
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
6
7
8
9
10
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 153
positive correlation between population density and development performance in those countries with favorable geographical conditions for transportation, and a negative correlation between the two variables in those countries with unfavorable geographical conditions (see chapter 2). In the model in example 5.2, as transaction efficiency is improved, the production functions of some new goods emerge from the evolution of division of labor. This looks like endogenous technical progress. Analyze the difference between this approach to explaining endogenous technical progress, which is dependent on a large-size market network and on the merging of separate local business communities into an increasingly integrated market, and the neoclassical approach to explaining technical progress by investment, which is independent of the evolution of the network size of division of labor. Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) argues that an investment is likely to be unprofitable in isolation, but profitable if accompanied by similar investments in many other industries. Hirschman (1958) argues that an industry creates a backward linkage when its demand enables an upstream industry to be established at least at minimum economic scale. The strength of an industry’s backward linkage is to be measured by the probability that it will, in fact, push other industries over the threshold of profitability. This is called the effect of backward linkage. Forward linkage is also defined by Hirschman as involving an interaction between scale and market size. It involves the ability of an industry to reduce the costs of potential downstream users of its products and thus, again, to push them over the threshold. Use the models in this chapter to formalize these vague ideas about industrialization and economic development. Nurkse (1952) proposed a concept of virtuous circles of development, which implies that the demand and supply of different sectors are interdependent. Use the general equilibrium model in this chapter to formalize his vague idea. Scitovsky (1954) drew a clear distinction between technological and pecuniary external economies and made the point that, in competitive equilibrium, the market will take care of pecuniary external effects. (Pecuniary external effects are those interdependencies between endogenous variables that are registered in price signals.) Use the concept of general equilibrium to analyze how interactions between self-interested decisions in the market take into account the benefit of economies of scale and interdependencies between sectors. Most of these early development economists did not mention economies of scale. Use the model in chapter 3 to analyze why the network effect of industrial linkage can exist in the absence of economies of scale. Fleming (1955) argues that the “horizontal” external economies of Rosenstein-Rodan are less important than the “vertical” external economies. The former relate to interdependency between the different sectors at the same link of a roundabout production chain, while the latter relate to interdependency between different links. Use the distinction between the DS model and the Ethier model to formalize the distinction between vertical and horizontal economies. You may relate your analysis to the model in chapter 12, which endogenizes the number of industrial links in a roundabout production chain. Draw the distinction between dual economy in the Ricardian model in chapter 3, in the Ethier model, in Lewis’s labor surplus model, and in the Sachs and Yang model. More dual structures will be predicted by the models in chapters 6, 11, and 12. Compare all the different definitions of dual economy.
154 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
11 12
13
If big-push industrialization is beneficial to all firms, under what conditions can private firms use the financial market to organize it, just as businessmen in Hong Kong did after the Second World War? How can the coordination problem of industrialization in the MSV model be avoided by cheap talk, industrial associations, and other business practices in the absence of government intervention? How can we refine the notion of equilibrium and develop new research approaches to avoid the multiplicity of equilibria and to increase the predictive power of the models (see chapter 9)? Specify the market clearing condition for labor in example 5.1 and use Walras’s law to check if the equilibrium solution in example 5.1 is correct.
EXERCISES 1 Interpret the utility function in example 5.1 as a production function of the final consumption good (or agricultural good). Each consumer’s utility equals the quantity of this good consumed. xi is intermediate good i employed to produce the consumption goods. Suppose that the government sales tax rate for intermediate goods is s and all tax revenue is evenly distributed among consumers. Work out the general equilibrium and its comparative statics. Will the equilibrium-relative output and relative price of the industrial and agricultural sectors change as relative tax rates t and s change? Use this model to analyze the government’s discriminatory tax policy with regard to the agricultural sector and the dual structure in the economic development process. 2 Yang and Heijdra, 1993: Delete the equality condition between marginal revenue and marginal cost in example 5.1. Then all endogenous variables can be expressed as a function of the number of goods, n, using a zero-profit condition and consumer demand functions. Suppose a central planner maximizes a consumer’s utility with respect to n. Then a Pareto optimum value of n can be solved. Compare this Pareto optimum value of n with the equilibrium value, and analyze under what condition it is greater or smaller than the equilibrium value of n for production functions Xj = (Lj − a)/b and Xj = L aj , respectively. Nobody gains from the distortions in a monopolistically competitive market. Analyze why such distortions occur in a decentralized market. In your opinion, how can such distortions be avoided? 3 Assume that the economy in example 5.2 is initially in equilibrium. An oil crisis reduces transaction efficiency from k1 to k2, so that the equilibrium number of goods decreases. Assume that as the equilibrium shifts, there is a job shifting cost when individuals change jobs, so that those who lose their jobs are not as competitive as those who do not change jobs. Thus, unemployment will take place. Compute the unemployment rate caused by the oil crisis. 4 Replacing the production function in example 5.1 with Xj = L ja, solve for equilibrium and its comparative statics. If the DS formula for the own price elasticity of demand, 1/(1 − ρ), is used in this new model, what is going to happen? If the production function is still Xj = (Lj − a)/b, what is the solution based on the DS formula for the own price elasticity of demand? Analyze the results based on the DS formula in comparison with the results based on the YH formula.
C HAPTER 5: E CONOMIES
OF
S CALE
AND
T RADING E FFICIENCY 155
5 Wong and Yang, 1994: Suppose that in the DS model in example 5.1, the tax rate t is imposed on sales of consumption goods. The tax revenue is evenly distributed among consumers. Solve for equilibrium and its comparative statics. Then replace the production function with Xj = L ja and solve for equilibrium and its comparative statics. Analyze the sensitivity of the results to the specification of who is paying the transaction costs and to the specification of production function. 6 Suppose that in example 5.1, parameter a, b, or M changes. Show that the equilibrium average size of firms and labor productivity of each good in the DS model will change in the same direction in response to each of these changes in parameters. Use your analysis to establish the claim that the DS model will be rejected if data show a negative correlation between changes in the average size of firms and changes in productivity. Use data to test the hypothesis generated by the DS model. 7 Assume that in a simplified version of the model in example 5.2, each consumer’s utility function is u = yz where y and z are two consumption goods. There is no transaction cost other than government tax. The government imposes a consumption tax on goods y and z. The tax revenue is evenly distributed among manufacturers of goods z and x. Solve for equilibrium and its comparative statics. What are the effects of the tax on economic development and structural changes? Will this policy to tax the agricultural sector and subsidize the industrial sector increase productivity and per capita real income? 8 Consider another version of the MSV model, in which each consumer maximizes her total discounted utility over two periods. U = [∫ 10 xγ1(q)dq]θ/γ + β[∫ 01 x 2γ (q)dq]θ/γ, subject to the budget constraint ∫ 01 x 1γ (q)dq + ∫ 10 xγ2 (q)dq = L + β*(L + nπ), where β is a subjective discount factor, β* is the equilibrium discount factor, 1/(1 − θ) is the intertemporal elasticity, 1/(1 − γ ) is the elasticity of substitution between goods, n is the number of active modern firms, π is profit of each active modern firm, and the wage rate in each period is assumed to be 1. Each good q in the first period must be produced using a constant returns to scale technology, converting one unit of labor into one unit of output. Each sector q has a potential monopolist who can invest F units of labor in period 1 and then produce α > 1 units of output per unit of labor in period 2. Each modern firm maximizes its total discounted profit over two periods π = [β*(α − 1)y2/α] − F. It will operate if this total discounted profit is positive. Identify the parameter subspace within which there are two equilibria, one of which is n = 0 and the other is n = 1. 9 Calculate the relative income share of the modern to traditional sector in the Sachs and Yang model. Identify whether it increases or decreases as the transaction cost coefficient c decreases or as population size L increases. Suppose the variable cost coefficient b decreases or the fixed production cost F decreases. What will happen to the equilibrium degree of industrialization n? Use this model to explain industrialization and the evolution of dual structure of the economy. 10 Specify the market clearing condition for labor in example 5.4 and show that Walras’s law holds in this model. (Hint: do not forget transaction costs in terms of labor incurred to each active modern firm.) 11 Show that the equilibrium in the Sachs and Yang model is not Pareto optimal. Is the equilibrium degree of industrialization higher or lower than the Pareto optimum one? What causes the distortions and how can they be reduced? 12 Extend the Sachs and Yang model in example 5.4 to a case with intermediate goods. Assume that consumers’ utility functions are U = yαz1−α and the production functions for goods z and y are z = [∫ 0m x( j)ρd j]β/ρL1−β y and y = Lz, respectively,
156 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
13 14 15
16
17
where z is the manufactured consumption good, y is food, x( j ) is the quantity of intermediate good j, and Ly and Lz are the respective amounts of labor allocated to the production of goods y and z. The production function is the same as in example 5.4. Solve for the equilibrium and its comparative statics. Why are the equilibria in the DS, Ethier, and Sachs and Yang models unique? Why are there multiple equilibria in the MSV model? Suppose in example 5.3 that the government imposes a tax on sales of goods produced from traditional technology with constant returns to scale. What are the effects of the tax rate on economic development and dual structure? Specify a general equilibrium model of Lewis’s theory (1955) with the following features. In an economy with two goods, the agricultural good is produced out of labor with decreasing returns to scale technology, and the industrial good is produced out of labor and capital with constant returns to scale technology. There are two periods. In period 1, all profit is used to produce the capital good used in period 2. A unit profit in terms of labor can be converted to a unit of capital available in the next period. Suppose the discount rate is zero and a central planner maximizes a representative consumer’s total utility in two periods. If there is an institutional wage lower than the market wage in the agricultural sector, then absorption of surplus labor from the agricultural sector by the industrial sector takes place in the development process. Compare the development mechanism in this model with those in the models of economies of scale in this chapter. Specify a general equilibrium model of the Fei–Ranis model (1964) with the following features. An institutional wage in the agricultural sector is higher than its market level, generating labor surplus. An exogenous increase of productivity in the industrial sector starts the process that absorbs labor surplus. Compare this model with the models in this chapter. Assume that the Ethier model in example 5.2 is asymmetric. The production functions for intermediate goods are the same as in example 5.4 and the number of intermediate goods is a continuum. Solve the asymmetric Ethier model and compare its comparative statics with that in examples 5.2 and 5.4.
Notes 1 To defend Marshall’s concept of external economies, Young (1928) argued that in addition to preserving the observed compatibility between competition and increasing returns, Marshall proposed this concept because the benefits from social division of labor are not limited by the firm size. There are two reasons. First, a production process can be subdivided and performed by a number of different firms. Second, a further division of labor usually accompanies a further diversification of intermediate goods, and alters qualities as well as quantities of undertakings of the production process. The size of firm is too simple a variable to characterize changes in producers’ configurations (Blitch, 1995). 2 Note that if production functions are homogeneous, then it is possible that the number of goods will not increase as the size of an economy increases. For this case, gains from trade come solely from the fall of prices of all goods. See exercise 6 at the end of this chapter.
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
COEXISTENCE OF ENDOGENOUS AND EXOGENOUS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES AND PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE
157
6
6.1 UNDERDEVELOPMENT AND A DUAL STRUCTURE WITH UNDEREMPLOYMENT If we introduce endogenous comparative advantage into the Ricardian model in chapter 3, introduce exogenous comparative advantage into the Smith–Young model in chapter 4, or introduce differences in transaction conditions between countries into the models of highdevelopment economics in chapter 5, we can develop more realistic models to explain development and trade phenomena. This kind of model can predict dual structures in economic development and a trade pattern in which a country exports goods with exogenous comparative disadvantage, if this disadvantage is dominated by endogenous comparative advantage. Inframarginal comparative statics can be used to predict the emergence, evolution, and disappearance of dual structures. In addition, the models can be used to analyze development strategies and trade policies that relate to the literature of import substitution and export-led industrialization. Lewis (1955) noted the development implications of a dual structure of commercialized versus noncommercialized sectors and evolution of commercialization. But he could not find the right way to model the evolution of division of labor, which is associated with the reallocation of resources from the noncommercialized and self-sufficient sector to the commercialized modern sector. He did not know how to use the general equilibrium model with increasing returns to describe the evolution of dual structures, nor could he command an inframarginal analysis of division of labor. Hence, he used neoclassical marginal analysis of a model with constant returns to scale and disequilibrium in the labor market to investigate the development implications of evolution in division of labor. Ranis (1988, p. 80) emphasized that the guiding principle of organizational dualism is “commercialized” as against “noncommercialized,” rather than
158 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
“agricultural” as against “non-agricultural.” Also, the notions of disequilibrium and institutionally rigid wages are not essential in this analysis. Chenery (1979) used market disequilibrium to explain structural changes in order to avoid a general equilibrium analysis of structural changes. Recently, three kinds of equilibrium models have been developed to analyze dual structure and the underdevelopment phenomenon. Khandker and Rashid (1986) and Din (1996) have developed general equilibrium models of a dual structure in which the wage rate that is higher than market clearing level is still exogenously fixed. In the emerging literature of formal models of high-development economics, equilibrium models with economies of scale are used to predict the evolution of dual structures (see Krugman and Venables, 1995, 1996, and Fujita and Krugman, 1995). The equilibrium models with an endogenous geographical location of economic activities – Krugman and Venables (1995), Puga and Venables (1998), and Baldwin and Venables (1995) – attribute the emergence of dual structures to the geographical concentration of economic activities in economic development that marginalizes peripheral areas. Kelly (1997) develops a dynamic general equilibrium model that predicts the spontaneous evolution of a dual structure between the modern sector with economies of scale and the traditional sector with constant returns technology. As transaction conditions are sufficiently improved, the level of division of labor increases and dual structure disappears. In the growing literature of endogenous specialization, inframarginal analysis of the Smithian models with endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages is used to explain the emergence, evolution, and disappearance of dual structure. This literature pays more attention to the effects of the evolution of individuals’ levels of specialization and the coexistence of exogenous and endogenous comparative advantages on the emergence and evolution of dual structure. Here, dual structure not only implies unequal distribution of gains from trade between developed and less-developed countries, which relates to underdevelopment phenomenon (examined in chapter 3) or a division between the industrial and agricultural sectors (examined in chapter 5), but also implies a dual structure between the commercialized sector, which is involved in international trade, and self-sufficient individuals who appear to be in underemployment in a less-developed economy. In sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, we use a Smithian model with endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage to illustrate how dual structure can be analyzed using the third kind of general equilibrium model. In section 6.5, we then use an extended Krugman–Venables model with economies of scale to illustrate how dual structure can be analyzed using the second kind of general equilibrium model. In section 6.6, this model is used to analyze import substitution, export-led industrialization, and coordination problems of the industrial linkage network. In these two kinds of model, evolution of dual structure is treated as an equilibrium phenomenon in the absence of an ad hoc disequilibrium wage rate. Also, the coexistence of increasing returns and ex ante differences between individual decision-makers are common features of these two kinds of model of dual structure.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n
n n
What are the differences between industrial/agricultural dual structure, a dual structure with unequal distribution of gains from trade, and a dual structure of commercialized and self-sufficient sectors? What are the differences between dual structure caused by disequilibrium in the labor market and dual structure in the transitional stage of evolution of division of labor? What are the effects of coexistence of endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages on the emergence, evolution, and disappearance of dual structure?
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE n
n
159
What are the effects of coexistence of economies of scale, industrial linkages, and differences in transaction conditions between countries on the emergence, evolution, and disappearance of dual structures? What is underdevelopment? What is dual structure with underemployment? Under what conditions do they occur in the development process?
6.2 A SMITHIAN MODEL WITH A DUAL STRUCTURE IN THE TRANSITIONAL STAGE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Example 6.1: A Smithian model with endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages (Sachs, Yang, and Zhang, 1999). Consider a world consisting of country 1 and country 2, each with a continuum of consumer-producers of mass Mi (i = 1, 2). The individuals within a country are assumed to be identical. The utility function for individuals in country i is: ui = (xi + ki x id)β( yi + ki y id )1−β
(6.1)
where xi, yi are quantities of goods x and y produced for self-consumption, xdi , y id are quantities of two goods bought from the market, and ki is the transaction efficiency coefficient in country i. The transaction cost is assumed to take an iceberg form: for each unit of goods bought, a fraction 1 − ki is lost in transit; the remaining fraction ki is received by the buyer. The production functions for a consumer-producer in country i are: b , x1 + x 1s = L 1x
x2 + x 2s = aL2x,
y1 + y 1s = L1y, c y2 + y 2s = L2y ,
(6.2a) (6.2b)
where x is, y is are respective quantities of the two goods sold by a person in country i, Lij is the amount of labor allocated to the production of good j by an individual in country i, and Lix + Liy = B > 1. For simplicity, we assume that B = 2. It is assumed that a, b, c > 1. This system of production functions and endowment constraint displays economies of specialization in producing good x for an individual in country 1 and in producing good y for an individual in country 2. It exhibits constant returns to specialization for an individual in country 1 to produce good y and for an individual in country 2 to produce good x. But an individual in country 2 has higher productivity in producing good x than an individual in country 1 has in producing good y. Suppose that b = c = 2. If all individuals allocate the same amount of labor to the production of each good, then an individual in country 1 has the same average labor productivity of good x as an individual in country 2 has in producing good y. But the average labor productivity of good x for an individual in country 2 is higher. This is similar to the situation in a Ricardian model with exogenous comparative advantage. Country 1’s productivities are not higher than country 2’s in producing all goods, but country 1 may have exogenous comparative advantage in producing good y. But if an individual in country 1 allocates much more labor to the production of x than an individual in country 2, then her productivity is higher than that of the latter. Similarly, if an individual in country 2 allocates at least the same amount of labor as that allocated in country 1 to the production of good y, her productivity of good y will be higher. This is referred to as endogenous comparative advantage, since individuals’ decisions on labor allocation determine the difference in productivity between them. But an individual in country 1 has no endogenous comparative advantage in producing good y and an individual in
160 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS x
x
x/y
x/y
y
A
x
A
y country 1
x
(1) Structure AA y
x A
x x
x
x
A y country 2
y/x
y
y/x y
A
y country 1
y
x country 2
(7) Structure PC −
country 1
country 2
x
x x/y y x y
x/y
y/x
country 2
country 1
(8) Structure CD+
country 2
(9) Structure DC+
y y/x
y
y country 1
x y/x
y
country 2
(10) Structure CC+
y y/x
country 1
x/y x country 2
(11) Structure CC−
x
y
x
y
x
x/y x
x x/y
y
y/x
y
x
A
y
(4) Structure PC+
x
x x/y
x
y country 1
x y
country 1
x/y
y country 2
x x/y
(5) Structure CP+
y
x
y
y/x
x
(6) Structure CP−
A
(3) Structure DA
x
A
y y/x
y country 1
y
y country 2
country 1
y country 2
x x/y
x
y/x
(2) Structure AD
x/y
x
x
y/x
y country 1
y country 2
y y/x
x
y
y country 1
y/x country 2
(12) Structure CD−
Figure 6.1 Dual structures in economic development
country 2 has no endogenous comparative advantage in producing good x, since respective productivities never change, independent of their labor allocation. Figure 6.1 depicts the three configurations from which the individuals can choose. Self-sufficiency. Configuration A, where an individual produces both goods for selfconsumption. This configuration is defined by:
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
xi, yi > 0,
xis = x id = y is = y id = 0,
161
i = 1, 2.
Specialization in producing good x. Configuration (x/y), where an individual produces only x and sells x in exchange for y, is defined by: xi, x is, y id > 0,
xdi = yi = y is = 0.
Specialization in producing good y. Configuration (y/x), where an individual produces only y and sells y in exchange for x, is defined by: yi, y is, x id > 0,
yid = xi = xis = 0.
There are 13 feasible structures that can satisfy market clearing and other conditions for a general equilibrium. Structure AA, as shown in panel (1) of figure 6.1, is an autarky structure, where individuals in both countries choose self-sufficiency (configuration A). Structure AD, shown in panel (2), is asymmetric between the two countries: all individuals in country 1 choose autarky configuration A, while some individuals in country 2 choose configuration (x/y) and others choose configuration (y/x). Hence, there is domestic division of labor and related domestic trade in country 2, but no international division of labor and related international trade. Structure DA is symmetric to structure AD: country 1 has domestic division of labor and country 2 is in autarky. This structure involves a type 1 dual structure between countries. Structure PC+, shown in panel (4), involves a type 2 dual structure between the two countries as well as in country 1. Some individuals in country 1 choose configuration (x/y), the rest of the population choose autarky, and all individuals in country 2 choose configuration (y/x). There is a dual structure between professional individuals choosing (x/y) and selfsufficient individuals in country 1, despite their ex ante identical characteristics. The professional individuals in country 1 are involved in international trade with country 2. Structure CP+ is symmetric to structure PC+. Structure PC−, shown in panel (6), is the same as structure PC+, except that professional individuals in country 1 choose configuration (y/x) instead of (x/y) and individuals in country 2 choose configuration (x/y) instead of ( y/x). Structure CP− is the same as structure CP+, except that individuals in country 1 choose configuration (y/x) instead of (x/y) and professional individuals in country 2 choose configuration (x/y) instead of (y/x). Structure DC+, shown in panel (9), is the same as structure PC+, except that those individuals choosing autarky in country 1 in structure PC+ choose configuration (y/x) instead in structure DC+. Hence, in structure DC+ all individuals completely specialize, but country 1 is involved in both domestic and international trade, whereas country 2 is involved only in international trade. Also, country 1 exports good x and country 2 exports good y. Structure DC− is the same as structure DC+, except that country 1 exports good y instead of good x and country 2 exports good x instead good y. Structure CD+, shown in panel (8), is symmetric to structure DC+: country 1 has only international trade, whereas country 2 has both international and domestic trade, and country 1 exports good x and country 2 exports good y. Structure CD− is the same as CD+, except that country 1 exports good y instead of x, and country 2 exports good x instead of y. Structure CC+, shown in panel (10), is international complete division of labor between two countries, in which all individuals in country 1 choose configuration (x/y) and all individuals in country 2 choose configuration (y/x). Structure CC− is symmetric to structure CC+: all individuals in country 1 choose configuration (y/x) and all individuals in country 2 choose configuration (x/y).
162 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
6.3 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM AND ITS INFRAMARGINAL COMPARATIVE STATICS According to Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998), a general equilibrium exists and is Pareto optimal for the Smithian models with endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages in this chapter under the following assumptions. The set of individuals is a continuum, and preferences are strictly increasing and rational. Both local increasing returns and constant returns are allowed in production and transactions. Also, they have proved that the set of equilibrium allocations is equivalent to the set of core allocations. The definition of equilibrium is the same as in chapters 3 and 4. We will follow the two-step approach to inframarginal analysis developed in chapters 3 and 4. For simplicity, assume that M1 + M2 = 1, M1 = M2 = 0.5, and β = 0.5. Let the number (measure) of individuals in country i choosing configuration (x/y) be Mix, that choosing (y/x) be Miy, and that choosing A be MiA. In the first step, we consider a structure. Each individual’s utility maximizing decision is solved for the given structure. The utility equalization condition between individuals choosing different configurations in the same country and the market clearing condition are used to solve the corner equilibrium-relative price of traded goods and number (measure) of individuals choosing different configurations. According to the definition, a general equilibrium is a corner equilibrium in which all individuals have no incentive to deviate, under the corner equilibrium-relative price, from their chosen configurations. Hence, in the second step, we can plug the corner equilibrium-relative price into the indirect utility function for each constituent configuration in this structure, then can compare corner equilibrium values of utility across configurations. The total cost–benefit analysis yields the conditions under which the corner equilibrium utility in each constituent configuration of this structure is not smaller than any alternative configuration. This system of inequalities can thus be used to identify a subspace of parameter space within which this corner equilibrium is a general equilibrium. With the existence theorem of general equilibrium proved by Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998), we can completely partition the parameter space into subspaces, within each of which the corner equilibrium in a structure is a general equilibrium. As parameter values shift between the subspaces, the general equilibrium will discontinuously jump between structures. The discontinuous jumps of structure and all endogenous variables are inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. We now take the first step of the inframarginal analysis. As an example, we consider structure CP+. Assume that in this structure, M2y individuals choose configuration (y/x) and M2A individuals choose autarky in country 2, where M2y + M2A = M2 = 0.5. M1 = 0.5 individuals in country 1 choose configuration (x/y). Since all individuals in the same country are ex ante identical in all aspects, the maximum utilities in configurations A and (y/x) must be the same in country 2 in equilibrium. Marginal analysis of the decision problem for an individual in country 2 choosing autarky yields the maximum utility in configuration A: U2A = (a2c+1γ)0.5, where γ ≡ c c/(c + 1)c+1. Marginal analysis of the decision problem for an individual in country 2 choosing configuration (y/x) yields the demand function x 2d = 2c−1/p, the supply function y 2s = 2c−1, and the indirect utility function U2y = 2c−1(k2/p)0.5. The utility equalization condition U2y = U2A yields p ≡ px/py = k22c−3/aγ. Similarly, the marginal analysis of the decision problem of an individual choosing configuration (x/y) in country 1 yields the demand function y 1d = 2b−1/p, the supply function x 1s = 2b−1, and the indirect utility function U1x = 2b−1(k1 p)0.5. Inserting the corner equilibrium-relative price into the market clearing condition for good x, M1x 1s = M2y x 2d, yields the number of individuals selling good y, M2y = 0.5k2/23−caγ, where M1 = 0.5
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
163
Table 6.1 Indirect utility functions Configurations
Indirect utility functions (x/y)
(y/x)
A
Country 1
u1x = 2b−1 (k1 p)0.5
u1y = (k1/p)0.5
u1A = (2b+1αγ )0.5
Country 2
u2x = a(k2 p)0.5
u2y = 2c−1(k2/p)0.5
u2A = (2c+1aγ )0.5
where α ≡ b b/(1 + b)b +1, γ ≡ c c/(1 + c)c +1. Table 6.2 Corner equilibria Structure
Relative price of x to y
Numbers of individuals choosing various configurations M1A = M2A = 0.5
AA AD
c−1
2 /a
M1A = 0.5, M2x = M2y = 1/4
DA
21−b
M2A = 0.5, M1x = M1y = 1/4
PC+
23−bα/k1
M2y = 0.5, M1A = 0.5(1 − k12 c−3/α), M1x = 0.5k12c−3/α
CP+
2c−3k2/γa
M1x = 0.5, M2A = 0.5(1 − k22 b−3/γa), M2y = 0.5k22b−3/γa
CP−
2c+1γ/ak2
M1y = 0.5, M2x = 0.5k22−c−1/γ, M2A = 0.5(1 − k22−c−1/γ)
CC+
2c−b
M1x = M2y = 1/2
CD+
2c−1/a
M1x = 0.5, M2y = (1 + 2b−1/a)/4, M2x = (1 − 2b−1/a)/4
CD−
c−1
M1y = 0.5, M2x = 0.25 + 2−c−1, M2y = 0.25 − 2−c−1
2 /a
by assumption. Indirect utility functions for individuals choosing various configurations in the two countries are listed in table 6.1. Following this procedure, we can solve for the corner equilibrium in each structure. The solutions of all corner equilibria are summarized in table 6.2. Then we can take the second step to carry out a total cost–benefit analysis for each corner equilibrium and to identify the parameter subspace within which the corner equilibrium is a general equilibrium. Consider the corner equilibrium in structure CP+ as an example again. In this structure, M1 individuals choose configuration (x/y) in country 1, and in country 2, M2y individuals choose configuration (y/x) and M2A individuals choose autarky. For an individual in country 1, equilibrium requires that her utility in configuration (x/y) is not smaller than in configurations (y/x) and A under the corner equilibrium-relative price in structure CP+. Also, equilibrium requires that all individuals in country 2 are indifferent between configurations (y/x) and A and receive a utility level that is not lower than in configuration (x/y). In addition, this structure occurs in equilibrium only if M2y ∈(0, 0.5). All the conditions imply: u1x ≥ u1y,
u1x ≥ u1A,
u2A = u2y ≥ u2x,
M2y ∈(0, 0.5),
where indirect utility functions in different configurations and corner equilibrium-relative price are given in tables 6.1 and 6.2. The conditions define a parameter subspace: k1k2 ≥ 26−b−caαγ, a < 24−b−c,
k2 ∈(24−b−caγ, Min{4γ, aγ23−b}),
k1 > Max{24− b−caα, α23−c},
164 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 6.3 General equilibrium structure: inframarginal comparative statics k2 ∈(0, 4γ ) k1 ∈ (0, 4α)
k2 ∈(4γ, 1)
a < 2b+c−2
a > 2b+c−2
a < 2b+c−2
k1k2 < aαγ2 6−b−c
k1k2 > aαγ26−b−c
k1k2 < αγ2b+c+2/a
a < 2b−1
a > 2 b−1
k1 < α2b+c/a
AA
a < 2b−1
AA
k1 < aα24−b−c
AD
AD
k1 ∈ (aα24 −b−c, α23−c)
k1 > aα24 −b−c
k1 ∈ (α2b+c/a, 4α)
k1k2 > αγ2b+c+2/a
PC+
CD+
CD−
CP−
k1 > α23−c CC+
k2 < γ2b+c/a
a < 2b−1
a > 2b−1
CD−
CC+
CD+
a > 2b−1
k1 < α2 PC+
3−c
k2 < aγ23−b CP+
CP+
k1 > α23−c k2 > aγ23−b CC+ k1 ∈ (4α, 1)
a > 2b+c−2
a < 2b−1
a > 2b−1
k2 < aγ2 DA
4−b−c
DA
k2 ∈(aγ2 , aγ23−b) CP+
k2 > aγ2
k2 > γ2b+c/a
k2 > aγ23−b CC+
CP+
CD−
4−b−c
4−b−c
where α ≡ b b/(1 + b)b+1 and γ ≡ c c/(c + 1)c+1. Within this parameter subspace, the corner equilibrium in structure CP+ is the general equilibrium. Following this procedure, we can do total cost– benefit analysis for each structure. The total cost–benefit analysis in the second step and marginal analysis of each corner equilibrium in the first step yields the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium, summarized in table 6.3. From this table, we can see that the parameter subspace for structure DC+, DC−, or CC− to occur in general equilibrium is empty. In table 6.3, α ≡ b b/(1 + b) b+1, γ ≡ c c/(1 + c)c+1. C stands for complete specialization in a country, D stands for the domestic division of labor in a country, A stands for autarky in a country, P stands for the partial division of labor where the population in a country is divided between autarky and specialization, subscript + stands for a pattern of trade in which country 1 exports good x and imports good y, and subscript − stands for a trade pattern in which country 1 exports good y and imports good x. Hence, structure AA involves autarky in both countries, structures AD and DA involve autarky in one country and division of labor in the other, structures PC and CP involve complete specialization in one country and coexistence of autarky and complete specialization in the other. The country with the lower transaction efficiency in this structure appears to be underdeveloped in the sense that it receives none of the gains from trade, and the income differential between it and the other country with higher transaction efficiency increases as a result of a shift of equilibrium from autarky to this structure. Also, ex ante identical individuals in the less-developed country in this structure are divided between a professional occupation that trades with the foreign country and those who are self-sufficient and not involved in commercialized production. These self-sufficient individuals appear to be in underemployment, since they cannot find a job to work for the market. All individuals completely specialize in structures CD and CC. But CC involves complete specialization of both countries in the absence of domestic trade, whereas CD involves complete
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
165
specialization in country 1 and domestic division of labor in country 2. Figure 6.1 illustrates the equilibrium structures.1 We say that the level of division of labor increases if the occurrence of letters A or P decreases or the occurrence of letters D or C increases in a structure. Recall from chapters 3 and 4 that endogenous comparative advantage is the productivity difference between individuals that is caused by individuals’ labor allocations, and exogenous comparative advantage is the productivity difference between individuals that is independent of their labor allocation. Since in this model, marginal and average productivity never change as labor allocation alters for a production function with constant returns to scale, these definitions imply that in this model endogenous comparative advantages come from economies of specialization, and exogenous comparative advantages come from exogenous difference of production conditions with constant returns. Parameter b represents the degree of endogenous comparative advantage for a person in country 1 producing good x since, as b increases, increases in productivity become more responsive to an increase in the amount of labor allocated to the production of x. Similarly, c represents the degree of endogenous comparative advantage for a person in country 2 producing good y. If b = c = 1, then country 2 has exogenous absolute and comparative advantage in producing good x and country 1 has exogenous comparative advantage in producing good y, since a > 1 in (6.2). This implies that a represents the degree of exogenous comparative advantage. With the definitions, we can now have a close look at table 6.3, which consists of four blocks. The northwest block is associated with low transaction efficiencies in both countries. The northeast block is associated with low transaction efficiency in country 1 and high transaction efficiency in country 2. The southwest block is associated with low transaction efficiency in country 2 and high transaction efficiency in country 1. The southeast block is associated with high transaction efficiencies in both countries. As parameter values move from the northwest toward the southeast, the occurrence of letter A, representing autarky, and letter P, representing partial division of labor, decreases and the occurrence of letters D and C, representing complete division of labor, increases. Hence, as transaction conditions are improved, the level of domestic and international division of labor increases because of the trade-off between economies of division of labor generated by endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages and transaction costs. If the transaction efficiency is low in one country and high in the other (northeast or southwest block), the country with the lower transaction efficiency has a dual structure (P) or in autarky (A) in a structure with asymmetric division of labor between countries (AD, DA, PC, or CP). If the transaction efficiencies are high in both countries, then complete division of labor occurs and dual structure disappears in equilibrium. Each block consists of three sections. If the degree of exogenous comparative advantage a is small compared to the degree of endogenous comparative advantage (b, c), each country exports the good with economies of specialization in production. This is denoted by subscript +. Otherwise, a country exports the good with constant returns and exogenous comparative advantage. From the table we can see that if b and c are sufficiently large, country 1 imports its good of exogenous comparative advantage, y. One such case is that structure CP+ occurs in equilibrium when k1 ∈(0, 4α), k2 ∈(0, 4γ), a < 2b+c−2, k1k2 > aαγ26−b−c, a > 2b−1. In structure CP+, country 1 exports x and imports y, but country 1 has exogenous comparative advantage in producing y. All the results on evolution of division of labor, dual structure, and trade pattern are summarized in the following proposition, illustrated in figure 6.1 where large arrows indicate the direction of the evolution in division of labor. Proposition 6.1: As transaction efficiency increases from a very low to a very high level, the equilibrium level of domestic and international division of labor increases from complete autarky in both countries to the complete division of labor in both countries. In the transitional
166 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS y
6 E F
4A G 2C
0 2
B D 2a 4
H 4 + 2a
x
Figure 6.2 Economies of division of labor based on endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage
stage, two types of dual structure may occur. In a type 1 dual structure, the country with the lower transaction efficiency is in autarky, and the other has domestic division of labor and higher productivity and per capita real income. In a type 2 dual structure, the country with higher transaction efficiency completely specializes and obtains all the gains from trade, and the other country has a domestic dual structure between the commercialized sector and the selfsufficient sector (autarky) which appears to be in underemployment. The dual structures of the two types disappear as individuals in all countries are involved in international and domestic division of labor. Each country exports goods of exogenous comparative advantage if exogenous comparative advantage dominates endogenous comparative advantage in producing this good. Otherwise, each country exports goods with endogenous comparative advantage and economies of specialization in production. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium can be used to establish two corollaries. The first is that the evolution in division of labor generated by improvements in transaction conditions will raise equilibrium aggregate productivity. In order to establish the above statement, we consider the aggregate PPF for individual 1 (from country 1) and individual 2 (from country 2). As shown in figure 6.2, where b = c = 2, the PPF for individual 1 is curve AB, and that for individual 2 is curve CD. In autarky, the two persons’ optimum decisions for taste parameter β ∈(0, 1) are x1 = [4β/(1 + β)]2, x2 = 2aβ/(2 − β), y1 = 2(1 − β)/(1 + β), y2 = [4(1 − β)/(2 − β)]2. Let β change from 0 to 1; we can calculate values of Y = y1 + y2 and X = x1 + x2 as functions of β. The values of X and Y for different values of β constitute curve EGH in figure 6.2. The equilibrium aggregate production schedule in structure AA is a point on the curve, dependent on the value of β. But the aggregate PPF for the two individuals is the curve EFH. Since in structure CC, CD, or DC the equilibrium production schedule is point F, which is on the aggregate PPF, the aggregate productivity in a structure with the complete division of labor is higher than in structure AA. The difference between EFH and EGH can be considered as economies of division of labor. Following the same reasoning, we can prove that the equilibrium aggregate productivity in structures AD, DA, PC, or CP is lower than the PPF. Hence, proposition 6.1 implies that as transaction efficiencies are improved, the equilibrium level of division of labor and equilibrium aggregate productivity increase side by side. The second corollary is that deterioration of a country’s terms of trade and increase of gains received by this country from trade may concur. Suppose that the initial values of parameters
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
167
satisfy k1 ∈(0, 4α), k2 ∈(0, 4γ), and k1k2 > aγα26−b−c, which implies, from table 6.3, that we are considering the northwest block. Suppose that the initial value of k2 satisfies k 2′ < aγ23−c, so that the equilibrium structure is CP+ in which country 2 exports y and imports x, and its terms of trade, from table 6.2, are 1/p = 23−caγ/k 2′. Now the value of k2 increases to k 2″ > aγ23−c, which implies, from table 6.3, that the general equilibrium jumps from CP+ to structure CC+ in which country 2’s terms of trade, from table 6.2, are 23−c. It can then be shown that country 2’s terms of trade deteriorate as a result of the change in k2. But this shift of the equilibrium from CP+ to CC+ increases the utility of each individual in country 2 from the autarky level. This has established the claim that the deterioration of a country’s terms of trade and an increase of gains that this country receives from trade may concur. There are other parameter subspaces within which changes in parameters may generate concurrence of the deterioration of one country’s terms of trade and an increase in its gains from trade. Although an equilibrium in this model is always Pareto optimal, it generates interesting implications, from the perspective of economic development and trade, for income distribution. It is straightforward that as the equilibrium jumps from a structure in which at least some individuals in a country are in autarky (structure AD, DA, PC, CP) to a structure in which all individuals are involved in trade and division of labor, then all individuals’ utilities in this country will be increased. Hence, immiserizing development never occurs for a less-developed economy in our model, since all individuals in our model of endogenous specialization can choose occupation configurations, and they will not choose trade if autarky makes them better off. But the effects of trade and development on the utility of an individual in the developed economy are not monotonic. As the equilibrium jumps from autarky to the partial division of labor (AD, DA, PC, or CP), the developed country gets all the gains from trade and development. But as the equilibrium jumps, say, from PC+ to CC+, it is possible that the utility of a person in the developed country may decline. It can be shown that this takes place within the parameter subspace in the southwest block in table 6.3. This prediction is consistent with the fact, documented in Krugman and Venables (1995, pp. 857–8), that in the 1970s the general view was that the integration of world markets produced a rise in the living standards of rich nations at the expense of the poor. Now, in the twenty-first century, it is believed that the rise of Third World manufacturing nations has had serious adverse impacts on developed economies. But according to our model, this reverse of the tide is just compensation to the less-developed economies, which did not receive gains from trade in the early development stage. Also, in our model there exists some parameter subspace within which such immiserizing development never occurs. This is the case when the improvements in the transaction efficiency of the developed country keep pace with those of the less-developed country.
6.4 TRADE PATTERN IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH ENDOGENOUS AND EXOGENOUS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT Since the inframarginal comparative statics change with the specification of the system of production functions, we report the sensitivity analysis of our result. Example 6.2: A model with economies of specialization in one activity for all individuals. The system of production functions in (6.2) displays economies of specialization in production of good x by a person in country 1 and in production of good y by a person in country 2. We now assume that there are economies of specialization for all individuals in producing x, but constant returns prevail in the production of good y. Hence, the system of production functions in (6.2) is replaced by:
168 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS Table 6.4 Equilibrium structure (economies of specialization in producing one good for all countries) k2 ∈(0, 4γ) k1 ∈ (0, 4α)
a > 2c−b k1k2 < αγ2c−b+4/a
k1k2 > αγ2c−b+4/a
a < 2c−b
a > 2c−b
a < 2c−b
k1k2 < aαγ24+b−c
2c−b > 1
AA
k1 < α22+c−b/a
AD k1 < α22+c−b/a CC+
k1 > aα22+b−c CD− CD−
2c−b < 1
CP+
k1k2 > aαγ2 CP−
k1 > α2 CD+
k2 < γ22+b−c/a DA
k2 < aγ22+b−c DA
2c−b > 1
2c−b < 1
k2 > γ22+b−c/a CP+
k2 > aγ22+b−c CP−
CD+
CC+
AA k1 ∈ (4α, 1)
k2 ∈ (4γ, 1)
4+b−c
2+c−b
/a
k1 < aα22+b−c AD
where α ≡ b b/(1 + b)b+1, γ ≡ c c/(1 + c)c+1.
x1 + x 1s = L b1x,
y1 + y 1s = L1y,
x2 + x 2s = L c2x,
y2 + y 2s = aL2y.
The corresponding inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are summarized in table 6.4 and proposition 6.2. Proposition 6.2: As transaction efficiency is improved, the equilibrium level of division of labor and aggregate productivity increase. The country with lower transaction efficiency and/or insignificant economies of specialization has a dual structure with underemployment in the transitional stage of economic development. If a country has endogenous comparative advantage and exogenous comparative disadvantage in producing a good, it exports this good when the former dominates the latter. Otherwise, it imports this good. In exercise 1 at the end of this chapter, you are asked to replace the production functions in (6.1) with the one displaying economies of specialization for individuals in one country and constant returns for individuals in the other country. Then you can show that the essence of propositions 6.1 and 6.2 would not be changed. Proposition 6.2 can provide a theoretical explanation for recent empirical evidence that shows significant effects of geographical conditions on a country’s performance of development and trade. Gallup and Sachs (1998; and see ch. 2 in this text) have used cross-country and crossregion data to show that countries with favorable geographical conditions for transportation have a better development performance. This analysis is different from the DS and Ethier models in chapter 5, as well as the Yang model (1991; example 4.7 above), which explain economic development, structural changes, and trade pattern by economic changes in the absence of ex ante differences between decisionmakers. It is different from conventional trade theory and development economics concerning only exogenous comparative advantages (see chapter 3). We explain complicated development and trade phenomena by the coexistence of endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages. The Smithian models can be extended to investigate the relationship between economic development and inequality of income distribution. Theories and empirical evidence for a positive correlation between economic development and inequality of income distribution in developing countries can be found in Banerjee and Newman (1993), Lewis (1955), Palma
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
169
(1978), and Li and Zou (1998), for instance. Theory and empirical evidence for a negative correlation between inequality and international trade, which relate to economic development, can be found in Alesina and Rodrik (1994), Galor and Zeira (1993), Thompson (1995), Fei, Ranis, and Kuo (1979), Frank (1977), Aghion, Caroli, and Garcia-Pena Losa (1999), and Balassa (1986), for instance. Not only are data from developing and newly industrialized countries contradictory, but data from developed countries also generate controversies. Kuznetz (1955) proposed the hypothesis of the inverted U-curve of the relationship between inequality and per capita income and provided some support for it from US data. Krugman and Venables (1995) use a general equilibrium model with global economies of scale to predict such an inverted U-curve of inequality. Greenwood and Jovanovic (1990) use a dynamic equilibrium model to predict the inverted U-curve. Some theories and data show that there is a negative or insignificant correlation between trade or development and inequality in developed countries (see, for instance, Krugman and Lawrence, 1994, Katz and Murphy, 1992). Others show a positive correlation between trade and inequality in developed countries (see, for instance, Grossman, 1998, Murphy and Welch, 1991, Borjas, Freeman, and Katz, 1992, Karoly and Klerman, 1994, Sachs and Shartz, 1994). But Ram (1997) provides new empirical evidence for an uninverted-U pattern in developed countries, taking into account data since the Second World War. Jones (1998, p. 65) also finds that the ratio of GDP per worker in the fifth richest country to GDP per worker in the fifth poorest country fluctuated from 1960 to 1990. In exercise 12 (below), Yang and Zhang (1999) extend the model in example 6.1 to the case with two types of individuals in each country. They show that as transaction conditions are improved, different countries and different types of individual in each country get involved one by one in an increasingly higher level of division of labor. The group of individuals with better transaction conditions is involved in a higher level of specialization and commercialization than other groups. As the former group chooses a higher level of specialization, leaving other groups behind, inequality of income distribution and aggregate productivity go up side by side. As the other groups catch up to the leaders, inequality decreases while aggregate productivity increases. As the leading group chooses an even higher level of specialization and commercialization, leaving the other groups behind again, inequality increases again. The next catch-up process will reduce inequality again. Hence, this ratcheting process of inequality and equality of income distribution generates fluctuation in inequality. This invalidates monotonic positive or negative correlation between inequality and economic development, and it also invalidates Kuznetz’s inverted U-curve of inequality and per capita income. Recent empirical evidence in Deininger and Squire (1996) strongly supports Yang and Zhang’s model. In chapter 9 we will investigate the negative effects on economic development of endogenous transaction costs, which distort income distribution.
6.5 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND TRADE PATTERNS Example 6.3: An extended Krugman and Venables model of a dual economy (Sachs, Yang, and Zhang 2001). Krugman and Venables’ (KV) model (1995) and many similar models are extensions of the Ethier model in example 5.2 in chapter 5, above. We now introduce ex ante differences between two countries into the KV model. The transaction efficiency coefficient for country i is ki (i = 1, 2). In Krugman and Venables’ original version of this model, zero transaction cost for the agricultural good is unrealistically assumed. Consider two countries. Population size in country i is Mi. Migration between countries is prohibitively expensive. Agricultural good z is produced from labor. Industrial good y is produced from labor and n intermediate goods.
170 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
6.5.1 A consumer’s decision A representative consumer’s decision problem in country i is: Max: ui = ( yi + ki yji)α(zi + ki zji)1−α
s.t.
piy yi + pjy yji + pizzi + pjzzji = wi
where ui is a consumer’s utility level in country i, yi and zi are the respective quantities of the manufactured consumption good (such as a car), and the agricultural good (such as food) is purchased from the domestic market in country i. yji and zji are the respective quantities of the two goods imported by an individual in country i from the other country. pis is the price of good s in country i. The price of imported good t to country s, pst, can be considered as CIF (import price inclusive of insurance and freight) and the price of exported good t from country s, pst, can be considered as FOB (import price exclusive of insurance and freight) to the importing country. It is assumed that each individual is endowed with one unit of labor, and labor in country 1 is the numeraire, so that w1 = 1 and w2 = w. Iceberg transaction cost is assumed, so that 1 − ki ∈[0, 1] is the transaction cost coefficient and ki the transaction efficiency coefficient for importing one unit of final consumption goods in country i.
6.5.2 Possible trade structures As we introduce the ex ante differences in transaction conditions between the two countries into the model, corner solutions are possible. Hence, standard marginal analysis for interior solutions does not work. We first apply the Kuhn–Tucker condition to identify the conditions under which a particular trade structure occurs in equilibrium. These conditions are dependent on relative prices. Second, for a given structure, we solve for a local equilibrium using marginal analysis. We can plug the equilibrium prices into the conditions identified in the first step. We can then partition parameter space into subspaces, within each of which a particular structure occurs in equilibrium. Let us take the first step in the inframarginal analysis. The Kuhn–Tucker condition for the two representative consumers’ decision problems in the two countries indicates that some trade structures never occur in equilibrium, and that each of the feasible trade structures occurs in equilibrium only if relative prices and the relative transaction condition in the two countries satisfy a certain condition. Later, we can obtain a similar result for a trade pattern of intermediate goods using the Kuhn–Tucker condition for the decision of a firm producing the final manufactured good. The two sets of the Kuhn–Tucker condition yield the following conditions for a particular trade pattern to occur in equilibrium, where xi is the amount of an intermediate good purchased from the domestic market in country i, xji is the amount of an intermediate good imported from country j in country i, and ti is the transaction efficiency coefficient of importing intermediate goods in country i. Let’s label all of these conditions “6.3”: (A) (C1) (C2) (D0)
If k1 and t1 and/or k2 and t2 are sufficiently small, the optimum decision requires that zji = xji = yji = 0 and xi, yi, zi > 0, which implies that no trade occurs between the countries, or that autarky structure, shown in figure 6.3(a), occurs in equilibrium. For p1y/p2y < k2 and p1z /p2z > 1/k1, the optimum decision requires z12 = x12 = y21 = z1 = y2 = 0 and x1, y1, z2, x21, z21, y12 > 0. This structure of trade (C1) is shown in figure 6.3(c). For p1y /p2y > 1/k1 and p1z/p2z < k2, the optimum decision requires z21 = x21 = y12 = z2 = y1 = 0 and x2, y2, z1, x12, z12, y21 > 0. This structure of trade C2 is symmetric to C1. For p1y/p2y ∈ (k2, 1/k1) and p1z/p2z ∈(k2, 1/k1), the optimum decision requires z12 = y12 = z21 = y21 = 0 and x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, x12, x21 > 0. This structure of trade (D0) is shown in figure 6.3(d).
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE x
y
z
z x
1
y
x
z
2 z
(d) Structure D0
x
x
x
z
x
2
y 1
z
z
y
x
y 1
y
x
x
2
z
y
x
(b) a structure that does not occur in equilibrium x
x 1
1
z
y y (a) Structure A (autarky)
x
y y
2
171
z 2
z
(c) Structure C1
x
y 1
y
z x
2
z (e) Structure E1
(f ) Structure F1
Figure 6.3 Different patterns of development and trade
(D1) (D2) (E1) (E2) (F1) (F2)
For p1y/p2y ∈ (k2, 1/k1) and p1z/p2z < k2, the optimum decision requires y12 = z21 = y21 = z2 = 0 and x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, x12, x21, z12 > 0. This structure of trade is called D1. For p1y/p2y ∈ (k2, 1/k1) and p1z/p2z > 1/k1, the optimum decision requires y21 = z12 = y12 = z1 = 0 and x2, y2, z2, x1, y1, x21, x12, z21 > 0. This structure of trade D2 is symmetric to D1. For p1y/p2y < k2 and p1z/p2z ∈ (k2, 1/k1), the optimum decision requires x12 = z12 = y21 = z21 = x2 = y2 = 0 and x1, y1, z1, x21, y12, z2 > 0.This trade structure is called E1, shown in panel (e). For p1y/p2y > 1/k1 and p1z/p2z ∈(k2, 1/k1), the optimum decision requires x21 = z21 = y12 = z12 = x1 = y1 = 0 and x2, y2, z2, x12, y21, z1 > 0. This trade structure E2 is symmetric to E1. For p1y/p2y < k2 and p1z/p2z < k2, the optimum decision requires x12 = y21 = z21 = x2 = z2 = y2 = 0 and x1, y1, z1, x21, y12, z12 > 0. This trade structure is called F1, shown in panel (f). For p1y/p2y > 1/k1 and p1z/p2z > 1/k1, the optimum decision requires x21 = y12 = z12 = x1 = z1 = y1 = 0 and x2, y2, z2, x12, y21, z21 > 0. This trade structure is called F2. (6.3)
It can also be shown that the pattern of trade in panel (b) and other trade structures do not occur in equilibrium, except for some razor-edge cases, where some of the inequalities involving relative prices in (6.3) become equalities.2 The markets for goods y and z are competitive because of constant returns to scale in production. But the market for intermediate goods is monopolistically competitive.
6.5.3 Production of agricultural good z The production function of food in country i is: Zi = θi Liz where Zi is the output level of z and Liz is the amount of labor allocated to the production of food in country i. For simplicity, we assume that θ2 = 1 and θ1 = θ > 1. This implies that country 1 has exogenous comparative advantage in producing food, since in the next two subsections the production function of industrial goods y and x is assumed to be the same for the two countries.
6.5.4 Production of final manufactured good y The production function for a representative car manufacturer’s production function in country i is:
172 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Yi = [ni x iρ+ (n − ni)(ti xji)ρ]β/ρL1−β iy where Yi is the output level of good y produced by a representative firm in country i, ni and n − ni are the respective numbers of intermediate goods purchased by country i from the domestic market and from the other country, xi is the amount of an intermediate good purchased by the firm in country i from the domestic market to produce good y, xji is that purchased by the firm in country i from the other country, and ti is the transaction efficiency coefficient for country i importing an intermediate good from the other country. x can be considered as all kinds of professional machine tools, and the elasticity of substitution 1/(1 − ρ) is assumed to be larger than one, that is, ρ ∈(0, 1). We have used the symmetry and omit the index of intermediate goods when no confusion is caused.
6.5.5 Production of intermediate goods The production function for the monopolist producer of an intermediate good in country i is: Xi = (Li − a)/b, where Xi is the quantity of an intermediate good supplied by the monopolist in country i and Li is the amount of labor hired by the firm to produce the intermediate good. Again, we have used the symmetry, and omit the index of intermediate goods when no confusion is caused. As shown in (6.3), ten market structures may occur in equilibrium in this model. We consider the local equilibrium in each of them.
6.5.6 Local equilibrium in structure A We first consider structure A, where xi, yi, zi > 0, xij = yij = zij = 0. A consumer’s decision yields demand functions for goods y and z. Each consumer supplies one unit of labor, and total supply of labor in country i is Mi. The zero-profit condition for the firm producing z gives the price of good z in terms of labor in country i, piz. The symmetry implies that quantities supplied or employed are the same for ni intermediate goods. The zero-profit condition and a first-order condition for the decision problem of the firm producing y yields the equilibriumrelative quantity of labor and intermediate goods and an equation that determines the equilibrium piy/pix. Using the production and demand functions of y, the market clearing conditions for y and labor, and the first-order conditions for the decision problem of the firm producing y, we can find the demand function for x. Using the Dixit–Stiglitz formula for own price elasticity E = 1/(1 − ρ), we can then work out the first-order condition for the decision problem for the monopolist producer of an intermediate good. Then the zero-profit condition for this firm yields the equilibrium ni. The local equilibrium and its marginal comparative statics in this structure are summarized as follows: wi = 1,
p1z = 1/θ, β−1
p2z = 1,
pix =b/ρ,
β/ρ
piy = (1 − β) [a/(1 − ρ)β] [(1 − ρ)b/ρa]β (αMi )β(1−1/ρ), ni = Mi βα(1 − ρ)/a, u1 = [θ(1 − α)](1−α)ααp 1y−α, dpiy /dMi < 0,
−α u2 = (1 − α)(1−α)αα p 2y ,
dni /dMi > 0,
dui /dMi > 0
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
173
where i = 1, 2. The marginal comparative statics imply that as the population in an integrated market increases, the equilibrium price of final manufactured goods decreases and the equilibrium number of intermediate goods and per capita real income increase. Since total factor productivity of the final manufactured good is an increasing function of the number of intermediate goods, this productivity increases with population size, too. The result is similar to that in the Ethier model in chapter 5, except that we assume there is no transaction cost for domestic trade.
6.5.7 Local equilibrium in structure C Next, we consider structure C1 where x1, y1, z2, y12, x21 > 0, x12 = y21 = z12 = 0. The procedure to solve the corner equilibrium in this structure is the same as that for structure A, except that the markets for x, y, z are jointly cleared for both countries. The corner equilibrium in this structure is summarized as follows: w = t 1ρ,
p1z = 1/θ,
p2z = t 1ρ,
p1x = b/ρ,
p2x = t 1ρb/ρ,
p1y = (1 − β)β−1β−β/ρ (b/ρ)β [(1 − ρ)α(M1 + k 1ρM2)/a] β(1−1/ρ), n1 = [(1 − ρ)/a][M1(βα + 1 − α) − α(1 − β)t 1ρM2], n2 = [(1 − ρ)/a][M2α − (1 − α)t1−ρM1], u1 = B(θk1)1−αt1−ρ(1−α)(M1 + t 1ρM2)αβ (1−ρ)/ρ,
u2 = Bt 1ραk α2 (M1 + t 1ρM2)αβ(1−ρ)/ρ
where B ≡ (1 − α)(1−α)αα[(1 − β)1−β ββ/ρ(ρ/b)β]α[α(1 − ρ)/a]αβ(1−ρ)/ρ. The differentiation of the solutions yields marginal comparative statics of the local equilibrium in structure C1. dni/dMi > 0,
dni/dMj < 0,
dn2/dt1 > 0,
dn1/dt1 < 0,
dn/dt1 > 0, if (1 − α)M1/α(1 − β)M2 > t , 2ρ 1
dn/dM1 > 0 iff t1 > [(1 − α)/αβ + 1 − α]1/ρ, dn/dM2 > 0,
(6.4)
dw/dt1 > 0, dui/dMj > 0, dui/dki > 0, dui/dt1 > 0 where i, j = 1, 2 and n = n1 + n2 is the number of all intermediate goods available in the two countries. The marginal comparative statics of the local equilibrium imply that as the transaction condition in country 1 improves, the production of intermediate goods will shift from country 1 to country 2. This relocation of industrial production increases utility levels in the two countries, although the nominal income in country 2 relative to that in country 1, which is w, increases as well. The improvement of the transaction condition in country 2 has no effects on industrial structure and the location of industrial production, though it increases the utility of each individual in country 2. An increase in population size in country 1 will shift the production of producer goods from country 2 to country 1. But an increase in the population size in country 2 has the opposite effect on location of industrial production. However, an increase in population size in either country will raise per capita real income in both countries. As n1 or n2 tends to zero, the production of all intermediate goods becomes concentrated in country 2 or 1. A careful examination of the local equilibrium solutions in structure C1 yields the following conditions for such concentration: n1 = n and n2 = 0 if t1 < ta ≡ [M1(1 − α)/M2α]1/ρ n1, n2 ∈(0, n) if t1 ∈(ta, tb), where tb ≡ [M1(αβ + 1 − α)/M2α(1 − ρ)]1/ρ n2 = n and n1 = 0 if t1 > tb,
(6.5)
174 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
where ta < tb always holds. The marginal comparative statics of the local equilibrium in structure C1 are summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 6.3: If the transaction efficiency of intermediate goods is very low in country 1, country 2 specializes in producing the agricultural good in the absence of industrialization. The production of all final and intermediate manufactured goods is located in country 1. As the transaction condition is improved in country 1, country 2 starts industrialization, which relocates the production of intermediate goods from country 1 to country 2. The smaller the population size of country 1 relative to country 2, the faster the relocation process. Per capita real incomes in both countries increase as a result of the relocation, although the wage rate in country 2 increases compared to that in country 1. The wage difference between the two countries converges to 0 as transaction cost tends to 0. The per capita real income in country 1 is more likely to be higher than in country 2, the greater the income share of the final manufactured good, and/or the greater the elasticity of substitution between intermediate goods, and/or the higher the relative transaction efficiency of country 1 to country 2. An increase in the population size of a country will move the production of intermediate goods to this country from the other country, increasing per capita real income in both countries. The local equilibrium in structure C2 is symmetric to that in C1. Hence, a similar proposition can be obtained from comparative statics of that local equilibrium.
6.5.8 Local equilibrium in structure D We now consider structure D0, in which country 1 produces final goods y and z and n1 intermediate goods. It exchanges the intermediate goods for n2 intermediate goods produced by country 2, which self-provides goods y and z as well. Hence, for this structure we have xi , yi , zi , xij > 0, yij = zij = 0. The local equilibrium in this structure is summarized as follows: w is given by f = M1 + t 1ρ/(1−ρ) [M2w−ρ/(1−ρ) − M1w−1/(1−ρ) − M2w−(1+ρ)/(1−ρ) t 2−ρ/(1−ρ)] = 0 p1z = 1/θ,
p2z = 1, β
ρ/(ρ−1) 1
p1y = A(M1/t1) [(t
p1x = b/ρ, −t
ρ/(1−ρ) 2
)/(1 − t
p2x = wb/ρ, ρ/(1−ρ) 2
w1/(1−ρ))]β[M1t 11/(ρ−1) + M2wρ/(ρ−1)]−β/ρ
p2y = wAM 2β [(t 1ρ/(ρ−1) − t 2ρ/(1−ρ))/(t 1ρ/(ρ−1)w1/(1−ρ) − 1)]β[M1t 1/(1−ρ) + M2wρ/(ρ−1)]−β/ρ 2 ni = β(1 − ρ)Mi /a, u1 = [θ(1 − α)]1−αααp 1y−α,
u2 = (1 − α)1−ααα ( p2y /w)−α
where A ≡ (1 − β)β−1αβ[a/(1 − ρ)β]β/ρ [(1 − ρ)b/aρ]β. The market clearing conditions for intermediate goods and the first-order conditions for producers of good y in the two countries require: w ∈(t 1ρ, t 2−ρ) where t 1ρ < t 2−ρ always holds. It is obvious that w converges to 1 as t1 and t2 tend to 1. The differentiation of the solutions yields: dw/dt1 = −(∂f/∂t1)/(∂f/∂w) > 0, dw/dt2 = −(∂f/∂t2)/(∂f/∂w) < 0 where ∂f/∂t1 > 0, ∂f/∂t2 < 0, ∂f/∂w < 0. The result implies that relative per capita nominal income of country 2 to country 1 increases as the transaction condition in country 1 improves or as the transaction condition in country 2 worsens.
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
175
Similar results can be obtained for the relationship between per capita real income in a country and the transaction conditions in the two countries. It can be shown that: du1/dt1 = (∂u1/∂t1) + (∂u1/∂w)(dw/dt1) < 0,
(6.6a)
du2/dt2 = (∂u2/∂t2) + (∂u2/∂w)(dw/dt2) < 0
where dw/dt1 > 0, dw/dt2 < 0, ∂u1/∂w < 0, ∂u2/∂w > 0, ∂u1/∂t1 < 0, ∂u1/∂t2 < 0, ∂u2/∂t2 < 0. Other marginal comparative statics in this structure are: dui/dMi > 0,
dui/dMj > 0,
dni/dMi > 0,
dni/dρ < 0,
dni/da < 0,
(6.6b)
where i ≠ j. The Kuhn–Tucker condition for a producer of good y indicates that the first-order derivative of profit with respect to the quantity of an imported intermediate good is always negative if the transaction efficiency coefficient is zero in this country. Hence, the equilibrium will jump to another structure if t is sufficiently close to 0 in either country. If 1 − ti is interpreted as the import tariff rate in country i and all tariff revenue is exhausted by the bureaucrats who collect it, then the marginal comparative statics in (6.6) imply that each country has an incentive to impose tariffs, which increase per capita real income in the home country. Proposition 6.4: As the population size or import tariff rate increases in a country, the per capita real income in that country increases. Also, the number of intermediate goods produced in a country increases with its population size. The wage difference between the two countries converges to 0 as transaction cost tends to 0. The local equilibrium in structure D1 is: w is given by f = αβM1 − (1 − α)wM2 − αβt 1ρ/(1−ρ)w−1/(1−ρ)M1 + w−ρ/(1−ρ)[(1 − α + αβ)M2t 1ρ/(1−ρ) + (1 − α)M2t 2−ρ/(1−ρ) − (1 − α + αβ)M2w−(1+ρ)/(1−ρ)t ρ/(1−ρ) t 2−ρ/(1−ρ) ] = 0 1 p1z = 1/θ,
p2z = 1,
p1x = b/ρ,
p2x = wb/ρ,
− k 2ρ/(1−ρ))/(1 − t 2ρ/(1−ρ)w1/(1−ρ))]β[M1t 1/(ρ−1) + M2wρ/(ρ−1)]−β/ρ p1y = A(M1/t1)β [(t ρ/(ρ−1) 1 1 p2y = wAMβ2 [(t 1ρ/(ρ−1) − t 2ρ/(1−ρ))/(t 1ρ/(ρ−1)w1/(1−ρ) − 1)]β[M1t 1/(1−ρ) + M2wρ/(ρ−1)]−β/ρ 2 n1 = [αβM1 − (1 − α)wM2](1 − ρ)/a, α −α 1y
u1 = [θ(1 − α)] α p , 1−α
n2 = (1 − α + αβ)M2(1 − ρ)/a,
u2 = (1 − α) αα(p2y /w)−α 1−α
where A ≡ (1 − β)β−1αβ[a/(1 − ρ)β]β/ρ[(1 − ρ)b/aρ]β. The market clearing conditions for intermediate goods and the first-order conditions for producers of good y in the two countries require: w ∈(t 1ρ, t −ρ 2 ) where t 1ρ < t −ρ 2 always holds.
176 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
The local equilibrium in structure D2 is symmetric to that in D1. Marginal comparative statics in structure D1 or D2 are similar to that in D0.
6.5.9 Local equilibrium in structure E The local equilibrium in structure E1 is: w = p2z = t ρ1 ,
p1z = 1/θ,
β−1 −β/ρ
p1y = (1 − β) β
p1x = b/ρ,
β
p2x = wb/ρ,
(b/ρ) [(1 − ρ)α(M1 + M t )/a]−β(1−ρ)/ρ ρ 2 1
p2y = (1 − β)β−1β−β(b/ρ)β[(1 − ρ)αM2/a]−β(1−ρ)/ρ n1 = [αβM1 − (1 − β)αt 1ρM2](1 − ρ)/a, u1 = θ1−αB(M1 + t 1ρM2)αβ(1−ρ)/ρ
n2 = αM2(1 − ρ)/a,
u2 = B(M1 + t 1ρM2)αβ(1−ρ)/ρk 2αt 1αρ
where B ≡ αα(1 − α)1−α[(1 − β)1−β(ρ/b)βββ/ρ]α[α(1 − ρ)/a]αβ(1−ρ)/ρ. The marginal comparative statics in this structure are: dui/dMi > 0,
dui/dMj > 0,
dui/dt1 > 0,
dni/dMi > 0,
dn1/dM2 < 0,
dn1/dt1 < 0,
du2/dk2 > 0
(6.7)
where i ≠ j. The local equilibrium in structure E2 is symmetric to that in E1. The marginal comparative statics in the two structures are summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 6.5: As transaction efficiency and population size increase in either country, per capita real incomes in both countries increase. The number of intermediate goods produced in a country increases with the population size in that country. The number of intermediate goods produced by a country importing intermediate goods decreases with the population size in the other country and with the transaction efficiency coefficient in the first country.
6.5.10 Local equilibrium in structure F The local equilibrium in structure F1 and its marginal comparative statics are: w = p2z = t 1ρ,
p1z = 1/θ,
p1x = b/ρ,
p2x = wb/ρ,
p1y = (1 − β)β−1(b/ρ)ββ−β/ρ[(1 − ρ)α(M1 + t 1ρM2)/a] p2y = (1 − β)β−1β−β(b/ρ)β[(1 − ρ)M2/a]−β(1−ρ)/ρ n1 = [αβM1 − (1 − αβ)t 1ρM2](1 − ρ)/a, ρ 1
αβ(1−ρ)/ρ
u1 = θ B(M1 + t M2) 1−α
,
n2 = M2(1 − ρ)/a, ρ 1
u2 = B(M1 + t M )
dui/dMi > 0,
dui/dt1 > 0,
du2/dk2 > 0
dni/dMi > 0,
dn1/dM2 < 0,
dn1/dt1 < 0
(6.8)
αβ(1−ρ)/ρ ρ 2 1 2
t k.
where B ≡ αα(1 − α)1−α[(1 − β)1−β(ρ/b)βββ/ρ]α[α(1 − ρ)/a]αβ(1−ρ)/ρ. The local equilibrium in structure F2 is symmetric to that in F1. The marginal comparative statics in the two structures are consistent with proposition 6.5.
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
177
6.6 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM AND INFRAMARGINAL COMPARATIVE STATICS Inserting the local equilibrium values of prices into (6.3), we can partition the parameter space of 12 dimensions (θ, b, a, ρ, M1, M2, α, β, t1, t2, k1, k2) into subspaces, within each of which a local equilibrium is the general equilibrium. This analysis needs the equilibrium value of the domestic price of some good in a country that does not produce this good in some structure. But we can calculate the shadow price of this good in this country from the first-order condition of a firm, assuming that firm is active in producing this good. This analysis yields the following inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium: (6.9a)
The local equilibrium in structure A is the general equilibrium if either k1 and t1 or k2 and t2 are sufficiently small.
(6.9b)
Suppose that M1 is not too small compared to M2 and that k2 and t1 are not too small. The local equilibrium in structure C1 is the general equilibrium if t 1ρ < k1/θ. The local equilibrium in structure E1 is the general equilibrium if t 1ρ ∈(k1/θ, 1/θk2). The local equilibrium in structure F1 is the general equilibrium if t 1ρ > 1/θk2.
(6.9bI) (6.9bII) (6.9bIII) (6.9c) (6.9cI) (6.9cII) (6.9cIII) (6.9d) (6.9dI) (6.9dII) (6.9dIII)
Suppose that M1 is close to M2 and t1 is close to t2. The local equilibrium in structure D0 is the general equilibrium if k1 < θt 1ρ and k2 < t 2ρ/θ. The local equilibrium in structure D1 is the general equilibrium if k2 > 1/θt 1ρ. The local equilibrium in structure D2 is the general equilibrium if k1 > θ/t 2ρ. Suppose that M2 is not too small compared to M1 and that t2 and k1 are not too small. The local equilibrium in structure C2 is the general equilibrium if t ρ2 < θk2. The local equilibrium in structure E2 is the general equilibrium if t 2ρ ∈(θk2, θ/k1). The local equilibrium in structure F2 is the general equilibrium if t 2ρ > θ/k1.
Here, we have used the upper and lower bound of the local equilibrium value of w to find sufficient conditions for Di to occur in equilibrium, since the local equilibrium value of w in Di cannot be solved analytically. But these conditions may not be necessary. Hence, the parameter subspace (6.9c) is not completely partitioned. In other words, the inframarginal comparative statics state that three factors determine trade patterns: exogenous technological comparative advantage (its degree is represented by θ); endogenous comparative advantage (its degree is represented by 1/ρ which is the degree of economies of variety of producer goods as well); exogenous comparative advantages in transactions, which relate to relative transaction efficiencies of final and intermediate goods in country 1 compared to these in country 2 (ki/kj, ti/tj, ki/ti, kj/tj) and the absolute level of transaction efficiency. Here, we consider economies of variety of producer goods to be equivalent to endogenous comparative advantage since two countries have the same production conditions in producing y and x (i.e. no exogenous comparative advantage exists between them in producing y and x) and the equilibrium total factor productivity and variety of producer goods positively relate to 1/ρ. If the absolute level of transaction efficiency is low for all goods, autarky is equilibrium. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to a structure with trade. It is the interplay between exogenous and endogenous comparative advantage in production and transactions that determines to which structure the equilibrium will jump.
178 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
In order to understand the complicated comparative statics, we take a three-step analysis. We first consider inframarginal analysis between structures, then marginal analysis for each structure. For inframarginal analysis, we first compare cases (6.9b), (6.9c), and (6.9d), then compare between different structures in each case. The comparison of the cases indicates that when transaction conditions of intermediate goods are similar in the two countries, each country exports and imports intermediate goods, that is, structure D occurs in equilibrium. Otherwise, the country with the better transaction conditions of intermediate goods imports such goods. This is case (6.9b) or (6.9d). Case (6.9b), in which only country 1 imports intermediate goods, is more likely to occur in equilibrium than case (6.9d), in which country 2 imports intermediate goods, if the transaction efficiency of intermediate goods relative to that of final goods is higher in country 1 than in country 2 and/or if the population size in country 1 is larger. We now take the second step. We consider case (6.9b) first. Suppose that the transaction conditions and exogenous comparative advantage change in the following way. k1 decreases and/or k2 increases, and/or θ (degree of exogenous comparative advantage) increases, and t1 increases over three periods of time. Hence, in period 1, k1 > t 1ρθ, which implies that country 1’s transaction efficiency of final goods is high, its transaction efficiency of intermediate goods is low, and exogenous comparative advantage is not significant. Therefore, the local equilibrium in structure C1 is the general equilibrium (see (6.9bI)). In this structure, country 1 imports z and x and country 2 imports y. Then, these parameters change: k1 decreases, θ increases, and/or t 1ρ increases such that in period 2, t 1ρk2θ < 1 < t 1ρθ/k1. Hence, the equilibrium jumps to structure E1, where country 1 no longer imports the final good z (see (6.9bII)). In period 3, k2 increases, and/or t 1ρ, θ further increase, such that k2θt 1ρ > 1. Then the equilibrium jumps to structure F1, where country 2 imports one more final good z (see (6.9bIII)). This implies that as the degree of exogenous comparative advantage increases and as country 2’s relative transaction efficiency of importing final and intermediate goods increases compared to that for country 1, the equilibrium trade pattern shifts to increase country 2’s imported final goods compared to country 1. Also, the equilibrium trade pattern shifts from exporting goods with exogenous comparative disadvantage in production to exporting goods with exogenous comparative advantage. Repeating this analysis for other cases, we can obtain similar results. In summary, if exogenous and endogenous comparative advantages in production and transactions go in the same direction, then a country exports its comparative advantage goods. If it has endogenous comparative advantage in production and exogenous comparative advantage in transactions, but exogenous comparative disadvantage in production for exporting a good, then it will export this good if the advantage dominates the disadvantage. Otherwise, it imports this good. In other words, a country exports a good with net comprehensive endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage in production and transactions. It will use substitution between trade of different types of goods to avoid trade with low transaction efficiency. Putting together marginal comparative statics for structure C, given in (6.4), and inframarginal comparative statics, given in (6.9), we can see that if the local equilibrium in structure C1 is the general equilibrium, then the conditions for dn/dt1 > 0 and dn/dM1 > 0, given in (6.4), are satisfied. Hence, dn/dt1 > 0 and dn/dM1 > 0 hold if structure C1 occurs in equilibrium. All marginal and inframarginal comparative statics are summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 6.6: 1) If transaction efficiencies for all goods are low, then the autarky structure is equilibrium, in which no international trade occurs though the number of intermediate goods, productivity, and per capita real income in each country increase with population size. As transaction efficiency is improved, the equilibrium jumps to a structure with trade. In an equilibrium trade pattern, a country exports goods with net endogenous and exogenous
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
179
comparative advantages in production and transactions. It exports a good if its endogenous comparative advantage in production and exogenous comparative advantage in transactions outweigh its exogenous comparative disadvantage in producing this good. Otherwise, it imports this good. Each country will exploit the substitution between trades of different types of goods to avoid trading goods that are associated with low transaction efficiency. 2) If a country exports the agricultural good and imports the final manufactured good (structure C), then as the transaction efficiency of intermediate goods in the other country increases from a very low to a high level, this country shifts from specialization in producing the agricultural good to exporting increasingly more intermediate goods. Changes in relative population size will shift the production of producer goods to the country with increased relative population size. Improvements in transaction conditions of final goods benefit both countries, too. Improvements in transaction conditions and increases in population size raise per capita real incomes in both countries and raise the total number of producer goods in the whole economy. 3) If a country specializes in producing producer goods (structures E or F occurring in equilibrium), an increase in population size and/or in transaction efficiency in either country raises per capita real income. But an increase in a country’s transaction efficiency or in population size in the other country will relocate the production of producer goods from the former country to the latter. 4) If the two countries trade producer goods (structure D occurring in equilibrium), then an increase in the transaction efficiency in a country may reduce its per capita real income, although increases in population size may have positive effects on industrialization and per capital real income. This implies that the government in each country may have an incentive to impose a tariff (reducing transaction efficiency for importing goods) to improve terms of trade and raise home residents’ per capita real income.
6.7 A COMPARISON WITH THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM BASED ON MODELS WITH CRS In this section, we compare the analysis of patterns of trade and economic development in example 6.3 with the wisdom in the conventional theories of trade and economic development. We first compare the result from example 6.3 with the core theorems of neoclassical trade theory, and then compare it with neoclassical development economics based on models with constant returns to scale (CRS). We first compare the result from example 6.3 with the HO theorem. It is interesting to see that our comparative statics may generate a prediction that is empirically equivalent to rejecting the HO theorem. If we interpret intermediate goods as capital or producer goods, then empirically, the aggregate output level of intermediate goods in our model can be considered to be the total value of capital. With this interpretation, good y is capital intensive and z is labor intensive (i.e., z needs no capital goods for production). Hence, as the number of intermediate goods endogenously increases in response to improvements in transaction condition or to population growth, the capital intensity of good y increases. There is no reason that the country producing a lot of capital goods must export good y in our model. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable that from empirical observation, a country producing a lot of capital goods exports labor-intensive goods z and imports capital-intensive goods y. This analysis is consistent with the proposition made by Bhagwati and Dehejia (1994), that as increasing returns and intermediate goods are introduced, the neoclassical core trade theorems may not hold.
180 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Next, we compare our results with the SS theorem. Using the results in subsections 6.5.7 to 6.5.10, it can be shown that if structures C, E, or F occur in equilibrium, we have: d(pix/wi)/dti = 0 and d(piy/piz)/dti < 0 d(pix/wi)/dMi = 0 and d(piy/piz)/dMi < 0 d(pix/wi)/dMj = 0 and d(piy/piz)/dMj < 0. Also, if structure D occurs in equilibrium: d(pix/wi)/dtj = 0 and d(piy/piz)/dtj < 0 d(pix/wi)/dMi = 0 and d(piy/piz)/dMi < 0 d(pix/wi)/dMj = 0 and d(piy/piz)/dMj < 0. All these marginal comparative statics imply that as relative prices of goods and inputs change in response to changes in parameters, the direction of the changes of relative prices are inconsistent with the SS theorem. Here, the final manufactured good y is capital intensive and the agricultural good is labor intensive. As the relative price of the two final goods decreases in response to changes of transaction conditions, the relative price of capital goods to labor does not change. It is well known that the SS theorem does not hold outside of the diversification cone. Hence, if we consider inframarginal comparative statics that involve discontinuous jumps of equilibrium across structures, then the SS theorem can easily be invalidated. The SS theorem has been used to show that tariffs can be employed to redistribute income toward the scarce factor. But common sense is inconsistent with the prediction of the SS theorem: the former says that as tariffs increase in a country that exports capital-intensive goods and imports labor-intensive goods, labor will marginally benefit. But tariffs mean the country has forgone the opportunity to increase productivity by expanding the trade network. Hence, net effect that determines whether labor can benefit from the increased tariffs. Our model substantiates this common sense. From (6.9b), we can see that if k2 and t1 are large, structure C1 occurs in equilibrium. Assume that country 1 is the US and country 2 is Taiwan. Now, the government in the US increases the import tariff rate, so that t1 decreases. Its inframarginal effect is to make the equilibrium jump to autarky. From subsections 6.5.6 and 6.5.7, we can see that the relative wage rate of the US to Taiwan is 1/t ρ1 > 1 in C1, and is 1 in autarky. Hence, the inframarginal effect of the tariff increase is to reduce the relative wage in the US. But the marginal effect of a decrease in t1 is to raise the relative wage rate in the US, since d(1/w) = d(1/t 1ρ)/dt1 < 0. Also, from subsection 6.5.7, the terms of trade of the US, p1y/p2z, marginally increase as t1 decreases (or as tariff rates in the US increase). These are the positive marginal effects of this tariff increase on terms of trade and wage rates in the US. But it generates negative marginal effects by reducing the trade and productivity gains that can be exploited. The net marginal effect of this tariff increase is represented by resulting changes in per capita real incomes (equilibrium utility). From (6.4), it is obvious that this net marginal effect is negative, since per capita real income decreases as a result of the tariff increase in the US (du1/dt1, du2/dt1 > 0). If we take into account the negative inframarginal effect of the tariff increase, which reduces the relative wage rate of the US, the total net effect of the tariff increase is to hurt labor in the US. We can conduct a similar analysis for the other structures C, E, and F and obtain similar results. It is interesting to see that in this example, labor in the US benefits from a decrease in tariff rates, even if this tariff reduction marginally deteriorates the US’s terms of trade. This is because productivity gains from the expanded network size of trade (an increase in the number of traded intermediate goods n) may outweigh the negative effect of deteriorated terms of trade.
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
181
The analysis of structure D suggests that the net marginal effect of a tariff increase in the US is positive (u1 increases as t1 decreases), though it marginally deteriorates terms of trade p1x/p2x and relative wage 1/w. But total net marginal and inframarginal effect could still be negative. It is straightforward from the local equilibria in C, D, E, and F that the factor price equalization does not hold in general since the equilibrium value of w is not 1 in general, though it tends to 1 as transaction costs go to 0. Hence, transaction costs explain the difference in factor prices between the countries. As transaction conditions are improved, the factor price tends to be equal for a given structure. A generalized FPE theorem may then be considered: as transaction conditions are improved, factor prices tend to be equalized. But inframarginal comparative statics (jumps of equilibrium between structures) will invalidate the generalized FPE theorem. For instance, as k2 increases, the equilibrium may jump from D0 to C1, which may cause an increase in the difference in wage rates between the two countries. It is easy to see that the RY theorem may not hold in this example. But it is not appropriate to directly compare comparative statics with the core trade theorems in the HO model because of different specifications of model structures. Hence, we should pay more attention to the distinct features of comparative statics of the model in example 6.3, which are summarized in propositions 6.3 to 6.6. The effects of changes in transaction conditions on the number of traded and intermediate goods (the degree of industrialization), productivity, per capita real income, and on discontinuous jumps of trade patterns are much more important than their effects on the structure of relative prices. In general in example 6.3, not much regularity of comparative statics relating to changes of the structure of relative prices stands out. Anything is possible, even if a specific model is explicitly specified. The regularity of comparative statics as they relate to price structure is not only model specific, but also trade-structure specific (or parameter-subspace specific). Hence, it is inconsequential to try to find the counterparts of the SS theorem and RY theorem in the model with economies of scale. We now turn to a comparison between our comparative statics and the conventional wisdom in development economics. We first consider the development trap, then the relationship between industrialization, income distribution, and evolution of a dual structure; and finally, development strategy. Assume that food z is a necessity and its minimum per capita consumption must not be smaller than 1 for subsistence. Suppose all labor is allocated to the production of z. Then per capita output, and therefore per capita consumption, of z is θi, which is not greater than 1 if and only if θi ≤ 1. Hence, for a value of θi small enough to be close to 1, the equilibrium number of intermediate goods must be at its minimum value 1. In other words, each intermediate good is not individually a necessity for the production of the final manufactured good y, and therefore labor must be concentrated in the production of food, rather than dispersed in producing many intermediate goods, if productivity of food is very low. If transaction efficiency for international trade is also very low, then importing food is not an optimum choice. Thus a country with very low transaction efficiency and low agricultural productivity will be locked in the development trap associated with autarky structure A, where the number of available producer goods is very small, productivity of the final manufactured goods is low, and trade dependence and per capita income is low. This provides a formal equilibrium theory that predicts the empirical evidence in chapter 2, that tropical regimes are in a development trap due to unfavorable geographical conditions that cause low agricultural productivity. It is not difficult to show that as transaction conditions are improved, the relative output of industrial goods x and y to the agricultural good z increases, though the income share of industrial goods is always a constant, regardless of the degree of industrialization. Here, industrialization relates to an increase in the number of intermediate goods and to a decrease of price of final manufactured goods (which is associated with an increase in the total factor productivity of final manufactured goods). As industrialization continues, changes in the differences in per capita real income between countries do not have much general regularity.
182 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Suppose structure C1 occurs in equilibrium. Then from subsection 6.5.7, we can see that per > (k2t2)α. capita real income in country 1 is higher than in country 2 if and only if (θk1)1−αt 1−ρ−α 1 Suppose this inequality holds, and the difference in per capita real income between the two countries increases with θ and k1 and decreases with k2 and a. Its relationship with t1 is ambiguous. Hence, there are many determinants of the relationship between trade and inequality of income distribution between countries. Suppose industrialization and increases in trade are driven by improvements in transaction conditions. The relative change speed of transaction conditions in the two countries affects changes in the difference in per capita real income between the two countries. There is no monotonic correlation, nor is there a simple, inverted U-curve between the difference and trade, which increases with transaction efficiency and industrialization. If marginal comparative statics in other structures and inframarginal comparative statics are considered, our conclusion will be strengthened: little general regularity of the relationship between inequality and economic development and related trade exists. This prediction is supported by recent empirical evidence in Ram (1997) and Deininger and Squire (1996) which show that no monotonic correlation between inequality of income distribution and economic development exists. We now consider the implications of comparative statics for development strategies. Again, we may take country 1 to be the US and country 2, Taiwan. Suppose transaction efficiency for international trade in the initial period of time is very low in both countries, then autarky occurs in equilibrium. Assume further that the US has quite a large autarky equilibrium number of intermediate goods (quite a high degree of industrialization) due to its relatively large population size, and that Taiwan is in the development trap. Now we consider the two cases. In case (a), Taiwan is in the development trap due to the low relative productivity of the agricultural sector (bad climatic conditions and limited arable land). In case (b), the relative productivity of Taiwan’s agricultural sector is high, but its population size is too small. Assume that in period 2, transaction efficiency for international trade is slightly improved. The equilibrium will jump to structure F1 for case (a), since (6.9a) and (6.9bIII) indicate that for a large θ (country 2’s relative productivity of the agricultural good is low), as transaction conditions are slightly improved, the equilibrium jumps from autarky to F1. For case (b), as transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium jumps from autarky to structure C1, since (6.9bI) indicates that for a small θ (country 2’s relative productivity of the agricultural good is high), structure C1 is more likely to occur in equilibrium. Suppose that the slight improvement in transaction conditions is not enough to ensure t1 > ta, so that n2 = 0 as shown in (6.5). This implies that Taiwan completely specializes in producing and exporting the agricultural good (without industrialization), though it can gain from exogenous comparative advantage in production. In period 3, Taiwan has several options, dependent on the transaction cost coefficient or tariff rate in the US, which is 1 − t1. Suppose 1 − t1 decreases over time due to liberalization reforms or a preferential tariff rate to Taiwan in the US. Then Taiwan starts industrialization. The production of intermediate goods relocates from the US to Taiwan, increasing per capita real incomes in both countries and the relative wage rate in Taiwan (see (6.4) and (6.5)). This shift from C1 with a small n2 to C1 with a large n2 looks like an export oriented development pattern pursued by Taiwan from the 1960s to the 1980s. The driving forces of this industrialization are the open-door policy of the US (an increase in t1 and k1; see (6.4) and (6.9bI)) and Taiwan’s liberalization and internalization policy (a large k2, see (6.9b)). In the literature of development economics, structure C1 with a small n2 is sometimes called the development pattern of dependence (see Myrdal, 1957, Nelson, 1956, and Palma, 1978, for instance). But if k2 is small compared to t1 and t2 because of a high tariff of imported final goods and a low tariff of imported producer goods in Taiwan, then the equilibrium will jump from C1 with a small n2 to D0 as Taiwan lowers its import tariff on producer goods. This policy regime is just like the import substitution strategy carried out in Taiwan in the 1950s (see for instance
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
183
Balassa, 1980, Chenery, Robinson, and Syrquin, 1986, Meier, 1989, pp. 297–306, and Bruton, 1998). The jump from C1 with a small n2 to D0 is just like an import substitution process. The difference between export-oriented and import substitution development patterns lies in the ideas set out in propositions 6.3 to 6.5, that all countries have incentives to raise import tariff rates in structure D0, which will reduce per capita real incomes in both countries, while in structures C, E, or F, both countries have incentives to reduce tariff rates. In other words, if a government manipulates their tariff structure to pursue structure D (import substitution), D itself will justify a more distorted tariff structure which impedes economic development. Hence, this distorting tariff policy could generate a particular type of development trap. In the absence of such a distorting tariff, structure D may occur naturally in equilibrium as a consequence of certain patterns of endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages in production and transactions. Since the utilities of both countries increase with transaction efficiencies in structures C, E, and F, liberalization and internationalization policy is easier to carry out in these structures. This explains why an export-oriented development pattern is more successful than a pattern of import substitution. But the notion of import substitution is inaccurate, since this pattern of trade and development relies on increases in imported intermediate goods, though it promotes domestic production of final manufactured goods. Another interesting difference in development patterns is that between structures E1 or F1 and structure E2. F1 indicates that the less-developed country (country 2) imports final goods and exports parts and components of the final manufactured goods. Taiwan does not export automobiles, but exports a lot of automobile and computer parts and components. In structure E2, the less-developed country imports intermediate goods and exports final manufactured goods, similar to Hong Kong’s development pattern in the 1970s and 1980s. However, if E1 or F2 occurs in equilibrium in the absence of government intervention, which of them actually takes place is determined by natural endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage in production and transactions. It is counterproductive to pursue a particular one by using tariff policy. Any improvements in transaction efficiencies will promote productivity progress and increase per capita real income, regardless of which one, E or F, occurs in equilibrium. The Krugman–Venables model and the model in example 6.3 predict type II scale effects (manufacturing productivity goes up if and only if the average size of manufacturing firms increases). The type II scale effects are rejected by empirical evidence provided by Liu and Yang (2000) and Y. Zhang (2000). There are two ways to avoid these scale effects. One is to specify local economies of scale. This makes the algebra very complicated due to feedback loops between positive profit and consumers’ demand functions. The other way is to develop Smithian models with intermediate goods and firms: these are presented in chapter 12.
Key Terms and Review • Dual structure between the industrial and agricultural sectors, dual structure with unequal distribution of gains from trade, and dual structure between commercialized and self-sufficient sectors • Dual structure caused by disequilibrium in the labor market versus dual structure in the transitional stage of evolution of division of labor • Effects of coexistence of endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages on the emergence, evolution, and disappearance of dual structure • Underdevelopment and dual structure with underemployment • Why the deterioration of terms of trade of a country and increases in gains that it receives from trade may concur
184 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
• Effects of economies of scale, industrial linkages, and differences in transaction conditions between countries, on the evolution of dual structure and on income distribution • Immiserizing development • Coordination problems, caused by multiple equilibria, of the industrial linkage network • Type II scale effect • The relationship between inequality of income distribution, economic development, trade, and evolution in division of labor
Further Reading Smithian models with both endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages: Gomory (1994), Liu (1999), Cheng, Liu, and Yang (2000), Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998); Existence theorem and first welfare theorem in a general class of Smithian models: Sun, Yang, and Yao (1999), Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998); Underdevelopment: Bauer and Yamey (1957), and Kindleberger (1958), Myrdal (1957), Nelson (1956), Palma (1978); Dual economies and structural changes: Ranis (1988), Lewis (1955), Fei and Ranis (1964), Chenery (1979, 1986), Khandker and Rashid (1995), Dixit (1968); Equilibrium models of dual economies and economies of scale: Din (1996), Murphy, Schleifer, and Vishny (1989), Gans (1998), Kelly (1997), Fujita and Krugman (1995), Baldwin and Venables (1995), Puga and Venables (1998), Krugman and Venables (1995); Deteriorated terms of trade: Sen (1998), Cypher and Dietz (1998), Kohli and Werner (1998), Morgan (1970); Variable returns to scale: Young (1991), Panagariya (1983), Kemp (1991); Empirical evidence for the coexistence of exogenous and endogenous comparative advantage: Gallup and Sachs (1998), Sachs and Warner (1995, 1997); Development strategies of import and export substitution: Hirschman (1968), Krueger (1984), Balassa (1980), and Bruton (1998); Unequal distribution of gains from trade and deteriorated terms of trade: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) (1950), Spraos (1983), Sapsford (1985), Singer (1984), Kravis and Lipsey (1981), Emmanuel (1972), Bacha (1978), Smith and Toye (1979), Alizadeh (1984), Thirwal (1986), Evans (1987); Positive correlation between inequality and growth: Banerjee and Newman (1993), Lewis (1955), Palma (1978), Li and Zou (1998), Grossman (1998), Murphy and Welch (1991), Borjas, Freeman, and Katz (1992), Karoly and Klerman (1994), Sachs and Shatz (1995); Negative correlation between inequality and growth: Alesina and Rodrik (1994), Galor and Zeira (1993), Thompson (1995), Fei, Ranis, and Kuo (1979), Aghion, Caroli, and Garcia-Pena Losa (1999), Frank (1977), Balassa (1986); Immiserizing growth: Bhagwati (1969), Sachs, Yang, and Zhang (1999a); Inverted U-curves for inequality and per capita income: Kuznetz (1955), Krugman and Venables (1995); Fluctuation of inequality: Yang and Zhang (1999), Ram (1997), Jones (1998, p. 65), Deininger and Squire (1996); Surveys of the relationship between inequality, trade, and economic development: Cline (1997), Jeffrey Williamson (1998), Burtless (1995).
QUESTIONS 1 Gallup and Sachs (1998) have found empirical evidence that different geographical conditions are responsible for development performance differences between countries. Those countries, which are located in temperate zones and have better geographical conditions for transportation, also have better long-term development performance. Use the model with endogenous and exogenous comparative advantages in examples 6.1 and 6.3 to explain the empirical evidence. 2 There are several different definitions of dual economy. Lewis (1955) and Fei and Renis (1964) take dual economy as a structure with division of population between the modern industrial sector and the traditional agricultural sector. In chapter 3, we
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
3 4
5
6
7
185
consider a structure with unequal incomes between two groups of ex ante different individuals to be a dual structure. Compare the dual structure in example 6.1 to these definitions and discuss the effects of the coexistence of endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage on dual structure. Relate your discussion to the notions of underemployment and underdevelopment. Emmanuel (1972), Bacha (1978), Smith and Toye (1979), Prebisch (1988), Frank (1995), and Alizadeh (1984) argue that international trade transfers wealth from the poor countries to the rich ones. Use the models in this chapter to assess that argument. John Stuart Mill (1848) emphasized the importance of “the tendency of every extension of the market to improve the processes of production.” He argued that “a country which produces for a larger market than its own can introduce a more extended division of labour, can make greater use of machinery, and is more likely to make inventions and improvements in the processes of production.” Use the models in this chapter to formalize his ideas. The United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs (1950, pp. 7, 13–24) and Lewis (1952, p. 118) argue, based on the measurement of prices of the United Kingdom’s commodity terms of trade or the terms of trade between primary products and manufactured products, that international market forces have transferred income from poor to rich nations through deterioration in the terms of trade of less-developed countries. Meier (1989, pp. 390–2) argues that this does not provide a sufficiently strong statistical foundation for any adequate generalization about the terms of trade of poor countries. The import price index conceals the heterogeneous price movements within and among the broad categories of foodstuffs, raw materials, and minerals; no allowance is made for changes in the quality of exports and imports; there is inadequate consideration of new commodities, and the recorded terms of trade are not corrected for the substantial decline in transportation costs. The introduction of new products and qualitative improvements have been greater in manufactured products than in primary products, and a large proportion of the fall in British prices of primary products can be attributed to the great decline in inward freight rates. Even if it were true that the less-developed country experienced a secular deterioration in their commodity terms of trade, this deterioration may have been caused by productivity progress in the export sector. Hence, as long as productivity in export industries is increasing more rapidly than export prices are falling, the single-factoral terms of trade (commodity terms corrected for changes in productivity in producing exports) may increase, and the country’s real income can rise despite the deterioration in the commodity terms of trade. Use the model in example 6.1 to formalize this analysis. Many economists argue that deterioration of terms of trade for less-developed countries hinders economic development in these countries. Other economists try to find empirical evidence for or against the fact that terms of trade for developing countries have been worsening, or to measure the adverse effects of the worsening terms on economic development (see for example Morgan, 1970, and Kohli and Werner, 1998). Sen (1998) reports that from 1990 to 1995, Thailand’s GDP increased by 49 percent, its export prices increased by 18 percent, and its import prices by 21 percent. During the same period, Singapore’s GDP increased by 49 percent, its export prices decreased by 18 percent, and its import prices decreased by 9 percent. Use the model in example 6.1 to explain this fact. Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989) show that if income distribution is very unequal, a limited market will adversely affect economic development. Compare
186 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
this theory on the relationship between dual structure and economic development to the Smithian mechanism for economic development in example 6.1. 8 Lewis (1955) argues that an exogenously fixed wage rate that is higher than the market clearing level generates a labor surplus in the traditional agricultural sector. As capital accumulates over time in the modern industrial sector, marginal productivity of labor relative to capital in the industrial sector increases, so that this sector can absorb surplus labor and grow at no cost to the agricultural sector. Compare this development/dual economy mechanism to the Smithian mechanisms in examples 6.1 and 6.2. Find empirical evidence to test one mechanism against the other. 9 Chenery et al. (1986, pp. 13–32), used models with disequilibrium and changes of taste to explain structural changes in an economy. According to them, “Given imperfect foresight and limits to factor mobility, structural changes are most likely to occur under conditions of disequilibrium; this is particularly true in factor markets. Thus a shift of labor and capital from less productive to more productive sectors can accelerate growth.” Use the equilibrium models in this and previous chapters to explain structural changes and dual structures, and discuss the differences between the two approaches. Which of them is analytically more powerful, and why? 10 Chenery et al. (1986) emphasize the effects of changes to the demand side on structural change in the economic development process. For instance, they argue that changes in preferences and in income alter the expenditure share of agricultural goods. Other economists pay more attention to effects of changes to the supply side on structural change – for instance, changes in technology alter the income share of industrial output. Use the general equilibrium analysis in this text to explain why the separation between demand and supply analyses is inconsistent with the notion of general equilibrium. For example, income is determined by productivity and network size of division of labor, which are in turn determined by the extent of the market, which relates to aggregate income. Also, use models in this chapter to explain why economic structure may change endogenously in the absence of changes in production functions and in preferences. 11 Lewis (1955) uses a model with disequilibrium in the labor market to analyze dual structure. Use the approach developed in chapter 13 (below) to specify a formal dynamic general equilibrium model with constant returns to scale technology in two sectors. One of the sectors needs capital and labor as inputs, and the other sector needs only labor as an input in production. Show that in the absence of exogenous technical changes and of disequilibrium in the labor market, the equilibrium-relative size of the two sectors can evolve over time. Use this example to discuss the effects of economists’ limited capacity to manage general equilibrium models on the economic thinking in the 1950s and 1960s. 12 Lewis (1955) considers economic development and structural change to be a process of transformation of the traditional sector with a low degree of exchange to a modern sector with a high degree of exchange. Use the models in this chapter to formalize his conjecture. 13 Compare the policy implications of the model in example 6.1 with the view that underdevelopment is caused by the exploitation of less-developed economies by capitalist developed economies (Myrdal, 1957, Nelson, 1956, Palma, 1978). 14 Use the inframarginal comparative statics in table 6.3 to analyze a recent debate on competitiveness. Show that a country with low transaction efficiency cannot receive
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22
23
187
gains from trade in the transitional stage of economic development. Verify the following statements. From the northwest block of table 6.3, we can see that if the degree of economies of specialization in country 1, b, which negatively relates to α, is small relative to c, which negatively relates to γ, or k1 < α23−c, then structure PC is the equilibrium where this country is in an inferior position in the transitional stage. If c is small relative to b, or k2 < aγ23−b, structure CP occurs in equilibrium, where country 2 is in an inferior position in the transitional state. You may interpret absolute level of transaction efficiency and degree of economies of specialization for a country in producing a good as degree of competitiveness. Compare the dual economy model in example 6.1 with the Ethier model of dual economy in example 5.2 and the Sachs and Yang dual economy model in example 5.4. Compare the dual economy model in example 6.1 with the model in example 6.3, analyze the empirical implications of the differences, and design a method to test the two types of model against data. Use the model in example 6.3 to show that the notions of import substitution and export substitution may be misleading. Use this model to analyze the welfare effects of industrial and trade policies. Some economists argue that imperialism and colonialism are detrimental to economic development because they deter the expansion of a variety of industrial sectors in the less-developed country. Use the models in this chapter to assess this statement. In your analysis, compare and contrast division of labor, diversity of professional occupations, and individuals’ specialization. Compare Taiwan’s development pattern, which does not promote domestic production of automobiles, but promotes exports of components and parts produced by many small companies, with South Korea’s development pattern, which promotes domestic production of automobiles and other final manufactured goods. Use the extended KV model in example 6.3 to assess the effects of the two different development patterns. Use the extended KV model in example 6.3 to comment on the following statements: “Any industrial and trade policies are harmful for economic development and exploitation of gains from trade.” “Industrial and trade policies can be used to enhance a developing country’s performance of trade and development and thereby significantly enhance the welfare of the country.” Use the model in example 6.3 to analyze the differences between three types of coordination problem in an industrial linkage network. The first two types are caused by multiplicity of equilibria. One of them involves interest conflicts between the countries (in a Ricardo model with dichotomy between pure consumers and firms). The other does not (the MSV model in example 5.3). The final type is caused by a particular kind of distortion in the equilibrium models of monopolistic competition that are not beneficial to any decision-makers (in the DS model in example 5.1 and the Ethier model in example 5.2; see also example 2 in ch. 5). Hirschman (1958) argues that forward (to downstream sectors) and backward (to upstream sectors) linkages to the sectors with economies of scale in production are more important than terms of trade for a developing country to gain from trade. Use the models in this chapter to formalize this idea. Some economists argue (see Meier, 1989, pp. 381–93) that if income elasticity of demand for goods exported by a developing country is low, export-led industrialization may not benefit the economic development of the country. Compare the
188 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
24
25
26
general equilibrium analysis with this analysis of demand. Why is the marginal analysis of demand often very misleading? Some economists argue that the demonstration effects of international trade will increase the desire for consumption and reduce saving and investment. This will be detrimental for economic development. Use the model in example 6.3 to show that as the taste parameter for imported final manufactured goods increases in country 1, economic development may be speeded up in structure C1. Ram (1997), Jones (1998, p. 65), and Deininger and Squire (1996) have found empirical evidence that inequality fluctuates as an economy develops. Yang and Zhang (1999, and see exercise 13) specify different types of individuals in each country in example 6.1 and show that inequality of income distribution fluctuates as different groups are sequentially involved in an increasingly higher level of division of labor. Use that model to explain the empirical evidence. Discuss the effect of a change in analytical framework on the interpretation of empirical observation in connection with the Albert Einstein’s statement as follows: “It is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. . . . It is the theory which decides what we can observe” (quoted in Heisenberg, 1971, p. 31). Why is marginal analysis not enough for managing the model in example 6.3?
EXERCISES 1 Following the method used to draw figure 6.2, draw individual PPFs, the aggregate production schedule for autarky, and the aggregate PPF in the model in example 6.2. Show that there are economies of division of labor in this model. 2 Suppose that b = c = 2 in example 6.1. Show that the inframarginal comparative statics are given by the table below. Interpret the results.
0 < k1 ≤ 16/27 0 < k2 ≤ 16/27 k1k2 < 4a(2/3)6 AA
16/27 < k1 ≤ 1
k1k2 > 4a(2/3)6
k1 < k1 ∈ k1 > 8/27 4a/27 (4a/27, 8/27)
k1 < 8/27 k2 < k1 < 8/27, 8a/27: k2 < 8a/27: PC CP CC AC
16/27 ≤ k2 < 1 k2 < 4a/27 k2 ∈ (4a/27, 8/27): CA CP
k2 > 8/27
PC
CC
Structure CC
CC
3 Show that in the previous exercise, if k2″ > k2′, k2′ ∈(4a/27, 16/27), k1 ∈(16/27, 1), a < 4, k2″ ∈(16/27, 1) and if k2′ < 8/27, then as k2 increases from k2′ to k2″, country 2’s terms of trade deteriorate. Meanwhile, each individual’s utility in country 2 increases from autarky to a higher level. 4 If we assume that there are economies of specialization only for individuals in country 1 in producing two goods, whereas constant returns prevail in country 2 in producing the two goods, the system of production functions is then:
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE b , x1 + x1s = L1x
c y1 + y 1s = L 1y ,
x2 + x 2s = aL 2x,
y2 + y 2s = L2y
Draw individual PPFs, the aggregate production schedule for autarky, and the aggregate PPF. Show that the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are given in the table below. k2 < 1
k2 = 1
k1 ∈ a > 2b−c (0, 4θ) k1k2 > θ2b−c+2/a k1k2 < θ2b−c+2/a a > 2b−1
AA
a < 2b−c
a > 2b−c
k1k2 < aθ2c−b+2
a > 2b−1
a < 2b−1 AA
k1 < θ2 /a CP+ PC− b+1
k2 < 21−c CP−
k1k2 > aθ2c−b+2 PC+
k1 > θ2b+1/a k2 > 21−c CC− k1 ∈ a > 2b−1 (4θ, 1) k2 < 2b−c/a k2 ∈ (2b−c/a, 21−c) CD− k2 > 2
1−c
a < 2b−c a < 2b−1
k1 < θ2c−b+2/a k1 ∈(θ2 θ2b+1/a) PC−
k1 < aθ2c−b+2 AD
AD
/a, k1 > k1 > aθ2c−b+2 θ2c−b+2/a PC− PC+
c−b+2
k1 > θ2b+1/a CC−
a < 2b−1
k2 < a2 c−b
DA
DA
k2 > 2 /a
k2 > a2c−b
DC−
DC+
b−c
a > 2b−1
a < 2 b−1
CC−
DC−
DC+
CC−
where θ ≡ bbcc/(b + c)b+c.
5 Suppose b = c = 2 in the model in example 6.1. A value tax rate t is imposed on each dollar of imported goods, and the total tax revenue is evenly distributed among the buyers of the goods. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Compare the results to the solutions in exercise 1 in chapter 4. Discuss the different implications of tax and transaction costs in a neoclassical equilibrium model and in a Smithian equilibrium model. 6 Liu, 1999: Consider the Ricardian model with endogenous cum exogenous comparative advantage, in which the number of type 1 persons is M1 and the number of type 2 persons is M2. Assume that all individuals have the same Cobb–Douglas utility function with the same taste for the two goods. The production functions for type i persons are: xi + x is = Max{lix − bix, 0} yi + y is = Max{liy − biy, 0}. Solve for the Walrasian general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Use your results to analyze the relationship between international and
189
190 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
domestic trade and dual structure in the transitional period from autarky to a high level of division of labor. 7 Suppose the production functions in the previous exercise are: xi + x is = Max{aix (lix − b), 0} yi + y is = Max{aiy (liy − b), 0} Solve for the Walrasian general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 8 Suppose the production functions in exercise 6 are: x1 + x 1s = Max{l1x − b, 0}, y1 + y 1s = l1y,
x2 + x 2s = Max{l2x − c, 0},
y2 + y 2s = al2y.
Solve for the Walrasian general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Use the model to explain pattern of trade with transaction and production conditions in two countries. 9 Draw the equilibrium production schedule in autarky and the PPF and identify economies of division of labor in example 6.1. 10 Find the parameter subspace within which a country’s terms of trade deteriorate and its gains from trade increase as the equilibrium shifts from structure PC to structure CC in example 6.1. 11 Liu (1999) introduces intermediate goods and tariffs into the Smithian model in example 6.1 to analyze the development patterns of import and export substitution. Design such a model and examine the different implications of it and the model in example 6.3 for the analysis of development patterns. 12 Yang and Zhang, 2000: Introduce tariffs into the model in example 6.1, and allow the Nash tariff game and Nash tariff negotiation. (See chapter 3 for the two regimes.) Analyze under what conditions unilateral protection tariffs and unilateral laissez fairism coexist and under what conditions Nash tariff negotiation occurs in equilibrium. 13 Yang and Zhang, 1999: Assume that in the model in example 6.1, there are two types of individuals in country 1. Type a persons and type b persons are distinguished by their transaction conditions. We assume that ka = k, kb = t, and k > t. In other words, each type a person has higher transaction efficiency than each type b person. Also, we assume that in country 2, k2 = k. This implies that country 2 is a developed country which has better transaction conditions. Country 1 is a less-developed country, where some residents (who might be urban or coastal residents) have the same transaction condition as in a developed country, but the rest of the population have a lower transaction efficiency. The production conditions are the same for all individuals in the same country, but different between the countries. Hence, the production functions for a type i consumerproducer are xj + x js = L cjx, yj + y js = Ljy, j = a, b. x2 + x2s = L c2x, y2 + y2s = rL2y, where x is, y is are respective quantities of the two goods sold by a type i person, Lis is the amount of labor allocated to the production of good s (= x, y) by a type i person, and Lix + Liy = 2. It is assumed that r, c > 1. Solve for equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Show that as transaction conditions are improved, the level of division of labor increases and inequality of income distribution fluctuates. 14 Yang and Zhang, 1999: Assume that in the developed country there are also two types of individual. Show that as more individuals are sequentially involved in
C HAPTER 6: C OMPARATIVE A DVANTAGE
15
16
17
18
19
the division of labor, some individuals achieve a higher level of specialization before others do. This increases inequality. As the latecomers catch up, inequality decreases. As the leading group goes to an even higher level of specialization, leaving the others behind, inequality increases again. Show how such a ratcheting process generates the fluctuation of inequality. Prove that in the model in example 6.3, the following structures cannot occur in equilibrium for ki ∈(0, 1): A structure in which each country produces y, z, x, and one of them exports y, x and the other exports z, x; A structure in which each country produces all goods, and imports and exports of all goods cannot occur in equilibrium. (Clue: use the first-order conditions for the decision problems of consumers in two countries to show that equilibrium requires k1k2 = 1, which contradicts ki ∈(0, 1).) Puga and Venables, 1998: Suppose that in example 6.3, the production function for the agricultural sector is a Cobb–Douglas function of labor and land. Solve for local equilibria in all possible market structures. Use the model to analyze the effects of geographical concentration of industrial production on dual structure. Introduce tariffs into the KV model to analyze the effects of trade policy on development pattern. Assuming that the two governments can choose between a Nash tariff game and Nash tariff negotiations, as in the Ricardian model in chapter 3, what policy regime will occur if structure D takes place in equilibrium? Consider the model in example 6.3. Prove that the structure in figure 6.3(b) cannot occur in equilibrium. (Clue: use the market clearing conditions to show that equilibrium requires x11 = k1x21, x12 = k1(k1k2)ρ/(1−ρ)x22, x11 + x12 = x1, x21 + x22 = x2, which contradicts ki ∈(0, 1)), where xij is the amount of an intermediate good produced in country i and sold in country j.) Show that the corner equilibrium in structure C2 is: w = k2−ρ,
p1z = 1, β−1 −β/ρ
p2y = (1 − β) β
p2x = bw/ρ,
p1x = b/ρ,
β −ρ 2
(b/ρ) k [(1 − ρ)α(M2 + k 2ρM1)/a]β(1−1/ρ),
n1 = [(1 − ρ)/a] [M1β − (1 − β)k2−ρM2], n2 = [(1 − ρ)/a] [M2αβk 2−ρ − (1 − α)βM1], −α u1 = Bk1αp 2y ,
20
21 22
−α u2 = Bk1−α−ρ p 2y , 2
where B ≡ (1 − α)(1−α)αα. Prove a proposition for this structure similar to proposition 6.3. In the original version of the KV model, the transaction cost for the agricultural good is 0 and transaction conditions for industrial goods y and x are the same in the two countries. Prove that for this version of the KV model, the local equilibrium in the structure in figure 6.3(b) is indeterminate, the equilibria n1 and n2 are indeterminate, and equilibrium values of xij , yij , and zij are indeterminate. Assume that in the KV model, country 1’s total productivity of good λ is θ > 1. Solve for local equilibria in all possible structures and their comparative statics. Then compare your results with the results in example 6.3. Use the model in example 6.3 to formalize Chenery and Meier’s idea that exporting final manufactured and importing intermediate goods can be a development pattern, which may evolve into the pattern of exporting producer goods.
191
192 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Notes 1 It can be shown that there are multiple equilibria in some razor-edge cases with inequalities replaced by equalities. For instance, if 2b−1 > a, 0 < k1 < 4α, k1 < aα24−b−c, and k2 = 4γ, multiple equilibria occur. 2 The complete partition of the parameter space when the razor-edge cases are considered is very cumbersome. But the essence of our results here would not be changed under such circumstances.
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
STRUCTURAL CHANGES, TRADE, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND
T RADE
193
7
7.1 ENDOGENOUS TRADE THEORY AND AN ENDOGENOUS NUMBER OF CONSUMER GOODS Smith explained domestic and international trade by individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization. Hence, his rationale for both international and domestic trade was the same: economies of division of labor. But within the neoclassical framework, the dichotomy between pure consumers and firms implies that the rationale for domestic trade differs from that for international trade. Domestic trade is essential for pure consumers even if comparative advantage, economies of scale, and differences in taste between individuals are absent, since pure consumers do not produce and will die from starvation in the absence of domestic trade between them and firms. However, international trade will not take place if these elements are not present, since each country has firms, or each country is a consumer-producer. Therefore, neoclassical trade theory cannot explain why and how international trade emerges from domestic trade. The first purpose of this chapter is to use a Smithian model to illustrate the intimate relationship between economic development, trade, structural changes, and evolution of division of labor. This model explains international and domestic trade by way of individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization, and explains the emergence of international trade from domestic trade by way of evolution in division of labor and evolution in endogenous comparative advantage between ex ante identical individuals. Since the number of goods in the models in this chapter is a parameter or a variable instead of a specific number, structural changes and their relationship with evolution of division of labor and economic development can be more thoroughly investigated. In section 7.2, we specify a Smithian model with endogenous specialization and the number of goods as a parameter. In section 7.3, individuals’ decisions in choosing their patterns of specialization and resource allocation are solved. Then the inframarginal comparative statics of the decisions are analyzed in section 7.4. Section 7.5 is devoted to the analysis of the general equilibrium network of division of labor. Then inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are used to analyze many concurrent phenomena of structural changes as different aspects of economic development. Section 7.5 analyzes how international trade emerges from domestic trade. In section 7.6, we combine the approach of endogenizing individuals’ levels of specialization with the approach of endogenizing the number of all available goods, to investigate the role of the development of division of labor in accounting for the emergence of new goods. More than
194 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
two centuries ago, Josiah Tucker (1755, 1774) noted that the development of division of labor creates the conditions for the emergence of new goods. Casual observations indicate that in an autarchic society without much division of labor, the variety of available goods is small, whereas in a developed economy with a high level of division of labor and specialization, the variety of available goods is large. Does this positive correlation between specialization and variety of available goods happen by coincidence? Or is it generated by some economic mechanism that is essential for understanding economic development? We can guess. Assume that there are economies of specialization, transaction costs, and economies of consumption variety or economies of complementarity between consumption goods because of individuals’ preferences for diverse consumption. Assume further that the calculation cost of the optimum decision increases with the number of consumption goods and accordingly counteracts the economies of consumption variety. Therefore, there are several trade-offs among four elements: economies of specialization, transaction costs, economies of consumption variety, and the management costs of consumption variety. The efficient trade-offs are, of course, dependent on the parameters of transaction efficiency, the degree of the economies of consumption variety, the management cost of consumption variety, and the degree of economies of specialization. For a sufficiently low transaction efficiency, each person has to choose autarky. The narrow scope for trading-off among economies of specialization, economies of consumption variety, and the management cost of consumption variety, due to each individual’s limited time endowment in autarky, may force individuals to produce few goods. It would not be feasible in autarky for individuals to self-provide cars, trains, airplanes, computers, television sets, telephones, and various detergents. However, as transaction efficiency is improved, the scope for trading-off economies of specialization against transaction costs is enlarged, so that the level of division of labor is increased. The increased division of labor enlarges the scope for trading-off economies and diseconomies of consumption variety, so that each individual’s level of specialization and the number of available consumption goods can be simultaneously increased through a higher level of division of labor between specialists who produce different goods. Thus, in a Smithian model with a CES utility function, the number of consumption goods and the level of division of labor can be endogenized simultaneously if a trade-off between economies and diseconomies of consumption variety is specified in addition to the trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs. The endogenization of the number of goods is associated with the endogenization of emergence of new goods, which is considered by many economists as endogenous technical progress. If transaction efficiency is low, then the production functions of some goods cannot be seen in equilibrium. As transaction efficiency is improved, the production functions of new goods emerge from a greater scope for trading-off economies of specialization against transaction costs and economies of consumption variety. Hence, in our model of endogenous specialization with an endogenous number of goods, productivity progress is associated with the emergence of the production functions of new goods. This view of endogenous technical progress differs from the conventional view that attributes technical progress to investment in research and development. According to our view of endogenous technical progress, investment in R&D alone is not sufficient for emergence of new goods and related new production functions. It is essential for the emergence of new goods that the size of the network of division of labor and the related extent of the market are sufficiently large to create the condition for the commercialization of new technology. But a sufficiently high transaction efficiency is essential for a large size of the network of division of labor. In section 7.9, we consider a model with an endogenous level of specialization in trading activities. If individuals are allowed to choose levels of specialization in trading activities and if there are economies of specialization and transaction costs in the trading activities, then transaction efficiency is endogenously determined by the level of division of labor between
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
195
production and transactions and within the professional trading sector. Hence, the level of division of labor is determined by transaction efficiency, which is determined by the level of specialization in the trading sector, which is in turn determined by the efficient trade-off between economies of specialization in the trading sector and the transaction cost of trading services. Therefore, we can use a Smithian model to explain the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity by the transaction conditions of transaction services, and investigate the effects of institutions and government policies on economic development via their effects on the transaction conditions of transaction services. In this general equilibrium model, transaction efficiencies, the network size of division of labor, the extent of the market for transaction services, the level of division of labor within the transaction sector, the emergence of professional middlemen, productivity, and per capita real income are interdependent. The notion of general equilibrium is powerful for working out a development mechanism that simultaneously determines all of them. Finally, section 7.10 presents the Becker–Murphy model, with a trade-off between economies of specialization and coordination costs, which can explain evolution of division of labor by improvements of coordination efficiency in the absence of increases in population size.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n n
n n n n
Why can fixed learning costs generate economies of division of labor? What are the differences between the neoclassical and Smithian theories of demand? What are the differences between neoclassical trade theory and Smithian trade theory? Why does evolution in division of labor generate concurrent increases in the following variables: the degree of commercialization, trade dependence, the degree of interpersonal dependence, the extent of the market, the number of types of markets, productivity, the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, the degree of diversity of economic structure, individuals’ levels of specialization, the degree of production concentration, and the degree of market integration? How does international trade emerge from domestic trade? Why is endogenous comparative advantage a more important determinant of trade dependence and economic development than exogenous comparative advantage? Why does the development of division of labor create conditions for a greater consumption variety and the emergence of new goods? What are the development implications of the emergence of professional middlemen?
7.2 A MODEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH FIXED LEARNING COSTS Example 7.1: A Smithian trade model with fixed learning costs (Yang, 1996). As in the previous chapters, we assume that the set of consumer-producers is a continuum of mass M. The set of consumer goods is either a finite set {1, 2, . . . , m} or a continuum with mass m. As shown by Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998), the assumption of a continuum of goods is not essential for the existence of equilibrium in this kind of model, though it may simplify the algebra of a symmetric model by avoiding an integer problem. If the set of goods is considered as a continuum, then symbols for summation Σ and multiplication Π should be viewed as integration. If the set of goods is finite, then all derivatives with respect to the number of goods in the first-order condition for maximization should be considered as the approximation of the first-order condition for integer programming. The self-provided amount of good i is xi. The
196 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS x2 2(1 − A) M 2 − 3A C 2 − 4A D 1−A E 1 − 2A
A
K B
F
G
0
H I J L 1 − 2A 1 − A 2 − 4A 2 − 3A 2(1 − A) x1
Figure 7.1 Economies of division of labor generated by fixed learning costs
amount of good i sold in the market is x is. The amount of good i purchased in the market is x id. The transaction cost coefficient for a unit of goods bought is 1 − k. Thus, kx id is the amount an individual obtains when she purchases x id. The amount consumed of good i is thus x ic ≡ xi + kx id. The utility function is identical for all individuals: m
u = ∏ x ic = x1c , x2c , . . . xmc
(7.1)
i =1
The system of production for each consumer-producer is: x ip ≡ xi + x is = Max{Li − A, 0}
∑L
i
= L 1 + L 2 + . . . + Lm = 1
i = 1, . . . , m
(7.2a) (7.2b)
i
where x ip is the output level of good i, Li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i, and A is a fixed learning and training cost in producing each good. This system of production displays economies of specialization for each individual in producing each good. For Li > A, the average labor productivity, (xi + x is )/Li = 1 − (A/Li), increases with an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i, Li. Houthakker (1956) uses a graph to illustrate the development implications of the fixed learning cost. A similar graph in figure 7.1 shows that economies of division of labor exist for the production condition defined in (7.2) with m = 2. An individual’s transformation curve is EFGH in figure 7.1. The aggregate transformation curve for the two persons when each of them produces two goods, with no division of labor, is segment DI. The aggregate transformation curve for the division of labor, which implies at least one person producing only one good, can be obtained in the following way. Suppose that an individual produces only good 1. Her output level is represented by the vertical line HK. Assume that another individual can choose any production configuration, so that his transformation curve is still EFGH. If we move the individual transformation curve horizontally to the right by distance 1 − A, the aggregate transformation curve we obtain for the two individuals is KBJL. Suppose now, alternatively, that she produces only good 2 instead
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
197
of good 1, while he can still choose any production pattern. Now the aggregate transformation curve is MCAK. Therefore, in the simple two-good-two-person case, the aggregate transformation curve for the division of labor, where at least one individual produces only one good, is MCAKBJL. It is obvious that the aggregate transformation curve for the division of labor is higher than the aggregate transformation curve for autarky, even if the two persons are ex ante identical and even if exogenous comparative advantage is absent. This is because each individual’s total learning cost is 2A if she produces both goods, and her total learning cost is reduced to A if she produces only one good. That is, her time for production increases from 1 − 2A to 1 − A as she reduces the number of goods produced from two to one. Hence, the total learning cost for the economy with two individuals is 4A in autarky, 3A for partial division of labor (segments CA and BJ), and 2A for complete division of labor (point K) in an economy with two individuals. The economies of division of labor are represented by the difference between the transformation curve for the division of labor, MCABJL (which is also the PPF), and the transformation curve for autarky, DI. In section 7.6 we will show that as transaction efficiency is improved, the equilibrium aggregate production schedule jumps from line DI to point K, generating economic development. Charles Babbage (1832, pp. 170–4) noted this phenomenon more than a century ago, pointing out that division of labor can save on fixed learning costs by avoiding duplicated learning and training. Becker (1981), Barzel and Yu (1984), and Rosen (1983) have formalized the idea that division of labor can increase the utilization rate of a fixed learning and training investment. Tamura (1992) and Yang (1996) have explored the general equilibrium implication of fixed learning costs for the endogenization of individuals’ levels of specialization. Economies of division of labor are, of course, generated by endogenous comparative advantage. When ex ante identical individuals choose different levels of specialization in an activity, a specialist endogenously acquires a higher productivity than a novice. Consider the two-persontwo-goods example in figure 7.1, where the two individuals choose complete division of labor. If person 1 specializes in producing good 1 (accordingly choosing L1 = 1), her labor productivity in that good is Max{(L1 − A)/L1, 0} = 1 − A. For person 2, specializing in good 2 (and thus choosing L1 = 0), labor productivity in good 1 is Max{(L1 − A)/L1, 0} = Max{−∞, 0} = 0. The difference in productivity between the specialist and novice is endogenous comparative advantage. The following story should give you a sense of how division of labor is generated by fixed learning costs. Suppose there are two individuals: a professor and a secretary. If they do not have division of labor, then each of them must engage in both research and secretarial support work. The first type of work requires education at the Ph.D. level, while the second type requires education in a secretarial school. Hence, each of them must get two types of education to do the two kinds of jobs. If the professor specializes in research and the secretary specializes in secretarial work, the professor can avoid the cost of training at secretarial school and the secretary can avoid the cost of training for a Ph.D. For each of them, the utilization rate of the investment in specialized learning increases as they spend more time in their specialties. The benefit of division of labor can be reaped by both of them. The secretary is able to begin working several years earlier than he could if he were in school during those additional years, so that his lifetime income is increased. Similarly, specialization increases the professor’s productivity in research and in the utilization rate of her learning investment in a Ph.D. program, and reduces her total fixed learning cost. Economies of division of labor based on fixed learning cost are more ubiquitous than they seem, since fixed learning cost can be caused by a trial-and-error process that is common in all production activities. The next section investigates how the market sorts out the efficient trade-off between transaction costs and economies of division of labor based on a fixed learning cost.
198 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
7.3 HOW ARE DEMAND AND SUPPLY FUNCTIONS DETERMINED BY INDIVIDUALS’ LEVELS OF SPECIALIZATION? It can be shown that the Wen theorem (see theorem 4.1 in section 4.2, chapter 4 above) is applicable to the model in this chapter. An individual does not simultaneously buy and sell the same good; nor simultaneously buy and self-provide the same good; and she sells at most one good. This implies that the decision configuration of each consumer-producer who sells good i satisfies the following conditions: xi > 0,
xis > 0,
xid > 0,
xr = x = Lr = 0, xj, Lj > 0,
Li = 0
x > 0,
s r
∀r ∈R,
d r
x = x = 0, s j
d j
(7.3)
∀j ∈J
where R is the set of n − 1 goods that are purchased from the market, and J is the set of m − n nontraded goods. ∀ means “for any,” ∈ means “an element of.” In words, the conditions imply the following propositions: for each good i that is sold, its self-provided quantity, its quantity for sale, and the level of specialization in producing it are positive, while its quantity purchased is 0; for each good r that is purchased, its self-provided quantity, its quantity for sale, and the level of specialization in producing it are 0, while its quantity purchased is positive; for each nontraded good j, its self-provided quantity and the amount of labor allocated to produce it are positive, while its quantities sold and bought are 0. According to these conditions, the decision problem of an individual selling good i can be set out as follows:
Max: u i = x ic ∏ x rc ∏ x cj = x i (∏ kx rd ) ∏ xj r ∈R
j ∈J
r ∈R
j ∈J
s.t. x ≡ xi + x = Max{Li − A, 0}, p i
s i
x = x ≡ xj = Max{Lj − A, 0}, c j
p j
(production function for good i) ∀j ∈J
(production function for good j)
Li + ∑ L j = 1
(endowment constraint for time)
j ∈J
p i x is = ∑ p r x rd
(budget constraint)
r ∈R
where pi is the price of good i, x rc ≡ kx rd and x ic ≡ xi are respective quantities of goods r and i that are consumed, xi, x is, x rd, Li, xj, Lj, and n are decision variables. Having inserted all constraints into ui , we can express ui as a function of Li, Lj, x is, x rd, and n. One of all x rd can be eliminated using the budget constraint, and one of all Lj can be eliminated using the endowment constraint for time. Hence, we can convert the original constrained maximization problem to a nonconstrained maximization problem:
Max: ui = xic xsc ∏ xrc ∏ x jc = xi kxsd (∏ kxrd )(Lt − A)∏(L j − A) r
where
j
r
x ic = xi = Max{Li − A, 0} − x is xsd = ( pi xis − ∑ pr xrd )/ps
s, r ∈R, s ≠ r
r
Lt = 1 − Li − ∑ L j j
t, j ∈J, t ≠ j
j
(7.4)
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
199
The first-order conditions for problem (7.4) are: ∂ui/∂x rd = 0 ∂ui/∂x is = 0 ∂ui/∂Lj = 0 ∂ui/∂Li = 0 ∂ui/∂n = 0
(7.5a) (7.5b) (7.5c) (7.5d) (7.5e)
Since (7.5a) holds for all r ∈R, and (7.5c) and for all j ∈J, they can be used to prove that pr x rd is the same for any r ∈R and that xj is the same for any j ∈J, respectively. Using this result and the constraint in (7.4), utility can be expressed as: ⎛ kx s p ⎞ u i = (Li − A − x ) ⎜ i i ⎟ ⎝ pr ⎠ ∂u i ∂u i = =0 ∂Li ∂x is s i
n−1
⎛ 1 − Li ⎞ ⎜ m − n − A⎟ ⎝ ⎠
m− n
.
yields the optimum values of Li and x is. This, together with (7.4), yields: Li = A + n[1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m x is = (n − 1)[1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m Lj = [1 + (n − 1)A]/m, xi = xj = [1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m, x rd = pir x is /(n − 1) = pir[1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m, ∀r ∈R
(7.6)
where pir ≡ pi/pr. As shown in chapter 4, the neoclassical supply function in (7.7a) is independent of prices because of the unitary elasticity of substitution of the Cobb–Douglas utility function in this model. Inserting the solution into (7.4) yields the indirect utility function: ui = αβ = ui (n, A, k, pir),
(7.7)
where α ≡ {[1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m}m, β ≡ (kpi) n−1(∏ r∈R p -1r ). (7.6) and (7.7) are neoclassical optimum decisions for a given level of specialization. The neoclassical decision sorts out resource allocation for a given level of specialization. Here, an individual’s level of specialization in producing the good sold is uniquely determined by the number of traded goods n. In (7.7), [1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m is per capita output of each good, where 1 − (m − n + 1)A is each person’s amount of time allocated for production after total fixed learning cost (m − n + 1)A is deducted. This amount of time is allocated to produce m − n nontraded goods and one good that is sold in exchange for n − 1 goods purchased. Hence, this amount is ultimately used to obtain m consumption goods. Since marginal labor productivity of each good is 1, the total output of m goods produced out of the amount of time is 1 − (m − n + 1)A. Thus, per capita consumption of each good, which equals per capita output of each good, is [1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m. As the number of traded goods n increases, the total learning cost incurred in producing m − n nontraded goods, (m − n)A, will be reduced, so that the amount of time available for production increases and, therefore, per capita consumption of each good increases. α in ui can be considered as the product of the per capita consumption amounts of each and every good, which is an increasing function of n, while n determines an individual’s level of specialization. kn−1 in β decreases as n increases, since k is between 0 and 1. β can then be considered as a term through which utility is reduced by an increase in the number of transactions and related transaction costs. Since the Smithian optimum decision sorts out the optimum level of specialization that relates to n, the Smithian optimum decisions are given by (7.6) to (7.7) and the following condition:
200 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
(∂ui /∂α)(dα/dn) = −(∂ui /∂β)(dβ/dn)
(7.8)
Since n can represent an individual’s level of specialization in the symmetric model, the left-hand side of the equation is the marginal utility of an increase in an individual’s level of specialization. The right-hand side is marginal transaction cost in terms of utility loss caused by an increase in an individual’s level of specialization. Hence, (7.8) implies that the optimum level of specialization is determined by equality between marginal benefit of specialization and marginal transaction cost. This law of optimum level of specialization was first proven by Yang (1984) and then confirmed by Becker and Murphy (1992; see example 7.4 below). Plugging the optimum value of n, given by (7.8), back into (7.6) to (7.7) yields the optimum resource allocation. Hence, (7.6) to (7.8) give the complete optimum decisions, which sort out optimum organization, which in turn relates to optimum productivity and economic development, as well as optimum resource allocation. Since n − 1 is the number of each individual’s trade partners, the optimum level of specialization determines the optimum network size of each person’s trade partners. However, this is an impersonal networking decision since each person does not care about who her partners are. She cares only about how many partners she has. An impersonal network decision is associated with price taking behavior. It should be noted that although (7.8) looks like a marginal condition for an interior solution, it is only an approximation of realistic inframarginal analysis. Strictly speaking, when the set of goods is finite rather than a continuum, we need integer programming to solve for the optimum integer n. As n jumps between the integers, all endogenous variables discontinuously jump. More importantly, if the model is asymmetric, we must use marginal analysis to solve for many corner equilibria, and then use total cost–benefit analysis to identify the general equilibrium from among them. If a symmetric model is assumed, a decision to choose one from many configurations, and a procedure to identify one from many corner equilibria, turns out to be equivalent to choosing a value of n. There are two integer values of n, n1 and n2, such that n1 < n′ < n2, where n′ is the value of n that is given by (7.8). The optimum value of n* of the integer programming is determined by Max{u(n1), u(n2)}. But for a large value of m, n′ is a good approximation of n*. In this text, we will use n′ to represent n* in all symmetric Smithian models. Since all of n traded goods are produced only if all occupations generate the same utility level for the ex ante identical individuals, the inframarginal analysis between configurations establishes the utility equalization conditions: u1 = u2 = u3 = . . . = un
(7.9)
(7.8) and (7.9) are completely symmetric between configurations selling different goods. Hence, they hold at the same time if and only if pi = pr
∀i, r = 1, 2, . . . , n
(7.10)
and n is the same for all individuals. Using the information about the equilibrium-relative prices of traded goods and the equilibrium number of traded goods, each individual’s optimum decision can be solved as follows: n = m + 1 − (1/A) − [m/ln(kpir)] Li = [1 − (ln kpir)−1 + (A − 1)mA]/(−ln kpir) x is = A[m − (1/A) − (m/ln kpir)]/(−ln kpir) xi = xj = −A/(ln kpir) j ∈J d x r = pir A/(−ln kpir) ∀r ∈R ui = (kpir)m−(1/A)−(m/ln kpir)[1 + (1/A) + (m/ln kpir)]/m
(7.11)
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
201
where pir ≡ pi /pr is the price of a good sold in terms of a good purchased. Since the optimum values of all decision variables are no longer functions of n, we call them Smithian optimum decisions, which differ from the neoclassical optimum decisions in (7.7). The distinction between the neoclassical decisions and the Smithian decisions formalizes Young’s idea that demand and supply are two sides of specialization. The optimum decisions that generate individuals’ demand and supply are ultimately determined by the optimum level of specialization, which is determined by n in a symmetric model.
7.4 INFRAMARGINAL COMPARATIVE STATICS OF OPTIMUM DECISIONS As discussed in chapter 4, the marginal comparative statics differ from the inframarginal comparative statics of optimum decisions. From the neoclassical optimum decisions in (7.7), you can see that the level of specialization Li and the neoclassical supply function are independent of relative prices. But the optimum level of specialization and the Smithian supply function are dependent on prices. The distinction between decisions before and after the level of specialization is chosen was first noted by Stigler (1951) and received attention later from Rosen (1978). Suppose that parameters m, A, and k are fixed. Differentiation of the Smithian optimum decisions with respect to the relative price pir yields: dn/dpir > 0
dLi/dpir > 0
(7.12a)
dx is/dpir > 0
(7.12b)
dxi/dpir = dxj/dpir > 0
(7.12c)
dx /dpir < 0
(7.12d)
d i
where (7.12b) is called the law of supply, and (7.12d) is called the law of demand. Certainly, comparative statics of the Smithian optimum decisions differ from comparative statics of the neoclassical optimum decisions given in (7.7). The distinction between the marginal and the inframarginal comparative statics of the optimum decisions highlights the point that we cannot really understand demand and supply if we do not understand individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization. The neoclassical demand and supply functions and their marginal comparative statics for a given value of n are only a half-way house. Since the choice of n determines productivity, there is an intimate relationship between inframarginal analysis of demand and supply and the analysis of economic development.
7.5 HOW IS THE LEVEL OF DIVISION OF LABOR IN SOCIETY DETERMINED IN THE MARKET? Assume that the numbers of individuals selling goods i and r are respectively Mi and Mr. The total market supply of good i is Mi xis. The market demand for good r by individuals selling good r is Mr x id. The total market demand for good i is then ∑r ∈R Mr x id. The market clearing conditions are thus:
M i x is = ∑ M r x id , r ∈R
i = 1, 2, . . . , n
(7.13)
202 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
This system comprises n equations. One of them is independent of the other n − 1 due to Walras’s law. The n − 1 equations and the population equation ∑ i Mi = M determine the numbers of individuals selling n traded goods. The market clearing conditions, together with the utility equalization condition (7.9), yield the final solution of the general equilibrium: Li = A + A[1 − m(ln k)−1][1 − m−1 − (Am)−1 − (ln k)−1], x is = A[m − (1/A) − (m/ln k)]/(−ln k), xi = x rd = xj = −A/ln k,
∀r ∈R,
pir = 1,
for
Mr = M/n,
∀j ∈J r = 1, . . . , n
(7.14)
ui = kn−1{[1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m}m n = m + 1 − (1/A) − (m/ln k) where i = 1, 2, . . . , n. The equilibrium value of utility can be considered as the absolute price of labor. We call ui (n) in (7.14) the Smithian utility function, which is a function of the number of traded goods that relates to an individual’s level of specialization and the level of division of labor for society. The Smithian utility function differs from the indirect utility function, since the former is not a function of prices, whereas the latter is a function of the prices of traded goods. Usually, we can work out the analytical expression of the Smithian utility function only for a completely symmetric model. For asymmetric models, we must work out the corner equilibrium per capita real income in each structure, where the level and pattern of division of labor, equivalent to n here, is exogenously fixed. Then a total cost–benefit analysis can sort out the equilibrium level and pattern of division of labor. The absolute price of labor is associated with the equilibrium levels of division of labor and productivity. But the relative prices of traded goods, and the relative numbers of individuals choosing different configurations, are determined by relative tastes and relative production and transaction conditions. A corner equilibrium for a given n sorts out resource allocation, relative prices, and numbers of different specialists, while the general equilibrium sorts out the absolute price of labor and the levels of division of labor and productivity. Hence, in a Smithian model, a corner equilibrium sorts out problems of resource allocation and a general equilibrium sorts out problems of economic development. Now we assume that individuals’ residential locations are exogenously given. They reside at the vertices of a grid of triangles with equal sides, as shown in figure 7.2. In order to save transaction costs, each individual will trade first with those closest. But as the number of each individual’s traded goods increases, she will trade with those who are further away. Because of symmetry, the number of traded goods, n, is the same for all individuals and for society. Thus, there is a local business community around each individual. The members of the local community are trade partners of the individual who sells a good to, and buys a good from, each of them. Therefore, for n traded goods, each individual has n − 1 trade partners, while there are n members of the community. If the local communities do not overlap, then M individuals will be divided among N = M/n local communities. If the local communities overlap, N is the number of producers of each traded good, and can be considered as a measure of the fragmentation of the economy, since there is no trade between individuals who sell the same good or choose the same configuration (occupation). We may say that structure B has a higher level of division of labor than structure A, if the levels of specialization of all individuals are higher in B than in A and the number of distinct configurations in B is larger than in A. Later, we shall show that in the model, each individual’s optimum level of specialization is an increasing function of her number of traded goods n. Also, the number of traded goods is positively related to the number of distinct configurations in a structure. Hence, n represents the level of division of labor for the symmetric model.
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
203
Figure 7.2 Evenly dispersed individuals’ residence location
According to the first welfare theorem proved by Zhou, Sun, and Yang (1998), a general equilibrium with consumer-producers in this chapter (which is different from the Arrow– Debreu model with a dichotomy between consumers and firms) is Pareto optimal. For a given value of n, a corner equilibrium is allocation efficient, while the general equilibrium is both allocation efficient and organization efficient. Here, organization efficiency is associated with the efficient productivity that balances the trade-off between productivity gains from the division of labor and transaction costs. Thus organization efficiency is a central notion for the analysis of problems of economic development. Two points need more attention. It is not difficult to show that the second-order condition for the optimum n is satisfied, that is, the second-order derivative of ui in (7.4) with respect to n is negative. Also, it can be shown that the partial derivative of ui with respect to n is always negative for any positive n if k is sufficiently close to 0. According to the Kuhn–Tucker theorem, this implies that the equilibrium level of division of labor will be its minimum value, n = 1, which means that the number of goods purchased n − 1 = 0 (autarky), if k is sufficiently close to 0. The second point to note is the problem of multiple equilibria. Because of symmetry, which bundle of goods is to be traded is indeterminate in equilibrium. Hence, n combinations of m factors generate many general equilibria with the same per capita real income and the same value of n, but with different bundles of traded goods (type I multiplicity of equilibrium). There are still more possible general equilibria, since who specializes in producing which good is indeterminate, too. Exchanges of choices of configurations between each pair of different specialists will generate more general equilibria with the same value of n and the same per capita real income, but with different choices of configuration by each individual (type II multiplicity of equilibrium). Finally, the case in which the number of society’s traded goods does not equal each individual’s number of traded goods may incur more general equilibria with the same per capita real income (type III multiplicity of equilibrium). Figure 7.3a shows an example of the case where individual 1 sells good 1 to individual 2, who sells good 2 to individual 3, who sells good 3 to individual 1. Each individual in this structure trades two goods, but the whole society trades three goods. For the symmetric model, the equilibrium in this structure generates the same per capita real income as does the structure in figure 7.3b. For the symmetric static model, the two types of structures have symmetric properties of equilibrium, except that in the case of figure 7.3(a) the number of traded goods for an individual is smaller than that for society. Since comparative statics of general equilibrium are
204 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS 2 1
3 3
1
3
1 1
1 1
2
1 3
2
2 2
3
2 3
2 (a) Different individuals trade different bundles of goods
(b) All individuals trade the same bundle of goods
Figure 7.3 Multiple general equilibria
easier to handle for those structures with an equal number of traded goods for each individual and for society, we focus on this type of structure. A slight difference in tastes or in production and transaction conditions between different goods will rule out type I and type III multiplicities of general equilibrium. A slight difference in taste and/or production and transaction conditions between individuals will rule out a type II multiplicity of general equilibrium.
7.6 INFRAMARGINAL COMPARATIVE STATICS OF GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM AND MANY CONCURRENT DEVELOPMENT PHENOMENA Since choosing a structure of division of labor is also choosing a certain network of transactions, many economic phenomena can be generated by inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium as different aspects of the size and structural features of the network of division of labor. These structural changes are generated by a coherent mechanism of economic development. Hence, we first examine the change in the equilibrium level of division of labor, n, in response to changes in transaction efficiency, k, and in fixed learning cost, A. Differentiation of the equilibrium value of n in (7.14) yields: dn*/dk > 0
dn*/dA > 0
(7.15)
This implies that the equilibrium level of division of labor increases as transaction efficiency is improved or as fixed learning cost increases. This formalizes the Smith theorem that division of labor is dependent on the extent of the market (Smith, 1776, ch. 3 of bk. I) and that the extent of the market is determined by transportation conditions (Smith, 1776, pp. 31–2). Total differentiation of the equilibrium level of per capita real income in (7.14) yields: du/dk = (∂u/∂n)(dn/dk) + (∂u/∂k) = ∂u/∂k > 0
(7.16a)
where the first-order condition for the optimum level of specialization ∂u/∂n = 0 is used. (7.16a) is referred to as the envelope theorem, which states in words that the total derivative of the optimum value of the objective function with respect to a parameter equals the partial derivative of the objective function with respect to the parameter at the optimum values of the endogenous variables. Application of the envelope theorem to u in (7.4) with respect to parameter A yields: du/dA = ∂u/∂A < 0.
(7.16b)
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES 1 A
4
1
1 2
A
4 3
3
2 4 3 (a) Autarky
1
2 2
2
A 3
3 4
2 1
3
3
2 2
3
2 (b) Partial division of labor
2
2 4
1
3 2
4
1
205
1
4
1
T RADE
1
2 1
1 A
4
1
4
3
1 4
2
AND
4
4
2
1 3
3 4 3 (c) Complete division of labor
Figure 7.4 Exogenous evolution in division of labor
(7.16) implies that there are two different ways to increase the equilibrium level of division of labor. The first is to improve transaction efficiency and the second is to increase the fixed learning cost of each activity. The first approach increases while the second decreases per capita real income as it raises the level of division of labor. The first method perhaps relates to the development of an efficient banking system, the improvement of the legal system, government liberalization policies, and urbanization, all of which reduce the transaction cost coefficient 1 − k. The second method perhaps relates to a stiff licensing fee and other entry barriers that decrease per capita real income and increase the equilibrium level of division of labor. Figure 7.4 gives an intuitive illustration of the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium where the number of goods is assumed to be 4. The lines denote goods flows. The small arrows indicate the directions of goods flows. The numbers beside the lines signify the goods involved. A circle with the number i denotes a person selling good i. Panel (a) illustrates the case of autarky, where each person self-provides 4 goods, due to an extremely low transaction efficiency. Panel (b) shows how an improvement in transaction efficiency leads to partial division of labor, where each person sells one good, buys one good, trades two goods, and selfprovides three goods. Panel (c) shows how a very high transaction efficiency results in complete division of labor, where each person sells and self-provides one good, buys three goods, and trades four goods. If we suppose that the transaction efficiency coefficient k continuously and exogenously evolves from 0 to 1, then the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium predict that the equilibrium level of division of labor will evolve as illustrated in figure 7.4. This exogenous evolution in division of labor differs from the exogenous evolution of productivity and per capita real income generated by an exogenous change in the total factor productivity parameter in the Solow model (1956), which is a state equation that does not involve individual decision-making. In our model the exogenous evolution in division of labor is based on individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization and on interactions between those decisions. The evolution of division of labor will generate economic development associated with jumps of productivity from a low level to a high level in the absence of changes in production conditions (production functions and endowment constraints). Making a close examination of figure 7.1 in connection with figure 7.4, you can see that as transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium jumps from the aggregate transformation curve DI to MCAKBJL. The novelty of the Smithian model is that it can predict many phenomena of structural change, some of them seemingly contradictory to each other, as different aspects of a coherent development mechanism. Let us now examine the phenomena one by one.
206 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
Concurrent increases in each person’s level of specialization, degree of commercialization, trade dependence, and decrease in the degree of self-sufficiency as results of an increase in the level of division of labor Each individual’s level of specialization, Li is given in (7.7) and (7.14). It isn’t difficult to see that dLi/dk = (dLi/dn)(dn/dk) > 0,
(7.17)
where dLi/dn = [1 − (m − 2n + 1)A]/m > [1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m > 0. The last inequality can be obtained by inserting the equilibrium value of n into the expression of the derivative. dn/dk > 0 is given by (7.16a). In this simple model, the amount of labor allocated to producing a good can be considered as the price of the good in terms of labor. Hence, the equilibrium value of Li is a measure not only of each individual’s level of specialization, but also of the value, in terms of labor, of all goods that she purchases, which equals her income from the market. The total value of consumption, including self-provided consumption and consumption from the market, in terms of labor is 1. Thus, the ratio of consumption purchased to total consumption, which is called the degree of commercialization, is Li/1 = Li. Also, trade dependence can be defined by total trade volume divided by total income, including commercialized and self-provided income. It is apparent that the degree of trade dependence equals twice the degree of commercialization in the simple model, since trade volume equals double commercialized income. (7.17) implies that the degrees of commercialization and trade dependence increase as an improvement in transaction efficiency raises the level of division of labor. (1 − Li)/1 = 1 − Li is the degree of self-sufficiency, which is defined as the ratio of the value of self-provided income in terms of labor to total income in terms of labor. Thus, (7.17) shows the negative relationship between the degree of self-sufficiency and transaction efficiency, and between it and the level of division of labor.
The extent of the market and the level of division of labor are two sides of the same coin (Young, 1928) Let E denote the extent of the market; then E equals the product of population size and per capita aggregate demand. An individual’s aggregate demand is the total demand of that individual for all traded goods. Market aggregate demand is the sum of all individuals’ aggregate demand for all traded goods. It is what we call the extent of the market and it differs from total market demand for a particular good. Total market demand for a good is a microeconomic or disaggregated concept, while market aggregate demand is a macroeconomic concept, which relates to the level of division of labor and the related size of the market network. From (7.7) and (7.14), the extent of the market can be calculated as follows. E = Mx is = M(n − 1)[1 − (m − n + 1)A]/m dE/dk = (dE/dn)(dn/dk) > 0
(7.18)
(7.15) and (7.18) imply that the equilibrium extent of the market and the equilibrium level of division of labor increase concurrently as transaction efficiency is improved. Smith (1776) conjectured that the level of division of labor is determined by the extent of the market, which is in turn determined by transaction efficiency. Some economists have misinterpreted this as meaning that division of labor is determined by the size of an economy (population size or resource size). Young (1928) criticized this interpretation. According to him, the extent of the
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
207
market is determined not only by population size, but also by per capita effective demand, which is determined by income, which is determined by productivity, which in turn is determined by the level of division of labor. The interdependence of the level of division of labor and the extent of the market is analogous to the interdependence of prices and quantities demanded and supplied. The notion of general equilibrium is a powerful vehicle to sort out the mechanism that simultaneously determines the interdependent endogenous variables. In the Smithian general equilibrium model, the equilibrium level of division of labor and the equilibrium extent of the market are two sides of the equilibrium size of the market network. They are simultaneously determined by transaction efficiency. The driving force of the mechanism is, of course, the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs. In chapter 14, we shall use dynamic general equilibrium models to show that a dynamic mechanism can generate endogenous evolution in division of labor in the absence of exogenous changes in parameters.
Productivity progress The labor productivity of traded and nontraded goods, x is/Li and xj/Lj, can be worked out from (7.14). It can be shown that d(x is/Li)/dk > 0,
d(xj/Lj)/dk > 0.
(7.19)
This implies that the labor productivity of each good increases as the level of division of labor is raised by improvements in transaction efficiency. This formalizes Smith’s thought that productivity progress and national wealth are generated by evolution in division of labor and that the development implications of division of labor should be at the core of mainstream economics. Hence, if we formalize classical economic thought about the development implications of division of labor within the Smithian framework, then trade theory, which is concerned with trade dependence, and development economics, which is concerned with productivity progress, are two aspects of the core of economics. The development implications of evolution of division of labor can be better appreciated by looking at figure 7.1, which shows that as division of labor evolves, the equilibrium production schedule will discontinuously jump to be closer to the PPF.
Evolution in endogenous comparative advantage We define the extent of endogenous comparative advantage as the difference in productivity of a good between its sellers and its buyers. Since in our model the buyer of a good stops producing it, her labor productivity of that good is zero. But a seller’s labor productivity of the good increases as transaction efficiency is improved, as indicated in (7.19). Hence, the extent of endogenous comparative advantage increases as improvements in transaction efficiency drive division of labor to evolve. This formalizes Smith’s idea that the difference in productivity between a specialist and a novice is a consequence, rather than the cause, of division of labor.
Development of diversity of economic structure and of interpersonal dependence From the foregoing comparative statics of general equilibrium, we can see that when individuals choose autarky, all individuals’ configurations of production and consumption are the same, and their productivities in all activities are the same; thus, there is no diversity of economic structure. As improvements in transaction efficiency drive division of labor to evolve, the number of distinct occupation configurations and kinds of market increases. As the degree of self-sufficiency falls, each pair of different specialists shares a progressively smaller number
208 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
of common self-provided production activities, so that the degree of difference between each pair of individuals choosing different configurations increases. We define the degree of diversification by reference to the degree of this difference and the number of different traded goods, n. We define the degree of interpersonal dependence as the number of trading partners for each individual, which is n − 1. Hence, both the degree of diversification of economic structure and the degree of interpersonal dependence increases as division of labor evolves.
Increases in the degree of production concentration and in the degree of market integration In the symmetric model, the number of producers of each traded good is N = M/n, where M is population size and n is the number of traded goods. The number of separate local business communities is also N = M/n. The degree of production concentration can then be defined as 1/N = n/M. The degree of market integration can also be defined by 1/N. Hence, the degrees of production concentration and market integration increase as improvements in transaction efficiency raise the equilibrium level of division of labor n.
Changes in industrial structure If good 1 is the agricultural good, and other goods are industrial goods, then the model predicts structural changes, which look like an increase in the employment share of the industrial sector and a decrease in the employment share of the agricultural sector. If transaction efficiency is low, autarky is the general equilibrium where each individual self-provides agricultural and industrial goods. This looks like a traditional agricultural society where all individuals are farmers. As transaction efficiency is improved, some individuals become professional farmers and others become professional manufacturers of industrial goods. But the number of professional farmers is much smaller than the number of all individuals producing agricultural goods in autarky. Hence, this looks like a structural change that transfers labor from the traditional agricultural sector to the industrial sector. In essence, this is a process of evolution of division of labor in which each individual’s level of specialization increases, natural agents who used to self-provide everything for themselves become different specialist producers, and new professions emerge. These are the structural changes and economic development in which Smith was interested.
Evolution of degree of information asymmetry In the Walrasian model, it is assumed that each individual does not know the others’ utility and production functions, endowments, and transaction conditions. She does not even know the distribution functions of the characteristics of others. Since all individuals are ex ante identical in our model and each of them has exactly the same ex post production and consumption pattern in autarky equilibrium, then each of them actually knows all the detailed production and consumption plans of the others if autarky occurs in equilibrium. As transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium level of division of labor increases. The population is divided between different occupations. All individuals choosing the same occupation have the same ex post production, trade, and consumption pattern, which is different from those of other occupations. Hence, each individual actually knows 1/n information about the detailed production, trade, and consumption plans of n occupations. This implies that in a Walrasian model of endogenous specialization, the equilibrium degree of information asymmetry increases as division of labor evolves.1 The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium can be summarized in the following proposition.
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
209
Proposition 7.1: As transaction efficiency is improved, the level of division of labor increases. The following concurrent phenomena are different aspects of the evolution in division of labor. Each individual’s level of specialization, productivity, and trade dependence increases. The degree of commercialization, the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, the degrees of production concentration and market integration, and the degree of diversity of economic structure all increase. The number of traded goods, the number of markets, and the degree of information asymmetry increase, while the degree of self-sufficiency falls. This process transfers the traditional agricultural economy, where everybody self-provides everything to a modern economy with a high level of division of labor between professional farming and industrial manufacturing. Compared to the structural changes analyzed by Chenery (1979) and Kuznets (1966), the Smithian model predicts more structural changes, such as increases in the degree of market integration, degree of commercialization, extent of the market, extent of endogenous comparative advantage, degree of production concentration, and degree of structural diversity. More importantly, this model predicts co-movement of all the structural changes, rising productivity, and increasing per capita real income. This prediction implies that all of the endogenous variables are simultaneously determined by a general equilibrium mechanism. It does not make sense to explain some of them by others of them. Hence, regression of structural variables, such as the income share of the industrial sector or expenditure share of food consumption, on income may establish correlation, rather than a one-way causation chain, between the variables. The Smithian model in this chapter explores a coherent general equilibrium mechanism that explains all of the development phenomena by transaction conditions. Preliminary empirical work that relates to this hypothesis can be found in Barro (1997), North (1958), North and Weingast (1989), Gallup and Sachs (1998), Sachs and Warner (1995), Easton and Walker (1997), Gwartney, Lawson, and Block (1996), Frye and Shleifer (1997), and Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992). They use indices of freight fee (North), quality of institution (Sachs and Warner), rule of law (Barro), economic freedom (Easton and Walker, and Gwartney, Lawson, and Block), and violation of private property (Frye and Shleifer), or an index of transaction efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights (Yang, Wang, and Wills), to approximate transaction conditions.
7.7 EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE FROM DOMESTIC TRADE Now we use our model to address the questions: Why and how does international trade emerge from domestic trade, and what is the distinctive contribution of the Smithian framework to trade theory? Suppose that in the symmetric model, the number of individuals is an integer and that there are 100 countries in the world and the population size of each country is 10 million. Assume further that the number of goods m and the population size of the world are both 1 billion, and that transaction efficiency is infinitesimally greater for trade within the same country than for trade across countries. Then our theory tells a story of trade as follows. If transaction efficiency is extremely low, then autarky for each person is equilibrium, and therefore domestic and international trade are not needed. If transaction efficiency is improved such that the equilibrium n = 1,000, then 10,000 local markets emerge from the division of labor in each country. The equilibrium number of business communities is M/n where M is the population size of the economy and n is the number of traded goods as well as the population size of a local business community. Each member of a local business community sells one traded good to the other 999 individuals and buys one traded good from each of them. Under the assumption that trade occurs first with those closest, there is no trade between the local communities and therefore a national market does not exist. Suppose that transaction
210 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
efficiency is further improved such that n* = 10,000,000. Then the national market emerges from the higher level of division of labor, but international trade does not exist. As n* increases to 100 million due to an improvement in transaction efficiency, such as that caused by the invention of the steam engine, the world is divided into 10 common markets. In each of these, 10 countries have an integrated market, and international trade emerges from domestic trade, but no trade occurs between the 10 common markets. However, if transaction efficiency becomes extremely high, an integrated world market will emerge from the complete division of labor. The difference between this story and the Dixit–Stiglitz model with economies of scale in example 5.1 is obvious. For the Dixit–Stiglitz, international trade instead of autarky is always the equilibrium in the absence of government intervention. But for our model, autarky for each individual or for each country may be the equilibrium in the absence of government intervention. If there are many goods, many different types of individuals in each country, and many countries in the Ricardian model in chapter 3 (above), emergence of international trade from domestic trade can also be explained by transaction conditions. But the Ricardo model with many goods and many different types of individuals is extremely difficult to manage. In particular, endogenous comparative advantages in the Smithian model can be endogenously determined by individuals’ decisions, whereas exogenous comparative advantages in the Ricardo model and HO model are not affected by decisions. Hence, the Smithian model is referred to by Smythe (1994) as the theory of endogenous trade.
7.8 CO-MOVEMENT OF DIVISION OF LABOR AND CONSUMPTION VARIETY This section uses a new classical model with an endogenous number of consumer goods and fixed learning costs to illustrate the general equilibrium mechanism that simultaneously determines the network size of division of labor, the number of traded goods, and the number of all goods (including nontraded ones). Example 7.2: A Smithian model with the CES utility function (Yang, 1996). The production functions and time endowment constraint for each consumer-producer are the same as in the previous sections. xip ≡ xi + x is = Max{li − A, 0}
i = 1, 2, . . . , m
m
∑l
i
= 1,
(7.20)
li ∈[0, 1]
i =1
where li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i, x ip is the output level of good i, xi is the amount of good i self-provided, x is is the amount of good i sold, and A is a fixed learning cost in producing each good. In contrast to the previous sections, m, the number of consumption goods, is each individual’s decision variable rather than a given parameter. Each individual’s utility function is: 1 /ρ
V = (1 − cm)u,
⎤ ⎡m u = ⎢∑ (xic) ρ ⎥ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ i =1
(7.21)
where x ic ≡ xi + kx id is the amount of good i that is consumed, x id is the amount of good i that is purchased, and k is the transaction efficiency coefficient. Following the method introduced in example 4.2, we can calculate the elasticity of substitution between any pair of consumption goods as 1/(1 − ρ). Since there is an inverse relationship between the elasticity of substitution
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
211
and the degree of economies of complementarity, and a positive relationship between the elasticity of substitution and parameter ρ, we can use 1/ρ to represent the degree of economies of complementarity between each pair of consumption goods, or the degree of economies of consumption variety. Taking account of the Wen theorem and the budget constraint, each consumer-producer’s decision problem is Max: Vi = (1 − cm)ui, s.t.
⎤ ⎡ u i = ⎢x ρi + ∑ (kx rd ) ρ + ∑ x ρj ⎥ ⎥⎦ r ∈R j ∈J ⎢⎣
1/ρ
xi + xis = Max{Li − A, 0}, xj = Max{Lj − A, 0}∀j ∈J (production function) Li + ∑ L j = 1
(endowment constraint)
p i x is = ∑ p r x rd
(budget constraint)
(7.22)
j ∈J
r ∈R
where pi is the price of good i, and xi, x is, x rd, Li, xj, Lj, n, m are decision variables. Each decision variable can be zero or a positive value. R is the set of goods purchased and J is the set of nontraded goods. We assume that the calculation of the optimum decision will generate more disutility as the number of first-order conditions for the optimum decision increases with the number of consumption goods m. This disutility is referred to as the management cost of consumption variety. Let c be the management cost coefficient of a particular consumption good, measured as a fraction of utility that is lost. The total management cost of m consumption goods in terms of the fraction of utility that is lost is then cm. This implies that the fraction of utility ultimately enjoyed from the consumption of m goods is (1 − cm). From the decision problem, the individual’s level of specialization, her demand and supply functions, and her indirect utility function can be solved as follows. Li = {(n − 1)[1 −A(m − n)] + K}/[n − 1 + (m − n + 1)K ] x is = (n − 1)[1 − A(m − n + 1)]/[n − 1 + K(m − n + 1)] xi = x rd = xj = K[1 −A(m − n + 1)]/[n − 1 + K(m − n + 1)],
∀r ∈R, ∀j ∈J
n = 1 + {(A − c)(1 − K ) + ρ[A − (1 − K ) ]}/cA(1 + ρ)(1 − K ) 2 2
(7.23)
m = [A + cρ(1 − K)]/c(1 + ρ) Vi = (1 − cm)(akpi/pr)[1 − A(m − n + 1)][n − 1 + K(m − n + 1)](1−ρ)/ρ where K ≡ ( pr/kpi)ρ/(1−ρ) is a decreasing function of pi and k and an increasing function of pr , good i is sold and good r is purchased. Note that the demand and supply functions in (7.23) are neoclassical demand and supply functions if n is exogenously given, but are Smithian demand and supply functions if n is endogenized. In exercise 5, you are asked to work out the own price elasticity of the neoclassical and Smithian demand and supply functions, and to examine the differences between these functions. The utility equalization and market clearing conditions V1 = V2 = . . . Vn
M i x is = ∑ M r x id r ∈R
for all
i = 2, 3, . . . , n
212 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
yield n − 1 relative prices of n traded goods and n − 1 relative numbers of individuals selling different goods. All of the relative prices and relative numbers are 1 because of symmetry. Note that we have not used the market clearing condition for good 1, since it is independent of the other n − 1 market clearing conditions. The equilibrium numbers of individuals selling different traded goods can be solved from the market clearing conditions and the population equation ∑i Mi = M. The equilibrium values of the relative prices of traded goods and of the numbers of individuals selling different traded goods are pi/pr = 1,
r, i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n
Mi = Mr = M/n,
r, i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n
Inserting the equilibrium values of the relative prices of traded goods into the optimum decision (7.23) yields the equilibrium values of the endogenous variables. Let K ≡ ( pr/kpi)ρ/(1−ρ) = kρ/(ρ−1) in (7.23). Then (7.23) becomes the equilibrium values of an individual’s optimum decisions. Differentiation of the equilibrium values of the number of consumption goods m and the number of traded goods n (which represents the level of division of labor) with respect to transaction efficiency k and the management cost coefficient of consumption variety c yields the main results of the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. dn*/dk > 0,
dn*/dc < 0
dm*/dk > 0,
dm*/dc < 0,
d(m* − n*)/dk < 0, d(cm*)/dk > 0,
(7.24a) dm/dρ < 0,
d(m* − n*)/dc > 0, d(cm*)/dc < 0,
(7.24b) (7.24c) (7.24d)
where cm* is the fraction of utility that is lost because of the management costs of consumption variety. It is an interesting result that total management cost cm* increases as the management cost coefficient c decreases. This implies that management cost as a proportion of real income increases as management efficiency is improved. (7.24a, b) implies that the equilibrium number of traded goods (or the level of division of labor), n, and the equilibrium number of all consumption goods, m, increase concurrently as transaction efficiency, k, and/or management efficiency, 1/c, is improved. (7.24c) implies that n increases more quickly than m does, so that the number of traded goods will eventually equal the number of all consumption goods, that is, all goods are eventually involved in the division of labor as transaction efficiency and/or management efficiency are continuously improved. Let us now consider the second-order conditions for the interior solutions of n and m. Recalling the second-order condition for a nonconstrained maximization problem from, for instance, Chiang (1984), we know the solutions given by the first-order conditions are maximization solutions if the following conditions are satisfied. ∂2V/∂n2 < 0,
∂2V/∂m2 < 0,
(∂ V/∂n )(∂ V/∂m ) − (∂ V/∂n∂m) > 0. 2
2
2
2
2
(7.25a) (7.25b)
where m and n are valued at their equilibrium values. Let pi/pr = 1 in (7.23); then differentiation of V with respect to n and m indicates that (7.25a) holds when n and m equal their equilibrium values. But for pi/pr = 1 and the equilibrium values of m and n, (7.25b) holds if and only if f (k, ρ) ≡ k − [ρ/(1 + ρ − ρ2)](1+ρ)2ρ > 0
(7.26)
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
213
where ∂f/∂ρ < 0. This implies that the second-order condition holds only if the degree of economies of consumption variety (or of complementarity between consumption goods), 1/ρ, is sufficiently great in comparison with transaction efficiency. If economies of consumption variety are not significant, then the equilibrium m takes on one of two corner values, either n = m or m = ∞. Since m = ∞ is incompatible with the endowment constraint, the general equilibrium entails n = m if economies of consumption variety are not significant, or if the second-order condition is not satisfied. If n = m, then the results in (7.24) become irrelevant. For this case, in order to determine the general equilibrium and its comparative statics, we should first let m = n in each individual’s decision problem, and then solve for each individual’s optimum decision. It can be shown that if (7.26) does not hold, or if economies of consumption variety are not significant in comparison to transaction efficiency, then the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics are given as follows: m* = n* = [(1 − ρ)/c] + ρ(1 − kρ/(ρ−1)) dm*/dk > 0,
dm*/dc < 0.
(7.27)
(7.24), (7.26), and (7.27) together yield the following proposition. Proposition 7.2: As transaction efficiency k and/or management efficiency 1/c are improved, the equilibrium level of division of labor, n, and the equilibrium number of all consumption goods, m, increase concurrently, with the former increasing more quickly than the latter, so that all goods are eventually traded and the complete division of labor will be achieved. If economies of consumption variety are not significant in comparison to transaction efficiency, the number of traded goods always equals the number of all consumption goods. They simultaneously increase as transaction efficiency and management efficiency are improved. In addition, all concurrent development phenomena listed in proposition 7.1 take place as different aspects of the evolution in division of labor. Figure 7.5 gives an intuitive illustration of the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. The difference between the development mechanism in this chapter and that in chapter 5 is as follows. In the Smithian model, there is not a scale effect. The population size plays a very passive role: the number of occupations cannot exceed the population size. Compared to the Dixit–Stiglitz and Ethier models, the model in this chapter has endogenized individuals’ levels of specialization and degree of market integration. Hence, the following structural changes can be predicted as different aspects of economic development: increases in the degree of commercialization and in the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, and a decrease in each individual’s degree of self-sufficiency. If transaction efficiency is very low, a large population will be divided into many separate local communities which do not trade with each other, and productivity and per capita real income will be very low in such an economy (for instance, in pre-reform India). As transaction efficiency is improved, separate local communities merge into an increasingly integrated market, thereby generating economic development. Sachs and Warner (1995) use cross-country data to establish a positive correlation between economic development, trade dependence, the degree of openness, and quality of institution, all as they affect transaction conditions. Gallup and Sachs (1998) use cross-country data to show that geographical conditions, such as population share in coastal regions, have significant impacts on per capita income in a country. The empirical evidence supports the theoretical models in this chapter.
214 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS (a) Autarky, n = 1, m = 2
(b) Partial division of labor with n = 2, m = 3
2
1
1
4
2
2 3
2
3
4
1 1
2 2
2
4
1 4
2
2 2
1
3
1 3
2
1
1
1
1
A
3
2
1
1
3
3 4 3 (d) Complete division of labor with n = m = 4
3 3
2
3 (c) Complete division of labor with n = m = 3
Figure 7.5 Emergence of new technology and new consumption goods
7.9 THE EMERGENCE OF PROFESSIONAL MIDDLEMEN AND TRADE PATTERNS Example 7.3: A Smithian model allowing for specialization in trading a particular good. In the previous sections, specialization in trading activities is not allowed, so that transaction efficiency is exogenous. In order to explore this issue, we now specify a new model as follows. Max: u = [x + (rx + kxr xd)xd][ y + (ry + kyr yd )yd ][z + (rz + kzr zd )z d ] s.t.
x + xs = Max{0, Lx − a}, z + zs = Max{0, Lz − a}, rx + r xs = Max{Lrx − a, 0}, rz + r zs = Max{Lrz − a, 0}
y + y s = Max{0, Ly − a}, ry + r ys = Max{Lry − a, 0},
(production function) (transaction condition)
Lx + Ly + Lz + Lrx + Lry + Lrz = 1
(endowment constraint)
prx(r xs − r xd) + pry(r ys − r yd) + prz(r zs − r zd) + px(xs − xd) + py( ys − yd) + pz(zs − zd) = 0
(budget constraint)
where a is a fixed learning or training cost in each production and transacting activity, transacting services r for different goods are distinguished by subscript i (i = x, y, z), Lri is labor allocated to the production of transaction services in delivering good i, ki is the transaction efficiency coefficient for delivering transaction services for good i, and pri is the price of the transaction services in delivering good i. In this model, although transaction efficiency for goods is endogenized, the transaction efficiency coefficient for transaction services, ki, is exogenously given. Hence, we can use ki to explain all endogenous variables through comparative statics analysis of general equilibrium.
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
215
Table 7.1 Corner equilibria in five structures Structure A
P
C
PT
CT
Relative price
pi /pj = 1
py /px = pz/px = 1
pri /prj = pi /pj = (ki /kj)1/4; pi /pri = [44(1 − 2a)/55]1/3
pri/prj = (ki /kj)1/6 pi /pj = (kj/ki)1/6 pi /pri = 5(1 − a)1/5/66/5
Real income
(1 − 3a)3 ÷ 27 (1 − 3a)4 ÷ 44
(1 − 3a)5 ÷ 55 (1 − 2a)13/3(ki kj).5 ÷ (55/348/3)
(1 − a)27/5(kxkykz)2/3 ÷ (53612/5)
Following the two-step approach, we can solve for the corner equilibria in 5 structures: A (autarky), P (partial division of labor in production, where two goods are traded), PT (partial division of labor in production and transactions, where two goods and transaction services for the two goods are traded), C (complete division of labor in production where three goods are traded), and CT (complete division of labor in production and transactions where all goods and transaction services for all goods are traded), as shown in table 7.1 (where pri is the price of transaction service for good i). Because of symmetry, which goods are traded is indeterminate in structures P and C. Each middleman in the two structures in example 7.3 only provides transaction services for one good. Comparisons between per capita real incomes in the five types of structure indicate that structures P and C cannot be equilibrium structures. If transaction efficiency of transaction services is sufficiently low, autarky is the general equilibrium, whereas if that efficiency is sufficiently high the general equilibrium is the complete division of labor in production and transactions (structure CT) involving three types of middlemen. Each type of middleman completely specializes in producing transaction services for one type of good. If the transaction efficiency of transaction service ki is neither too large nor too small, then the general equilibrium is structure PT, where only two goods are traded and transaction services for delivering each of the two goods are provided by middlemen. As indicated in table 7.1, the per capita real income for this structure is uPT = (1 − 2a)13/3(kikj)0.5/55/348/3, where ki and kj are the transaction efficiency coefficients of transaction services for goods i and j, respectively. Hence, the corner equilibrium that trades the two goods with the larger transaction efficiency coefficients of transaction services generates a greater per capita real income. This, together with the Yao theorem, implies that if not all goods are traded in the general equilibrium, those will be traded that have the larger transaction efficiency coefficients for transaction services. Also, table 7.1 shows that the relative price of the two traded goods in the corner equilibrium trading only two goods is pi/pj = (ki/kj)1/4 where ki/kj is the relative transaction efficiency of transaction services for the two goods. Our results about the implications of relative transaction conditions for trade pattern are summarized as follows. Proposition 7.3: The general equilibrium includes as traded goods those with larger transaction efficiency coefficients of transaction services if not all goods are traded. The higher the transaction efficiency of transaction services for a good, the higher the equilibrium price of this good in terms of other goods. As transaction efficiency for transaction services is improved, the general equilibrium evolves from autarky to the partial division of labor between production and transactions, followed by the complete division of labor between production and transactions.
216 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
This result implies that those goods that involve inferior transaction conditions may be excluded from the network of division of labor and related trade. Even if such a good is involved in trade, its equilibrium price will be lower than that of other goods with the same production and consumption conditions. This explains why the market price is lower for those houses that are subject to government rent and trade restrictions than for other similar houses that can be freely traded. This also explains why there is no market for some goods. For instance, no market exists for clear air because of the extremely low transaction efficiency in trading this. In many textbooks, the absence of such markets is exogenously given. But in our models, this is endogenously determined by the trade-off between positive network effects of division of labor and transaction costs. In chapters 9 and 10 below, the existence of markets for different goods is endogenized by specifying more complicated trade-offs among endogenous transaction costs, exogenous transaction costs, coordination reliability of the network of division of labor, and economies of division of labor. Because of economies of specialization assumed in our models, the inframarginal comparative statics of equilibrium also imply that productivities and equilibrium quantities produced and consumed are greater for the traded goods with the higher transaction efficiency of transaction services than for the nontraded goods, even if production and consumption conditions are exactly the same for the two types of goods. This explains why the income share of the sectors manufacturing automobiles, refrigerators, and computers can dramatically increase despite the fact that they do not generate direct use-value for final consumption. These sectors specialize in producing goods that can be used to improve transaction efficiency, so that they can promote the division of labor in all sectors. This, in turn, enlarges the market for all goods, including those produced by these sectors.
7.10 THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN ECONOMIES OF SPECIALIZATION AND COORDINATION COSTS Example 7.4: The Becker–Murphy model of endogenous specialization (1992). Consider a production team consisting of n ex ante identical agents. This team undertakes a continuum of activities with mass 1 to produce good y. The production function of y is Y = Min Y (s), s ∈[ 0 ,1]
(7.28a)
where Y(s) is the contribution of activity s to the final output Y. The Leontief relationship between Y and Y(s) implies that each activity is essential for obtaining the final output. Each team member has a production function in activity s: Y(s) = AT hθ(s)T 1−θ w (s)
(7.28b)
where Th(s) is her total amount of time devoted to acquiring activity-specific skills and Tw(s) is time devoted to production in activity s. Each agent is endowed with one unit of time. This implies that if each agent disperses her limited time among many activities, duplicated investment in acquiring activity-specific skills will generate inefficient aggregate output. Hence, in an efficient team, each team member specializes in a certain range of activities that are different from other members’ activities. Suppose that the number of agents in the team is n; then each member undertakes a range of activities with measure 1/n. Therefore, (7.28b) is the production function of the agent who specializes in activity s as well as the team’s aggregate production function in this activity.
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
217
Let each agent’s total amount of time allocated to learning and production in each activity be T(s). Then each person’s time endowment constraint is (1/n)T(s) = 1, where 1/n is her range of activities. This implies that T(s) = n. Hence, each agent will maximize (7.28b), subject to the time endowment constraint Th(s) + Tw(s) = T(s) = n. The optimum solution of this decision problem, together with the production function (7.28a), yields Y* = B(n) ≡ Anθθ(1 − θ)1−θ.
(7.29)
Hence, the optimum aggregate final output of the team is an increasing function of the team size n. But a larger team size generates greater coordination cost. Assume that the coordination cost in terms of final output among team members is C(n), C′(.) > 0,
C″(n) > 0,
(7.30)
then the optimum team size can be determined by maximizing the net output B(n) − C(n). The first-order condition is dB(n)/dn = dC(n)/dn
(7.31)
that is, the marginal benefit of division of labor equals the marginal coordination cost. Here, 1/n is the scope of each team member’s activities and n can be interpreted as each team member’s level of specialization as well as the level of division of labor within the team. Suppose C(n) = cn2. The efficient team size given by (7.31) is n = α/2c, where α ≡ Aθθ(1 − θ)1−θ. This result implies that even if the population size for the society is fixed, the level of division of labor increases as the transaction condition is improved (c decreases). Suppose the population size is M. Then for a very large c, the efficient team size n = α/2c is small, so that the economy is divided into a large number (M/n) of separated teams. There is no connection between the teams. As c decreases, the efficient team size increases and the separate teams merge into an increasingly integrated coordination network. As Becker and Murphy (1992) indicate, the relationships between members within the same team could be either relationships within a firm or market relationships between firms. Dynamic versions of this model of endogenous specialization can be found in Tamura (1991, 1992).
Key Terms and Review • Economies of division of labor generated by fixed learning costs • The differences between decision rules in choosing the optimum resource allocation for a given configuration and decision rules in choosing the optimum configuration of specialization • Differences between neoclassical and Smithian demand and supply functions • The relationship between resource allocation and relative prices of traded goods versus the relationship between the level of division of labor and the absolute price of labor • The Young theorem: demand and supply are two sides of the division of labor; the extent of the market and the level of division of labor are two sides of the same coin • Extent of the market and the distinction between total market demand for a good and aggregate demand (the extent of the market or the thickness of the market) • The difference between effects of an increase in transaction efficiency and an increase in fixed learning costs on the level of division of labor
218 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
• The mechanism that generates the following concurrent phenomena: increases in the degree of commercialization, in trade dependence, in the degree of interpersonal dependence, in the extent of the market, in the number of types of markets, in productivity, in the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, in the degree of diversity of economic structure, in individuals’ levels of specialization, in the degree of production concentration, and in the degree of market integration • The mechanism generating the Linder pattern of trade • The relationship between evolution of division of labor, an increase in consumption variety, and emergence of new goods • Economies of consumption variety • Differences between the Smithian and neoclassical approaches to endogenizing the number of goods and the degree of market integration
Further Reading Smithian models with endogenous specialization: Houthakker (1956), Chu (1997), Chu and Wang (1998), Lio (1997, 1998), Sun (1999), Wen (1997), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 5), Smith (1776), Yang (1991, 1994), Yang and S. Ng (1998), S. Ng (1995), Rosen (1983), Becker (1981), Becker and Murphy (1992), Barzel and Yu (1984), Young (1928); Models with an endogenous number of goods: Dixit–Stiglitz (1977), Krugman (1979, 1980), Ethier (1981); Smithian models with an endogenous number of goods: Yang and Shi (1992), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 8), Yang (1996), Sun and Lio (1996); Emergence of professional middlemen: Yang (1991), Carter (1995), Bolton and Dewatripont (1994), Yang and Ng (1993, ch. 6).
QUESTIONS 1 In the early part of the twentieth century, Ford pioneered the use of mass production techniques featuring production lines. The new methods of management and production substantially reduced the prices of, and drastically increased demand and supply of, automobiles. This made the US the first country “on the wheelers.” Not only did the income share of the automobile industry and related sectors drastically increase, but also many new specialized sectors emerged from the better transportation conditions provided by cheap automobiles. (For instance, presentday supermarkets might not survive market competition in the absence of cheap automobiles.) Many economists call this phenomenon “economies of scale and economies of scope” (Chandler, 1990). However, Young claimed that the notion of economies of scale misses the phenomenon of division of labor, and in particular misses the qualitative aspect of division of labor. Use the notion of positive network effect of division of labor and the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs to explain the phenomenon. Discuss the implications of the production line, the geographical concentration of production of automobiles, the standardization of parts, and the division of labor between manufacturing and Ford’s dealer franchise network for reducing coordination costs (a type of transaction cost) and for increasing the efficient level of division of labor within the automobile industry. Then analyze the implications of cheap automobiles for an increase in the level of division of labor for society as a whole and for the extent of
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
2
3
4
5
6
7
AND
T RADE
219
the market for automobiles. Use the notion of general equilibrium to figure out the mechanisms that simultaneously determine all of these interdependent phenomena. Use Marshall’s idea, that a finer division of labor in production creates more scope for the division of labor in management, to explain the emergence of Taylor’s scientific approach to management from mass production and industrialization. How does the market simultaneously determine the demand and supply of management services as two aspects of the division of labor between production and management? The Smithian model in example 7.1 explains structural changes as evolution of division of labor, in which self-sufficient individuals transform into increasingly more professional individuals as the number of professional occupations increases. If the increase in employment share of the tertiary sector is interpreted as the increase in employment share of the professional transaction sector, as in North (1986), can you use the Smithian models in this chapter to explain this data as evolution of division of labor? Reprocess data according to your theory (for instance, counting all sectors that relate to the production of automobiles and computers as part of the transaction sector) and then test your theory against empirical observations. Many economists cite the Smith theorem, that division of labor is dependent upon the extent of the market, to argue that population size determines the extent of the market, which determines the level of division of labor. Use the Young theorem to critically assess the statement. Young argued that the approach that separates the analysis of demand from the analysis of individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization is misleading. The Young theorem (1928, pp. 539, 534) consists of three statements: (a) Not only is the level of division of labor dependent upon the extent of the market, but also the extent of the market is determined by the level of division of labor, so that they are two sides of the same coin; (b) Demand and supply are two aspects of division of labor from a general equilibrium view; (c) Increasing returns depends on the progressive division of labor. Use the new classical models in this chapter to explain the Young theorem. Smith claimed that the extent of a market is determined by transportation efficiency (1776, pp. 31–2) and that division of labor is limited by the extent of the market (1776, ch. 3 of bk. I). Use the models in this chapter to formalize the Smith theorem in connection with the Young theorem. In ancient Europe and China there was a debate about the role of commerce in comparison to production in determining the wealth of a nation. One side in the debate argued that commerce is nonproductive, makes no positive contribution to the wealth of a nation, and should be restricted. The other side argued that commerce is a driving force of economic development which positively contributes to the wealth of a nation. Use the Smithian models in this chapter, and the notion of the general equilibrium network of division of labor, to assess these views. Transaction costs in the Smithian models can be interpreted as costs caused by unpunctual delivery of traded goods and unpunctual transmission of information. It follows that the development of the watch, the refrigerator, the automobile, the computer, the Internet, the inventory facility, and the standardization of goods and services have had very important influences on the size of the general equilibrium network of division of labor. Use statistical data on the income shares of all sectors that are directly and indirectly related to transaction conditions to verify this theory.
220 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
8 Consider the Smithian model with an endogenous number of consumption goods in example 7.2. Assume that there are job shifting costs, so that an individual who has just changed jobs is not as productive, at least for a time, as a person who has not changed jobs. Suppose that the oil crisis has suddenly reduced transaction efficiency. Analyze what will happen to the equilibrium network size of division of labor and the equilibrium number of goods. Then discuss the possible effects on short-run unemployment, which some economists (such as Friedman) call natural unemployment while others call it structural unemployment. Analyze the intimate relationship between the equilibrium network size of division of labor before such a shock and the unemployment rate after the shock. (You could start from two extreme cases: (a) Before the shock, the equilibrium is autarky; (b) Before the shock, the equilibrium is the complete division of labor, where each person produces only one good and completely depends upon the market for other goods.) 9 It is said that specialization should be restricted because it conflicts with diversification, which is good for society. Marx and other economists argued that specialization makes individuals’ lives dull and boring, and should be restricted. Managers of Japanese companies emphasize diversifying the experience of their employees, rather than skill specialization. In contrast, American managers have paid more attention to specialization since Taylor’s scientific approach to management was developed. Similarly, American universities emphasize the diversity of undergraduate education, while fine specialization occurs at the level of graduate education. In contrast, the German technical training system and the Russian tertiary education system introduce specialization at quite early stages of education. Analyze these cases to identify the conditions for different efficient balance points between specialization and diversification. Draw a distinction between the following two kinds of economies of diversity in your analysis. One is the economies of variety of inputs, which is considered in this chapter and in chapters 18 and 19. The diversity of each person’s inputs and the specialization of their output can increase side by side as the network size of division of labor evolves, as shown in this chapter and in chapters 18 and 19. The other type of economies of diversity is a certain technical complementarity between activities in which a person engages. For instance, a person’s teaching experience of economics may help her research in economics – a kind of technical complementarity not considered in this chapter. Do some thought experiments about the possible general equilibrium implications of the latter in the Smithian framework. Refer to Rosen (1983) for an analysis of the trade-off between economies of specialization and this type of economy of technical complementarity. 10 Many economists use the notion of economies of scope to describe diseconomies of specialization. Use an example similar to that following to illustrate that the notion of economies of scope may be misleading. In the example, there are two firms, A and B. A hires 3 employees who all engage in exactly the same 3 activities. B hires 10 workers. Each of them engages in an activity that is distinct from the activities of the others. B has a larger scale of operation as well as a greater scope of activities than A. But a higher productivity of B than A may be due to a higher level of specialization of each worker in B and a higher level of division of labor in B than in A. Use your example to illustrate why the Herfindal index, which uses the output share of a sector, a city, or a region as a measure of the level of specialization, is misleading. According to this index, many large American cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York, have lower levels of specialization than, say,
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
11
12
13
14
15
16
AND
T RADE
221
Albany, Gary, and Norfolk (see Diamond and Simon, 1990, pp. 180–3). But from casual observation, we can perceive that the four large cities certainly have a much higher level of division of labor than the three small cities, because of their higher degree of diversity of occupations as well as the higher levels of specialization of many professionals. This is verified by Baumgardner’s (1988b) empirical evidence that individuals in a larger city are more specialized than those in small towns. In the Smithian model in example 7.2, as transaction efficiency is improved, the production functions of some new goods emerge from evolution of division of labor. This looks like endogenous technical progress. Analyze the difference between this approach to explaining endogenous technical progress, which is dependent on a large size of market network and on the merging of separate local business communities into an increasingly integrated market, and the neoclassical approach to explaining technical progress by investment, which is independent of the evolution of the network size of division of labor. Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992) have tested the concurrent evolution of the degree of commercialization (one aspect of division of labor) and per capita real income, generated by improvements in a transaction efficiency index, which is determined by institutional changes, against China’s data. Find other ways to test the theory developed in this chapter. For instance, you may test concurrent evolution in commercialization and in the number of available goods or concurrent evolution in commercialization and in the degree of market integration and production concentration. Casual observations suggest that individuals in a very developed and highly commercialized economy are often frustrated by the disutility caused by management of a great variety of goods and services. Use the statistical data of cases of psychosis caused by complexity in managing a great variety of goods in a highly commercialized society to test the theory developed in example 7.2. Design a method to test the model in example 7.2, which predicts a neutral role of population size in promoting per capita real income, in contrast to the DS model in example 5.1, which predicts a positive effect of population size on per capita real income against empirical data. The former has endogenized the degree of market integration and the latter has not. Design a statistical approach to test the comovement of all concurrent phenomena of structural changes predicted by the models in this chapter. From our daily experience, we can perceive that coordination costs for specialization are increasingly more significant as specialization is increased. For instance, an expert on the Russian military system can provide professional knowledge that nobody else can provide. But the value of her professional knowledge is very low in peacetime (though she may become a star in TV shows when there is a possibility of war between Russia and another country). Smith noted the trade-off between coordination costs and economies of division of labor. Becker and Murphy have formalized the trade-off in a decision model (see example 7.4). How does the market sort out the efficient balance of this trade-off ? How should you find the efficient trade-off when you choose your professional career? Use the Smithian models in this chapter to explain the Linder pattern of trade, which suggests that trade volume between ex ante similar developed countries is much greater than that between ex ante different developed and less-developed economies. Discuss the difference between the Smithian way and Krugman’s way (using the DS model) to explain the Linder pattern of trade.
222 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
17
18
19
20
21
22
Many development economists compare the cases of India, Bangladesh, some African countries, and the east Asia in the nineteenth century, with the development experience of western Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to argue that population growth has negative effects on economic development. Hence, they say, birth control is essential for economic development. Other economists use the early development experience of the US, Australia, and New Zealand, and the development experience of Hong Kong and Japan in the twentieth century, to argue that population size has a positive effect on economic development. Use the Smithian models in this chapter to assess the two opinions in relation to the effects of transaction conditions on economic development. Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, p. 168) find that “The agricultural revolution came after 1880 (increased use of fertilizers, machines, improved seeds, improvements in methods of cultivation and animal husbandry) as a consequence of improved transportation, the development of regional specialization in agriculture.” Use the model in this chapter to explain this historical fact. Mokyr (1993, p. 31) indicates that “Many authors maintain that the challenge imposed by resource scarcities stimulates invention. Thus the deforestation of Britain is alleged to have led to a rise in timber prices, thus triggering Britain into adopting a novel and ultimately far more efficient set of techniques using fossil fuels.” Use the model in exercise 13 to analyze the conjecture. Under what conditions would the frightening forecast of crises due to an energy shortage and a population explosion make sense, and under what conditions would it be nonsense? In the model in exercise 14, the transaction efficiency coefficient k is equivalent to “public goods.” According to Pigou and Samuelson, the output level of public goods is not Pareto efficient in the Walrasian regime with no government intervention. Use the Chu model (exercise 13) to assess under what condition this claim is wrong in relation to the following facts. Early economic development in the US in the last century was driven by the development of infrastructure. But the infrastructure (canals, railways, and early freeways) was developed largely by private companies. The development of freeways by private companies in Malaysia is much more successful than in China, where the government monopolizes the construction of freeways. According to Coase (1960), the market and the private sector are able to take care of so-called “public goods,” and Pigou and Samuelson’s notion of distortion being caused by externality and public goods is misleading. Use the Chu model to assess Coase’s view. Kremer (1993) argues that population density has a positive effect on long-run economic growth. But Jones (1981, p. 232) provides historical evidence of the negative effect of population density on early economic development in India, China, the Ottoman empire, and Europe in the period 1500–1800. Use the model in this chapter to analyze the opposite opinions. Many development economists argue that mainstream economics on the function of the market is not applicable to developing countries because of the non-existence of many markets in these countries. Use the models in this chapter to show that if classical mainstream economics pertaining to development implication of division of labor are formalized, their core purpose is to explain the emergence of markets and the evolution of marketization. Hence, the development experience of eighteenthand nineteenth-century Britain in improving transaction conditions becomes applicable to currently developing countries.
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
EXERCISES 1 Let the equilibrium number of traded goods in the model in example 7.1 be n ≥ 1. Then identify the parameter space within which the solution given by the first-order condition is relevant. If the parameter values are not within this subspace, what is going to happen to general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics? Check the second-order condition for maximizing utility with respect to n and discuss the feature of the general equilibrium when the second-order condition is not satisfied. 2 S. Ng, 1995: Consider the model in example 7.1 with m = 3. Suppose that there are two countries. Each of them has M citizens and transaction efficiency k differs from country to country, so that utility equalization may not hold between countries. Solve for the general equilibrium and analyze under what conditions international trade emerges from domestic trade. Suppose k is the same between the two countries, but is larger for domestic trade than for international trade. Identify the condition for international trade emerging from domestic trade and trade pattern. 3 Suppose there are two countries and only two goods in the model in example 7.1. The utility function is u = (xc )α ( yc)1−α. The population size for each country is an integer M. Identify the conditions for international trade to emerge from domestic trade. 4 Show that the Nash bargaining equilibrium in example 7.1 or 7.2 is the same as the Walrasian equilibrium. 5 Work out the own price elasticities of the neoclassical and Smithian demand and supply functions in example 7.2, and examine the differences between them. 6 Suppose that the government taxes sales of goods at rate t and then equally distributes the tax revenue among individuals in the model in example 7.1. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics, and analyze the implications of the tax for the equilibrium network size of division of labor and other related variables. 7 Yang and Shi, 1992: Assume that the production function in (7.1) is x ip = l ia, a > 1. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Check the second-order condition where the equilibrium number of traded goods is n ∈(1, m), and analyze the implications of the second-order condition. Then work out the general equilibrium and inframarginal comparative statics when the second-order condition is not satisfied. 8 Assume that in the model in example 7.2, transaction efficiency k = 1, but the government imposes a tax rate t on each dollar of sales, then equally distributes the tax revenue among all individuals. Solve for general equilibrium and its comparative statics. Analyze the implications of the tax for the equilibrium network size of division of labor and number of available goods. 9 Assume that in example 7.3, transaction service is not good-specific, so that transaction service for one good is the same as that for another good. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. In some developing countries, such as China, the government monopolizes both the wholesale and retail networks. The government uses the licensing system and other regulations to deter free entry of private businessmen into trading businesses, in particular
223
224 P ART I: D EVELOPMENT M ECHANISMS
10
11
12
13
into importing, exporting, and wholesale. Use your answer to analyze the effects of such institutions and regulations on economic development. Assume that the economy in example 7.2 is initially in equilibrium. An oil crisis reduces transaction efficiency from k1 to k2, so that the equilibrium number of goods decreases. Assume that as the equilibrium shifts from a corner equilibrium to another corner equilibrium, there is a job shifting cost when individuals change jobs, so that those who lose their jobs are not as competitive as those who do not change jobs, giving rise to unemployment. Compute the unemployment rate caused by the oil crisis. Lio, 1998: Each ex ante identical consumer-producer’s utility function is: V = ∑ mi=1 ln(xI + x id ) + β ln H, where xi, x di , and k have the same meanings as in example 7.1. H = 1 − L is the amount of time allocated for leisure, L is the amount of time allocated for the production of goods, and β is a parameter representing the desire for leisure. It is assumed that the total amount of available time for each individual is 1, so that the production functions and the endowment constraint for time are xI + x id = Max{0, lI − a}, i = 1, 2, . . . , m, ∑ mi=1 lI ≡ L, L + H = 1. Solve for comparative statics of general equilibrium. Show that as transaction efficiency k or the degree of desire for leisure β increases, the equilibrium level of division of labor n, productivity, and per capita demand from the market, which equals per capita supply x id, increase. Lio (1996) finds empirical evidence that productivity, per capita real income, and leisure time increase, while working time for self-provided consumption decreases as division of labor evolves. Why do productivity and the level of division of labor increase as the degree of desire for leisure increases? Assume a CES utility function. Will your result change? (Hint: see Lio.) Wen, 1997b: Consider an economy with M ex ante identical consumer-producers. Each individual’s utility is specified as a function of the quantities of two goods that are consumed, u = (x + kx d )( y + ky d ), where all variables have the same meanings as in example 4.1. Each individual has the following production functions for the two consumption goods. x + x d = Max{0, (lx − a)(sx − b)}, y + y d = Max{0, (ly − a)(sx − b)}, where li is the individual’s level of specialization in producing good i, si is the amount of primary resource allocated to produce good i, a is a fixed learning cost in producing a good, and b is a fixed amount of the resource that is essential for the production of each good. ly + ly = 1 and sy + sy = s0 where s0 is each individual’s initial endowment of the resource, which can be coal, iron ore, or land. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium, and show that as per capita endowment of the resource s0 decreases due to population expansion or depletion of the resource, the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity increases. Explain why labor surplus caused by population expansion, and an energy crisis caused by the depletion of energy, can increase the level of division of labor and productivity under good transaction conditions. (Hint: work out the critical value of k that divides autarky and the division of labor, as a function of s0, then show that the derivative of this critical value with respect to s0 is negative.) Compare the results with Sachs and Warner’s (1995b) empirical evidence that shortage of resources is positively correlated with growth performance for open economies. Chu, 1997: Consider an economy with M ex ante identical consumer-producers, where transaction efficiency k is determined by the level of specialization in producing transaction infrastructure. For an individual who does not produce infrastructure, the decision problem is:
C HAPTER 7: S TRUCTURAL C HANGES
AND
T RADE
225
Max: u = (x + kx d)( y + ky d ); s.t.
y + ys = 1 − α
(production function of y)
Lx + Ly = 1
(endowment constraint of time)
1 ⎧ ⎪1 − M k=⎨ k ⎪k ⎩0
if
Mk > 1
if
Mk ≤ 1
px x s + py y s = px x d + py y d + pk
(transaction conditions) (budget constraint)
where x and y are respective quantities of two goods that are self-provided, xd and yd are respective quantities of the two goods purchased from the market, xs and ys are respective quantities of the two goods sold, and Li is the individual’s level of specialization in producing good i. k is the transaction efficiency coefficient, which is an increasing function of the number of individuals producing infrastructure, Mk. If the number is 0, that is, no professional infrastructure sector exists, then k = k0. xd (i = x, y) is the price of good i, and pk is a fee for the use of infrastructure paid by each individual. Assume that individuals compete for the right to construct the infrastructure in an auction. The bidder who collects the lowest per capita fee will get the right. If no infrastructure exists, that is, Mk = 0, then pk is irrelevant and k = k0. For an individual choosing to be a specialist in the infrastructure sector, her decision problem is: Max: u = kxdkyd s.t. px xd + py yd = pk(Mx + My)/Mk where (Mx + My)/Mk is the ratio of the number of specialists producing goods to those producing infrastructure, so that pk(Mx + My )/Mk is the earnings that an infrastructure specialist receives from the production of infrastructure. Because of the assumptions that individuals are ex ante identical and that a competitive bidding process determines distribution of the rights to produce infrastructure, the earnings must be the same between the infrastructure specialists. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium, and show that the level of division of labor between the production of goods and the production of infrastructure is more likely to be higher if the population size M is larger. Use your result to formalize Boserup’s idea (1975) that the per capita investment cost of a canal system, a railway network, a freeway network, an airport system, and other infrastructure decreases with the population density, so that a high population density may be favorable for evolution in division of labor and economic development. Why can a competitive bidding procedure for rights to develop infrastructure, plus free choice of occupation configurations, avoid distortion in producing infrastructure (public goods)? (Hint: the corner equilibrium Mk is implicitly given by an equation. Use the envelope theorem and the implicit function theorem to show that the corner equilibrium utility in the structure with specialists producing infrastructure is greater as the population size M increases.)
Note 1 According to Hurwicz (1973), the Walrasian model has more information asymmetry than most game models, and the Walrasian equilibrium can efficiently utilize information in a society when each agent has minimum information.
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
PART II The Institution of the Firm, Endogenous Transaction Costs, and Economic Development
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 227
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE INSTITUTION OF THE FIRM, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 229
8
8.1 WHAT IS THE INSTITUTION OF THE FIRM? In the Smithian models of chapters 4, 6, 7, there is no labor trade, and there are no firms. You may wonder if this kind of model can only describe economic development before the Industrial Revolution. But it is one of the advantages of the Smithian framework over the neoclassical that only the ex ante players are consumer-producers, and there are no firms before individuals have made their decisions. The institution of the firm is a particular way of organizing transactions that are required by the division of labor. It may emerge from the division of labor only as a consequence of individuals’ decisions in choosing their levels of specialization and manner of organizing transactions. If the transaction cost coefficient for labor is smaller than that for goods, then the institution of the firm will be chosen to organize the division of labor and to promote economic development as trade and pricing of goods are replaced by the corresponding trade and pricing of labor. An example of the replacement of goods trade with labor trade is trade between a professor and his housekeeper. Outputs of services provided by housekeepers are prohibitively expensive to price because of such a great variety of services, generating an extremely high cost in measuring quality and quantity of the services item by item. Hence, trade in labor that involves pricing of the housekeeper’s labor inputs will substitute for trade in her outputs. The professor pays the housekeeper according to her working hours, rather than according to quantity and quality of each and every service item she provides. However, we do not take trade between the professor and the housekeeper to be associated with the institution of the firm. The division of labor between the professor and the housekeeper, and the replacement of trade in outputs of the housekeeper with trade in her labor, are two necessary but not sufficient conditions for the emergence of the firm from the division of labor. Before we study the sufficient conditions for the existence of the firm, a rigorous definition is needed for the institution of the firm. The institution of the firm is a structure of transactions based on the division of labor that satisfy the following three conditions. i) There are two types of trade partner who are associated with a firm: the employer and the employee. There is an asymmetric distribution of control rights or authority. The employer has control rights to use the employee’s labor. The latter must do what he is told to do, if
230 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
his boss so demands. That is, the ultimate rights to use the employee’s labor are owned by the employer, subject to the employee’s freedom to quit the job and to other terms of the labor contract. ii) The contract that is associated with the asymmetric relationship between the employer and the employee never specifies how much the employer receives from the relationship, but only how much the employee receives from the relationship. The employer claims the residual returns, defined as the revenue of the firm net of the wage bill and other expenses. The employer is referred to as the owner of the firm. One of the most important components of the ownership of a modern firm is the entitlement to the business name of the firm. The exclusive rights to the business name are enforced through a business name search process when the firm is registered with the government and through recognition of the name in legal cases in the judicial process. The exclusive rights are also enforced through laws governing brands. iii) A firm must involve a process that transforms employees’ labor into something that is sold in the market by the owner of the firm. In the process, what is produced by the employee is owned by the employer (residual returns). The relationship between the professor and the housekeeper does not involve the institution of the firm, since it does not involve such a resale process. The professor directly consumes what the housekeeper produces and never resells it to the market. If an individual hires a broker to conduct stock transactions, the relationship involves asymmetric authority and rights to residual returns. But the relationship does not involve the firm since it does not satisfy condition (iii). Suppose that in the model in chapter 4, with consumption goods only, a specialist producer of x buys the labor of a specialist producer of y, directs that employee to specialize in producing y within the firm, and then sells y to the specialist producer of y in the market for y. Such roundabout transactions involve unnecessary transactions in labor. If the producer of y must buy his own produce from the market, why would he not directly sell y to the specialist producer of x in exchange for good x? The latter structure of transactions is exactly the same as the former, except that the former involves more trade in labor and therefore creates unnecessary transaction costs. This implies that the institution of the firm will not be chosen in a model with ex ante identical individuals if there is no producer good or service. In this chapter, we shall show that the institution of the firm may be used to save on transaction costs if there is division of labor between the production of the final goods and the production of the intermediate goods. The rationale behind our story of the firm may not seem very plausible. Human history has been troubled by the question of the fairness of asymmetric relationships between employer and employee. In a free enterprise system, employees have the freedom to become employers by using the free capital market and a legal system that protects free association. They also have the freedom to quit their jobs. Hence, an asymmetric relationship between the employer and the employee in a free market system differs from the relationship between a master and his slave or the feudal relationship between a lord and his servant. Notwithstanding this, many people (from Karl Marx to modern trade union activists) are still concerned with the following questions. Why must the employee do what he is told to do rather than what he likes to do? Why shouldn’t the employee have rights to the residual returns that perhaps are making a fortune for the employer? Such questions were at least partly responsible for the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the Chinese Revolution in 1949 that changed the lives of a billion people over the course of more than half of the twentieth century, and generated very serious consequence for economic development in many current and ex-socialist economies. (According to a conservative estimate in Forbes (March 23, 1998, p. 80), the cost of the social experiment with the communist economic system in Cuba was $31.5 billion in 1995. In other words, without this communist system, Cuba’s GDP in 1995 would be $31.5 billion more than its realized value.)
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 231
Russia and East Europe have already abandoned the disastrous social experiments that were inspired by such questions, and China shows every prospect of doing so in the near future. However, we need a well-developed theory to explain why a communist government’s infringement of the residual rights of private firms is harmful for economic development; and to address the following questions. What is the role of multinational firms and foreign direct investment in economic development? What are the effects on the development of entrepreneurship, which is crucial for economic development, of a legal system that protects the residual rights of owners of private firms? Why is the average size of firms declining (downsizing, outsourcing, contracting out, disintegration)? This chapter will address such questions. In section 8.2, we outline the story behind the model. In section 8.3, we set out a general equilibrium model of endogenous specialization and endogenous emergence of the firm. We then solve individuals’ decisions, corner equilibria in various structures, general equilibrium, and its inframarginal comparative statics. Sections 8.4 and 8.5 explore the development implications of the institution of the firm.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n
n
What is the institution of the firm? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the emergence of the firm? What is the function of the institution of the firm and what are the implications of the internal organization of the firm for the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity? What is the relationship between the legal system that protects the residual rights of owners of private firms; entrepreneurship; and economic development?
8.2 WHY ARE CLAIMS TO RESIDUAL RIGHTS OF THE FIRM ESSENTIAL FOR NURTURING ENTREPRENEURSHIP? – THE STORY BEHIND THE MODEL We will outline the intuition behind the formal model, before you become mired in the algebra of the model and lose your capacity for economic thinking, by telling a story about the role of the institution of the firm in economic development. Our story of the firm runs as follows. Each individual as a consumer must consume a final good, called cloth, the production of which requires an intermediate good, called management service, as an input. There is a tradeoff between economies of specialization and transaction costs. If transaction efficiency is high, then division of labor will occur at equilibrium. Otherwise, autarky will be chosen as the equilibrium. There are three different structures of residual rights which can be used to organize transactions required by the division of labor. Structure D, shown in figure 8.1(b), comprises markets for cloth and management services. Specialist producers of cloth exchange that product for the specialist services of management. For this market structure, residual rights to returns and authority are symmetrically distributed between the trade partners, and no firms or labor market exist. Structure E, shown in figure 8.1(c), comprises the market for cloth and the market for labor hired to produce the management service within a firm. The producer of cloth is the owner of the firm and specialist producers of management services are employees. Control rights over employees’ labor and rights to the firm’s residual returns are asymmetrically distributed between the employer and her employees. The employer claims the difference between revenue and the wage bill, has control rights over her employees’ labor, and sells goods that are produced from employees’ labor. Structure F, shown in figure 8.1(d), comprises the market for cloth and the market for labor hired to produce cloth within a firm. The professional manager is the owner of the firm and specialist producers of cloth are
232 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS Firms y y/x
xd
x
y/lx x
ys l
A y
x/ly
y
ys
d x
y ys
lyd
x xs
(a) Autarky
yd
lsx
yd
lsy
yd
x/y
lx/y
ly/x
(b) Structure D
(c) Structure E
(d) Structure F
Figure 8.1 Emergence of the firm from the division of labor
employees. For the final two structures of residual rights, the firm emerges from the division of labor. Compared with structure D, these involve a labor market but not a market for management services. As Cheung (1983) argues, the firm replaces the market for intermediate goods with the market for labor. Although both structures E and F involve a firm and an asymmetric structure of residual rights, they entail different firm ownership structures. Suppose that transaction efficiency is much lower for management service than for labor. This is very likely to be the case in the real world, since the quality and quantity of intangible entrepreneurial ideas are prohibitively expensive to measure. Potential buyers of intellectual property in entrepreneurial ideas may refuse to pay by claiming that these are worthless as soon as they are acquired from their specialist producer. Under these circumstances, the institution of the firm can be used to organize the division of labor more efficiently because it avoids trade in intangible intellectual property. Suppose further that transaction efficiency for labor hired to produce management services is much lower than for labor hired to produce cloth because it is prohibitively expensive to measure the efforts exerted in producing intangible management services. (Can you tell if a manager sitting in the office is pondering business management or his girlfriend?) Then the division of labor can be more efficiently organized in structure F than in structure E. This is because structure F involves trade in cloth and in labor hired to produce cloth, but not trade in management services nor in labor hired to produce management services, while structure E involves trade in cloth and in labor hired to produce management services. Hence, structure F will occur at equilibrium if the transaction efficiencies for labor hired to produce cloth and for cloth are sufficiently high. The manager’s claim to the residual returns of the firm is the indirect price of management services. Therefore, the function of the asymmetric structure of residual rights is to get the activity with the lowest transaction efficiency involved in the division of labor while avoiding direct pricing and marketing of the output and input of that activity, thus promoting the division of labor and productivity. In a sense, the function of the asymmetric structure of residual rights is similar to that of a patent law that enforces rights to intangible intellectual property, thereby promoting the division of labor and productivity in producing the intangible. However, the asymmetric structure of residual rights to returns and control can indirectly price those intangible intellectual properties which are prohibitively expensive to price even through a patent law. Intuitively, there are two ways to do business if an individual has an idea for making money. The first is to sell the entrepreneurial idea in the market. This is very likely to create a situation in which everybody can steal the idea and refuse to pay for its use. The second way of proceeding is for the entrepreneur to hire workers to realize the idea, while keeping the idea to
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 233
herself as a business secret. Then she can claim as her reward the residual returns to the firm, which represent the difference between revenue and the wage bill. If the idea is a good one, then the entrepreneur will make a fortune. If the idea is a bad one, she will become bankrupt. The residual return is the precise price of the idea, and the entrepreneur gets what she deserves, so that stealing and over- or under-pricing of intellectual property is avoided. To understand this, you might imagine that Bill Gates did not set up a company to hire others to realize his entrepreneurial ideas about how to make money from computer software. Instead, he sold his ideas as consultant services. Would anybody pay a billion dollars (which is the real market value of the ideas, indicated by Gates’ residual returns) to buy the ideas? This theory is referred to as the theory of indirect pricing, which is formalized by the Yang– Ng model (1995). It also formalizes the Cheung–Coase theory of the firm (Coase, 1937 and Cheung, 1983), which suggests that the institution of the firm can save on transaction costs by replacing trade in intermediate goods with trade in labor if the former involves higher transaction costs than the latter. The model does not endogenize transaction costs if these are defined as a departure from the Pareto optimum. However, if endogenous transaction costs are defined as those transaction costs whose value is endogenously determined by individuals’ decisions and the equilibrium process, then the Yang–Ng model has endogenized transaction costs. This is because the number of transactions for individuals and for the economy as a whole is endogenized in this model due to the trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs. With this theory, it is not difficult to understand the role that the institution of the firm plays in economic development. If the legal system in a country does not protect the residual rights of the owners of private firms, then there will be a shortage of entrepreneurial activity. This is because entrepreneurial knowledge is very intangible, and can be indirectly priced only through claims to the residual rights of private firms. In the former Soviet Union, the government could arbitrarily infringe upon the residual rights of private firms, and monopolized rights to found firms. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China regards earnings via the residual rights of private firms as a source of exploitation. According to Barro (1997), Easton and Walker (1997), and Frye and Shleifer (1997), for example, such infringement of residual rights is very harmful to the nurturing of entrepreneurship and for economic development. Also, using the theory of indirect pricing, we can explain why large companies in the developed economies use the institution of the multinational firm to export intangible management know-how rather than directly exporting it to less-developed countries. Again, management know-how is very intangible. It is very easy to under- or over-price it in direct trading. But the multinational company is an effective way to indirectly price such intangibles. It encourages division of labor and trade between professional producers of intangibles and tangibles, thereby promoting economic development. This theory has an interesting empirical implication. It predicts that the equilibrium size of the firm should decrease as division of labor evolves, if the transaction conditions are improved faster for goods than for labor (see exercise 11 below). Empirical evidence to support the hypothesis can be found in Liu and Yang (2000), who show that productivity, level of division of labor, and per capita real income increase, and the average size of firms declines concurrently, as improvements in transaction conditions for goods outpace those for labor.
8.3 THE EMERGENCE OF THE FIRM FROM THE EVOLUTION OF DIVISION OF LABOR In subsection 8.3.1, the model is elaborated and the concept of economies of roundabout production is defined. In subsection 8.3.2, the corner equilibria in all structures of organizations
234 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
and transactions are solved for. Finally, the general equilibrium and its comparative statics are solved in subsection 8.3.3.
8.3.1 Economies of roundabout production Example 8.1: A Smithian-Coasian model of the institution of the firm. As discussed in section 8.1, the existence of intermediate goods is essential for explaining the emergence of the firm from the division of labor. People produce intermediate goods because they can be used to improve the productivity of the final goods. There are economies of roundabout production if the productivity of a good can be improved by employing intermediate goods. There are three types of economies of roundabout production. Type A relates to the quantity of an intermediate good that is employed to produce the final goods. Type B relates to the number of intermediate goods at a link of the roundabout production chain. Type C relates to the number of links in the roundabout production chain. In this chapter we study type A economies of roundabout production. Type B are studied in chapter 6, and will be studied again in chapter 12. Type C will also be investigated in chapter 12. The development of division of labor since the Industrial Revolution has been taking place mainly in roundabout production of these three types. In the model in this chapter, each consumer-producer has the following system of the production involving economies of roundabout production. y + y s = (x + tx d )cl ya, x+x =l s
(8.1a)
b x
lx + ly = 1,
(8.1b) y, y , x, x , x , lx, ly ≥ 0 s
d
s
(8.1c)
where li is an individual’s level of specialization as well as her amount of labor allocated to the production of good i. x and y are respective quantities of the intermediate and consumption goods self-provided, x s and y s are respective quantities of the two goods that are sold, x d is the quantity of intermediate goods bought, t is the transaction efficiency coefficient for the intermediate goods, and a and b are parameters of production conditions. x + tx d is the quantity of the intermediate good that is employed to produce the final good. The exponentially weighted average of this quantity and the amount of labor employed, (x + tx d)c/(c+a)l ya/(c+a), is called the total factor input in producing good y. The ratio of output y + y s to total factor input is called total factor productivity (TFP), given by TFP = [(x + tx d )cl ya ](a+c−1)/(a+c). The TFP increases with an individual’s level of specialization in producing y if a + c > 1. A production function of a good with two inputs displays economies of specialization if the total factor productivity increases with an individual’s level of specialization in producing the good. A production function of a good displays type A economies of roundabout production if the total factor productivity of the good increases with the quantity of the intermediate good employed. In this chapter, the parameter c(a + c − 1)/(a + c) can be considered the degree of type A economies of roundabout production, and parameter a(a + c − 1)/(a + c) can be considered the degree of economies of specialization in producing the final good. We assume that a = c for simplicity in the rest of the chapter, so that TFP increases with the quantity of the intermediate good employed and with the level of specialization in producing good y if a > 0.5. Hence, a can be considered the degree of economy of roundaboutness, as well as the degree of economy of specialization in producing y. Suppose that the transaction efficiency coefficient for the final good y is k, and that all ex ante identical consumer-producers have the following utility function: u = y + ky d, where the set of individuals is a continuum.
(8.2)
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 235
8.3.2 The corner equilibria in four structures The Wen theorem can be reestablished and refined for a model with intermediate goods. Hence, an individual sells at most one good and does not buy and self-provide the same good. She self-provides the consumer good if she sells it. Since intermediate goods do not directly contribute to utility, she does not self-provide the intermediate good unless she produces the final good. Structure A (autarky), where each individual chooses a configuration with x s = y s = x d = y d = 0, as shown in figure 8.1(a): The decision problem for each individual in this structure is: Max: u = y = x al ya = l xab(1 − lx)a and its solution is: lx = b/(1 + b),
ly = 1/(1 + b),
x = [b/(1 + b)]b (8.3a)
uA = y = [bb/(1 + b)1+b]a
where per capita real income in structure A, uA, is per capita output of the consumption good as well. Structure D, comprising configurations (x/y) and (y/x), as shown in figure 8.1(b): There is no asymmetric distribution of residual rights in this structure. Individuals exchange goods for goods in the absence of the institution of the firm and a related labor market. Configuration (x/y) is defined by x = y = y s = ly = 0 and x s, lx, y d > 0. Inserting the values of the variables and the budget constraint into the utility function yields the decision for this configuration. Indeed, there is no scope for adjusting the values of the decision variables, which are fixed by the definition of the configuration and the budget constraint. Here, the specialist producer of good x does not self-provide x, which is not a consumption good. Configuration ( y/x) is defined by x = x s = y d = lx = 0 and x d, y, y s, ly > 0. Marginal analysis of the configuration yields the corner solution. The corner solutions for the two configurations are summarized as follows: (x/y): x s = 1,
yd = px/py,
ux = kpx/py
(y/x): x d = (at apy /px)1/(1−a),
ys = (at apy /px)1/(1−a)px/py,
uy = (atpy/px)a/(1−a)(1 − a) where ui is the indirect utility function of an individual selling good i. Having considered the market clearing and utility equalization conditions and the population size equation Mx + My = M in structure D, we can solve for the corner equilibrium in that structure as follows: py /px = [k/(1 − a]1−a/(at)a,
Mx =
akM , 1 − a + ak
My =
uD = aa(1 − a)1−a(tk)a
(1 − a)M 1 − a + ak
(8.3b)
where Mi is the number of individuals selling good i, and uD is the per capita real income in structure D. Per capita real income is per capita consumption of the final good, and its reciprocal is the absolute price of labor, which includes labor allocated to the production of both final and intermediate goods.
236 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Structure E, comprising configurations (lx/y) and (y/lx), as shown in figure 8.1(c): (y/lx) denotes a specialist producer of y who hires workers and directs them to specialize in producing x within the firm. (lx/y) denotes a worker who is hired to produce the intermediate good and who buys the final good. The decision problem of the employer choosing (y/lx) is: Max: uy = y s.t.
y + y s = (x dly) a, x = (slx) , s
b
x = Nx d
ly = 1,
lx = 1,
s
(production conditions for specialist of y) (production conditions for specialist of x) (equality between quantities of x produced and employed)
py y = wNlx = wN s
(budget constraint)
where N is the number of workers hired by the employer, w is the wage rate, and 1 − s is the transaction cost coefficient for each unit of labor hired. The quantity of labor employed in production is thus slx. Nlx is the employer’s demand for labor. Each worker in the firm produces x s = (slx)b = s b when he is directed to specialize in producing x (lx = 1). Hence, the employer receives intermediate good x d = Nx s. Superscripts s and d denote supply and demand for inputs and outputs within the firm. Note that lx is an employee’s quantity of labor, but is the employer’s decision variable. This is what we mean by residual control rights or asymmetric distribution of authority. However, the employee always has the right to quit the job and to find another employer. More important than this, he can use the free markets for capital, labor, and goods to choose to become an employer himself and to found his own enterprise. This distinguishes the asymmetric relationship between employer and employee in a capitalist firm from the asymmetric relationship between master and slave or the feudal relationship between lord and servant. The employer’s rights to residual returns relate to the difference between the output level of y within the firm and the quantity of y that is sold by the firm. Note that the production function of good x is still specified for each worker. It displays economies of specialization for each worker rather than economies of the scale of labor in the firm. All individual workers, production functions, and the employer’s production function are aggregated as the production function for the firm, which is y + y s = (x dly) a = (Ns bly) a. This production function displays local economies of scale to x d and ly for ly ≤ 1 and a ∈ (0.5, 1). But, there also are economies of specialization in producing y for the employer and in producing x for each worker. Hence, the local economies of scale for the firm are associated with economies of division of labor within the firm, which cannot be obtained by simply pooling labor together in the absence of specialization and division of labor. Note that the total factor is (x d )0.5l y0.5. This formalizes the distinction, drawn by Young (1928), between economies of scale generated by pooling labor within a firm and economies of specialization. If a > 1, the production of the firm displays global economies of scale to employed labor, N, that is, total factor productivity increases as the employer hires more workers. For a > 1, the Kuhn–Tucker condition for the interior optimum number of workers is not satisfied, so that the optimum value of N is as large as possible. Hence, a corner equilibrium with firms doesn’t exist. With a ∈(0.5, 1), the solution of the decision problem for configuration (y/lx) is N = (s abapy/w)1/(1−a),
ys = (saba)1/(1−a)(py/w)a/(1−a)
uy = y = (1 − a)(s bapy/w)a/(1−a) where uy is the employer’s indirect utility function. Note that the interior solution of N is relevant only for a < 1.
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 237
Each worker’s decision is simple. He sells all his labor, so that the budget constraint is py y d = wl xs where l xs = 1 is the labor supply. The worker’s utility is thus ux = ky d = kw/py. Let the number of individuals choosing (y/lx) be My; then the market supply of good y is My y s and the market demand for labor is My N. Let the number of individuals choosing (lx/y) be Mx; then the market demand for good y is Mx y d and the market supply of labor is Mx. The market clearing conditions for good y and for labor are equivalent to each other due to Walras’s law. Hence, we consider only one of them. Together with the utility equalization condition and two corner solutions, we have Mx y s = My y d,
y s = (saba)1/(1−a)(py /w)a/(1−a),
ux = uy
kw/py = (1 −a)(sbapy /w)a/(1−a)
or
yd = w/py
This yields the corner equilibrium in structure E as follows:
N = Mx /M y =
ak 1− a
w/py = [(1 − a)/k]1−a(sba)a
(8.3c)
uE = (s ka) (1 − a) b
a
1−a
where uE is the per capita real income in structure E. Its reciprocal is also the absolute labor price of the final good. Structure F, comprising configurations (ly/x) and (x/ly), as shown in figure 8.1(d): (x/ly) denotes a specialist producer of x who hires workers and directs them to specialize in producing y using her produce x within the firm. (ly/x) denotes a worker who is hired to produce the final good, using the intermediate good, and who buys the final good. The decision problem of the employer choosing (x/ly) is: Max: ux = Y Y + Y s ≡ Ny s y s = (x drly) a,
(total output of y for a firm) ly = 1
x = x /N d
s
x s = l xb,
(quantity of x employed by each employee) lx = 1
pyY = wly N = wN s
(production condition for each employee)
(production condition of employer) (budget constraint)
where the upper-case letters represent output levels for the firm, and the lower-case letters represent quantities of goods for each individual. Y + Y s is the total output of the final good for the firm, Y is the residual return to the employer, Y s is the total amount sold by the firm, y s is the output level of the final good produced by each employee, x d is the amount of the intermediate good used by each employee to produce y, and r is the transaction efficiency coefficient for the labor of employees. Because of the transaction cost of labor, the employer receives rly when she buys ly. N is the number of workers hired by each employer and xs is the amount of the intermediate good produced by the employer. The superscripts d and s for the lower-case letters represent internal demand for inputs and supply of outputs within the firm,
238 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
while the superscripts d and s for the upper-case letters represent demand and supply in the marketplace. The solution of the decision problem is: Y s = ( py/w)(1−a)/ar(1 − a)1/a,
N = r[(1 − a)py /w]1/a,
ux = Y = ar[(1 − a)py /w](1−a)/a, where ux is the employer’s indirect utility function. The decision problem of a specialist worker producing y is simple. He sells all of his labor to exchange for good y. Hence, from the utility function uy = ky d and the budget constraint py y d = wly = w, we obtain his indirect utility function: uy = kw/py. The market clearing and utility equalization conditions yield the corner equilibrium in structure F:
N = M y /Mx =
w/py = (ar/k)a(1 − a)1−a,
k (1 − a) a
(8.3d)
uF = (ar)a [k(1 − a)]1−a where uF is the per capita real income in this structure. Let us put all information relating to the four corner equilibria together in table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Corner equilibria in four structures Structure
A
D
E 1− a
Relative price
py ⎛ k ⎞ = px ⎜⎝ 1 − a ⎟⎠
Number of specialists
Mx =
akM 1 − a + ak
My =
(1 − a)M 1 − a + ak
Demand function
w ⎛1 − a⎞ =⎜ ⎟ py ⎝ k ⎠
a
(as b ) −a
akM 1 − a + ak (1 − a)M My = 1 − a + ak
aM (1 − a)k + a k(1 − a)M My = (1 − a)k + a 1
p ⎞ 1−a ⎛ N d = ⎜ s ab a y ⎟ w⎠ ⎝
y d = px/py
y d = w/py
y =a
⎛ p y ⎞ 1−a ⎜t ⎟ ⎝ px ⎠
1
⎛ p (1 − a) ⎞ a N = r⎜ y ⎟ ⎝ w ⎠ y d = w/py d
a
a
1 1− a
w ⎛ ar ⎞ = ⎜ ⎟ (1 − a)1−a py ⎝ k ⎠
Mx =
p ⎞ 1−a ⎛ x d = ⎜ at a y ⎟ px ⎠ ⎝
s
⎛ bb ⎞ ⎜ (1 + b)1+b ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
1−a
Mx =
1
Supply function
Real income
(at ) − a
F
y =a s
1 1− a
⎛ s b p y ⎞ 1−a s ⎜ w ⎟ lx ⎝ ⎠
⎛p ⎞ Y = (1 − a) ⎜ y ⎟ ⎝w⎠ s
1 a
xs = 1
=1
l ys = 1
(tka)a(1 − a)1−a
(s bka)a(1 − a)1−a
(ar)a[k(1 − a)]1−a
a
1− a a
r
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 239
8.3.3 General equilibrium structure of transactions and residual rights Per capita real incomes in the four structures are dependent on the transaction efficiency parameters t, s, k, the degree of economies of specialization b, and the degree of economies of roundabout production a. According to the Yao theorem, all we have to do in solving for the general equilibrium in a model with ex ante identical individuals is to identify the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium from the four corner equilibria. Letting per capita real incomes in each pair of structures be equal, we will obtain several equations that partition the parameter space of five dimensions into several subspaces. Our job is then to identify which structure is the general equilibrium structure within each of the subspaces. Essentially, this amounts to solving for a system of simultaneous inequalities – for which there is no standard procedure. Experience and skill in ruling out Pareto inefficient structures as far as possible through identifying incompatibility of and contradictions between inequalities are crucial for finding the solution. From working with many of the models in this text, you should gain skills in manipulating such systems of inequalities. For the current model, let us solve for the system of simultaneous inequalities in two steps. First, we compare per capita real incomes in structures D, E, and F. We have: uE > uD iff t < s b.
(8.4a)
uE > uF iff k > k8 ≡ (r/s b)a/(2a−1)
(8.4b)
uD > uF iff k > k7 ≡ (r/t)
(8.4c)
a/(2a−1)
(8.4a) can be used to partition the parameter space into two subspaces first. For t < s b, structure D can be ruled out due to (8.4a). We need to compare only between structures E and F. Hence, only k8 and (8.4b) are relevant. For the case with t > s b, structure E is ruled out. Only k and (8.4c) are relevant. Structure D generates the greatest per capita real income if k > k7; Structure F generates the greatest per capita real income if k < k7; Structure E cannot be general equilibrium since uE < uD for any k. Putting the information together and considering per capita real income in autarky yields table 8.2. Comparisons between per capita real incomes in each pair of structures for the parameter subspace in table 8.2 yield the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics, as shown in table 8.3. If you use the constraints that all critical values ki are between 0 and 1, you can partition the parameter space further. We leave this as an exercise to you.
Table 8.2 Candidates for equilibrium structure t > sb
t < sb k < k8
k > k8
k < k7
k > k7
F, A
E, A
F, A
D, A
240 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Table 8.3 General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Values of t and s Value of k Relative to r, t, s, a Equilibrium structure
t < sb
t > sb
k < k8
k > k8
k < k7
k > k7
< k11
> k11
< k10
> k10
< k11
> k11
< k9
k > k9
A
F
A
E
A
F
A
D
Where k7 ≡ (r/t)a/(2a−1) is given by uD = uE, k8 ≡ (r/sb)a/(2a−1) is given by uE = uF, k9 ≡ (1 − a)(a−1)/ab b/ta(1 + b)1+b is given by uA = uD, k10 ≡ (1 − a)(a−1)/ab b/asb(1 + b)1+b is given by uA = uE, k11 ≡ [bb/ar(1 + b) 1+b]a/(1−a)/(1 − a) is given by uA = uF.
In terms of intuition, table 8.3 tells the following story. I) The structure with division of labor and the producer of y as the employer (structure E) cannot be general equilibrium if the transaction efficiency for labor employed to produce the intermediate good (s) is low compared to that for the intermediate good (t), or if t > s a, since structure E must trade labor employed to produce the intermediate good. I.a) Under this circumstance, if the transaction efficiencies for the final and intermediate goods (k and t) are sufficiently high, compared to the transaction efficiency for labor employed to produce the final good (r), or if k > k7, the structure with the division of labor and the producer of x as the employer (structure F) cannot be general equilibrium either, since F must trade labor employed to produce the final good. Note the relationship between this statement and the formula for k7. Hence, only structures A and D are candidates for the equilibrium structure. If the transaction efficiencies for the final and intermediate goods are high, D is the equilibrium; otherwise, A is the equilibrium. I.b) If the transaction efficiency for the intermediate good (t) is low compared to the transaction efficiency for labor employed to produce the final good (r), or if k < k7, the structure with the division of labor and with no firms (structure D) cannot be general equilibrium, since D must trade the intermediate good. Hence, only structures A and F are candidates for the equilibrium structure. If the transaction efficiencies for the final good and the labor hired to produce the final good are high, F is the equilibrium; otherwise, A is the equilibrium. II) Structure D cannot be equilibrium if t is small compared to s, or if t < s a, since structure D must trade the intermediate good that involves a small t. II.a) If k and s are sufficiently large compared to r, or if k > k8, structure F cannot be equilibrium since F is associated with r. Hence, only structures A and E are candidates for the equilibrium structure. If k and s are sufficiently large (or k > k10), E is the equilibrium; otherwise, A is the equilibrium. II.b) If s is small compared to r, or if k < k8, structure E cannot be equilibrium since E is associated with s. If k and r are sufficiently large, F is the equilibrium; otherwise, A is the equilibrium. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium are summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 8.1: The general equilibrium is autarky if transaction efficiency is low, and it is the division of labor if transaction efficiency is high. The division of labor is coordinated through the institution of the firm and the labor market if the transaction efficiency for labor
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 241
is higher than that for intermediate goods. Otherwise, it is organized through the markets for the intermediate and final goods. When the general equilibrium is associated with the firm, the specialist producer of the final good is the owner of the firm if the transaction efficiency for labor employed to produce the intermediate good is higher than that for labor employed to produce the final good. Otherwise, the specialist producer of the intermediate good is the owner of the firm. The institution of the firm can get the activity with the lowest transaction efficiency involved in the division of labor while avoiding the direct pricing and marketing of the outputs and inputs of that activity. The residual returns claimed by the employer are the indirect price of her efforts. The essence of the theory of indirect pricing can be summarized as follows. If individuals engage in division of labor in producing two goods x and y, trade in two of the four elements comprising outputs x, y, and inputs lx, ly can be used to organize the division of labor. Hence, there are six possible structures of transactions (2 combinations of 4 elements) which can be used to organize the division of labor: x and y (structure D), y and lx (structure E), y and ly (structure F), x and lx (not feasible, since a specialist of x who must consume y cannot buy y), x and ly (also not feasible), ly and lx (a structure that may be seen in some collective organization with a direct exchange of labor, but is rarely seen in the real world). Hence, individuals can at least consider three of the structures and choose one of them to avoid trade that involves the lowest transaction efficiency. Later we shall show that as the number of traded goods and the level of division of labor increase, the number of possible structures of transactions increases more than proportionally. This implies that, as division of labor develops, the choice of transaction structure is increasingly more important for economic development than the choice of production structure and resource allocation for a given structure of production. This is why, in a highly commercialized society (with a high level of division of labor), there are more opportunities for entrepreneurs to make fortunes from manipulating transaction structures.
8.4 THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EX ANTE AND EX POST PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS, AND THE ROLE OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE FIRM IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT For inframarginal analysis, the equilibrium system of production functions discontinuously jumps across structures as parameters shift between the subspaces that demarcate structures. This feature of the Smithian system of production generates important implications for endogenous productivity progress. Hence, it is important to draw the distinction between the ex ante production function, which is the production function specified before individuals have made their decisions, and the ex post production function, which is observed only after individuals have chosen configurations and the economy has settled down in a structure. The ex ante production functions are specified in (8.1). Since all decision variables are allowed to take on zero and positive values, there are multiple production configurations for different profiles of zero and positive values of decision variables. As individuals choose different configurations and the economy settles down in different structures, each individual’s system of production differs from configuration to configuration, while the system of production for society differs from structure to structure. If an individual chooses autarky (x, y, lx, ly > 0, x s, y s, x d, y d = 0), then her ex post production function of y is y = xal ya = l xab(1 − lx) a = (1 − ly) abl ya ,
242 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
where the endowment constraint is used. The marginal productivity of y and the derivative of the marginal productivity are
dy = ay(bl x−1 − l y−1) dly d 2y 0.5; and exhibits global increasing returns to scale of labor, N, if a > 1, and local economies of scale if a ∈(0.5, 1). Thus the ex post production function for the firm may emerge from the division of labor as the general equilibrium shifts from autarky to structure E. The ex post production function in E is not only different from the ex post production function in autarky, but also different from the ex ante production functions in (8.1), which do not involve the firm and its economies of scale. Rosen (1978) was the first economist to spell out the distinction between ex ante and ex post production functions. George Stigler (1951) noted the discontinuous jumps of cost functions which are based on the production function and which are a result of changes in the level of specialization for the firm. In the Smithian framework, the production function for the firm may emerge from individuals’ decisions in choosing a certain structure of transactions required by the division of labor. In particular, the production function for a firm is a combination of many individuals’ production functions. An owner of a firm combines her system of production with all employees’ systems of production to arrive at a composite. This implies that in the Smithian framework, the firm is no longer a black box represented by an ad hoc production function. The theory of the firm in this chapter has looked at how the production function for the firm emerges, and at the development implications of the internal organization of the firm.
8.5 THE COASE THEOREM AND OTHER THEORIES OF THE FIRM From the discussion in the previous subsections, we can see that division of labor is necessary but not sufficient for the existence of the firm. This proposition was first proposed by Coase (1937). As Cheung (1983) argues, the other necessary condition for the existence of the firm is that the transaction efficiency for intermediate goods must be lower than that for labor employed to produce the intermediate goods. Cheung’s theory refines Coase’s idea about the firm. Coase argues that the institution of the firm is used to replace the market with administration within the firm. But, according to Cheung, the institution of the firm replaces the market for intermediate goods with the market for labor, instead of replacing the market with a nonmarket institution.
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 243
Coase (1960) claims that the structure of ownership makes no difference to the efficiency of the market if the transaction cost is zero, and that the market will choose a structure of ownership to maximize the benefit of division of labor, net of transaction costs (the Coase theorem). Our model substantiates the Coase theorem. From table 8.1, it is obvious that structures D, E, F generate the same per capita real income if t = k = s = r = 1 (no transaction costs). The structure of ownership of the firm makes a difference only if transaction costs are not zero. Also, proposition 8.1 implies the second statement in the Coase theorem, that the market will choose the most efficient structure of ownership and property rights. We have refined Coase’s ideas about transaction costs, which he claims the institution of the firm can be used to reduce. But our proposition 8.1 implies that as transaction efficiency is improved, total transaction costs will be increased as the general equilibrium shifts from autarky to structure E or F. Hence, the institution of the firm may increase transaction costs when it promotes division of labor, as long as increased economies of division of labor outweigh the increased transaction costs. From table 8.2, we can see that for t < s a and k9 > k > k8, k10, the institution of the firm in structure E generates the highest per capita real income and productivity, while the division of labor in structure D generates a lower per capita real income than in autarky. Hence, if firms are not allowed, the division of labor will not be chosen while autarky with low productivity will be. If firms are allowed, then individuals will choose the division of labor and associated high productivity in structure E. Hence, firms can promote the division of labor and economic development by reducing transaction costs compared to D and by increasing transaction costs compared to autarky. And hence, a good legal system that protects the residual rights of owners of private firms is a very important driving force of economic development. Recent literature on the theory of the firm comprises three subfields. One of them is represented by the Hart–Grossman–Moore model of incomplete contract and two-sided moral hazard (see chapter 9 below and Hart 1995). As pointed out by Holmstrom and Roberts (1998, pp. 79–82), the incomplete contract model simultaneously addresses the benefits and the costs of ownership. Markets are identified with the right to bargain and, when necessary, to exit with the assets owned. This greatly clarifies the market’s institutional role, as well as its value in providing entrepreneurial incentives. On the other hand, firms are poorly defined in the model. Further, it cannot explain the difference between contractual arrangements in Japanese and US companies. It cannot explain the complex network of contracts in the new high-tech sector which does not use integration to restrain opportunism. Such opportunism often occurs when the investment is locked in a relationship-specific business. The incomplete contract model has recently been criticized by Maskin and Tirol (1999a,b), who show that unforeseeable contingencies (which are often invoked in order to justify contractual incompleteness) and sequential rationality (parties must foresee the payoff consequences of contracts and investments) are incompatible. They show that even ex ante undescribability is often irrelevant, since sophisticated mechanisms can be used to implement the same payoff outcomes as if contingencies were describable. Our model in this chapter shows that a theoretical foundation for investigating the emergence and evolution of the institution of the firm and related structures of residual rights can be established in the absence of undescribability. However, the labor contract in the model in this chapter can be interpreted as incomplete in the sense that it requires the employee to do whatever he is told to do rather than specifying exactly what he is supposed to do. The second research line in this literature is represented by Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994). Related to this research line, many models of multiple layers of principal–agent relationships have been developed (see Gibbons, 1998 and Bolton and Scharfstein, 1998 for recent reviews). Holmstrom and Milgrom argue that the function of firms cannot be properly under-
244 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
stood without considering additional incentive instruments that can serve as substitutes for outright ownership. Employees, for instance, typically own no assets, yet they often do work quite effectively. In these theories, asset ownership gives access to many incentive instruments and the role of the firm is to coordinate the use of them all. That may also explain why noninvesting parties, including the firm itself, own assets. They use BskyB, a satellite broadcasting system in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, as an example to motivate their model (see Holmstrom and Roberts, 1998, p. 85). This company is an example of a highly successful organization that has created its wealth not by owning physical assets, but by crafting ingenious contracts that have given it influence over an effective network of media players. Satellite broadcasting requires a variety of highly complementary activities, including acquisition and development of programming, provision of the distribution system (satellites, transmitters, and home receivers), and development of encryption devices (to limit reception to those who pay), all of which must be carried out before the service can be offered. An example of how the agency issue can affect the boundaries of an organization is whether a firm employs its sales force directly or uses outside sales agents. The best-known example here involves electronic parts companies, some of which hire their own sales agents while others sell through separate supply companies (see Holmstrom and Roberts, 1998, p. 86). Originally, it was expected that the observed variation in this choice would relate to the degree of asset specificity; for example, the extent to which investment by sales people with knowledge about products was specific to a particular company. Instead, measurement costs and agency concerns turned out to be central. An employee sales force is used when individual performance is difficult to measure and when nonselling activities (like customer support or gathering information about customers’ needs) are important to the firm; otherwise, outside companies are used. Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991, 1994) rationalize this pattern with a model of a multitask agency in which salespeople carry out three tasks: making current sales, cultivating long-term customer satisfaction, and gathering and relaying information on customer needs. If the latter two activities are important and if the three activities compete for the agent’s time, then the marginal rewards to improved performance on each must be comparable in strength; otherwise, the ill-paid activities will be slighted. Because performance in nonselling activities is arguably hard to measure, it may be best to provide balanced, necessarily lower-powered incentives for all three activities. Offering weak incentives to an outside sales agent can be problematic, however, because the agent may then divert all effort to selling the products of other firms, which come with stronger rewards for sales. With an employee, this problem can be handled with a salary and a low commission rate, because the employee’s outside activities are more easily constrained, and promotion and other broader incentives can be used within the firm to influence the agent’s behavior. One of the Holmstrom and Milgrom models is presented in example 9.3. See exercise 17 in chapter 9 for a synthesis of the theory in this chapter, Hart’s theory of incomplete contract, and Maskin, Tirole, Milgrom, and Holmstrom’s criticisms thereof. The model in this chapter complements the Holmstrom and Milgrom model with the trade-off between stronger incentive and greater measurement costs. Our model explains why the residual rights of the entrepreneur who designs contractual arrangements that efficiently trade off incentive provision against measurement costs, are essential for her to have the right incentive to sort out the efficient trade-off. Her entrepreneurial services are intangible intellectual properties that can be indirectly priced only via residual rights, the institution of the firm, and the related labor market. The case of the franchise network in question 32 of chapter 1 shows that when the transaction efficiency of intangible intellectual properties can be effectively priced via a hostage mechanism, the division of labor between the production of intellectual
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 245
properties and the production of tangible services can be organized by market relationships between the franchiser and franchisees. The third subfield in this literature focuses on the pyramidal structure of hierarchies – a recent survey of this subfield can be found in Borland and Eichberger (1998). The pyramidal hierarchy investigated in this literature may not necessarily be related to asymmetric residual rights to returns and control, which are essential for the existence of the institution of the firm. Shi and Yang (1998) and Yang (2000, ch. 20) relate the theory of the firm in this chapter to hierarchical transaction structures, division of labor, and residual rights. Finally, a literature on the reliability of economic systems has been developed to address the problems that relate to the theory of the firm. This literature is more relevant to the problems of economic development which we address below in chapter 10, and we will discuss it in that chapter. Recent reviews of this literature can be found in Sah (1991), Kremer (1993), Blanchard and Kremer (1997), and Lio (1998).
Key Terms and Review • The institution of the firm • Economies of specialization in producing a good requiring more than one input factor • The relationship between economies of specialization in producing a good, economies of division of labor, and economies of the institution of the firm • The distinction between ex ante and ex post production functions • Necessary and sufficient conditions for the emergence of the firm from division of labor • The function of the institution of the firm and implications of the internal organization within the firm for the level of division of labor and economic development • The relationship between individuals’ production functions and the production function of a firm • The difference between rights to residual returns and rights to residual control, and the relationship between those residual rights and the function of the institution of the firm • The role of freedom of choice of profession configuration and freedom of enterprise in enabling the institution of the firm to function • The significance of a legal system that protects the residual rights of the owners of the firm in enabling the institution of the firm to function
Further Reading Theory of the firm: Cheung (1983), Coase (1937, 1991), Alchian and Demsetz (1972), Jensen and Meckling (1976), Knight (1925), Stigler (1951); Theory of incomplete contracts: Hart (1995), Grossman and Hart (1986), Hart and Moore (1990, 1999), Maskin and Tirole (1999a,b), Tirole (1999), Segal (1999); Theory of the firm and endogenous specialization: Bolton and Dewatripont (1994), Carter (1995), Shi and Yang (1998), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 9; 1995), Borland and Yang (1995), Yang (1988); Models with a trade-off between incentive provision and measurement costs: Bolton and Scharfstein (1998), Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991, 1994), Holmstrom and Roberts (1998); Theory of the firm and endogenous transaction costs: Milgrom and Roberts (1990, 1992), Kreps (1990), Lewis and Sappington (1991), Aghion and Tirole (1997),
246 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Gibbons (1998); Theory of the firm and commitment games: Dewatripont and Maskin (1995), Dewatripont and Roland (1995), Roland (2000), Dewatripont (1988), Qian (1994b); Hierarchy: O. Williamson (1967), Tirole (1986), Bolton and Dewatripont (1994), Borland and Eichberger (1998), Yang and Ng (1993, ch. 14), Yang (2000, ch. 20), Van Zandt (1995), Bac (1996), Bag (1997), Calvo and Wellisz (1978, 1979), Keren and Levhari (1982), MacLeod and Malcomson (1988), Qian (1994a), Radner (1992, 1993); Empirical evidence against the type II scale effect: Aiginger and Tichy (1991), Loveman and Sengenberger (1991), Liu and Yang (2000), Murakami, Liu, and Otsuka (1996), Y. Zhang (1999), Berger and Ofek (1995), Bhagat, Shleifer, and Vishny (1990), Comment and Jarrell (1995), Fauver, Houston, and Naranjo (1998), Kaplan and Weisbach (1992), Lang and Stulz (1994), Servaes (1996).
QUESTIONS 1 Alchian and Demsetz (1972) indicate that the claim of the owner of the firm to its residual returns is the distinguishing feature of the capitalist firm. If the marginal productivities of the members of the production team are interdependent, then each member does not count the effect of her effort on others’ productivity if her pay is determined by her marginal productivity in the market, thereby resulting in distortions. Hence, a monitor is essential to measure the efforts of the members and pay them according to their effects in the productivity of the entire team. But by what mechanism can effort levels of the monitor be efficiently determined? According to Alchian and Demsetz, the residual returns to the owner-monitor of the firm are the efficient institution for achieving this. Without a claim on the residual returns, nobody will have an incentive to ensure the efficient management of the firm. Hence, so-called “X-inefficiency,” which means that productivity potential cannot be exploited even if it is technically easy to achieve, will emerge from the absence of claimants to the residual returns of the firm. This is why all state-owned firms, which have no individual residual rights claimants, are associated with significant X-inefficiencies. There are two major criticisms of Alchian and Demsetz’s theory. One is proposed by Grossman and Hart (see chapter 9 below), who argue that the capitalist firm is distinguished not only by the asymmetric distribution of residual returns, but also by the asymmetric distribution of residual control, which implies that the owner of the firm has rights to dispose of the assets and labor of the firm. In chapter 9, the rationale for the asymmetric distribution of residual control rights will be investigated. The second criticism is that if the pricing of the effort level of the monitor is highly efficient, the production team can pay the monitor according to her performance. Interdependence of the marginal productivities of members in a production team does not necessarily imply that residual returns are the only way to resolve the problem. It is because the pricing efficiency of the monitor’s effort is even lower than the pricing efficiency of the efforts of the team members that the claim to residual returns emerges as an institution to indirectly price the effort level of the monitor. Comment on these criticisms of the Alchian– Demsetz argument. 2 Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 145–83) have documented the history of the emergence and evolution of the firm. Use the model in this chapter, in connection with the model in chapter 11, to analyze the historical fact (pp. 145, 159, 167, 179, 183): “Starting about 1750, the factory system of production gradually became
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 247
dominant in most of Western industry. It changed relationships in the workplace and, probably with more drastic social effect, changed the location of the workplace from the household to the factory. The shift to the factory was practically complete by 1880, but most commercial and industrial enterprises continued to be organized as individual proprietorships, with the exception of banks and railways. Between 1750 and 1880, the respect of the Western governments for the autonomy of the economic sphere became virtually an ideology. Apart from such sporadic intrusions as the British Factory Acts and Bismarck’s system of social insurance, governments were content to assist only when asked. Peacetime taxes were small and currencies comparatively stable.” “The textile industry led factory development during the first decades of the Industrial Revolution, not only in England but also in the United States. Richard Arkwright, inventor of a spinning machine, came to be known as the ‘father of the English factory system,’ owing to the numerous cotton spinning mills he promoted. The early textile mills were also a principal object of the public agitation that led to the first English factory legislation. Arkwright’s patent for a spinning machine supplies an approximate date, 1769, for the beginning of the conversion. In the British textile industry, firms tended to specialize in a single step in the process of producing cotton cloth. Instead of building fully integrated plants of the type used in the iron and steel industry and in ceramics, the British textile makers located highly specialized plants close to each other. The development of these regional textile complexes was facilitated by the substitution of steam for water power.” “The pioneer of factory production was Josiah Wedgwood. At his works at Etruria, he divided his factory into departments by type of product and, within each department, workers were classified according to numerous specialties. N. L. Clow describes the division of labor at Etruria as follows. ‘The gradual multiplication of the processes whereby ceramic products could be produced led, as in other industries, to a marked division of labour in Josiah Wedgwood’s Etruria, where the principle of specialization was first introduced, was divided into departments according to the type of ware produced: useful, ornamental, jasper, basalt, and so on. In 1790 some 160 employees were engaged in the “useful” branch, in the following categories: slip-house, clay-beaters, throwers and their attendant boys, plate makers, dish makers, hollow-ware pressers, turners of flat-ware, turners of hollow-ware, handlers, biscuit-oven firemen, dippers, brushers, placers and firemen . . . , girl colourgrinders, painters, enamellers and gilders, and, in addition, coal getters, modellers, mould makers, saggar makers, and a cooper.’ The ceramic industry was typical of later industries in its elimination of any easily visible connection between what a worker does and the marketable product of the worker’s efforts.” “Recently, Marglin, in comparing factory work to work under the puttingout system, principally as practiced in the British textile industry, has specified the following advantages of the factory to its owners: (1) stealing of materials and work in process by workers could be reduced; (2) unskilled women and children were capable of doing the narrowly specialized factory jobs and accepted lower wages for equivalent output than the more highly skilled adult male labor used in the putting-out system; (3) factory hands could be induced, by the threat of dismissal for absenteeism, to work regularly for a full week instead of working the partial and uncertain week common among cottage workers.” “By 1880, the change to market relations was substantially complete. By then, terms of employment were determined
248 P ART II: T HE F IRM
3
4
5
6
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
by employer offers of terms and employee acceptances, and, as in any other market, both offers and acceptances were influenced by the state of the supply of, and the demand for, labor.” John bought from James a copying shop at $110,000, which did not include the rental of the real estate and copy machines. Each year John can make up to $40,000 as profit net of all rents for real estate, copy machines, other equipment, and the wage bill for the machine keepers and for himself. James told John that the goodwill of the business, embodied in the client base that he had cultivated over the years, as well as his planning in putting together in the right way his client base, the location of the shop, the machines, and other factors were worth more than $110,000. This was verified by the fact that by his fourth year in the business, John had repaid his investment of $110,000 and interest, and started to make a net profit. Use this case to analyze why the shop could make a net profit and why the intellectual property of James could not be appropriately priced in the absence of the institution of the firm. Use the model in this chapter to analyze increases in labor and capital shown in statistical data. According to neoclassical economics, observed increases in labor and capital inputs are simply increases in production factors employed in production. But according to the theory in this chapter, an increase in trade of labor is the result of the development of the institution of the firm, while an increase in trade of capital goods is the result of the development of division of labor in roundabout production between firms and individuals. The two phenomena can take place in the absence of increases in the total amounts of primary factors employed in production for society as a whole. Discuss the implications of the difference between these two interpretations of the data. In the nineteenth century, France, Germany, and other major European countries followed Britain in enacting laws guaranteeing the right of free association. Analyze the implications of these laws, in conjunction with patent laws, the automatic registration of companies, and laws that protect private property rights, for economic development and the evolution of division of labor. In Japan and China such laws did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century. Emperors were extremely sensitive to unofficial free associations and tended to arbitrarily infringe the residual rights of the owners of firms. Use that institutional feature, in relation to the theory in this chapter, to explain the following historical fact documented by Elvin (1973). Song China (960 –1270 ad) possessed both the scientific knowledge and the mechanical ability to have experienced a full-fledged industrial revolution some four centuries before it occurred in Europe. The Chinese developed very elaborate contracts and sophisticated commercial organizations, but failed to have an industrial revolution at that time. Under a regime of free association, any individual can set up a firm by registering it with the local government. But in many less-developed countries residents need to apply for approval from the government to set up a firm. When setting up a company engaging in foreign trade, for instance, a government license can be essential. Also, the government agency which has such approval power has vested interests in the business in which the applicant wants to engage. For example, in each Chinese city there is a government committee with power to approve the setting up of wholesale and retail firms. This committee is also the owner of the government
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 249
monopoly wholesale and retail network in the city. Analyze the development implications of such an approval system in connection with the theory of the firm in this chapter. 7 Apply the theory of the firm in this chapter to analyze the role of multinational firms and foreign direct investment (FDI) in economic development. Under what conditions can multinational firms more efficiently protect the right to intellectual property (know-how) than direct trade in the intellectual properties? In many developing countries the governments require that the foreign ownership share of firms not exceed a certain percentage. What are the effects of such regulation on economic development? In many joint-venture businesses between foreign companies and Chinese government, the government has control rights and owns more than 50 percent of the businesses. But joint ventures between a government agency and foreign private firms are very unusual in a free market economy. Analyze the implications of the institutional difference for economic development in connection with the theory in this chapter. 8 In all Soviet-style economies, there are no laws that protect residual rights to firms. Due to Marx’s ideology, in a Soviet-style socialist country such residual rights are considered to be exploitative. Also, a Soviet-style government prohibits unofficial free association (including free enterprise) for political reasons. Apply the theory of the firm to analyze the implications for economic development of these institutional features of the Soviet-style economy. Many development economists argue that entrepreneurship is essential for economic development (see, for instance, Bauer and Yamey, 1957, and Kindleberger, 1958). Use the theory in this chapter to analyze the conditions which nurture entrepreneurship. 9 Apply the theory of indirect pricing in this chapter to analyze why it is the shareholders rather than the managers of a company who are the owners when the division of labor between portfolio management and production management emerges. 10 In the Soviet-style economic system, land cannot be privately owned or traded. Only pricing according to working effort is legitimate. Making income from the ownership of assets, including land and shares in a firm, is regarded as exploitation. Analyze why, under these institutional arrangements, intangible services in managing real estate will be underpriced and short of supply. 11 Many economists claim that the function of the institution of the firm is to internalize externalities. Coase also claims that firms replace market transactions with the nonmarket arrangement of centralized planning within the firm. Apply the theory of indirect pricing to comment on this view. Relate your discussion to Cheung’s view that the institution of the firm replaces the market for intermediate goods with the labor market. 12 Apply the model in this chapter to substantiate Cheung, Coase, Stigler, and Young’s arguments that firm size is irrelevant to the realization of returns from the division of labor. The widely cited thesis of Coase (1937) states that the firm and the market are substitutes for each other in organizing division of labor. Cheung (1983) further suggests that the firm should be viewed as one type of contract under which a factor owner surrenders a delimited set of rights to use his or her factor in exchange for income. Therefore, a clear distinction is drawn between the firm size and the scale of division of labor. On the one hand, an increase in the firm size simply indicates that the number of one type of contract increases. As this can be achieved by decreasing
250 P ART II: T HE F IRM
13
14 15
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
the number of other types of contracts, there exists the possibility that the firm size increases but the level of division of labor remains the same or even decreases. On the other hand, since factory owners can choose different types of contracts to coordinate division of labor, economies of division of labor do not always lead to large firms. As Cheung (pp. 5–6) clearly puts it, “Could it be that specialization, coordination, and economy of scale achieved by pooling input resources from many owners will yield higher income for all, so that each chooses to join a firm . . . the answer is no . . . benefits arising from specialization and coordination can be realized without the ‘factor market’ – the right to decide and use one’s input need not be delegated to some agent or entrepreneur, because in a product market the input owner will receive a payment for every contribution.” There have been many reports in the media in the 1980s and recently (see, for instance, “Enterprise: How Entrepreneurs are Reshaping the Economy and What Big Companies Can Learn,” Business Week, Oct. 22, 1993; Special Issue, “Management Focus,” The Economist, March 5, 1994, p. 79; and “Manufacturers Use Supplies to Help Them Develop New Products,” Wall Street Journal, 19 Dec., 1994, p. 1) about deintegration, focusing on core competence, increasing specialization, contracting out or outsourcing, which feature recent changes of company structure. Use the theory in this chapter to explain the phenomena. Use the theory of the firm in this chapter to analyze the implications of minimum wage laws. Then compare your results to the neoclassical analysis of the effects of such laws. Holmstrom and Roberts (1998, p. 78) indicate that according to the Hart–Grossman– Moore model, as investment by the buyer B becomes more important relative to investments by the seller S, B should be given more assets. If an asset has no influence on B’s investment, it should be owned by S. For this reason, no outsider should ever own an asset that would waste bargaining chips that are precious for incentive provision. For the same reason, joint ownership, meaning that both parties have the right to veto the use of the asset, is never optimal. As a consequence, assets that are worthless unless used together should never be separately owned. Extend the model in this chapter to predict that outside shareholders should own a firm if the division of labor between portfolio management and production management occurs, and if the transaction efficiency for input and output of portfolio management is lower than that for other activities. Specializations in producing x and y are complementary. Each of occupations (x/y) and (y/x) has no value if it is not matched up by the other. But in the model in this chapter, separate ownership of x and y may occur in equilibrium. Use this to discuss the difference between the model in this chapter and the Hart–Grossman model in chapter 9 below.
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 251
EXERCISES 1 Assume that there is no transaction cost in the model in this chapter. But the government imposes a value tax rate t on goods sold and then returns to the sellers of goods the tax revenue collected from them. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the impact of the tax rate on the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity, and the equilibrium structure of residual rights. 2 Assume that in the model in exercise 1, a fraction of tax revenue 1 − s is used to maintain the government bureaucratic apparatus, so that only a fraction s of tax revenue goes back to the sellers of goods. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics again. Analyze the impact of the bureaucracy efficiency coefficient s on the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity. 3 Now suppose that in the model in exercise 1, the government imposes a value tax on the sale of labor instead of on the sale of goods. Then it returns all tax revenue to the sellers of labor. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the impact of the tax on the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity. Compare your answer here to that in exercise 1. Then analyze the impacts of different tax regimes on the equilibrium structure of transactions, residual rights, and ownership of the firm. 4 Assume that in the model in exercise 3, a fraction of tax revenue 1 − θ is used to maintain the government bureaucratic apparatus, so that only the fraction θ of the tax revenue goes back to the sellers of labor. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics again. Analyze the impact of the bureaucracy efficiency coefficient θ on the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity. Compare your answer here to that in exercise 2. Then analyze the impacts of bureaucracy efficiency θ and different tax regimes on the equilibrium structure of transactions, residual rights, and ownership of the firm. 5 Analyze the impact of various tax regimes in exercises 1 and 3 on trade volume of labor and intermediate goods, which can be observed from statistical data. Explain why, within the Smithian framework, an increase in labor trade implies the development of division of labor within the firm or the replacement of the market for intermediate goods with the institution of the firm as a vehicle to organize the division of labor, while an increase in capital trade may be associated with the development of division of labor in a roundabout production chain. Both phenomena can occur in the absence of changes of total endowments for society as a whole. 6 Suppose that transaction cost is 0 in the model in this chapter, but the government enforces a minimum wage law which requires the wage rate to be higher than a constant θ. Analyze the general equilibrium implications of the minimum wage. 7 Assume that the production function in (8.1b) is replaced with x + x s = lx − b. Solve again for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 8 Yang, 1988: Add one more consumption good to the model in this chapter, so that the utility function becomes u = ( y + ky d)(z + kz d), where z is the new consumption good. The production function of z is z + z s = lz − b. Solve for the general equilibrium and inframarginal comparative statics. Note that in this model lemma 8.1 may not hold.
252 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
9 Assume that the production function (8.1a) is replaced with y + y s = Min{x + tx d, ly}. Solve for the general equilibrium and inframarginal comparative statics. Add a fixed learning cost to the production function, so that y + y s = Min{x + tx d, ly − a}. How will your answer change? 10 Yang and Ng, 1995: Assume that in the model in this chapter the transaction cost of labor is specified as a loss of goods produced by the employee in transit from the employee to the employer. The algebra can be significantly simplified. Solve for the general equilibrium and inframarginal comparative statics. 11 Consider the Liu and Yang model (2000), where each of M ex ante identical consumer-producers has the utility function u = z + kz d, where good z is food. Her system of production is z + z s = (x + rx d )1/2Lz, x + x s = ( y + ty d )1/2Lx, y + y s = L 2y, Lz + Lx + Ly = 1, Li ∈[0, 1], i = z, x, y. x is the hoe used to produce food and y is the steel used to produce the hoe. If we ignore differences in the ownership structure of the firm, then there are 9 structures. Structure A is autarky. Structure with partial division of labor P(y) consists of configurations (zx/y), selling z, selfproviding x, and buying y, and (y/z), selling y and buying z. Structure with partial division of labor P(x) consists of configurations (xy/z), selling x, selfproviding y, and buying z; and (z/x), selling z and buying x. Structure with partial division of labor and the firm FP(y) consists of configurations (zx/Ly), selling z, self-providing x, and buying labor Ly; and (Ly /z), selling labor Ly and buying z. Structure with partial division of labor and the firm FP(x) consists of configurations (Lx /z), selling labor Lx and buying z; and (z/Lx), selling z and buying labor Lx. Structure with the complete division of labor C consists of configurations (z/x), (y/z), and (x/yz). Structure with the complete division of labor and the firm FC(y) consists of configurations (Lx/z), (y/z), and (z/Lx y) selling z and buying y and Lx. Another structure with the complete division of labor and the firm, FCL, consists of configurations (Lx/z), (Ly /z), and (z/Lx Ly), selling z and buying Lx and Ly. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Show that a complete division of labor structure, with the producer of x hiring labor to produce y within the firm and buying z from an independent specialist of z, cannot be a general equilibrium structure if t < s. Solve for eight corner equilibria, the general equilibrium, and its inframarginal comparative statics. Show that if the following evolutionary paths take place as transaction efficiency is improved over time, evolution in division of labor is associated with decreasing size of the firm: A ⇒ P(y) ⇒ FP(x) ⇒ C, A ⇒ P(y) ⇒ FP(x) ⇒ FC(y), A ⇒ FP(y) ⇒ FP(x) ⇒ C, A ⇒ FP(y) ⇒ FP(x) ⇒ FC(y). Under what conditions will trade of producer goods, which may be recorded as capital in statistical data, and trade of labor increase simultaneously in the absence of changes in the total amount of endowment for society as a whole? Use this model to formalize the argument, proposed by Cheung, Coase, Stigler, and Young, that the size of the firm is irrelevant; that the size of the firm may increase or decrease as division of labor evolves, dependent upon whether division of labor is developed via the labor market or via the goods market. 12 M. Liu, 1999: Consider the model in this chapter. Assume that each individual prefers being a boss over being an employee who must do whatever he is told to do. Hence, the utility function becomes u = ( y + ky d )E β where β ≥ 1 is a taste parameter for relative position, E = γ > 1 if an individual chooses an employer configuration, E = ρ < 1 if she chooses an employee configuration, and E = 1 if she chooses a configuration involving no asymmetric relationship between an
C HAPTER 8: T HE F IRM
AND
E NTREPRENEURSHIP 253
employer and an employee. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. The solution is the same as in example 8.1 if β = 0. Analyze the implications of the parameter of pursuit of relative position β ≥ 1 for the equilibrium level of division of labor and the equilibrium structure of residual rights. Use this model to explain the effect of a strong labor union and regulations governing the welfare of workers, on the equilibrium level of division of labor, the relative number of employers and employees, and economic development.
254 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS, CONTRACTS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
9
9.1 ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In the previous chapters we have seen the importance of transaction costs for the evolution of division of labor and economic development. However, Barzel (1985) has raised the question, “Is transaction cost just cost?” This question draws to our attention the difference between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs. O. Williamson (1985) clearly distinguishes between endogenous transaction costs caused by opportunistic behavior (holding up, cheating, and noncredible commitment) and tangible exogenous transaction costs. North and Thomas (1970) also note the difference between endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard, adverse selection, and other types of opportunism and exogenous transaction costs. Exogenous transaction costs are incurred directly or indirectly in the transacting process, and not caused by distortions as a result of decision-makers’ conflicts of interest. In the previous chapter we saw that the cost coefficient for each unit of goods purchased is an exogenous transaction cost, since it can be seen before individuals make their decisions and it is not associated with any distortions generated by interest conflicts between self-interested decisions. Resources used in the transportation of goods are direct exogenous transaction costs. Resources used to produce transportation, communication, and transacting facilities (computers, automobiles, plastic banking cards) used in the transacting process are indirect exogenous transaction costs. Endogenous transaction costs comprise two subcategories: general and specific. General endogenous transaction costs are defined as costs incurred in transactions that can be identified only after all players have made their decisions. In other words, endogenous transaction costs are the consequence of interactions between individuals’ self-interested decisions. Total transaction costs for each individual, and for society as a whole in the preceding chapters, are endogenous, since they are determined by the number of transactions, which is endogenous in the models of endogenous specialization and endogenous number of goods. Since the definition of indirect exogenous transaction costs, such as expenses on automobiles, overlaps the definition of general endogenous transaction costs, we use a narrower definition of endogenous transaction costs in this text. Specific endogenous transaction costs are defined as those costs associated with a departure of equilibrium from the Pareto optimum. In this text, we use the term “endogenous transaction costs” to denote specific endogenous transaction costs unless indicated otherwise.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
255
Endogenous transaction costs are caused by a particular human behavior. For the purposes of our argument, there are three types of human behavior. The first, called nonstrategic selfinterested behavior, has the feature that decision-makers do not react directly to others’ decisions, but only to prices. The behavior we examined in chapters 3, 4, 7, and 8 was nonstrategic behavior. The consumer’s price-taking behavior in chapters 5 and 6 is nonstrategic, too. The second type of behavior, called strategic behavior, has the feature that decision-makers directly react to others’ decisions. It can be classified into two subcategories: non-opportunistic and opportunistic behavior. Non-opportunistic strategic behavior is distinguished by the characteristic that a player’s interests are not pursued at the cost of other players’ interests. The self-interested behavior in the Nash bargaining game in this chapter is non-opportunistic strategic behavior. Opportunistic behavior is that form of strategic behavior in which a player’s interests are pursued at the cost of other players’ interests. Endogenous transaction costs are caused by opportunistic behavior in competing for a greater share of the gains from division of labor between players. The implications of endogenous transaction costs for the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development are more important than those of exogenous transaction costs, since endogenous transaction costs are determined by individuals’ decisions and their choice of institutional and contractual arrangements. For example, the Industrial Revolution, which featured rapid evolution of division of labor, took place in Britain partly because the Statute of Monopolies (1624) made it the first country to have patent laws, significantly reducing the theft (a type of opportunistic behavior) of intellectual property that incurs endogenous transaction costs. As shown by North and Weingast (1989), the most important driving force for the successful industrialization of Britain was the evolution of that country’s institutions in the seventeenth century and subsequent credible governmental constitutional commitments. This significantly reduced state opportunism, rent seeking, and related endogenous transaction costs. According to Olson (1996), a typical Haitian immigrant’s productivity and real income under the institution of the US was about five times higher than her productivity and real income under the institution in her home country in 1980. He compared per capita income between a new German immigrant and a new Haitian immigrant and attributed the difference to the difference in human capital and culture between the two groups of immigrants. After the deduction of the effects of this difference, he showed that the major part of the remaining difference in per capita real income between a Haitian and a US Haitian immigrant cannot be explained by the differences in physical capital, resource endowment, human capital, access to technology, population density, and cultural background between the two countries. The difference was mainly due to the endogenous transaction costs caused by the Haitian government’s opportunistic behavior under deficient institutions. As shown in the 1997 World Development Report of the World Bank, the major obstacle to economic development is endogenous transaction costs caused by governmental opportunistic behavior, including the following. In some less-developed countries, government behavior is predatory and expropriative. Government officers use the coercive power of governmental apparatus and taxation to steal citizens’ property. A typical example is the Duvalier government’s behavior in Haiti during the 1950s and 1960s. According to the World Bank (1997, p. 149), the economic pillars of Haiti’s predatory state were expropriation, extortion, tax inflation, and corruption. Significant resources were devoted to protecting Duvalier himself, totaling 30 percent of total government expenditure during the first half of the 1960s. Agriculture, particularly coffee, was heavily taxed. Some sources estimate that Duvalier transferred more than US$7 million a year out of Haiti for personal purposes. Large-scale bribing also took place, through deals with foreign investors on projects that often never materialized. Extortion under the veil of “voluntary” donations was politically institutionalized.
256 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
According to Summer (1992), in some sub-Saharan African countries the government pursued a patronage recruitment policy of government employment and favoritism in issuing trade licenses. Then it distorted exchange rates and prices in favor of relatives’ trade businesses. In China during the 1960s and 1970s, the government used its monopoly in the banking sector, the distribution network, urban real estate sector, and other important sectors to pursue tangible and intangible rents. The approval system for setting up private firms, the strict licensing system for setting up firms for foreign trade, and the monopolized job assignment system were used by the government to discriminate against the private businesses. The government used a procurement system that compelled peasants to sell underpriced agricultural goods to government agents, and a residential registration system that restricted rural residents’ mobility, to pursue the interest of urban residents, including the government elite, at the cost of rural residents. (See Yang, Wang, and Wills 1992). In this process, industrialization and economic development became hostages of state opportunism. Sen (1977), Chang and Wen (1998), and Lin and D. Yang (1998) show that the Chinese government’s pursuit of the interests of urban residents at the expense of rural residents was the main cause of the most devastating famines, involving the loss of up to 30 million lives in China. State opportunism not only causes direct endogenous transaction costs, but it also indirectly encourages citizens’ opportunistic behavior. In the worst case, it causes political instability and war. According to the empirical evidence we looked at in chapter 2, geographical conditions (i.e., bad transportation conditions and tropical ecological conditions) are important factors not only because they directly affect economic performance, but they also created historical conditions for evolution of government behavior. In a relatively well-developed market economy, information asymmetry may result in opportunistic behavior that causes so-called adverse selection and associated endogenous transaction costs. Measuring and monitoring the cost of working effort may result in so-called moral hazard and related endogenous transaction costs. There are several ways to investigate endogenous transaction costs. According to our definition of endogenous transaction costs, the distortion caused by value taxes, monopoly power, externality, and public goods is endogenous transaction cost. In many neoclassical models, monopoly power, information asymmetry, public goods, and externality are all exogenously given. A more realistic approach is to endogenize the degree of monopoly power and externality by specifying some trade-offs. The degree of monopoly can be determined in the market as a consequence of interactions between conflicting self-interested decisions. The Dixit–Stiglitz model (example 5.1) is such an example. In the DS model, the efficient trade-off between global economies of scale and distortions caused by monopoly power determines the equilibrium degree of monopoly and competition. In chapter 10, the trade-offs between economies of division of labor, reliability of the related market network, and transaction costs are specified in order to endogenize the degrees of competition and externality. The second way to study endogenous transaction costs is to specify unobservable or unverifiable effort that affects the risk of a bad outcome (hidden actions), or to specify information asymmetry (hidden information), then to investigate endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard and information asymmetry. We shall study this approach in sections 9.2 and 9.5, respectively. The third way to study endogenous transaction costs is to use game models to investigate direct interactions between strategic behaviors. The Ricardian model with a tariff game in chapter 3 is used to investigate endogenous transaction costs caused by government strategic behavior. In section 9.3, we will use various game models to study opportunistic behavior and endogenous transaction costs. A dynamic game model with information asymmetry is used to show that endogenous transaction costs may not be as great as predicted by static models with information asymmetry if interactions between strategies and information are considered. In section 9.5, we shall show that dynamic game models can be used to investigate opportunistic behavior and related endogenous transaction costs in the absence of moral hazard and information
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
257
asymmetry. Our examples illustrate that game theory is a powerful instrument in analyzing complicated strategic interactions that cause endogenous transaction costs. In this chapter, we emphasize that general equilibrium models of endogenous transaction costs are much more appropriate than partial equilibrium models of endogenous transaction costs for studies of interdependence between network size of division of labor, related productivity, and endogenous transaction costs. It is important for appreciating the development implication of endogenous transaction costs to investigate the interdependence. Also, models of endogenous specialization are essential. In section 9.2, we study moral hazard and the role of contracts in reducing endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard. The Stiglitz model of sharecropping is used as an example of application of the moral hazard model to development economics. In addition, the Holmstrom and Milgrom model is used to investigate the trade-off between moral hazard and monitoring costs, which endogenously determines the degree of externality of the efficient contract. In section 9.3, we introduce basic concepts in game theory and major game models, and use the tool to analyze endogenous transaction costs. In particular, a dynamic game model with interactions between strategies and information (a sequential equilibrium model) is used to study endogenous transaction costs in the credit market with information asymmetry. In section 9.4, we study endogenous transaction costs caused by adverse selection and holding-up behavior, and the role of reputation in reducing these costs. In section 9.5, we use the Grossman–Hart– Moore model to study endogenous transaction costs caused by opportunism and an incomplete contract. Finally, we use the Dewatripont and Maskin model (1995) to investigate commitment problems and soft-budget constraints that might cause endogenous transaction costs.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n n n n n n n n n
What are the differences between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs? What is moral hazard and how does it cause endogenous transaction costs? How does the trade-off between incentive provision, risk sharing, and monitoring cost determine the efficient degree of externality? What are the functions of contracts in reducing endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard? What are the effects on economic development of endogenous transaction costs caused by opportunistic behavior? Why will information asymmetry generate endogenous transaction costs? What is the function of Nash bargaining in avoiding trade conflict and in promoting economic development? What are the effects on economic development of endogenous transaction costs caused by competition to get a greater share of the gains from the division of labor? What is the role of reputation in reducing endogenous transaction costs? How do interactions between dynamic strategies and information asymmetry generate endogenous transaction costs in the credit market? How do noncredible commitment and soft budget constraints generate endogenous transaction costs?
9.2 ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS CAUSED BY MORAL HAZARD Moral hazard is the departure of equilibrium from the Pareto optimum caused by a special type of information asymmetry. In a model with moral hazard, the effort of one of two trade
258 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
partners affects the risk of a bad outcome for the business, but the other partner cannot observe the effort level. This implies, for example, that a labor contract to pay a player according to her effort level is impossible; such a labor contract involves a prohibitively high exogenous transaction cost in measuring working effort. It is assumed that the direct effect of effort on the utility of the player choosing that effort is negative, so that if a pure or noncontingent single price is paid for the good or service provided, or if there is no contract, then the lowest effort level will be chosen. Thus, contingent contracted prices of goods or services become essential for reducing such endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard. Usually, there are three periods in a model of moral hazard. In period 1, the outcome of the business is yet to be realized, but probabilities for bad and good outcomes, and the relationships between those probabilities and one party’s effort levels, are common knowledge to all players. Two parties sign a contract in period 1 that determines the terms of the deal after the realization of an outcome. In period 2, players choose effort levels for the given contractual terms. In period 3, Nature chooses an outcome according to the probabilities and players’ effort levels. Then contractual terms are implemented and gains from the business are divided. Here, the assumption that the effort level is unobservable and must be chosen before the realization of an outcome is essential to the story. This implies that the player who chooses her effort level has an incentive to cheat. Even though her real effort level may be low, and a bad outcome may be partly attributable to this, she may claim that her effort level is high, and that the bad outcome is just a result of bad luck that is out of her control. The driving force of the story of moral hazard is a trade-off between efficient incentive provision and efficient risk sharing. The two players should somehow share the risk of a bad outcome. But if one player cannot see the other player’s effort levels, which affect the risk, then the effect of the low effort level on the risk cannot be distinguished from bad luck. Hence, there is a conflict between incentive provision and risk sharing. If a bad outcome occurs, the player who chooses the effort level should be penalized as far as incentive provision is concerned. But she should not be penalized too severely as far as risk sharing is concerned. So a contract is used to minimize endogenous transaction cost by efficiently trading-off risk sharing against incentive provision. In working out the contractual terms, each player should prepare for the worst that could result from the players’ opportunistic behavior. This will ensure that both behave decently ex post. If a player behaves like a decent gentleman ex ante, without taking account of possible opportunistic behavior on each side, then he will behave very opportunistically ex post, so that a bad outcome is more likely to occur. Since effort level is not an uncertain variable for the player who chooses the effort, information asymmetry in a model of moral hazard is different from that which we will study in sections 9.3 and 9.4. Information asymmetry is referred to as hidden action in a model of moral hazard, and as hidden information in the model of adverse selection studied in sections 9.3 and 9.4. Distortions caused by hidden information are referred to as endogenous transaction costs caused by adverse selection. In this section we first study three neoclassical principal–agent models. We then study a principal–agent model with endogenous specialization and moral hazard. We shall explore the role of contingent contract in reducing endogenous transaction costs and in raising productivity. Before specifying the models, we need to learn some important concepts: expected utility function, risk aversion, and certainty equivalent. Consider a random variable x ~ N(S, σx), where S = E(x) = ∑s∈S p(s)x(s) is the expected value of x and σx = Var(x) = E[(x − S)2] = ∑s∈S p(s)(x(s) − S)2 is the variance of x. The theory of expected utility establishes conditions under which a decision-maker will rank risky prospects according to their associated expected utilities. Let u be a function that assigns to each monetary outcome x a utility u(x). Then, representing prospects by random variables, the expected utility of prospect x is E[u(x)].
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
259
f (x) f (x2) f (S) af (x2) + (1 − a)f (x2) f (x1)
0
x1
S
x2
x
Figure 9.1 Risk aversion and a strictly concave utility function
For simplicity of presentation, suppose that there are only two contingent states of an event, x1 and x2. An individual’s utility function f (x) is strictly concave, so that: f (αx1 + (1 − α)x2) > αf (x1) + (1 − α)f (x2)
(9.1)
where α ∈(0, 1) and x1 and x2 are two different consumption bundles (vectors). If we interpret α as the probability for state x1 and 1 − α as the probability for state x2, then the weighted average S = αx1 + (1 − α)x2 is equivalent to an event with no uncertainty, or a consumption bundle that can be received through an insurance program which, by pooling risk, guarantees that the insured can receive the weighted average. Hence, (9.1) implies that a person prefers the weighted average of the two contingent states, which does not involve risk, over the contingent event. And hence, we say that the person is risk averse. This implies that a person is risk averse iff her utility function is strictly concave in contingent variables. The person is risk loving if the inequality in (9.1) is reversed. The person is risk neutral if the inequality in (9.1) is made an equality. (9.1) is referred to as Jesen inequality (see figure 9.1). A twice continuously differentiable function with two independent variables is strictly concave if and only if ∂2f/∂x i2 < 0 and (∂2f/∂x 12)(∂2f/∂x 22) − (∂2f/∂x1∂x2) > 0. The concept of certain equivalent wealth is often used in the theory of contracts. Let’s define this concept. Compare the expected utility of prospect x, E[u(x)], with a certain prospect that yields the payment V with probability 1. The certain prospect will be indifferent for the decision-maker from the risky prospect x if u(V) = E[u(x)]. V is then called the certain equivalent of the prospect x. Suppose that u is three times continuously differentiable and that u′(.) > 0. Then, approximately, the certain equivalent is V ≈ S − 0.5r(S)Var(x)
(9.2)
where r(S) = −u″(S)/u′(S), which is called the degree of risk aversion, at S. We can use Taylor’s theorem to prove this. Var(x) is the variance of x. According to this theorem, for any z, u(z) = u(S) + (z − S)u′(S) + 0.5(z − S)2u″(S) + R(z), where R(z) = u′′′(X)(z − S)2/6 for some X ∈[S, z] which is negligible. Hence, u(z) ≈ u(S) + (z − S)u′(S) + 0.5(z − S)2u″(S). Substituting x for z in this equation and computing the expectation, we find E[u(x)] ≈ u(S) + E[x − S]u′(S) + 0.5E[(x − S)2]u″(S), where E[x − S] = 0. Therefore, we have: E[u(x)] ≈ u(S) + 0.5E[(x − S)2]u″(S)
260 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Applying Taylor’s theorem again to u(V), where V is close to S, yields u(V) = u(S) + (V − S)u′(S) + Q(V), where Q(V) = 0.5[(V − S)2]u″(X), which is negligible for some X ∈[S, V]. Hence, we have: u(V) = u(S) + (V − S)u′(S) For a certain equivalent, we have u(V) = E[u(x)]. So, combining the above two equations, we have: (V − S)u′(S) ≈ 0.5E[(x − S)2]u″(S) Rearrangement of this equation yields (9.2). On the basis of our definitions of expected utility, risk aversion, and certainty equivalent, we can now study models of moral hazard. Example 9.1: A neoclassical principal–agent model (Diamond, lecture notes, 1983). There are two players in the model: principal and agent. The principal cannot take care of his own business and must hire the agent to do the job. The agent cannot have her own business and must work for others. The agent is risk averse and her utility function is ua = M − e , where M is the payment she receives from the job. Her effort level can be e = 1 or e = 0. If e = 1, the revenue of the project is: ⎧16 with probability 3/4 R=⎨ 1 ⎩4 with probability /4
If e = 0, then:
⎧16 with probability 1/4 R=⎨ 3 ⎩4 with probability /4 The principal’s utility is up = R − M, which is linear in the contingent variable R. Thus the principal is risk neutral. Suppose the principal can observe the agent’s effort level. He can calculate his expected utility for different levels of effort. Assume that the agent can get utility 1 if she works elsewhere. Then the principal can see that if he pays her M = 4, she will be willing to choose e = 1 and to work for him because ua = M − e = 1 if M = 4 and e = 1. If e = 1 and he pays her M = 4, his expected utility is: Eup = 3/4 (16 − M) + 1/4 (4 − M) = 3/4 (16 − 4) + 1/4 (4 − 4) = 9 If e = 0, the principal can pay the agent M = 1 to get her working for him, since her utility is ua = M − e = 1 if e = 0 and M = 1. Then, the principal’s expected utility for e = 0 and M = 1 is: Eup = 1/4 (16 − 1) + 3/4 (4 − 1) = 6 Certainly, the principal’s expected utility is higher for e = 1 and M = 4 than that for e = 0 and M = 1 (9 > 6). Hence, the principal will pay M = 4 and get the agent to work for him with effort level e = 1.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
261
But suppose the principal cannot observe the agent’s effort level, or cannot verify this in court if litigation should arise from a dispute about her effort level and corresponding pay. Then the principal must choose a contingent contract to facilitate an efficient trade-off between risk sharing and incentive provision. If pay is not contingent on outcome, it is easy to see that the agent will always choose effort e = 0, since her utility M − e is always larger for e = 0 than for e = 1 for a noncontingent M. Suppose the principal pays M H if the outcome is good or if R = 16 and pays M L if the outcome is bad or if R = 4, where M H > M L. Then the contingent contract will get the agent working for the principal with effort level e = 1 if the following two conditions hold. The first condition is to ensure that the agent is not worse off than if she were working elsewhere; that is, her expected utility when she chooses effort level e = 1 should not be lower than her reservation pay 1:
/4 ( M H − 1) + 1/4 ( M L − 1) ≥ 1
3
This is referred to as the participation constraint. The second condition is to ensure that the agent is not worse off when she chooses e = 1 than when she chooses e = 0; that is, her expected utility with effort e = 1 and M H should not be lower than her expected utility with effort e = 0 and M L. That is,
/4 ( M H − 1) + 1/4 ( M L − 1) ≥ 1/4 ( M H − 0) + 3/4 ( M L − 0)
3
This condition is referred to as the incentive compatibility condition. Since the principal’s purpose is to maximize his expected utility, which is a decreasing function of M, he will choose M H and M L from the equalities in the two conditions. The two equations with two unknowns yield the efficient contingent contractual terms: M H = 6.25,
M L = 0.25
It is easy to compute that the principal’s expected utility under the second-best contingent contract is: Eup = 3/4 (16 − 6.25) + 1/4 (4 − 0.25) = 8.25, which is smaller than what can be obtained from the first-best labor contract when he can observe the agent’s effort level, which is 9. The difference is endogenous transaction cost caused by moral hazard. In the first-best labor contract (pay M = 4 for effort e = 1 and pay M = 1 for effort e = 0), the principal takes all the risk and the agent receives her wage without risk. This contract yields efficient risk sharing in the sense that the risk-neutral principal takes all the risk and the risk-averse agent takes none. You may also interpret this as a trade contract in risk, through which the agent sells all risk to the principal, or the agent is completely insured by the principal. The first-best labor contract also provides the right incentive for the agent to choose the right level of effort. This implies that if the principal can see the agent’s effort level, there is no trade-off between efficient risk sharing and efficient incentive provision. But when the principal cannot observe the agent’s effort level, there is a trade-off between risk sharing and incentive provision. If the principal takes all the risk and pays a noncontingent M, which is equivalent to providing the agent with complete insurance, then the agent would not choose the right effort level. But if the principal rewards or penalizes the agent exactly according to the contingent outcome, they would not have efficient risk sharing. The pay to the
262 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
agent will be greater or the principal’s profit lower, because the risk is too high for the agent to take the job if the pay is not that high. Hence, the second-best contingent contract efficiently trades off risk sharing against incentive provision to achieve a compromise. Though the efficient trade-off has not achieved the first best, and therefore is not Pareto optimal, it nonetheless maximizes the gains from trade net of the unavoidable endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard. When moral hazard exists, the first best is an unachievable utopia. The second best is a realistically efficient contract. Hence, we call the contingent contract the efficient contract despite its Pareto inefficiency. It is important to note, as Hart (1995) points out, that the contingent contract in the principal–agent model is not a labor contract. The contingent contract prices output rather than effort input, because the exact rationale for the contingent contract is that a labor contract for effort input is infeasible. Hence, it is misleading to call the principal–agent model a model of the firm. The principal–agent model cannot explain why and how firms emerge, or why we need asymmetric residual returns and residual control. The asymmetric relationship between employers and employees is not endogenized in the principal–agent model. Although the principal looks like an employer, we can show that he does not claim all residual returns, the agent claiming part of these through contingent pricing of outcome. For instance, if outcome R = 16 is realized, the agent gets 6.25 − 1 > 1 where the prevailing market reservation pay is 1. Furthermore, in the principal–agent model, the principal has no residual control rights over the agent’s effort level. What the agent can do (which level of effort she chooses) is completely up to her. But as shown in chapter 8, in a labor contract, what the employee does is up to the employer: the employee must do whatever she is told to do. The two main features of the institution of the firm and the related labor contract, namely, the asymmetric distribution of residual returns and residual control rights, are absent in the principal–agent model. The model of moral hazard can be applied to analyze many development problems. The sharecropping model is one of these applications. Example 9.2 (Stiglitz, 1974): A trade-off between incentive provision and insurance provision in sharecropping. Sharecropping was considered inefficient by economists, since it gave the tenant only part of his marginal product and thereby did not provide full incentive. But as economists have recognized the possible endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard, the function of sharecropping in trading off risk sharing against incentive provision can be appreciated. (See Singh, 1989 for a survey of theories of sharecropping and formal models.) We consider a simple sharecropping model where the landlord is the principal and the tenant is the agent. The production function is y = θALa where L is the tenant’s input of labor in production, y is output level, θ is a random variable and its value is θL with probability ρ and θH with probability 1 − ρ, where θH > θL, and a ∈ (0, 1) is the elasticity parameter of output with respect to labor input. We assume that the amount of land used in production is fixed, so that it is included in parameter A. The tenant receives the share α of realized output and his expected utility is u = αEy + C − bL, where C is a side-payment from the landlord to the tenant and b is a disutility coefficient of working. The tenant’s reservation utility is u0. The landlord cannot observe or verify the labor input level of the tenant, so that a pure wage will generate an unacceptable moral hazard. Hence, the landlord’s optimum contract with the tenant is given by his following decision problem. Max: (1 − α)Ey − C with respect to α and C subject to the tenant’s participation constraint: u = αEy + C − bL ≥ u0 and the first-order condition for the tenant’s utility maximization decision: du/dL = 0; where C can be interpreted as land rental if α = 0. The maximization of the landlord’s payoff implies that the equality in the tenant’s participation constraint holds. This, together with the tenant’s first-order condition, can be used to express the optimum share α as a function of the optimum side-payment C.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
α = (u0 − C)/(1 − ab)]1−aa a−1/A[θH (1 − ρ) + θL ρ],
263
(9.3)
where ρ can be considered as the degree of risk of a low output level. Inserting this into the landlord’s objective function, the first-order condition for maximizing it with respect to C yields the optimum side-payment C* = u0 − {a a−1−1/(1−a)(1 − a)/(1 − ab)[θH (1 − ρ) + θL ρ]}1/a.
(9.4)
It is straightforward that the optimum side-payment is 0 if u0 is too small or if the degree of risk ρ is too great and that dC*/du0 > 0 and dC*/dρ < 0. This, together with the differentiation of (9.3), yields that dα*/dρ = (∂α/∂ρ) + (∂α/∂C)(dC*/dρ) > 0, where ∂α/∂C < 0. If C is 0, the contract is called a pure sharecropping contract; if α = 0, then the contract is called a pure land rental contract with the rental rate of C. Hence, this model predicts that if the risk in production is sufficiently great, the optimum contract is pure sharecropping; if the risk is sufficiently small, the optimum contract is land renting. If the risk is neither too great nor too trivial, the optimum contract is sharecropping with side-payment. The sharecropping model shows that if moral hazard is considered, a sharecropping contract may be an efficient compromise between an incentive provision and risk sharing. But this result is based on the assumption that no insurance market is available. If the markets for insurance, labor, and capital are well developed, sharecropping may not be the most efficient institution. We now use the Holmstrom and Milgrom model (1994) to show the function of the contract in achieving an efficient trade-off between endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard and monitoring cost in reducing moral hazard. Example 9.3: The Holmstrom–Milgrom model (1994). The principal pays the agent a linear compensation w = α + β(z + γy), where z = e + x is the observed outcome of the agent’s effort e, x ~ N(S, σx) is a random variable representing the firm-specific uncertainty, y ~ N( T, σy) is a random variable representing industrywide or nationwide uncertainty, the covariance between x and y is σxy = cov(x, y) = E[(x − S)( y − T)] = ∑s∈S p(s)[x(s) − S][ y(s) − T], e is the agent’s effort level that affects profit of the principal’s business but cannot be observed or verified by the principal, α is a fixed wage, and β is the intensity coefficient of the contingent incentive payment. N(S, σx) is a normal probability distribution. σy = var( y) = E[( y − T)2] = ∑s∈S p(s)[ y(s) − T]2. For simplicity, we assume that S = T = 0. The agent’s certain equivalent wealth (CEW, see (9.2)) is CEWe = α + βe − C(e) − 0.5rβ2V, where C(e) is disutility of effort and C′(e) > 0 and C″(e) > 0, r is the degree of absolute risk aversion, and V ≡ Var(x + γ y) = σx + γ 2σy + 2γ σxy. The agent maximizes this with her effort level e. The first-order condition yields β = C′(e). This is the incentive constraint. The principal is risk-neutral, and her payoff and its certain equivalent is CEWr = P(e) − (α + βe), where P(e) is gross profit and α + βe is the expected wage payment.
264 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Assume that wealth distribution has no effect on productivity (a very strong assumption that abstracts the analysis from effects of transaction costs on productivity, which has been the focus in all Smithian models in this text). Then the efficient contract is determined by maximizing the total certain equivalent wealth of the principal and agent, which is CEW = P(e) − C(e) − 0.5rβ2V. Maximizing this with respect to e, β, and γ, subject to the incentive constraint, yields the firstorder condition for the efficient contingent incentive contract: P ′(e) = C′(e)[1 + rVC″(e)],
β = C′(e),
γ = −σxy/σy.
Suppose that P(e) = ae, C(e) = ce2. Then P ′(e) = a, C′(e) = 2ce, and C″(e) = 2c. For these specific functional forms, the efficient contract is γ = −σxy /σy,
e = a/2c(2crV + 1),
β = 2ce = a/(2crV + 1).
Comparative statics of the efficient contract are de/da > 0,
de/dc < 0,
dβ/da > 0,
dβ/dc < 0.
This result indicates that as the benefit coefficient of effort a increases or as the disutility coefficient of effort c decreases, the efficient incentive intensity β increases so that the efficient contract induces a higher level of effort, e. If the unobservable x and observable y are positively correlated, (σxy > 0), the efficient γ is negative, since a good outcome is more likely due to nationwide contingence rather than firm-specific contingence. But if σxy < 0, the efficient γ is positive. This story shows that the trade-off between risk sharing and incentive provision implies that too great an incentive intensity may not be efficient. If we introduce the trade-off between monitoring cost and incentive provision into the model, this point becomes more obvious. Suppose Var(x + γ y) = V is a decision variable. Assume that the monitoring cost M(V ) is an increasing function of V, or M′(V ) > 0. Also, we assume that M″(V ) > 0. The new total certain equivalent is now CEW = P(e) − C(e) − 0.5rβ2V + M(V ). The optimum contract is given by maximizing this CEW with respect to e, V, and β, subject to the incentive constraint. The degree of measurement inaccuracy (V ) can be considered as positively relating to the degree of externality. This model formalizes the ideas of Barzel (1985) and Cheung (1970, 1983) on the endogenous degree of externality. In exercise 5 of chapter 10, Holmstrom and Milgrom introduce into the model in this section the trade-off between balanced incentives for two activities that the employee undertakes and strong incentive for each activity. They have shown that the institution of the firm can more efficiently balance the trade-off by imposing some job restrictions and by providing weaker and more balanced incentives than in the market without firms. This kind of model shows that a realistic analysis of an efficient contract involves many trade-offs, which are much more complicated than the simple trade-off between incentive provision and risk sharing in example 9.1. Most of this kind of model are decision or partial equilibrium models that cannot be used to figure out the mechanisms that simultaneously determine the network size of division of labor,
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
265
the extent of the market, the number of transactions, total endogenous and exogenous transaction costs, and productivity. The above three neoclassical principal–agent models are not general equilibrium models. The principal–agent relationship is not endogenized, and reservation pay is exogenously given. The principal cannot take care of his own business and must ask the agent to do the job, while the agent cannot have her own business and must work for others. Hence, the relationship between the emergence and development of principal–agent relationships, productivity progress, and the evolution in division of labor cannot be investigated. We next consider a Smithian principal–agent model which enables us to explore these issues. We first outline the story behind the model. The Smithian model of the endogenous principal–agent relationship with two consumer goods is similar to the model in chapter 4, except that there is a risk of low transaction efficiency in exchanging goods x and y, which is affected by an x-specialist’s effort in avoiding the transaction risk. The effort is not observable, so that moral hazard may arise. There are several trade-offs among economies of division of labor, exogenous transaction costs, endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard, the benefits of a high effort level in avoiding transaction risk, and the costs of that high effort level. If an exogenous transaction cost coefficient is large, then autarky is equilibrium where no principal–agent relationship and market exist. If the exogenous transaction cost coefficient is small, then reciprocal principal– agent relationships emerge from the division of labor. For an equilibrium with division of labor, if the cost of a high effort level in avoiding risk is significant compared to the resulting gain from a lower transaction risk, then in a general equilibrium environment, an x-specialist will be better off choosing the low effort level, so that a single price contract is enough for coordinating the division of labor. Contingent contracts are not needed. If the cost of effort level is not significant, the avoidance of moral hazard becomes worthwhile. Hence, contingent contracts become essential for reducing moral hazard. In a general equilibrium environment with endogenous specialization and an endogenous relative price of all goods, contingent contracts may eliminate endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard. Yang and Yeh (2002, see exercise 16 below) show in a model with endogenous specialization and moral hazard for a pair of players who cannot choose between potential partners that within a certain parameter space a man works harder for others in the presence of moral hazard than he works for himself in the absence of moral hazard. Also, as transport conditions are improved, endogenous transaction costs and productivity may increase side by side. This is of course due to the trade-off between economies of division of labor and endogenous and exogenous transaction costs. A sufficient improvement of transport conditions may enlarge the scope for trading-off one conflicting force against others, and thereby it is more likely positive network effects of a larger network of division of labor outweigh increasing endogenous and exogenous transaction costs. Welfare and endogenous transaction costs increase side by side. Example 9.4: A principal–agent model of endogenous specialization. Consider a model with a continuun of ex ante identical consumer-producers of mass M, and with two consumption goods x and y. Each person’s utility function is specified as follows. u = ln[(x + kx x d )( y + ky y d )]
(9.5a)
where x and y are the respective quantities of the two goods self-provided, and x d and y d are the respective quantities of the two goods purchased from the market. The transaction efficiency coefficient ky is a parameter, but kx is a random variable, given by the following condition:
266 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
if s ≥ β,
⎧k with probability ρ then kx = ⎨ ⎩t with probability 1 − ρ
if s < β,
then kx = t
(9.5b)
where s is the effort level of a producer of x in avoiding the transaction risk and β is a parameter between 0 and 1. It is assumed that ρ ∈(0, 1) and 1 > k > t and that ky = k. kx x d and ky y d are the respective quantities of the two goods that are received from the purchases of them. This strictly concave utility function represents a preference with risk aversion. Each person is equipped with the same production functions for the two goods. x + x s = Max{0, Lx − a}
(9.6)
y + y s = Max{0, Ly − a}
where y s and x s are respective quantities of the two goods sold, and Li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i. The production function displays economies of specialization. Each individual is endowed with one unit of time that can be allocated between production and avoiding transaction risk, so that the endowment constraint for each person is Lx + Ly + s = 1,
(9.7)
where s is the time allocated for avoiding transaction risk. Finally, we assume Li ∈[0, 1], s, x, x s, x d, y, y s, y d ≥ 0. Each individual’s self-interested behavior is represented by a nonlinear programming problem that maximizes her expected utility with respect to Li, s, x, x s, x d, y, y s, y d, subject to the production functions, endowment constraint, and nonnegative constraint. Applying the Wen theorem to the model, we can show that a person never simultaneously buys and sells the same good, never simultaneously buys and self-provides the same good, and never sells more than one good. Taking account of the possibilities for pure and contingent pricing of goods, we can identify 10 configurations and 6 structures that need to be considered. We assume a Walrasian regime, where a representative pair of consumer-producers sort out their terms of trade and sign a contract in period 1. Then they decide on their quantities of goods to consume, to produce, and to trade, and Nature chooses a realization of kx according to the players’ decisions and prior probabilities in period 2. Trade and consumption take place and the contract is implemented in period 3. In this regime, each person can observe kx, but not the effort level s, of the other. We first identify all structures that need to be considered. Then all corner equilibria in the structures will be solved. 1) There is an autarky configuration, A, where there is no market or principal–agent relationship, and each individual self-provides all goods consumed. Structure A consists of M individuals choosing configuration A, which implies a profile of decision variables with Lx, Ly , x, y > 0; s = x s = x d = y s = y d = 0. The decision problem for a person choosing configuration A is Max: U ≡ Eu = E(ln x + ln y) s.t.
x = Max{0, Lx − a}, Lx + Ly = 1
(utility function) y = Max{0, Ly − a}
(production functions) (endowment constraint)
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
267
Table 9.1 Corner solutions in seven configurations Configuration
Self-provided quantities
Demand and supply
Expected indirect utility
A
x = y = 0.5 − a
(x/y)HD
s = β, x = (1 − a − β)/2
x s = (1 − a − β)/2 y d = px s
ln( pk) + 2[ln(1 − a − β) − ln 2]
(y/x)HD
y = (1 − a)/2
x d = y s/p y s = (1 − a)/2
ρ ln k + (1 − ρ) ln t − ln p + 2[ln(1 − a) − ln 2]
(x/y)LD
s=0 x = (1 − a)/2
x s = (1 − a)/2 y d = px s
ln( pk) + 2[ln(1 − a) − ln 2]
(y/x)LD
y = (1 − a)/2
x d = y s/p y s = (1 − a)/2
ln(t/p) + 2[ln(1 − a) − ln 2]
(x/y) C
s = β, x = (1 − a − β)/2
x s = (1 − a − β)/2 y d = px s
ln k + ρ ln pH + (1 − ρ)ln pL + 2[ln(1 − a − β) − ln 2]
(y/x) C
y = (1 − a)/2
xd = xs ys = p
ρ ln(k/pH) + (1 − ρ)ln(t/pL) + 2[ln(1 − a) − ln 2]
2 ln(0.5 − a)
where E denotes expectation, and Li, x, y are decision variables. The optimum solution for this problem and the maximum expected utility for this configuration are listed in table 9.1. Note that there is no transaction and related transaction risk in autarky. 2) There are two market structures with the division of labor and unique relative price of the two goods. Structure DL is a division of population between configurations (x/y) DL and (y/x) DL. Configuration (x/y) DL implies that x, x s, y d > 0, s = Ly = x d = y = y s = 0, and an individual choosing this configuration specializes in producing x, chooses a low level of effort in avoiding transaction risk, and accepts only a single relative price of the two goods. Configuration (y/x) DL implies that Ly, y, y s, x d > 0, s = Lx = y d = x = x s = 0, and an individual choosing this configuration specializes in producing y, and accepts only a single relative price of the two goods. Structure DH is a division of population between configurations (x/y) DH and (y/x) DH. Configuration (x/y) DH is the same as configuration (x/y) DL , except that an individual choosing this configuration chooses a high level of effort in avoiding transaction risk. Configuration (y/x) DH is the same as configuration (y/x) DL , except that her transaction efficiency coefficient k is determined by a high effort level of the specialist producer of x. Let us first consider individuals’ decision problems in structure DL. In this structure, the decision problem for a person choosing configuration (x/y) DL is Max: Ux ≡ Eux = E[ln(ky d ) + ln x] s.t.
y d = px s
(budget constraint)
x + x = Max{0, Lx − a},
(production function)
Lx = 1
(endowment constraint)
s
where Lx, x s, y d are decision variables and p ≡ px/py is the price of good x in terms of good y. Note that s = 0 for this configuration. The optimum decision for this configuration and the expected indirect utility function are listed in table 9.1.
268 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Table 9.2 Corner equilibria in four structures Structure
Corner equilibrium-relative price
Expected real income 2[ln(1 − 2a) − ln 2]
A DL
p = (t/k)0.5
2[ln(1 − a) − ln 2] + 0.5(ln t + ln k)
DH
p = [(1 − a)/(1 − a − β)](t/k)0.5(1−ρ)
0.5[(1 + ρ)ln k + (1 − ρ)ln t] + ln(1 − a) + ln(1 − a − β) − 2 ln 2
C
pL = (t/k)0.5(1−ρ)[(1 − a − β)/(1 − a)], pH = pL[(1 − a)/(1 − a − β)]2/ρ
0.5[(1 + ρ)ln k + (1 − ρ)ln t] + ln(1 − a) + ln(1 − a − β) − 2 ln 2
The decision problem for configuration (y/x) DL is Max: Uy ≡ Euy = E[ln y + ln(kx x d )] s.t.
y s = px d
(budget constraint)
kx = t
(transaction condition)
y + y = Max{0, Ly − a}
(production function)
Ly = 1
(endowment constraint)
s
where Ly, x d, y s are decision variables. The optimum decision for this configuration and the expected indirect utility function are listed in table 9.1. The terms of trade in period 1 will be determined by the expected utility equalization condition: Ux = Uy since individuals would keep changing their occupation in period 1 if this condition were not satisfied. The market clearing condition My y s = Mx y d or Mx x s = My x d, together with the population equation Mx + My = M, then determines the numbers of individuals choosing the two configurations. Plugging the corner equilibrium-relative price into the utility function yields the corner equilibrium expected real income in structure DL. All of the information on this corner equilibrium is in table 9.2. Assume that a single equilibrium-relative price prevails. From table 9.1, it is clear that when pH = pL = p, an x-specialist’s expected utility is ln(pk) + 2[ln(1 − a) − ln 2] if she chooses a low effort level, and is 2[ln(1 − a − β) − ln 2] + ln(kp) if she chooses a high effort level. A comparison between the two indirect utility functions implies that for a single relative price, an x-specialist always chooses the low level of effort in avoiding transaction risk. Hence, structure DH never occurs in equilibrium. 3) Market structure C is associated with the division of labor and with two contingent relative prices. This structure comprises a division of M individuals between configurations (x/y)C and (y/x)C. Configuration (x/y)C is the same as (x/y) DH, just as configuration (y/x)C is the same as (y/x) DH, except that an individual choosing this configuration accepts the relative price pH when kx is k, and the relative price pL if kx is t. The procedure for solving for this corner equilibrium is the same as that for structure DL, except that the incentive compatibility condition is used, together with the utility equalization condition, to determine the two corner equilibrium-relative prices. Assume that in structure C, the relative price is pH when kx is k and that it is pL when kx is t. Assume that p in configuration (x/y)DL is pL. Letting the expected utility of the specialist choosing (x/y)C , given in table 9.1, equal the expected utility for (x/y) DL , the incentive compatibility condition for C can be derived as follows.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
269
Table 9.3 General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics k/t > [(1 − a)/(1 − a − β)]a/ρ
k/t < [(1 − a)/(1 − a − β)]a/ρ kt < [(1 − 2a)/(1 − a)]4
kt > [(1 − 2a)/(1 − a)]4
k1+ρt1−ρ < B
k1+ρt1−ρ > B
A
DL
A
C
ln(pH/pL) > 2[ln(1 − a) − ln(1 − a − β)]/ρ.
(9.8)
This condition, together with the expected utility equalization condition between configurations (x/y)C and (y/x)C , yields the corner equilibrium dual contingent relative prices in structure C. Plugging the corner equilibrium prices back into the indirect utility function of either (x/y)C or (y/x)C then yields expected per capita real income (corner equilibrium utility) in structure C. All information on the four corner equilibria is summarized in table 9.2. Individuals will not choose a single noncontingent relative price in DL if (9.8) is not satisfied because of moral hazard. Hence, (9.8) sets up a dividing line between structures DL and C. General equilibrium satisfies the following conditions. (i) Each individual maximizes her expected utility with respect to configurations and quantities of each good produced, consumed, and traded for a given set of relative prices of traded goods; (ii) The set of relative prices of traded goods are determined by Nash bargaining. Numbers of individuals choosing different configurations clears the markets for those goods. Since all individuals are ex ante identical, the relative prices will equalize the expected utility for all individuals selling different goods. Following inframarginal analysis in chapters 3, 4, and 6, we can solve a corner equilibrium for each structure. We can identify the conditions under which each individual has no incentive to deviate from her configuration under the corner equilibrium prices in this structure. Alternatively, we can follow the procedure to prove the Yao theorem in chapter 4 to show that the general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium with the greatest expected per capita real income subject to the incentive compatibility condition. Hence, solving for the general equilibrium becomes a matter of identifying the corner equilibrium with the highest expected real income, subject to the incentive compatibility condition (9.8). A comparison between per capita real incomes in structures A, DL, and C yields the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium, summarized in table 9.3, where B ≡ [(1 − 2a)2/(1 − a)(1 − a − β)]2. The bottom line in table 9.3 gives the equilibrium structure for each particular parameter subspace. The table illustrates that as transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium discontinuously jumps from autarky, where there is neither market nor principal–agent relationship, to a structure with the division of labor, where the reciprocal principal–agent relationships emerge from the division of labor and market. It can be seen that the emergence of the principal–agent relationship will involve two contingent relative prices if the benefits k/t of effort in reducing transaction risk are great compared to its cost in terms of reduced production time, that is, β. Otherwise, the emergence of the principal–agent relationship will involve a unique relative price of the two goods (DL). Since the production condition in this model can be represented by the graph in figure 7.1, a comparison between comparative statics of general equilibrium in table 9.3 and figure 7.1 suggests that as transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium production schedule will discontinuously jump from the low line FG to the aggregate production possibility frontier MCAKBJL in the figure. This explains why contingent contracts can be used to promote economic development.
270 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Although this model can predict the function of contingent contracts in avoiding moral hazard, the general equilibrium is always Pareto optimal. Hence, in this Smithian general equilibrium model, complete contingent contracts can eliminate endogenous transaction costs. The example in exercise 16 (see Yang and Yeh, 2001) illustrates how endogenous transaction costs are caused by moral hazard when each of the two players cannot choose their trade partner. The implications of moral hazard for the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development will be more significant if the number of goods is more than 2. The number of configurations and corner equilibria will increase more than proportionally as the number of goods in the model increases.
9.3 GAME MODELS AND ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS 9.3.1 Game models The Walrasian equilibrium model belongs to a special class of game models. In this class of models, it is a game rule that all players are price takers, that is, they do not directly pay attention to what other players are doing since they believe that all information about this is reflected in prices. Each player chooses the optimum quantities of goods and factors that are produced and used for given prices. The interactions between individuals’ self-interested decisions therefore take place indirectly, through prices, rather than directly. In this process, any player’s attempt to manipulate prices is nullified by free entry and the ability of many other players to do the same. Therefore, there are no direct strategic interactions between self-interested decisions. But for many economic games, the game rules are more general or more complicated than the price taking rule. In this section, we study game models with more general game rules. A game is defined by game rules, players, their strategies, outcomes, and players’ payoff functions on outcomes. The game rules specify who moves when, what they know when they move, what they can do, and when the game ends. The players consist of all the decision-makers involved in the game, and Nature, who randomly chooses whatever the other players cannot choose when there are uncertainties in the game. A player’s strategies are the actions she can take when it is her turn to move. A profile of each and every players’ chosen strategies generates an outcome of the game that affects players’ well-being. Players’ objective functions defined on outcomes of the game are called payoff functions. In the next subsection, we use an example to illustrate all of these concepts.
9.3.2 Nash equilibrium An example of Nash equilibrium can be found in example 3.2 in chapter 3. There, the government in each country maximizes a home resident’s utility with respect to the home tariff rate, given the other country’s tariff rate. If Nash bargaining is not allowed, the Nash equilibrium in that model entails a positive tariff if exogenous transaction conditions are not bad (autarky does not occur in equilibrium). The positive tariff makes an equilibrium departure from the Pareto optimum, thereby generating endogenous transaction costs. If exogenous transaction conditions are neither very good nor very bad, then the coexistence of unilateral protectionist tariffs and unilateral laissez fairism generates endogenous transaction costs that cannot be avoided even if tariff negotiation is allowed. If exogenous transaction conditions are sufficiently good, the endogenous transaction costs caused by bilateral protectionist tariffs in structure C will offset all mutually beneficial gains from trade compared to structures Ba or Bb.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
271
Table 9.4a The strategic form of the Nash tariff game in structure Ba Country 2
Country 1
t2 = 0
t2 > 0
t1 = 0
U1(L), U2(H)
U1(L), U2(M)
t1 = t *1
U1(H), U2(M)
U1(L), U2(L)
Table 9.4b The strategic form of the Nash tariff game in structure C Country 2
Country 1
t2 = 0
t2 = t *2
t1 = 0
U1(M), U2(M)
U1(L), U2(H)
t1 = t *1
U1(H), U2(L)
U1(L), U2(L)
Such endogenous transaction costs are incurred by competition for a greater share of the gains from division of labor. Let us use the strategic form to describe that Nash tariff game. Example 9.5: The strategic form of the Nash tariff game in the Ricardian model. We first consider structure Ba, in which country 1 produces two goods and exchanges good x for good y with country 2 (see figure 3.2 and table 3.3 in chapter 3). Country i ’s strategy is tariff rate ti. Table 9.4a summarizes the strategies, payoffs, and outcomes of this game. In table 9.4a, the first term in each entry is the utility of an individual in country 1 and the second is that of an individual in country 2. Ui (H) > Ui (M) > Ui (L) can be found in table 3.3. The outcome t1 = t2 = 0 is the result of bilateral laissez fairism, which allocates all gains from trade to country 2. The outcome t1 = t *, 1 t2 = 0 implies that country 1 imposes tariff rate t* 1 such that an individual’s utility in country 2 is the same as in autarky. Hence, country 1 obtains most of gains from trade. The outcome t1 = 0, t2 > 0 implies that country 1 carries out a laissez faire policy while country 2 imposes a protectionist tariff. The outcome t1 = t *, 1 t2 > 0 implies that both countries impose protectionist tariffs. We first prove that the outcome t1 = t2 = 0 (bilateral laissez fairism) is not a Nash equilibrium. For t2 = 0, country 1’s utility can be increased from U1(L) to U2(H) by a shift from t1 = 0 to t1 = t *. 1 Hence, country 1 has an incentive to unilaterally deviate from the outcome t1 = t2 = 0. Similarly, country 2 has an incentive to unilaterally deviate away from the outcome t1 = 0, t2 > 0 or the outcome t1 = t *, 1 t2 > 0. For the outcome t1 = t *, 1 t2 = 0, any unilateral deviation reduces the deviator’s utility. Hence, it is the Nash equilibrium in structure Ba. The Nash equilibrium in structure Bb is symmetric with this. Next we consider structure C, in which each country completely specializes. With reference to table 9.4b, Ui (H) > Ui (M) > Ui (L) is apparent from table 3.3. As shown in example 3.2 in chapter 3, each country imposes t *i as high as possible, provided individuals in the other country stay in structure C. Following the same reasoning for the strategic form in table 9.4a, we can show that the outcome t1 = t *, 1 t2 = t * 2 is the unique Nash equilibrium where all net gains from the complete division of labor, compared to alternative structures, are offset by the endogenous transaction costs caused by the tariff war. A mutual laissez faire regime cannot be a Nash equilibrium, despite the fact that it is mutually beneficial. This is called coordination failure due to all players’ rational decisions. The type of game is sometimes called the prisoners’ dilemma – a situation in which, while two players could be better off by cooperating, their rational behavior prevents them from choosing cooperation.
272 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
More generally, a strategy profile s = (s1, s2, . . . , sN) of N players constitutes a Nash equilibrium if for every i = 1, . . . , N, ui (si, s−i ) ≥ ui (s i′, s−i ) for all si′ that player i can choose, where ui (.) is player i’s utility function and s−i is a strategy vector of all players except player i. In many Nash games, there are multiple Nash equilibria. The Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny model (1989) in example 5.3 is an example where there are Pareto rankable multiple Nash equilibria. In order to enhance the predictive power of the theory, we can use various ways to narrow down the set of candidates for the game solution by refining the concept of equilibrium. One way is to allow players to choose a pure strategy with a probability. That is, players can choose mixed strategies. We will examine this kind of mixed strategy game in exercise 1 and in example 9.13. In the next subsection, we introduce the concept of subgame perfect equilibrium to refine the concept of Nash equilibrium.
9.3.3 Subgame perfect equilibrium A shortcoming of the Nash game model is that it does not involve the time dimension. Time is important for strategic interactions. In particular, if we want to investigate endogenous transaction costs caused by an alternating-offer bargaining process, we need a dynamic game model. We use the following example to illustrate the technical substance of a type of dynamic game model called a subgame perfect equilibrium model. Example 9.6: The Rubinstein alternating-offer bargaining model. The game is to divide a pie between two players. Nature randomly chooses a player as the first mover (male) who makes an offer in period 1. Player 2 (female) can accept the offer in period 1. This terminates the game, and the pie is divided according to his offer. But she may also reject his offer in period 1 and make a counteroffer in period 2. He can then choose between acceptance and rejection of her counteroffer in the next round of bargaining. The game can go on to an infinite horizon. But the value of time provides players with an incentive to conclude the deal as soon as possible. The value of time also creates the possibility of exploiting the opponent’s impatience, and ensures that a definite outcome emerges as the equilibrium. Assume that the value of time for a player can be represented by a subjective discount rate ρ ∈ [0, 1]. This may also be taken to be the interest rate. Since $1 principal at t = 0 can generate principal plus interest of $(1 + ρ) at t = 1, $1 at t = 1 is worth only $1/(1 + ρ) at t = 0. In other words, the future value of A dollars at t = 0 is B = (1 + ρ)A, or the present value of B dollars at t = 1, is A = B/(1 + ρ). δ ≡ 1/(1 + ρ) is called the discount factor, which is between 0 and 1. The value of time, or a player’s degree of impatience, increases as the discount factor δ tends to 0 or as the discount rate ρ tends to infinity. We now use the extensive form to describe the dynamic bargaining game. (See figure 9.2.) At the root of the inverse tree graph, player 1 makes an offer. He can ask for a large share of the pie, denoted by x 1H, or a small share x 1L, or any share in between. x1 represents the share that player 1 asks for at period 1. At the nodes of the second layer, player 2 can choose A (acceptance) for any offer that player 1 made in period 1. This terminates the game according to the terms of player 1. If she does not choose A, then she rejects the offer that player 1 made in period 1. She must then make a counteroffer, x 2H, x 2L, or anything in between, where x2 represents the share that player 2 offers to player 1 in period 2 (player 1 gets x2 and player 2 gets 1 − x2). The dashed circles denote that each player has perfect information about the node at which he is located when it is his turn to move. That is, this is a sequential move game.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
x H1
x H2
x H3
A x L3
x L2
x H3
A
273
x L1
A
A x L3
x H2
x L2
x H3
A
x L3
A
Figure 9.2 The extensive form of the alternating-offer bargaining game
For each node, there is a branch of the tree, called a span, which represents a subgame below that node. If all players’ dynamic strategies are Nash optimal, then in each subgame at any node, the players’ strategies constitute a Nash equilibrium. That is, each player’s sequence of moves must be dynamically optimal for a given opponent’s dynamic optimal strategy. We now consider player 1’s optimum dynamic decision. Suppose he asks for x1 ∈[0, 1] in period 1. His principle for choosing x1 is: (i) x1 must be acceptable to player 2, since delay makes no sense in the model with no information asymmetry and with a discount factor between 0 and 1; (ii) x1 should be as large as possible, provided player 2 accepts it. Condition (i) can be achieved only if player 2’s discounted payoff from rejecting the offer is not more than her payoff from the offer. She receives 1 − x1 if she takes the offer right away. If she rejects x1, then she can make a counteroffer x2 in period 2, which yields a discounted value to her δ(1 − x2). Hence, (i) requires 1 − x1 ≥ δ(1 − x2). Condition (ii) requires that x1 be as large as possible or the lefthand side of the semi-inequality be as small as possible, that is, 1 − x1 = δ(1 − x2). For the same reason, player 2 will choose x2 such that x2 = δx 3 where x3 is player 1’s countercounteroffer in period 3. Considering the symmetry between bargaining situations in different rounds, we can see that in a steady equilibrium, x1 = x3 = x5 . . . and x2 = x4 = x6 . . . Hence, the two players’ optimum decisions in the first round summarize the information in all rounds of bargains. Player 1 knows that player 2’s optimum decision in period 2 is dependent on his optimum decision in period 1 because of x2 = δx1 if x1 = x3. He will put himself in her shoes to calculate her optimum decision in period 2 according to the equation, then plug this equation back into the equation 1 − x1 = δ(1 − x2) that gives his optimum decision in period 1, given her optimum decision in period 2. This backward deduction based on sequential rationality, which is called dynamic programming, thus yields the subgame perfect equilibrium. In other words, the following system of equations gives the solution. 1 − x1 = δ(1 − x2),
x2 = δx1.
(9.9a)
x*2 = δ/(1 + δ).
(9.9b)
The solution is x*1 = 1/(1 + δ),
Player 1 offers x *1 and player 2 accepts this in period 1; player 2’s threatening counteroffer is x*2 if player 1’s offer is not as good as x*. 1 The counteroffer threat is essential to restrain player 1’s greed.
274 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
You can easily verify that x*1 > 1 − x*, 1 which means that the first mover has an advantage since he can hold up his opponent until period 2 to squeeze her, using her impatience. The first mover’s advantage increases as the discount factor is reduced, or as a player’s degree of impatience increases. Exercise 11 shows that if the discount factor differs from player to player, then a more patient player has an advantage, too. The first mover advantage may be offset by his greater degree of impatience than the second mover, if the advantage of the second mover’s patience outweighs the first mover advantage.
9.3.4 Bayes equilibrium We now consider information asymmetry in a static simultaneous-move Nash game. Again, we have not attempted comprehensive coverage of this field of game theory. Instead, we use an example to illustrate the main concepts and this analytical approach to game models as one tool in our toolkit. Example 9.7: A Bayes equilibrium model. Consider the Nash game in a Cournot oligopoly model. The inverse demand function for a good is p = a − bx, where x = x1 + x2, and xi is the amount of the good produced by firm i which has the cost function Ci = ci xi. We assume that firm 1’s marginal cost c1 is known to both firms, but firm 2’s marginal cost c2 has two possible states: a large value θh with probability ρ and a small value θl with probability 1 − ρ. This twopoint distribution function of potential values of c2 is common knowledge for the two firms. The actual, or realized, value of c2 is chosen by the third player, Nature. After Nature has chosen a state of c2 according to the distribution function, player 2 is informed of the choice, but player 1 is not. Firm 2, then, has complete information about the realized value of c2 and firm 1 has incomplete information about c2. This is referred to as information asymmetry about the realized value of c2 between the two firms. A Bayes equilibrium is a Nash equilibrium in a simultaneous-move game with information asymmetry, where the player with incomplete information maximizes his expected payoff function for given uncertainties of his opponent types. Here, types of the informed player are associated with states of marginal cost about which the other player does not have complete information. Firm 2 has two reaction functions for two different states of c2: x2(θh) = (a − θh − bx1)/2b if c2 = θh
and
x2(θl) = (a − θl − bx1)/2b if c2 = θl.
(9.10a)
Firm 1’s decision problem is Max: Eπ1 = ρ{a − c1 − b[x1 + x2(θh)]}x1 + (1 − ρ){a − c1 − b[x1 + x2(θl)]}x1 x1
where E denotes expectation. The expected profit is a weighted average of two profit levels. The weights are the respective probabilities of the two profit levels. The reaction function of firm 1 is given by the first-order condition for the decision problem as follows. x1 = [a − c1 − ρbx2(θh) − (1 − ρ)bx2(θl)]/2b. (9.10) yields the Bayes equilibrium: x *1 = [a − 2c1 + ρθh + (1 − ρ)θl]/3b, x *(θ 2 h) = [2(a + c1) − (3 + ρ)θh − (1 − ρ)θl]/6b, x *(θ 2 l) = [2(a + c1) − ρθh − (4 − ρ)θl]/6b.
(9.10b)
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
275
This game model with information asymmetry involves interesting interactions between strategies and information.
9.3.5 Sequential equilibrium Example 9.8: A sequential equilibrium model of the credit market. If we introduce information asymmetry into a dynamic game or introduce a time dimension into a Bayes game with information asymmetry, we will have an interesting kind of game – a dynamic game with information asymmetry – which can generate significantly higher explainatory power than the Walrasian equilibrium model. The solution of this kind of game is referred to as sequential equilibrium or a perfect Bayes equilibrium. For most dynamic game models with information asymmetry, perfect Bayes equilibrium, which is an extension of Bayes equilibrium to dynamic games, is equivalent to sequential equilibrium, which is an extension of the notion of subgame perfect equilibrium to games with information asymmetry. We use an example to illustrate the concept of sequential equilibrium in a dynamic game with information asymmetry, and its implication for the analysis of credit markets. This is a game between many entrepreneurs and an investor in a credit market. There are two types of entrepreneurs, capable and incapable, denoted by subscripts c and n respectively. For a type c entrepreneur, the profit she can make, the net of repayment of the investment, when the investor makes an investment in her business is 20, which will be equally divided between her and the investor. The capable entrepreneur’s utility function is uc = (3 × 0.5θcαi − pi)αi when she receives a half of the profit θc = 20 that she makes, and consumes a car with quality αi at price pi. Here, subscript i denotes the brand i of car. There are three brands of cars. Brand 1 is BMW, with quality α1 = 4 and price p1 = 70. Brand 2 is Volvo, with quality α2 = 3 and price p2 = 11. Brand 3 is Toyota, with quality α3 = 2 and price p3 = 6. For a type n entrepreneur, the profit he can make when an investor invests in his business is 8, which will be equally divided between him and this investor. His utility function is un = (0.5θn αi − pi)αi when he receives a half of the profit θn = 8 that he makes, and consumes a car with quality αi at price pi. For simplicity, we assume that a car can be used for two periods and the discount factor is 1 (or the discount rate is 0). It is assumed that utility must be non-negative, or the subsistence level of utility is non-negative. The investor has incomplete prior information about the type of entrepreneur she meets. She knows in period 1 that, on average, type c occurs with probability ρ and type n occurs with probability 1 − ρ, where ρ ∈(0, 1) is the ratio of the capable entrepreneurs to the total population of entrepreneurs. The investor’s utility function is v = (θi /2) − 5, where θi is the profit made by the type i entrepreneur who gets the funding, of which the investor gets half. θc = 20 when the capable entrepreneur gets the funding and θn = 8 when the incapable entrepreneur gets the funding. For simplicity, we assume that an investor’s utility is 0 in period 1. In period 1, the two types of entrepreneurs choose the brands of cars they want to drive, then in period 2 the investor infers the entrepreneurs’ types from the brands of cars they drive and decides with whom to deal. This story is interesting because of the complicated interactions between information and dynamic strategies. The investor can infer that a capable entrepreneur will drive a Volvo, since uc(α2, p2) > uc(α1, p1), uc(α3, p3) and an incapable entrepreneur will drive a Toyota, since un(α3, p3) > un(α2, p2) and un(α1, p1) < 0. In other words, an incapable entrepreneur will drive a cheaper car and a capable entrepreneur will drive a more expensive Volvo. Then from the brands of cars the entrepreneurs drive, the investor can get complete information about their types, so that she would invest in the business of the entrepreneur who drives a Volvo and refuse to do business with an entrepreneur driving a Toyota.
276 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
But a rational entrepreneur will drive a Volvo even if he is incapable (check that un(α2, p2) > 0, that is, incapable entrepreneurs can afford a Volvo, despite the fact that this is not a myopic utility maximizing choice), since if he drove a Toyota, he would get no business, so that his income would be 0 and he could not afford even a Toyota. But if all entrepreneurs drive Volvos, the investor cannot tell their competence from their cars. They will not believe any entrepreneur claiming to be capable. Accordingly, if a capable entrepreneur wants to distinguish herself from an incapable one, she can drive a BMW, which an incapable entrepreneur cannot afford (check un(α1, p1) < 0). In other words, what the investor knows about an entrepreneur’s type is dependent on which strategy the entrepreneur chooses. But the strategy that the entrepreneur sees as optimal is, in turn, dependent on the information known to the investor, which affects the investor’s strategies. In a manner analogous to the interdependencies and feedback loops between quantities and prices in a Walrasian equilibrium model, there are infinite interactions and feedback loops between the investor’s information and her dynamic strategies, and between different players’ dynamic strategies. A sequential equilibrium is the outcome of all of the interactions between information and all players’ dynamic strategies. Denoting the brand of car that an entrepreneur chooses in period 1 by s, then in period 2, from observing s, from the perspective of the investor, the posterior probability that an entrepreneur will be type c is μ(s). This updated information may be different from the prior probability, ρ. Hence, a sequential equilibrium is defined by the following two conditions. (i) All players use dynamic programming (backward deduction) to solve for their optimum dynamic strategies for given information which they know; (ii) Each player’s information in each period is updated according to the observed strategies of other players on the basis of the Bayes updating rule. The Bayes updating rule is illustrated in the following solution to the sequential equilibrium. Let us now consider the investor’s decision problem. Her utility is 0 in period 1. In period 2, she has seen the brand s of cars driven by entrepreneurs and has the updated information μ(s). Hence, she can compute her expected utility as Ev = μ(s)[(20/2) − 5] + [1 − μ(s)][(8/2) − 5] = 6μ(s) − 1, which is greater than 0 iff μ(s) > 1/6. Based on this solution, we can work out a pooling equilibrium by assuming μ(s) = ρ > 1/6. A pooling equilibrium takes place when the investor’s prior and posterior information is the same or when μ(s) = ρ and ρ > 1/6. In the pooling equilibrium, all entrepreneurs drive Volvos in period 1, the investor cannot tell the capable entrepreneurs from the incapable ones, and she therefore does business with any entrepreneur in period 2. We first check if the investor’s decision to do business with any entrepreneur is optimal for her updated information. Since in a pooling equilibrium μ(s) = ρ, and we have assumed that ρ > 1/6, her expected utility is greater than 0. Therefore, her decision to do business with any entrepreneur is optimal. Though she has an incentive to have more information, we can show that, provided the investor chooses to do business with any entrepreneur, a capable entrepreneur has no incentive to distinguish herself from an incapable entrepreneur, and that an incapable entrepreneur has an incentive to pretend to be a capable entrepreneur by driving a Volvo. You can verify that a type n entrepreneur can afford a Volvo, that his myopic utility maximizing choice is a Toyota car, and that he will lose business if he drives a Toyota. A c type entrepreneur’s total utility in the two periods is −p2α2 + 3 × 0.5θcα 22 = (3 × 0.5θcα2 − p2)α2 = 231, which is greater than that for driving a BMW, which can distinguish her from an incapable entrepreneur. Note that in period 1, the entrepreneur receives no income and pays for a Volvo, and in period 2 she receives a half share of profit and uses the car without further payment. An n type entrepreneur’s total utility in the two periods is −p2α2 + 0.5θl α 22 = (0.5θ lα2 − p2)α2 = 3, which is greater than the zero that occurs when there is no business. Hence, all dynamic strategies are optimal for the updated information, and the information that is updated according to observed strategies is consistent with all players’ dynamic strategies.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
277
This verifies that for ρ > 1/6, the pooling sequential equilibrium takes place. That is, if the likelihood for an entrepreneur to be capable is high (or capable entrepreneurs sufficiently outnumber the incapable ones), the investor will do business with any entrepreneur even if she cannot tell the capable from the incapable ones. Hence, the capable one has no incentive to distinguish herself from the incapable one, so that the incapable can cheat by pretending to be capable. The confused investor cannot get more information when the capable does not choose to distinguish herself from the incapable. Suppose ρ ≤ 1/6. We can show that there exists a screening or separating sequential equilibrium, in which all capable entrepreneurs drive BMWs and all incapable entrepreneurs cannot get any business. For this case, the investor’s expected utility is nonpositive if she cannot tell the capable from the incapable, so that she will not do any business unless she is convinced that an entrepreneur is capable. Hence, a capable entrepreneur has an incentive to distinguish herself from the incapable by driving a BMW, which an incapable entrepreneur cannot afford. Therefore the investor can tell the capable from the incapable, so that she invests only in the business of an entrepreneur who drives BMWs. Her posterior information is μ(s) = 1 when she has seen an entrepreneur driving a BMW and is μ(s) = 0 if she has seen an entrepreneur who is not driving a BMW. In other words, if incapable entrepreneurs sufficiently outnumber capable ones, the investor expects a nonpositive utility from doing business with any entrepreneur when she cannot tell which is which. Hence, she will not do any business unless she can establish who is who. This gives the capable entrepreneurs an incentive to convince the investor by driving BMWs, which the incapable entrepreneurs cannot afford. Therefore, screening equilibrium results from complicated interactions between information and all players’ dynamic strategies. Let us now consider the endogenous transaction costs caused by information asymmetry in the credit market. There are two types of endogenous transaction cost in the sequential equilibrium model. Type A endogenous transaction cost is associated with the information distortion in the pooling equilibrium, where the incapable entrepreneur successfully cheats the investor by pretending to be capable. Type B endogenous transaction cost is a “convincing cost,” incurred in the screening equilibrium in a situation in which the investor may not believe the capable entrepreneur even if she tells the truth. The capable entrepreneur must sacrifice utility by driving a BMW in order to convince the investor. The convincing cost would not be necessary if the incapable entrepreneur did not cheat, that is, if information asymmetry were absent. The concepts of perfect Bayes equilibrium and sequential equilibrium are useful vehicles for the analysis of endogenous transaction costs because information asymmetry creates the scope for cheating and other opportunistic behaviors that cause endogenous transaction costs. This model can be interpreted in various ways to suit specific applications. For instance, brands of cars can be interpreted as different levels of expenditure on the advertising that can be used by a producer to signal private information about his financial and production capacity, while the investor can be interpreted as a potential buyer of his products. Hence, this model can be used to explain why advertising expenditure is much higher than the level adequate to transmit information about goods to potential buyers. According to the model, if advertising expenditure is not high enough, then capable and incapable producers all can afford to advertise – leaving potential buyers unable to tell the capable from the incapable by observing the advertisement. Again, the high advertising expenditure is a convincing cost. Like the sharecropping model, this model of the credit market shows that the function of the market is much more sophisticated than conventional textbooks predict. This model predicts that if interactions between strategies and information are considered, a shortage of capable entrepreneurs may make cheating less likely to occur in equilibrium. Hence, the shortage of capable entrepreneurs, which is common in less-developed countries, is not a serious problem for economic development. But government monopoly in the capital market, the stiff licensing system for private banking business, restrictions on the trade of land and free migration
278 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
between urban and rural areas, the government’s infringement of private ownership of land are detrimental for economic development. According to North (1981, pp. 158–68), medieval regulations, including usury laws and restrictions on the mobility of capital and labor, were detrimental to economic development in Britain. Their removal was essential for the Industrial Revolution.
9.4
THE ROLE OF NASH BARGAINING GAMES IN REDUCING ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS CAUSED BY TRADE CONFLICT
Individual-specific prices and pricing through bargaining existed long before the emergence of developed markets with impersonal market prices and related pricing mechanisms. In lessdeveloped economies, including Soviet-style ones, pricing is typically determined by bargains between trade partners. In order to understand how impersonal common market prices emerge from prices that are different from player to player, and under what conditions trade negotiation is essential for reducing endogenous transaction costs, we must study bargaining. The concept of games is particularly useful in studying the bargaining process, since bargaining is characterized by direct interactions between players’ self-interested decisions. In this section, we first present a Nash bargaining model with endogenous specialization, then compare the Nash bargaining solution to the Walrasian equilibrium. We shall then consider the function of Nash bargaining in reducing endogenous transaction costs caused by a small number of players in the Walrasian model of endogenous specialization. Example 9.9: A Nash bargaining game with endogenous specialization. Consider a Nash bargaining game with two players who have complete information about their opponents’ production and utility functions, transportation conditions, endowment constraint, and the threat point at which they will refuse to participate in the division of labor. Assume that the production and utility functions, endowment constraint, and transportation conditions for two ex ante identical consumer-producers are the same as in chapter 4. But the players try to sort out terms of trade through bargaining. Each player knows that choosing specialization in producing x generates utility ux = (1− x s)ky d, choosing specialization in producing y generates utility uy = (1 − y s )kx d, and choosing autarky generates utility uA = 2−2a. There are two threat points or disagreement points at which each player refuses to participate in trade. The first is the bottom line given by real income in autarky uA. A player will refuse to participate in the division of labor if trade generates a lower utility than autarky. Second, a player may use the utility for the occupation configuration in producing y as the threat point when choosing the occupation configuration of x, since she can always change occupation if one occupation generates more utility than the other. Because of the budget constraint, the terms of trade are py/px = x s/y d = x d/y s, where the first equality is given by the budget constraint for the specialist of x, px x s = py y d, and the second by the budget constraint for the specialist of y, px x d = py y s. Since market clearing is a constraint for the deal, we have x s = x d and y s = y d. For simplicity of notation, we use X and Y to represent equal quantities demanded and supplied for the two goods. The net gain that an x-specialist can receive from the division of labor is Vx = (1 − X )kY − uA and that for a specialist of y is Vy = (1 − Y )kX − uA. The x-specialist wants the relative price py /px = X/Y to be as high as possible. But he has a trade-off. If Y/X is large, his net gain Vx is great, but his opponent’s net gain Vy is small, so that his opponent has little incentive to get involved in the division of labor. Accordingly, the probability of realizing the large value of Vx is small if the bargaining process is subject to any stochastic disturbance. The disturbance
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
279
could be caused, for example, by a quarrel that the opponent had with her husband at home before coming to the bargaining meeting. In her resulting bad mood, the smallness of her net gain from the deal may cause her to refuse to participate in the division of labor. If we consider Vy as the probability that the x-specialist can realize Vx , then the x-specialist’s expected net payoff from the division of labor is V = Vx Vy + 0 × (1 − Vy ) = VxVy where 1 − Vy is the probability that the net payoff cannot be realized, or that the net payoff is 0. Nash has proved that in a noncooperative bargaining game with marginal stochastic disturbance, the Nash product V will be maximized by self-interested strategies. Hence, the Nash bargaining equilibrium is given by the following maximization problem: Max: V = Vx Vy = [(1 − X)kY − uA][(1 − Y)kX − uA]. X ,Y
(9.11)
In a symmetric model with ex ante identical consumer-producers and symmetric tastes and production and transaction conditions, the Nash bargaining equilibrium defined in (9.11) is equivalent to the one defined by (9.12). If utility in an alternative occupation configuration is considered as a threat point, while utility in autarky is just a bottom line, the Nash product becomes V = (ux − uy)(uy − ux) = −(ux − uy)2
(9.12)
where ux is the utility for specialization in x and uy is the utility for specialization in y. In a Nash bargaining game, the x-specialist threatens to choose specialization in producing y, while the specialist of y threatens to choose specialization in producing x if the terms of trade are unfair. Maximization of the Nash product, of course, implies the minimization of (ux − uy)2, which requires ux = uy. Hence, Nash bargaining will establish the utility equalization condition. The maximization of V with respect to X and Y subject to utility equalization generates the Nash bargaining equilibrium. The first-order condition for the constrained maximization problem yields the equilibrium terms of trade,
1 X =Y = , 2
ux = uy =
k , 4
which coincides with the Walrasian equilibrium with endogenous numbers of different specialists. The first-order conditions for the problem in (9.11), ∂V/∂X = ∂V/∂Y = 0 or Y = 1 − X and (1 − 2X)[X(1 − X)k − uA] = 0, generate the same solution. However, if the consumption, production, and transportation conditions are asymmetric between the two goods, the solution for the maximization problem (9.11) differs from that for maximizing (9.12). For the case of asymmetric tastes and production and transaction conditions, but ex ante identical consumerproducers, the Nash bargaining equilibrium may be different from the Walrasian equilibrium, although both types of Nash bargaining equilibrium, as well as the Walrasian equilibrium, are Pareto optimal. Example 9.10: The function of Nash bargaining in reducing endogenous transaction costs caused by the Walrasian equilibrium in a Smithian model with a finite set of consumer-producers. Consider the model in example 9.9. There are only two players (the set of players is not a continuum), but the utility function is u = (x + kx d )1/3( y + ky d )2/3. Hence, per capita real income in autarky is
280 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
(22/3/3)a and the utility functions for configurations (x/y) and (y/x) are ux = (1 − x s )1/3(ky d)2/3 and uy = (kx d )1/3(1 − y s)2/3, respectively. Walrasian supply and demand functions for the two occupations are x s = 2/3, y d = 2p/3, y s = 1/3, x d = 1/3p, where p is the price of x in terms of y. The indirect utility functions for the two occupations are ux = (2kp)2/3/3 and uy = 22/3(k/p)1/3/3, respectively. The market clearing condition for x or y yields p = 1/2. But this relative price cannot be the equilibrium one, since the two players will choose configuration (y/x) and nobody chooses (x/y) under this relative price. This implies that the market cannot clear (there is supply for y, but no demand for y). Hence, the Walrasain corner equilibrium for the division of labor does not exist, or the Walrasian general equilibrium is always autarky for any k ∈[0, 1] and a > 1. But it is easy to show that the Nash bargaining equilibrium is the division of labor and generates higher per capita real income than in autarky for sufficiently large values of k and a. For instance, suppose k = 1. Then the Nash bargaining corner equilibrium for the division of labor is given by the following maximization problem: Max: [(1 − X)1/3Y 2/3 − uA][(1 − Y )2/3X 1/3 − uA], X ,Y
where X = x s = x d and Y = y s = y d are quantities demanded as well as supplied, and uA = (22/3/3)a is per capita real income in autarky. The solution of the bargaining equilibrium is Y = X = 1/2. This Nash bargaining corner equilibrium generates per capita real income 1/2, which is greater than in autarky iff a > ln 2/(ln 3 − 2 ln 2/3) ≈ 1.09. Hence, for a large value of a and k = 1, a coordination failure occurs in the Walrasian regime and the Nash bargaining can successfully coordinate the division of labor. Since maximization of the Nash product is equivalent to the maximization of a social welfare function, it is straightforward that the Nash bargaining equilibrium is always Pareto optimal. This implies that the Nash bargaining equilibrium will not cause endogenous transaction costs. In the model with endogenous specialization, the Nash bargaining outcome not only achieves the Pareto efficient resource allocation for a given level of division of labor, but also ensures the Pareto optimum level of division of labor. Our example shows that for a small number of consumer-producers in an asymmetric Smithian model, the Walrasian equilibrium generates endogenous transaction costs that are caused by a coordination failure of division of labor. In our example, asymmetric tastes for goods x and y imply that specialization in y receives more utility than specialization in x under the Walrasian regime, so that nobody is willing to specialize in x. In other words, the unfair distribution of gains from the division of labor between occupations might cause a coordination failure of division of labor in the Walrasian regime with a finite number of consumer-producers. In example 3.2 of chapter 3, we have shown that even if the set of ex ante different players is a continuum, the Walrasian equilibrium may generate a very unequal distribution of gains from the division of labor. This will generate incentives for those players who receive few gains to take collective action for rent seeking. For instance, the government in a less-developed country may have an incentive to impose an import tariff to manipulate terms of trade if all gains from the division of labor go to a developed country. It is interesting to note that there might be a trade-off between the reduction of endogenous transaction costs through Nash bargaining and exogenous transaction costs caused by that bargaining. The Pareto optimality of the Nash bargaining solution is based on the assumption that all players know their opponents’ utility and production functions and endowments, which is essential for each player to figure out the Nash bargaining solution. But the Walrasian equilibrium can be reached even if each player has no information about other players’ utility and production functions and endowments. If the collection of all the information is very expensive, then there is a trade-off between endogenous transaction costs caused by trade
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
281
conflict in the Walrasian regime with a finite set of consumer-producers and exogenous cost in collecting information in the Nash bargaining game. As will be shown in example 9.11, if players do not have complete information about their opponents’ utility and production functions, endowment, and transaction conditions, Nash bargaining may generate endogenous transaction costs too. Therefore, there is a trade-off between endogenous transaction costs, caused by unfair distribution of the gains from the division of labor in the Walrasian regime with a finite number of consumer-producers, and endogenous transaction costs related to the information problem in the Nash bargaining game. The Nash bargaining game model in this section is a well-closed general equilibrium game model where Walras’s law holds. This feature can be used to endogenize the level of division of labor and to explore the effects of bargaining on the equilibrium size of the network of division of labor and economic development. It can be shown that the Nash bargaining equilibrium is the division of labor iff the Pareto optimum is the division of labor. Also, if the exogenous transaction cost coefficient 1 − k is sufficiently large, the equilibrium is autarky; otherwise, it is the division of labor. The shortcoming of the Nash bargaining model is that it does not spell out uncertainties and a time dimension. In the next two sections, the implications of information asymmetry and the time dimension will be examined.
9.5 ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS CAUSED BY INFORMATION ASYMMETRY AND HOLDING UP If there is information asymmetry in a bargaining game, it will create scope for cheating (a form of opportunistic behavior). Because of possible cheating, players do not trust each other even if they tell the truth. This causes endogenous transaction costs that prevent the realization of a mutually beneficial division of labor. For the division of labor, a specialist producer of a good certainly knows more about the production of that good than does the buyer, who is specialized in producing other goods. This information asymmetry is a driving force of economies of specialization, as well as a source of endogenous transaction costs. In sub-section 9.5.1, we use a Nash bargaining model with information asymmetry to illustrate endogenous transaction costs caused by adverse selection. Then we introduce alternating-offer bargaining into a model of endogenous specialization in subsection 9.5.2. The subgame perfect equilibrium model is then extended to investigate endogenous transaction costs caused by holding-up behavior in the absence of moral hazard and adverse selection in subsection 9.5.3. Finally, in subsection 9.5.4 we shall address the question of how a reputation mechanism can eliminate endogenous transaction costs and promote economic development using a repeated game model.
9.5.1 Economic development and endogenous transaction costs caused by adverse selection Example 9.11: A Nash bargaining game with information asymmetry. Assume that in the bargaining model in example 9.9, y is a simple housecleaning service which involves no information asymmetry between seller and buyer, so that a specialist producer does not know much more than a buyer about the production of y. Therefore, a y-specialist’s output level y + y s = 1 is common knowledge to everybody. But suppose that good x is a sophisticated manufactured good whose production involves significant economies of specialized information, so that a specialist producer of x has more information about its production conditions than a novice buyer. Suppose that an x-specialist’s output level θ is 1.5 at probability 0.5, and is 0.5 with probability 0.5. Nature randomly chooses a value of θ and informs the x-specialist about the
282 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
realized value of θ. The y-specialist has only common knowledge about the distribution function of θ. Assume that a change of profession involves a prohibitively high cost, so that it is not a choice when specialized information is generated by the division of labor. This implies that utility for the alternative profession is not a threat point. Inserting the data into the model in example 9.9, we have the Nash product V = Vx Vy = [(θ − X)kY − uA][(1 − Y )kX − uA], where utility in autarky uA = 2−2a is the threat point. Suppose the specialist of x (male) tells the y-specialist (female) the realized value of θ, and that she trusts what he says. The Nash bargaining equilibrium for the complete information case is X = θ/2,
Y = 0.5,
ux = (θ − X )kY = θk/4,
px /py = Y/X = 1/θ, uy = (1 − Y )kX = θk/4.
(9.13)
This implies that the price of x in terms of y decreases as the output level θ increases. Suppose that the realized value of θ is 1.5, but the specialist of x claims that θ = 0.5 and the specialist of y trusts him. Then the equilibrium terms of trade are X = θ/2 = 1/4, Y = 0.5, px /py = Y/X = 1/θ = 2. But the realized utility of the specialist of x is ux = (θ − X )kY = (1.5 − 0.25)k × 0.5 = 5k/8, which is greater than his realized utility when he tells the truth, θk/4 = 1.5k/4 = 3k/8. Therefore, the x-specialist has an incentive to understate his output level if the y-specialist has incomplete information about it. Since she is aware of the possibility of cheating, she will not trust him when he says θ = 0.5 even if he is telling the truth. If the y-specialist asks for the price that maximizes the expected Nash product based on her incomplete information, then the following problem generates a Nash bargaining solution. Max: EV = 1/2 [( 3/2 − X)kY − uA][(1 − Y )kX − uA] + 1/2 [( 1/2 − X)kY − uA][(1 − Y )kX − uA] X ,Y (9.14)
The solution is X = Y = 0.5, ux = (θ − 0.5)k × 0.5, uy = k/4. But for θ = 0.5, the x-specialist’s utility is nonpositive at the terms of trade. Hence, the deal can be done only if θ = 1.5. The two players’ perfect rationality implies that the Nash bargaining equilibrium terms of trade are given by (9.13), and the division of labor is chosen for θ = 1.5 and ux = uy = θk/4 = 3k/8 > uA = 2−2a. The Nash bargaining equilibrium is autarky if θ = 0.5 for any value of k. Hence, for θ = 0.5 and k > 23−2a, the Nash bargaining equilibrium in the game with information asymmetry generates the Pareto inefficient level of division of labor. Inserting θ = 0.5 into (9.13) yields the Nash bargaining equilibrium for the game with no information asymmetry, which is X = 1/4, Y = 0.5 and ux = uy = θk/4 = 3k/8 > uA = 2−2a for k > 23−2a. That is, the division of labor is chosen for θ = 0.5 and k > 23−2a, if all players have complete information. But with information asymmetry, possible cheating makes players distrust each other, so that autarky is chosen for θ = 0.5 and k > 23−2a. In other words, opportunistic behavior (cheating) causes endogenous transaction costs that prevent the realization of mutually beneficial division of labor. In textbooks, this kind of endogenous transaction cost caused by information asymmetry is commonly referred to as adverse selection. The early model of adverse selection, often referred to as the “lemon model,” was developed by Akerlof (1970). His story is similar to the one in this section. When buyers of second-hand cars do not have complete information about the quality of the cars, they can only accept the average price based on average quality. But the seller of high-quality cars will ask for a price higher than the average. Hence, it is the
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
283
high-quality second-hand cars that cannot be sold. This generates adverse selection in the sense that only low-quality cars are sold in the market. Example 9.7 shows that reality is much more sophisticated than predicted by the adverse selection model if individuals take into account interactions between information and strategies. Adverse selection is caused not only by information asymmetry, but also by the assumption that players are so naive that they do not infer opponents’ private information from observed strategies. Hence, if this model is extended to a sequential equilibrium model with explicit interactions between strategies and information, then it can be shown that adverse selection will not occur if players are not so naive. The algebra of such a model is cumbersome and can be found in Yang and Zhao (1998).
9.5.2 An alternating-offer bargaining game in a model of endogenous specialization Example 9.12 (Yang and Zhao, 1998): An alternating-offer bargaining model of endogenous specialization. Let’s now introduce alternating-offer bargaining into the model in example 4.1 to study the implication of sequential bargaining for the size of the network of division of labor and economic development. Each consumer-producer can choose between specialization in x or y and autarky, so that utility in autarky is a threat point. Because of symmetry, there are two subgame perfect equilibria: one with the x-specialist as the first mover and the other with the y-specialist as the first mover. The two equilibria in which the first mover has the advantage are symmetric. Without loss of generality, we assume that the x-specialist is the first mover (referred to as player 1 or he) and the y-specialist is the second mover (referred to as player 2 or she). The two players have the same discount factor δ. We use subscripts to denote the period. Suppose that player 1 offers X1 in exchange for Y1 in period 1. This implies that he offers the terms of trade px /py = Y1/X1 because of the market clearing conditions x s = x d = X and y s = y d = Y, and the budget constraint px /py = Y/X. Player 1’s decision rule is the same as in example 9.5. First, he must ensure that she will take the offer. Second, he maximizes his utility subject to the acceptance constraint. Hence, his offer is given by the following problem. Max: u1x = (1 − X1)kY1, X1 ,Y1
s.t.
u1y ≡ (1 −Y1)kX1 = δ(1 − Y2)kX2 ≡ δu2y
(9.15a)
where u1x is the x-specialist’s utility under the terms of trade in period 1, u1y is the y-specialist’s utility under the terms of trade in period 1, and u2y is the y-specialist’s utility generated by her counteroffer in period 2. Similarly, the y-specialist’s counteroffer in period 2 is given by Max: u2y = kX2(1 − Y2) X 2 ,Y2
s.t.
(1 − X2)kY2 = δ (1 − X1)kY1
(9.15b)
where we have used the fact that in a steady equilibrium X1 = X3 = X5 . . . , Y1 = Y3 = Y5 . . . , X2 = X4 = X6 . . . , and Y2 = Y4 = Y6 . . . Player 1 can then use backward deduction to solve for problem (9.15b) first, and then plug the solution back into problem (9.15a). In other words, his sequential rationality implies that he knows that player 2’s optimum decision in period 2 is dependent on his decision in period 1, which is in turn dependent on her decision in period 2. He will fully use this interdependence to pursue his self-interest. (9.15b) yields
X2 = 1 − Y2 ,
Y2 = δ (1 − X1 )Y1 .
(9.16a)
284 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Inserting this into (10.15a) and then maximizing u1x with respect to X1 and Y1, we obtain the subgame perfect equilibrium terms of trade
X1 = δ /(1 + δ ),
Y1 = 1 − X1 = 1/(1 + δ ).
(9.16b)
Player 1 offers this term and player 2 accepts in period 1. Plugging this back into (9.16a) yields player 2’s threatening counteroffer in period 2: X2 = 1/(1 + δ ),
Y2 = δ /(1 + δ ).
(9.16c)
In this deduction, each player maximizes her utility for a given utility level of the opponent. Hence, the first-order conditions for the subgame perfect equilibrium are the same as those for a benevolent dictator’s constrained maximization problem for the Pareto optimum. Hence, dynamic bargaining with complete information will not generate endogenous transaction costs. However, it does generate an unequal distribution of gains to trade. Inserting (9.16b) into the two players’ utility functions yields the equilibrium real incomes ux = k/(1 + δ )2 > uy = δk/(1 + δ )2 for δ ∈(0, 1)
ux = uy for δ = 1
px /py = Y/X = 1/ δ if δ ∈(0, 1);
px /py = 1 if δ = 1.
(9.17a) (9.17b)
The equilibrium real incomes and relative price indicate that the first mover’s advantage is greater as the discount factor falls (or as the degree of impatience increases). As the discount factor tends to 1 or as the time lag between offer and counteroffer declines, the two players’ real incomes converge to the same level and the equilibrium terms of trade converge to the level of the impersonal market. But the above deduction is relevant only if the gains from the division of labor, net of transaction costs, are great, since the threat to choose autarky is not credible in this case. Suppose δ ∈ (0, 1). If k ≤ k1 ≡ 2−2 a (1 + δ )2 /δ, then uy ≤ uA in the equilibrium given by (9.16). Player 2’s threat to choose autarky is therefore credible. But so long as k1 > k > k0 ≡ 22(1−a), the division of labor is still mutually beneficial. For this interval of parameter values, the subgame perfect equilibrium can be solved as follows. We first solve for X2 and Y2 as functions of X1 and Y1 from (9.15b), then insert the solution into (9.15a) and replace the constraint in (9.15a) with u1y = (1 − Y1)kX1 = uA = 2−2a. We can thus solve for the equilibrium values of X1 and Y1 from (9.15a). The equilibrium values of X2 and Y2 can be solved using the equilibrium values of X1 and Y1. The subgame perfect equilibrium for k ≤ k1 is summarized as follows:
X1 = 1/2a k ,
Y1 = 1 − (1/2a δ ),
Y2 = 1 − (1/2a k ),
X2 = 1/2a k
ux = k[1 − (1/2a k )]2 ,
(9.18)
uy = 2−2 a
If k < k0 ≡ 22(1−a), the solution in (10.18) implies ux < uA = 2−2a. Hence, the subgame perfect equilibrium is autarky for k < k0. It is given by (9.18) for k ∈(k0, k1) and is given by (9.15) for k ∈(k1, 1). It is straightforward that the subgame perfect equilibrium is the division of labor iff the Nash bargaining equilibrium is the division of labor. That is, the alternating-offer bargaining generates not only efficient resource allocation, but also the efficient level of division of labor.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
285
Table 9.5 The strategic form of the game to compete for first mover advantage Player 2
Player 1
T
S
T
uA, uA
uH, uL
S
uL, uH
uD, uD
The shortcoming of the dynamic bargaining model is that it cannot explain who is the first mover. All players know that the first mover has the advantage, so that they will compete for that position. The competition implies that the solution we have just obtained cannot be an equilibrium. In the next section, we shall show that such competition for a greater share of gains from division of labor will generate endogenous transaction costs.
9.5.3 Economic development and endogenous transaction costs caused by holding up Example 9.13: An alternating-offer bargaining model with endogenous transaction costs. We now allow players to compete for the first mover position. We add period 0 to the dynamic game in example 9.12. After period 0, the structure of the new game is the same as in example 9.12. Hence, the game in example 9.12 is a subgame within the new game. In period 0, the two players sort out who is the first mover. Consider the case k ∈(k1, 1), which implies that the Nash bargaining equilibrium is the division of labor. Because of backward deduction, the subgame equilibrium from period 1 on is still given by (9.16) and (9.17). Assume that each player has two strategies: tough (T ) and soft (S) in period 0. The tough strategy implies that a player insists on being the first mover, and will not accept any terms that give a lower utility than that which the first mover receives. The soft strategy implies that a player accepts the second mover’s position if the opponent is tough, and agrees to fair terms, as given by the Nash bargaining solution, if the opponent is soft too. The game in period 0 for a given subgame equilibrium in period 1 is described in table 9.5. In table 9.5, the first term in an entry represents player 1’s payoff (utility) and the second represents that for player 2. uA = 2−2a is the real income (utility) in autarky, uD = k/4 is the real income for the division of labor given by a Nash bargaining solution. uH = k/(1 + δ )2 is the first mover’s real income in the subgame equilibrium in period 1, and uL = δk/(1 + δ )2 is the second mover’s real income in the subgame equilibrium. It is easy to see that uH > uD > uL > uA for k > k1 > k0 and δ ∈ (0, 1). From table 9.5, we can see that the two players receive real income in autarky if both of them choose a tough strategy, which means that no agreement can be achieved for the terms of trade. They receive real income for the division of labor outcome given by the Nash bargaining solution, and the gains from the division of labor are equally divided between them if both of them are soft. If one player is tough and the other is soft, then the tough one gets the greater gains; nevertheless, mutually beneficial gains from the division of labor are realized, despite the unequal distribution of income. The game in period 0, for a given subgame perfect equilibrium in period 1, is a typical Nash game with two pure strategy Nash equilibria. We first prove that outcomes TT and SS are not pure strategy Nash equilibria. We argue by negation. Suppose TT is a Nash equilibrium, so that we consider the upper-left entry in table 9.5. Assume that player 1’s tough strategy is given. It is then clear that player 2 can increase her utility by deviating from T, which gives her uA, to S, which shifts the outcome from TT to
286 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
TS and brings uL (> uA) to her. This implies that she has an incentive to deviate unilaterally from outcome TT. This implies, by the definition of a Nash equilibrium, that TT cannot be a Nash equilibrium. Using similar reasoning, we can show that SS is not a Nash equilibrium either. It can be seen that no player has an incentive to deviate unilaterally from an asymmetric equilibrium ST or TS. For the Nash pure strategy game, the theory cannot predict which of the two Nash equilibria will take place. But if each player is allowed to choose a probability distribution for each and every strategy, we will have a unique mixed strategy Nash equilibrium. The probability distribution of pure strategies is called a mixed strategy. Mixed strategy is a way to make sure that the game is fair and that all players still participate even if any pure strategy outcome must be unfair to some player. When family members have a disagreement about which TV channel should be on, a fair solution is to flip a coin and let the stochastic process sort out the conflict of interests. Suppose player i chooses the soft strategy with probability qi and chooses the tough strategy with probability 1 − qi. Since the purpose of a player’s mixed strategy is to confuse his opponent, player 1 will choose q1 such that player 2 feels indifferent between her choices of T and S. For a given q1, player 2’s expected utility for her choice of T is (1 − q1)uA + q1uH and that for strategy S is (1− q1)uL + q1uD. The two utility levels are indifferent iff q = (uL − uA )/(uH − uD + uL − uA) where uA = 2−2a, uD = k/4, uL = δk/(1 +
(9.19a)
δ )2, and uH = k/(1 +
δ )2.
(9.19b)
Using the symmetry of the model, we can show that the mixed strategy of player 2, q2, that makes player 1 feel indifferent between his choices of T and S is the same as (9.19a). It can be shown that q → 1/2 as δ → 1;
q → 0 as δ → 0;
and ∂q/∂δ > 0.
(9.20)
where 1 − δ can be considered as the exogenous bargaining cost, which is 0 for δ = 1, and takes on its maximum value for δ = 0. The fair Nash bargaining solution takes place with probability q2 and the probability that the mutually beneficial gains from the division of labor cannot be realized is (1 − q)2. Hence, (1 − q)2 represents endogenous transaction costs. (9.20) indicates that in the competition for a greater share of the gains from the division of labor, endogenous transaction costs are not 0 even if exogenous transaction cost tends to 0, though the endogenous transaction cost falls as the exogenous transaction decreases. We now consider the interval k ∈(k0, k1). For this case, since player 2 receives utility in autarky uA, and her threat to opt for autarky thus becomes credible, we must replace uL in table 9.5 with uA. Also, uH in table 9.5 is now given by (9.18) instead by (9.16). Using this information, we can find player 1’s expected utility: q1q2uD + (1 − q1)q2uH + (1 − q2)q1uA + (1 − q1)(1 − q2)uA = q1q2uD + (1 − q1)q2uH + (1 − q2)uA, which monotonically decreases with q1 for a given q2. Hence, the optimum value of q1 is 0. Because of the symmetry, the optimum value of q2 is also 0. This implies that for k < k1 the equilibrium is autarky. Since k1 ≡ 2−2 a (1 + δ )2 /δ > k0 ≡ 22 (1− a ) , the subgame perfect equilibrium in the game to compete a greater share of gains from the division of labor is autarky, while the Nash bargaining equilibrium, which is Pareto optimal, is the division of labor for k ∈(k0, k1). In addition, the subgame perfect equilibrium is autarky with probability (1 − q)2 for
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
287
k > k1, while the Nash bargaining equilibrium is the division of labor for certain. Therefore, the competition for a greater share of the gains from the division of labor generates endogenous transaction costs that may preclude the realization of mutually beneficial division of labor. Compared to neoclassical game models that generate endogenous transaction costs, in the bargaining model of endogenous specialization the endogenous transaction costs cause not only inefficient resource allocation, but also an inefficient level of division of labor and inefficient productivity. If you compare the result in this example to figure 4.1, the development implications of endogenous transaction costs will be clear. For k > k0, production takes place on the PPF in the absence of endogenous transaction costs; it takes place under PPF if the endogenous transaction cost is present.
9.5.4
How can endogenous transaction costs be eliminated by consideration of reputation?
Example 9.14: A model of endogenous specialization in a repeated game. If the pure strategy game in table 9.5 can be repeatedly played, then endogenous transaction costs may be eliminated due to the consideration of reputation. Assume there are infinite periods t = 1, 2, . . . There is a stage game in each period, which is the same as the pure strategy game in table 9.5. Then in all periods there is a super game. In the super game, each player chooses a series of pure strategies to maximize her total discounted utility. It can be shown that in the repeated game, there is at least a Nash equilibrium that makes a cooperative outcome emerge from noncooperative behavior, or that eliminates endogenous transaction costs. We first consider a profile of two players’ series of strategies. Player 1 announces that he always chooses a soft strategy as long as player 2 does so, but he will choose a tough strategy forever if player 2 chooses a tough strategy in the previous period. Player 2 can find that for this strategy of player 1 her total discounted utility for a soft strategy series is
uD S = uD (1 + δ + δ 2 + . . . . + δT ) =
1 − δT + 1 uD 1−δ
(9.21a)
where S can be solved from S − δS = (1 − δ)S = 1 − δT+1. This total discounted utility converges to uD/(1 − δ) as T tends to infinity. If player 2 chooses a tough strategy in a period, her immediate utility is uH = δk/(1 + δ )2 > k/4. But her utility afterwards is always uA, because player 1 will refuse to cooperate. Hence, the total discounted utility for player 2 is uH + δ(1 + δ + δ2 + . . . + δt−1)uA = uH + δuA /(1 − δ).
(9.21b)
It is easy to see that (10.21a) is greater than (10.21b) iff uD > (1 − δ)uH + δuA
(9.22)
where uD = k/4 > uA = 2−2a for k > k0. Also uH = k/(1 + δ )2 > uD. It can be shown that if δ > 0.5, or if the discount rate is smaller than 100 percent, (10.22) becomes
k(4 2 + 2) > k0 (3 + 2 2 ) which holds for k > k0 because 4 2 + 2 > 3 + 2 2 .
288 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
We may thus conclude that, provided players are not very impatient, the consideration of reputation can eliminate endogenous transaction costs, thereby making cooperation emerge from noncooperative strategic behavior. Here, long-run punishment for deviation from cooperation is the key to the result. The Folk theorem in game theory shows that there are many other Nash equilibria in the super game that can generate the same results, but with limited time for punishment of deviation. For instance, when a player chooses a tough strategy in the previous period, her opponent chooses a tough strategy for three periods and then comes back to a soft strategy afterwards. There are many institutional conditions that are essential for the reputation mechanism to work in eliminating endogenous transaction costs. Society must have a consensus about the moral code, and the legal regime must provide the appropriate enforcement for punishment of deviant behavior. For instance, if in an ancient tribe the “taking” of another’s possession was not considered punishable as stealing (or if Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was not considered punishable), then the punishment for stealing (or invasion) could not be enforced. In a Sovietstyle economic system, private rights to residual returns and control of firms are not protected by law, so nobody will care about reputation, which generates residual returns. Again, if laws protecting business names, copyrights, and brands cannot be reasonably enforced, the reputation mechanism will not work either. Our model of repeated games shows that the consideration of reputation can reduce endogenous transaction costs caused by competition for a larger share of gains from division of labor, thereby increasing the equilibrium network size of division of labor and promoting economic development.
9.6 THE GROSSMAN–HART–MOORE INCOMPLETE CONTRACT MODEL Example 9.15: The GHM model of endogenous transaction costs caused by an incomplete contract and two-sided moral hazard. Consider a business venture between two players whose sales revenue may be high, R = 40, or low, R = 10, and whose operating costs may be high, C = 30, or low, C = 10. Player 1’s effort level x determines the probability of realizing the high level of sale revenue. Assume for simplicity that x ∈[0, 1], and that the probability equals x. The probability of the low level of revenue, R = 10, is then 1 − x. Player 2’s effort level y determines the probability of the business achieving the low level of operating costs, where y ∈[0, 1], and we assume that this probability equals y. The probability of the high level of costs, C = 30, is then 1 − y. Player 1 may be considered the salesman and player 2 the producer of goods, so that the profit of their business is jointly determined by the two players’ effort levels. There are four potential outcomes for the business. Their probabilities are presented in table 9.6.
Table 9.6 Probabilities for four contingent states R
C
V
Joint probability
40 40 20 20
10 30 10 30
30 10 10 −10
xy x(1 − y) (1 − x)y (1 − x)(1 − y)
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
289
Suppose, for simplicity, that a state of low revenue and high costs causes bankruptcy that yields zero profit. Then the expected profit of this joint venture is V = y(40 − 10) + x(1 − y)(40 − 30) + (1 − x)y(20 − 10) + (1 − x)(1 − y)0 = 10(xy + x + y) In order to illuminate the incentive problem and the related moral hazard, we assume that player 1’s utility is V1 − αx2, where V1 is the part of the profit that he receives. Player 2’s utility is V2 − 5x2, where V2 is the part of the profit that she receives. In this model, there are three periods. In period 1, two players sign a contract. In period 2, players choose their effort levels. In period 3, Nature chooses a state of outcome according to the prior distribution function of the states and the players’ effort levels. Then realized profit is divided according to the contractual terms. If each player can see the other’s effort level so that there is no moral hazard, then they can work out their optimum effort levels from the following maximization problem and specify a contract that requires such effort levels in period 1: Max: W = V − αx 2 − 5y 2 = 10(xy + x + y) − αx 2 − 5y 2 s.t.
x, y ∈[0, 1]
where W is the two players’ total expected utility. Since ∂W/∂y = 10(1 + x − y) > 0 for all x, y ∈(0, 1), the optimum value of y is 1 according to the Kuhn–Tucker condition. The Kuhn– Tucker condition for maximizing W with respect to x then yields the optimum contractual terms, which are Pareto optimal, in the absence of moral hazard: y* = 1,
for α ≤ 10 ⎧1 x* = ⎨ / 10 α for α > 10, ⎩
Then, the Pareto optimum total utility generated by the business can be computed as follows: ⎧25 − α if α ≤ 10 ⎪ W * = ⎨100 + 5 if α > 10 ⎪ ⎩ α
For this case, the structure of ownership and residual rights makes no difference. Player 1 can claim all profit and then pay player 2 according to her effort level; or player 2 can claim all profit and then pay player 1 according to his effort level; or they can jointly claim the profit and then divide this according to their effort levels. All three structures of ownership of profit will generate the same outcome in the absence of moral hazard. We assume now that each player cannot see the other’s effort level, or cannot verify this in court when a dispute occurs. Hence, a two-sided moral hazard exists. In addition, complete contingent pricing of the four outcome states is prohibitively expensive, so that an incomplete contract is used to get the business going. An incomplete contract specifies the ownership structure of the business and it broadens the scope for renegotiation, in which a difference in structure of ownership generates a difference in disagreement point, which affects the ex post bargaining power of players. We first consider a symmetric structure of ownership, D. In this structure the two players are partners. They sort out the contractual terms through ex post Nash bargaining in period 3. The contractual terms between them provide for splitting the profit. For the given terms, each
290 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
player maximizes her expected utility (which is her share of profit net of the disutility of her effort) in period 1, with respect to her effort level for a given effort level of the other party. Player 1’s expected utility is Eu1 = (V/2) − αx2 = 5(xy + x + y) − αx2 and his optimum effort level, for the given effort level of player 2, is x = 5( y + 1)/2α. Player 2’s decision problem in period 2 in anticipating the terms determined in ex post bargaining is Max: Eu2 = (V/2) − 5y2 = 5(xy + x + y) − 5y2 and her optimum effort level for the given effort level of player 1 is y = (x + 1)/2. The equilibrium is determined by the two optimum decisions. Considering possible corner solutions, the equilibrium is x = 0, y = 0
if α ∈(0, 5/4)
x=y=1
if α ∈(5/4, 5)
x = 15/(4α − 5), y = (2α + 5)/(4α − 5)
if α > 5
The total expected utility of the two players in structure D is WD = V − αx2 − 5y2 = 0
for α ∈(0, 5/4)
WD = 25 − α
for α ∈(5/4, 5)
WD = 10(xy + x + y) − ax2 − 5y2
for α > 5
which is lower than the Pareto optimum level of total expected utility W * if α ∈(0, 5/4) or α > 5, and is the same as the Pareto optimum if α ∈(5/4, 5). The difference represents the endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard and an incomplete contract. There are two asymmetric structures of ownership and residual rights. In structure A, player 1 is the owner of the business and claims its residual returns via his ex post bargaining power. Player 2 receives a reservation pay, which is exogenously given in the partial equilibrium model. For simplicity, we assume that the reservation pay is 0, so that player 2 will choose y = 0. The owner’s decision problem is Max: Eu1 = V − αx2 = 10x − αx2 The solution is x* = 5/α. The total utility of the two players is WA = 25/α which is smaller than in the Pareto optimum. Since only player 1 is accountable for the effect of his effort on outcome, residual control rights are considered asymmetric in this structure. Similarly, we can solve for the corner equilibrium in the asymmetric structure B, where player 1 receives the reservation pay and player 2 is the owner of the business. The solution is x = 0,
y = 1,
and WB = 5,
which again is smaller than in the Pareto optimum. Hence, each of the three structures of ownership and residual rights generates endogenous transaction costs. In structure D, the two players partly free-ride on their opponents’ efforts, so that a two-sided moral hazard causes
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
291
Table 9.7 The equilibrium structure of ownership and inframarginal comparative statics
Equilibrium Structure
α ∈(0, 5/4)
α ∈(5/4, 43.2)
α > 43.2
A
D
B
endogenous transaction costs. These endogenous transaction costs are attributable to the moral hazard of player 2 in structure A, and of player 1 in structure B. Considering all possible outcomes, two players can always use some side-payment to choose the corner equilibrium with the highest total utility in period 1. An inframarginal analysis shows that for α ∈(0, 5/4), WA > WB > WD; for α ∈( 5/4 , 5), WD > WA > WB; for α ∈(5, 43.2), WD > WB, WA; and for α > 43.1, WB > WD > WA. Hence, the equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics can be summarized in table 9.7. Since player 2’s disutility coefficient of effort is fixed at 5, the disutility parameter of player 1’s effort α represents the relative disutility of effort of the two players. Hence, table 9.7 implies that the relative disutility of effort between the two players determines which structure of ownership is the equilibrium. If player 1’s disutility of effort is relatively small, then he will be the owner of the business (structure A) in the equilibrium. If player 1’s disutility of effort is relatively large, then player 2 will be the owner of the business (structure B). If the disutilities of two players’ efforts are close, then they will choose a symmetric relationship between partners (structure D). If the revenue and cost coefficients are parameterized too, it can be shown that the player whose effort has the more significant effects on profit and who has the relatively lower disutility will be the owner of the business. If the effects of the two players’ efforts on profit and disutility are close, then a symmetric structure of ownership and residual rights will occur in the equilibrium. Hence, this model verifies the second part of the Coase theorem, that contracts in the market will maximize the gains from trade net of endogenous transaction costs if those costs are unavoidable.
9.7 NONCREDIBLE COMMITMENT AND SOFT BUDGET CONSTRAINT In this section, we consider the simplest version of the Dewatripont and Maskin model (1995) of the commitment game and the soft budget constraint. Example 9.16: The Dewatripont and Maskin model (1995). Consider a game with two regimes. In one of them, there is only a banker who is endowed with two units of capital. She considers making a loan to a project proposed by an entrepreneur. We call this the centralized case. In the other regime, there are two bankers, each with one unit of capital. We call this the decentralized case. There is uncertainty about the project, which could be good or bad. In addition, information is asymmetric: only the entrepreneur knows if his project is good or bad. A banker knows this only after the investment is made. There are two periods. If the project is good one, it is completed within one period and the banker receives a gross payoff R > 1 or a net payoff R − 1 > 0 when she invests one unit of capital in period 1. If the project is a bad one, it cannot be completed within one period and the banker must consider whether she should refinance this project. If refinancing takes place, the banker’s gross payoff is r with probability p, and 0 with 1 − p, where p is a function of the banker’s cost for monitoring the entrepreneur: C = bp2, where C is the total monitoring cost in period 1 and b is a coefficient. We assume
292 P ART II: T HE F IRM
b ∈(r 2/8, r 2/4)
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
(9.23)
The entrepreneur always receives payoff A if the project is completed; he receives payoff E if the project is not completed, regardless of whether the project is good or bad. It is assumed that A > 0 > E which implies that the entrepreneur always has an incentive to get a loan and complete the project. We first consider the case of a good project which is completed in period 1 and generates net payoff R − 1 to the banker and A to the entrepreneur regardless of the regime. For a bad project, we can see that under a centralized system the banker has an incentive to refinance the project if (9.23) holds. If she does not refinance in period 1 after one unit of the loan has been made, her net payoff is −1. If she refinances this project in period 2, she can maximize the expected net payoff pr − C − 2 with respect to p subject to C = bp2. The optimum expected net payoff is thus (r 2/4b) − 2, which is greater than −1 if (9.23) holds. But if (9.23) holds, the bad project generates a negative profit, or (r 2/4b) − 2 < 0. It is inefficient to undertake this project at all. This illustrates that due to information asymmetry and a centralized system, the commitment not to refinance the bad project is not credible. Therefore, the soft budget constraint (refinance) associated with this noncredible commitment generates endogenous transaction cost caused by refinancing the bad project. Now we consider the case of two bankers, each with one unit of capital. Suppose that the project is bad, so that the first banker cannot refinance the project in period 2. In period 1, the first banker maximizes αpr − C − 1 with respect to p subject to C = bp2. Here, α ∈(0, 1) is the fraction of gross payoff generated by the completion of the project that the first banker receives, or 1 − α is the fraction of gross payoff received by the second banker, who refinances this project. The optimum p is p* = αr/2b. Here, we assume that the second banker cannot observe the first banker’s monitoring intensity. The second banker will not refinance this project if her expected net payoff (1 − α)pr − C − 1 < 0, where p = αr/2b, or if (2 − 3α)αr 2 < 4b. Hence, if α > 2/3 , refinancing will not take place. The entrepreneur who has the bad project will anticipate this, with his sequential rationality. Therefore, he will not ask for a loan from the outset. In other words, in a decentralized system, the commitment not to refinance the bad project is credible, and thereby the budget constraint is hard. Hence, the bad project will not occur in equilibrium for α > 2/3. The model of soft budget constraint is widely applied to studies of transition economies. We will consider the applications in chapter 19. The entrepreneur, from her sequential rationality, knows the bank’s commitment not to refinance is noncredible. She will push through the project. The literature of endogenous transaction costs is one of the most rapidly developing fields of economics. It includes the study of moral hazard, incomplete information, various game models with endogenous transaction costs (the sequential equilibrium model, models of commitment games, and so on), mechanism design, and models of incomplete contracts and residual rights. In addition to formal models, this literature includes many insights that have yet to be formalized, such as North’s ideas on the development implications of the institution and transaction costs, Barzel’s economics of the state (Barzel, 1997), Hayek’s thoughts on spontaneous order (Hayek, 1944), and Buchanan’s constitutional economics (Buchanan, 1991). We speculate that the formalization of these ideas will require game models that can predict the evolution of game rules (institutions). But so far, evolutionary game models can only predict the evolution of strategies and outcomes (see, for instance, Mailath, 1998 and Weibull, 1995). For instance, so far we do not understand how the institution that penalizes theft, which is essential for economic development, emerged. Much more formal analysis is needed for understanding the development implications of institutions and endogenous transaction costs caused by state opportunism and deficient institutions.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
293
Key Terms and Review • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Endogenous vs. exogenous transaction costs Moral hazard and related endogenous transaction costs The difference between moral hazard and adverse selection Risk-averse, risk-loving, and risk-neutral preferences Jesen inequality Certainty equivalence Incentive compatibility and participation constraint Functions of the contract, ownership, and residual rights Games, game rules, players, strategies, outcomes, payoff functions The strategic form and extensive form of a game Nash equilibrium, subgame perfect equilibrium, Bayes equilibrium, and sequential equilibrium Super games and stage games Effects of endogenous transaction costs on economic development The conditions under which reputation can be used to reduce endogenous transaction costs Residual returns, residual controls, two-sided moral hazard, and incomplete contracts How noncredible commitment and soft budget constraint cause endogenous transaction costs
Further Reading Surveys on principal–agent models: Arrow (1985), Hart and Holmstrom (1987), Prendergast (forthcoming), Holmstrom and Roberts (1998), Bolton and Scharfstein (1998), Gibbons (1998), and references there; The sharecropping model: Singh (1989) and Stiglitz (1974); The incomplete contract model and ownership structure: Hart (1995), Hart and Moore (1990, 1999), Grossman and Hart (1986), Holmstrom and Roberts (1998), Maskin and Tirole (1999), Tirole (1999), Segal (1999), Yang (2000b); Models of endogenous specialization and moral hazard: Yang and Yeh (2001), Lio and Yang (1997), Yang (2000); Models of moral hazard and adverse selection: Mas-Colell, Whinston, and Green (1995, chs. 6, 13, 14), Varian (1993, ch. 8); Literature of transaction costs economics and economics of property rights without formal models: Williamson (1975, 1985), Barzel (1982, 1985, 1989), Furubotn and Pejovich (1974), Cheung (1970, 1983), North (1990); New political economy models with endogenous stealing: Marcouiller and Young (1995), Skaperdas (1992); General equilibrium models of moral hazard: Helpman and Laffont (1975), Legros and Newman (1996), Kihlstrom and Laffont (1979); Two-sided moral hazard: Bhattacharyya and Lafontaine (1995), Cooper and Ross (1985), Eswaran and Kotwal (1985), Romano (1994); Models with endogenous specialization and endogenous transaction costs caused by information asymmetry: Laffont and Tirole (1986), Lewis and Sappington (1991); The Coase theorem: Coase (1960), Cooter (1989); Implications of endogenous transaction costs and institutions for economic development: North and Weingast (1989), North (1970, 1981), Macfarlane (1988), Mokyr (1990, 1993), Sachs (1997), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986), World Bank (1997); A good general text and references on formal models of endogenous transaction costs: Milgrom and Roberts (1992). A good introduction to game theory: Dixit and Nalebuff (1991, pp. 7–84); Nash games and Nash equilibrium: Kreps (1990, p. 328), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, p. 14); Nash equilibrium with mixed strategies: Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, pp. 18–19), Kreps (1990, ch. 11), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, ch. 2), Tirole (1989, ch. 11); Nash’s axiomatic game model: Osborne and Rubinstein (1990). Bayesian games: Dixit and Nalebuff (1991, ch. 2); intermediate texts can be found in Tirole (1989, ch. 11) and Kreps (1990, ch. 13), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, ch. 6); Subgame perfect equilibrium, or perfect equilibrium: Dixit and Nalebuff
294 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
(1991, chs. 6 and 11), Tirole (1989, ch. 11) and Kreps (1990, secs. 12.7 and 15.3), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, ch. 4); Test: Duplicate the algebra in Kreps (1990, p. 556) or Tirole (1989, pp. 430–1), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, ch. 2); Nash bargaining games: Nash (1950), Osborne and Rubinstein (1994), Gibbons, R. (1992), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991), Kreps (1990), Tirole (1989), Dixit and Nalebuff (1991); Alternatingoffer bargaining games: Rubinstein (1982, 1985), Kreps (1990), Fudenberg and Tirole (1983, 1991), Osborne and Rubinstein (1990), Binmore, Osborne, and Rubinstein (1990), Stahl (1972); The function of price: Gale (1986), North (1987), Hayek (1945), S. Grossman (1989); Information efficiency of Walrasian equilibrium: Hurwitz (1973); Endogenous transaction costs caused by trade conflict: Cheng, Sachs, and Yang (2000); Super games (repeated games): Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, sec. 4.3), Tirole (1989, sec. 6.3, pp. 247–51) and Kreps (1990, sec. 14.2, pp. 509–12); Sequential equilibrium and perfect Bayes equilibrium: Laffont and Tirole (1986), Lewis and Sappington (1991), Qian (1994), Kreps and Wilson (1982), Tirole (1989, pp. 436– 44), Kreps (1990, secs. 12.7 and 13.2), Fudenberg and Tirole (1991, ch. 8), Farrell and Maskin (1989), Fudenberg and Tirole (1983); Commitment games and soft budget constraints: Dewatripont and Maskin (1995), Maskin (forthcoming), Qian (1994), Maskin and Xu (1999), Roland (2000).
QUESTIONS 1 According to the economics of property rights, the most important thing for economic development is not to win a game, but rather to choose game rules that determine who is the winner. If you try to design a dynamic game with information asymmetry to predict the evolution of game rules, what results (dynamics and comparative dynamics) will you expect from this kind of model? 2 According to North (1981), Macfarlane (1988), Sachs, Huang (1991), and Mokyr (1990, 1993), the following conditions were essential for the Industrial Revolution in Britain, 1750–1830. The transportation conditions were good enough for the development of division of labor. Geographical conditions ensured that Britain could avoid war with other countries at low defense expenses, while ensuring the country had a transportation advantage for trade. A constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy provided long-run political stability. The pursuit of riches was legitimated under the prevailing ideology, so that talents were diverted from military, religious, and bureaucratic careers to business activities. Political variety among countries in Europe and decentralized political power in Britain encouraged experiments with new ideas, institutions, and technologies. Secured property rights, including the rights to intellectual property, encouraged invention and innovation. A stable and nonpredatory tax system and the government’s laissez faire policy encouraged business activities. The liberation of civil society with respect to the state and the separation of the Crown’s coffer from the Bank of England enriched the creativity of society and restrained rent seeking. Equity Law made Common Law very adaptive to changing economic and social conditions in the presence of justice. Free association (i.e., the setting up of private firms needed no approval and license from the government) provided a favorable environment for free enterprise. Analyze which of these economic conditions are essential for a developing country in the twenty-first century. Use a specific country case to illustrate your point. Analyze which of the conditions have yet to emerge in this country, and what can be done to encourage them. 3 Why can rational behavior generate coordination failure? Why can a coordination failure between two players in a Nash game be a coordination success for society as a whole? Why can the Nash equilibrium in a noncooperative game converge to a
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
4
5
6
7 8 9
10
295
Walrasian equilibrium if the number of players tends to infinity and free entry is allowed? According to Baechler (1976), a variety of polities and rivalry between hostile sovereigns in the region was the critical condition for industrialization to take place first in Europe. But as Baechler observes, all power tends toward the absolute. Use the model of the prisoners’ dilemma to analyze why the princes in Europe could not coordinate with each other to establish a political monopoly. Baechler believes that the well-developed feudal system, the Church, and geopolitical diversity provided checks and balances on state powers and were responsible for the political fragmentation of Europe. Can you use a game model to formalize his conjecture? According to Mokyr (1990, 1993), the Chinese Emperor’s political monopoly and the cultural monopoly of Confucianism in east Asia prior to the nineteenth century were detrimental for the economic development of that region. Analyze why such a monopoly could prevail during that period. Cheung (1969) argues that sharecropping is a way to efficiently share risk if there are transaction costs in measuring work effort. Cheung has even found empirical evidence that land reforms are detrimental to economic development. Show that in example 9.2, if there is no moral hazard, risk sharing itself does not necessitate sharecropping. In example 9.2, we implicitly assume that the market for insurance is not available. If a well-developed market for insurance, labor, and capital is available, is sharecropping still the second best? What is the trade-off between the generality of game rules and the generality of other aspects of a model in specifying an equilibrium model? Why do economists sometimes specify ad hoc demand functions and use misleading partial equilibrium analysis in game models? Why can the perfect Bayes equilibrium model and sequential equilibrium have significantly higher explainatory power than the Walrasian equilibrium model? What are the differences and connections between interactions of quantities and prices in a Walrasian equilibrium model, and interactions of information and dynamic strategies in a sequential equilibrium model? Consider the ownership structure in the equipment rental market. TV sets, video cameras, diggers, buckets, and other machines and equipment can be owned by their users or rented from owners. Apply the theory of optimum ownership structure based on the GHM model to analyze the endogenous and exogenous transaction costs associated with the two structures of ownership. Identify the conditions under which each of the two structures is the general equilibrium. Use the example to illustrate why the theory of optimum ownership may have nothing to do with the institution of the firm. Holmstrom and Roberts (1998, p. 85) indicate that in the incomplete contract model in example 9.15, the institution of the firm is not well defined. They use BskyB, a satellite broadcasting system in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, as an example to illustrate the shortcomings of the GHM model. BskyB is a highly successful organization that has created its wealth not by owning physical assets, but by crafting ingenious contracts that have given it influence over an effective network of media players. Satellite broadcasting requires a variety of highly complementary activities, including acquisition and development of programming, provision of the distribution system (satellites, transmitters, and home receivers) and development of encryption devices (to limit reception to those who pay), all of which must occur
296 P ART II: T HE F IRM
11 12
13
14
15
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
before the service can be offered. Other similarly complex and innovative systems of complements, like electric lighting systems or early computer systems, were largely developed within a single firm. BskyB instead relies on alliances with other firms. Topsy Tail is even more of a “virtual company.” It employs three people, but has sales of personal appearance accessories (combs, hair clips, and such) approaching $100 million. Topsy Tail conceives of new products, but essentially everything involved in developing, manufacturing, and distributing them is handled through an extensive contractual network. Benetton and Nike, to take some bigger and more conventional firms, also extensively rely on outsourcing and a small asset base. The critical asset in these cases is of course control of the brand name, which gives them enormous power to dictate how relationships among the various players are to be organized. Use these cases to discuss the difference between the theory of the firm in chapter 8 and the incomplete contract theory in example 9.15. Why, for the sake of her own self-interest, must an individual ensure that her opponent receives a sufficiently large share of the gains from the division of labor? Some economists claim that the Nash bargaining game is a cooperative game that does not capture the noncooperative nature of the bargaining process. Comment on this claim in relation to Nash’s view about the connection between the nature of a Nash bargaining game and marginal disturbance. Hurwicz (1973) shows that the Walrasian regime involves the lowest exogenous cost in collecting and transmitting information. But as we have shown in example 9.11, the Walrasian regime in the new classical framework with a finite set of consumerproducers may generate trade conflict that result in endogenous transaction costs. Use the trade-off between endogenous transaction costs caused by trade conflict in the Walrasian equilibrium, and endogenous and exogenous information costs in a Nash bargaining game, to explain the phenomenon that impersonal pricing in the Walrasian regime becomes increasingly more important than individual specific pricing in bargaining as the network size of division of labor becomes increasingly large. Relate your discussion to North’s point that impersonal pricing is essential for reducing transaction costs and promoting division of labor. Why does the Walrasian equilibrium model involve more information asymmetry than the sequential equilibrium model? Analyze the function of the invisible hand in promoting information asymmetry that generates economies of division of labor and in restricting endogenous transaction costs caused by information asymmetry in a Walrasian equilibrium model with endogenous specialization. Friedman uses a story about the manufacturing of pencils to illustrate how the price system transmits information in such a way as to keep individuals away from what they need not know. When the price of timber increases, the manufacturer of pencils doesn’t need to know if the rise is caused by a devastating forest fire, by a change of consumers’ tastes for furniture, or by some technical change in the other sector. If the level of division of labor is very high, exogenous transaction costs in collecting information about utility and production functions of trade partners, which is essential for bargaining, as described in examples 9.8 and 9.9, will be enormous. But impersonal pricing in the Walrasian regime can avoid all of these exogenous transaction costs. Use the example to illustrate how the invisible hand promotes information asymmetry and the related economies of division of labor while restraining the costs of information transmission.
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
16 17
18 19
20
21
22
297
Draw a distinction between fair pricing in the Nash bargaining game and equal income distribution, and discuss the implications of the distinction for the debate about “trade-offs between efficiency and equity.” Analyze the significance of a legal system that protects the residual rights of the owners of the firm, and of laws protecting brands, copyrights, and business names, in enabling the mechanism of reputation to play its role in reducing endogenous transaction costs. Why does Hart claim that the principal–agent model is not part of the formal theory of the institution of the firm? John is considering establishing a business with his Russian partner to publish a Directory of American Businesses in Russian. He hopes the business will make money by including advertisements from American companies in the book and from sales revenue net of printing costs in Russia. Suppose John approaches you to seek advice about which of the following three structures of ownership he should choose: (a) He hires the Russian partner to do the job in Russia and he himself takes care of the job in the US. (b) He enters a joint venture with the partner. (c) He asks for a salary from his Russian partner to pay for the job that he takes care of, which must be done in the US. Outline your advice, which is of course dependent on specific business conditions about which you may make assumptions. For instance, if the Russian legal framework and enforcement of laws are not good, then the Russian partner’s special personal connections to government officials and his related efforts may be important for reducing the risk, so that a joint adventure is more likely to be a better choice than an arrangement in which John hires the Russian partner. According to Weber (1961, pp. 251–2) and North (1981, pp. 158–67), a variety of institutions and business formats dating back to medieval times, such as the annuity bond, the stock certificate, the bill of exchange, the private commercial company, the private bank, the mortgage, security of registration with the deed of trust, was essential for the industrialization of Europe in the nineteenth century. Use the models in this chapter to explain why the institutions were essential for economic development. According to Mokyr (1993, p. 41), the gentrification of the commercial and industrial class in Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had a positive effect on early economic development, but was blamed for the decline of Britain’s leadership in the Victorian age. Also, industrial standardization, developed on the European continent and in the US, swept over Britain in the second wave of industrialization. This implies that the rivalry between Britain and other European countries was a competition between different game rules which provide the elite with incentives to contribute to the influence and power of their home country in the international arena. “Influence” and “power” are based on economic development performance. Design a game model to explore the implications of this kind of game for economic development in Europe and the North Atlantic in the nineteenth century. Many institutions reduce endogenous transaction costs of one type while increasing endogenous transaction costs of another type, as suggested by Milgrom and Roberts’ model of entry deterrence (see exercise 4), where an increase in endogenous transaction costs caused by information asymmetry is associated with a decrease in endogenous transaction costs caused by monopoly. Also, patent laws reduce transaction costs in specifying and enforcing rights to intellectual property, while increasing endogenous transaction costs caused by monopoly. The institution of the firm,
298 P ART II: T HE F IRM
23
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
together with business secrecy, can protect entrepreneurial ideas in the absence of patent laws. But the protection is not as effective as that which patent laws can provide (Mokyr, 1993). Analyze the trade-offs between different transaction costs associated with different institutions. Use the historical documentation about the benefits and costs of patent laws and the institution of the firm provided by North (1981, p. 165), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 144–64), and Mokyr (1990, pp. 248–54, 1993, pp. 40–6, 58–70) for your analysis. North (1958, 1986) has found empirical evidence of a negative correlation between freight rates and economic development, and of concurrent evolution of the income share of the transaction sector and per capita real income. However, this empirical evidence is relevant only to exogenous transaction costs. Endogenous transaction costs are much more difficult to measure. Can you find a way to test the theories of endogenous transaction costs developed in this chapter against empirical observations?
EXERCISES 1 The battle of the sexes: in a game, two players wish to go to an event together, but disagree about whether to go to football or a ballet. Each player gets a utility of 2 if both go to his or her preferred event, a utility of 1 if both go to the other’s preferred event, and 0 if the two are unable to agree and stay home or go out individually. Suppose the two players agree to randomize their choices to make sure it is fair for both players to participate in the game. So he chooses the football game with probability p1 such that her expected utility is indifferent between the choices of football game and ballet, and she chooses the ballet with probability p2, such that his expected utility is indifferent between the two choices. Show that there are two pure strategy Nash equilibria and solve for the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium. Nash uses a fixed point argument to prove that for any mixed strategy Nash game, there exists a Nash equilibrium. 2 Suppose in the Nash (Cournot) equilibrium model of oligopoly in example 9.6, the inverse demand function p = a − bx involves uncertainties. With probability ρ, a = θh and with probability 1 − ρ, a = θl. Firm 2 has private information about the realized value of a after Nature has chosen this. But firm 1 has only common knowledge about a. Solve for the Bayes equilibrium. If it is b instead of a that involves uncertainty, what is your answer? 3 Consider the Bayes game model in example 9.6 again. Assume that information asymmetry is symmetric between the two firms: ci involves uncertainties for i = 1, 2 and firm i has complete information about ci but has incomplete information about cj. The distribution function for c1 and c2 is the same as that specified in example 9.6. Use the symmetry of information asymmetry to solve for the Bayes equilibrium. 4 The entry deterrence game, Milgrom and Roberts, 1982: In a dynamic game with information asymmetry, there are two players. Player 1 is an incumbent firm producing a good, called the insider. Player 2 is a potential entrant into the business, called the outsider. The inverse demand function of the good is p = 9 − x. The insider’s cost function is θx + 2.25, where θ = 3 with probability ρ and θ = 1 with probability 1 − ρ. The insider knows the realization of θ, but the outsider
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
5
6
7
8
does not. The outsider’s cost function 3x + 2.25 is common knowledge to all players. In period 1, the insider chooses an output level that will give the outsider some signal about the type of the insider, which will in turn affect the outsider’s decision concerning entry in period 2. The outsider maximizes her expected profit in period 2 with respect to the quantity to produce, and decides whether to enter the sector for given information updated from the observation of the insider’s output in period 1. The insider maximizes total profit over the two periods with respect to his output levels in those periods. He is the monopolist in period 1, and again in period 2 if the outsider does not get into the business then. The two firms have a Cournot equilibrium in period 2 if the outsider gets into the business in period 2. Find the two firms’ output levels in the two periods, the posterior probability μ(p1) for θ = 3 when the outsider has seen the market price in period 1, p1, the market prices over the two periods in the pooling equilibrium and screening equilibrium for the relevant interval of values of ρ. What is the outsider’s decision concerning entry upon observation of the insider’s output level in period 1? Suppose that the cost function and demand function in a Bentrand model are the same as in the Cournot model, but the two firms’ strategies are to choose prices rather than quantities. Solve for the Nash equilibrium and prove that it is Pareto optimal. Consider the model in example 9.1. Assume that the probability for R = 16 is θ > 0.5 and that for R = 4 is 1 − θ when effort level is high. The probability for R = 4 is θ and that for R = 16 is 1 − θ when effort level is low. The agent’s utility function is ln w − ln e. Solve for the efficient contract. Consider the model in example 9.3. Assume that the transaction efficiency coefficient of good y is k1 for M1 individuals of type 1 and is k2 for M2 individuals of type 2. M1 + M2 = M. Apply inframarginal analysis to solve comparative statics of equilibrium. Note that the utility equalization condition no longer holds between the two different types of individual and more structures with incomplete division of labor are possible. Consider the two-sided moral hazard model in example 9.15. Assume that the parameters are modified as follows. R
C
V
Joint probability
20
5
15
xy
20
10
10
x(1 − y)
10
5
5
(1 − x)y
10
10
0
(1 − x)(1 − y)
Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 9 Consider the model in example 9.11. Assume that good x is a producer good, and that utility equals the amount of good y consumed. The production function of y is y + y s = (x + kx d )0.5Ly and the production function of x is x + x s = Lx − a. Solve for the Nash bargaining equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 10 Assume that player i’s endowment of labor is ai in the model in the preceding exercise. Solve for the Nash bargaining equilibrium and analyze the effects of the relative values of threat points on the relative bargaining power of a player.
299
300 P ART II: T HE F IRM
11
12
13
14
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Assume that player i’s discount factor is δi in the model in example 9.5. Solve for the subgame perfect equilibrium in the alternating-offer bargaining game. Analyze the effects of relative degree of impatience (the relative value of δ1 and δ2) and first mover’s advantage on the relative bargaining power of a player. In the following bargaining models, what are the determinants of the relative bargaining power of a player? (a) The bargaining model in exercise 10; (b) The bargaining model with information asymmetry in example 9.12; (c) The alternatingoffer bargaining game in exercise 11. Consider the model in example 3.2. Assume that the two governments are allowed to choose between two trade regimes: Nash tariff bargaining and free trade. Suppose there is a cost coefficient c in terms of utility loss caused by the collection of information that is essential for sorting out the Nash bargaining solution. Work out the critical value of c below which the Nash bargaining solution is the general equilibrium. Consider the strategic form of the Nash game in the prisoners’ dilemma model. Each of two criminals can choose the strategy “confess” or “not confess” when caught by police. Their payoffs for four possible outcomes of the game are listed as follows: Prisoner 2 Not confess
Confess Prisoner 1: Confess Not confess
15
16
−5
−5
1
−10
−10
1
0
0
where the first figure in each entry is the payoff to prisoner 1. Identify the Nash equilibrium. Yang, 2000b: Introduce two-sided moral hazard into the model in example 8.1. Assume that transaction efficiency coefficients are random variables, dependent on buyers’ efforts in reducing transaction risk. The coefficients are structure specific since monitoring efficiency differs between goods and labor. In structure D (see figure 8.1), the transaction efficiency coefficient of good i, ki = θi with probability si sj and ki = 0 with probability 1 − si sj where si is the effort level of a buyer of good i = x, y. In structure E, the transaction efficiency coefficient of good y, ky = θy with probability rx sy and ky = 0 with probability 1 − rx sy where ri is the effort level of a buyer of labor used to produce good i in avoiding transaction risk. The transaction efficiency coefficient of labor used to produce good x is tx = μx with probability rx sy and tx = 0 with probability 1 − rx sy. In structure F, ky = θy with probability ry sy and ky = 0 with probability 1 − ry sy. The transaction efficiency coefficient of labor used to produce good y, ty = μy with probability ry sy and tx = 0 with probability 1 − ry sy. θi and μi are parameters for good i and for labor used to produce good i, respectively. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of equilibrium. Yang and Yeh, 2002: Consider a model with two ex ante identical consumerproducers. Each of them can produce a final good y and an intermediate good x. Each person’s utility function is: U = ln[( y + ky d )s] where y and y d are the quantities of the final good self-provided and purchased, respectively. k is the trading efficiency coefficient. The production functions for the final and intermediate goods are y p ≡ y + y s = (x + kx d )Ly
C HAPTER 9: E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
if Lx = βH,
then
⎧θ H with probability ρH x p ≡ x + xs = ⎨ ⎩θL with probability 1 − ρH
if Lx = βL,
then
⎧θ H with probability ρL x p ≡ x + xs = ⎨ ⎩θL with probability 1 − ρL
where superscript s stands for the amount sold and x and x d are the quantities of the intermediate good self-provided and purchased, respectively, Li is the amount of labor allocated to produce good i = x, y. It is assumed that L > βH > βL > 0, θH > θL > 0, 1 > ρH > ρL > 0. Each individual is endowed with L units of time that can be allocated between working and leisure, so that the endowment constraint for each person is Lx + Ly + s = L, where s is time allocated for leisure. Solve for inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. (Hint: the algebra is cumbersome and the answer can be found in Yang and Yeh, 2002.)
301
302 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
TRANSACTION RISK, PROPERTY RIGHTS, INSURANCE, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
10
10.1 UNCERTAINTIES IN TRANSACTIONS AND THE ECONOMICS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS Mokyr (1993, pp. 40–58, 158–62,) provides historical evidence that one of the major conditions for the British Industrial Revolution in the years 1760–1830 was well specified and enforced private property rights. He summarizes (pp. 56–8): “The specific form of government that had emerged in Britain created an environment that was more conducive to economic development than elsewhere. Most important, the right to own and manage property was truly sacrosanct, contrasting sharply with the confiscations and conscriptions on the Continent during the French Revolution and Napoleonic era. Personal freedom – with some exceptions – was widely accepted in Britain . . . Nowhere in the world was property perceived to be more secure than in Britain.” North (1981, pp. 158–62) comments: “It was better specified property rights (not the same thing as laissez faire) which improved factor and product markets . . . The resultant increasing market size induced greater specialization and division of labor, which increased transaction costs. Organizational changes were devised to reduce these transaction costs and had the consequence of radically lowering the cost of innovating at the same time that the increasing market size and better specified property rights over inventions were raising the rate of returns on innovating. It was this set of developments which paved the way for the real revolution in technology.” Mokyr (1993, p. 44) concurs with him: “Property rights in innovation (patents and trademarks), better courts and police protection, and the absence of confiscatory taxation are examples of how the same phenomenon could raise the rate of innovative activity and capital accumulation.” North and Weingast (1989) survey the institutional changes that occurred in Britain in the wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which wealth holders increased their grip on power, and the government was put on a sound fiscal footing and committed itself to respect the existing distribution of property rights. They point to secure contracting and property rights as a precondition for specialization and impersonal exchange. Mokyr (1993, p. 45) also indicates: “By taxing according to prespecified and well-understood rules, and by gradually abandoning the
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
303
Tudors’ and Stuarts’ reliance on monopoly rights as a source of crown revenues, the post-1689 regime continued a trend that had begun long before and was certainly well established by the Restoration of 1660.” On the other hand, Mokyr regards confiscatory taxation in France as an obstacle to economic development (1993, p. 44). Similarly, he (1990, p. 238), Fairbank (1992), and Baechler (1976, p. 82) consider the violation of private entrepreneurs’ property rights under the Ming and Qing dynasties as crucially detrimental for China’s economic development. Yang, Wang, and Wills have also found empirical evidence for the relationship between economic development, evolution of division of labor, and better specified and enforced property rights. In this chapter, we use Smithian models of endogenous network size of division of labor to study the intimate relationship between economic development, enforcement of property rights, and insurance. In section 10.2, we introduce a transaction risk into each transaction in a model of endogenous specialization. This will generate a trade-off between economies of division of labor and the reliability of the larger network of transactions required by the finer division of labor. Since aggregate transaction risk is an exponential function of the number of transactions, the transaction risk that can be caused by unsecured property rights is a much more important brake to economic development than tangible transportation costs. The problem of coordination reliability of division of labor is important in our daily decisionmaking processes. Because of this problem many individuals do not want to specialize in a particular activity. As an individual increases her level of specialization, she becomes more dependent on other specialists whose products are essential for her consumption and production. Since the division of labor is associated with an input–output network which involves a series connection of many individual specialists, the whole network may fail to work if one of the links in the series connection fails to work. Therefore, the aggregate risk of coordination failure of the network of division of labor increases more than proportionally as the levels of specialization and division of labor increase. In the Soviet-style centrally planned economy of China, a firm was reluctant to specialize in an activity and tried to self-provide many services, such as setting up its own kindergarten, primary school, cafeterias, and many intermediate goods and services. This reflected the high risk of coordination failure resulting from restrictions on free trade. In 1994, one of the 115 automobile companies in China assembled less than 100,000 cars annually and self-provided 80–90 percent of their intermediate goods (see Lardy, 1998a). In the relatively free market system of the US, in contrast, there are only 4 automobile companies assembling cars. Each of them produces more than a million cars annually and less than 40 percent of the necessary intermediate goods (Webster et al., 1990). Recent economic development in the US is associated with the boom in franchise networks, which features a finer division of labor between specialized production of entrepreneurial ideas by franchisers and specialized production of tangible services by franchisees. This feature of economic development in the US is based on more reliable enforcement and protection of rights to intangible entrepreneurial knowledge, such as those included in operations manuals and reputations. The trade-off between economies of division of labor and coordination reliability implies that taking a higher aggregate risk of coordination failure may be efficient so long as the economies of division of labor that can be exploited outweigh the increased aggregate risk. If an improvement in the transportation conditions enlarges the scope for trading-off economies of division of labor against the aggregate transaction risk, the efficient aggregate transaction risk and productivity may increase side by side. Such a higher efficient aggregate risk for coordination failure may be associated with an episode such as the Great Depression in 1930 and the Asian financial crisis in 1997. In the 1920s, as a result of successful industrialization in western Europe and the US, a large network of domestic and international division of labor was developed. While on the one hand this high level of division of labor raised productivity and
304 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
created historically unprecedented prosperity, on the other hand it significantly increased the risk of coordination failure of the network of division of labor. In that network, many very specialized sectors are connected in a series, so that it might fail to work when one of the professional sectors, such as the banking sector, fails to work; resulting, for example, in the Great Depression and mass unemployment. In other words, the greater risk of an economic crisis caused by the higher risk of coordination failure is endogenously and efficiently chosen by individuals, just as we choose a higher risk of being killed when we decide to drive on the freeway by efficiently trading-off the cost of doing so against the benefit. Hence, the relationship among economic development, coordination reliability, and property rights is much more sophisticated than the statement that better enforced property rights are conducive to economic development, might lead us to believe. In particular, if the risk of coordination failure for each transaction can be reduced by inputting resources, that risk then becomes an endogenous decision variable. The risk of coordination failure of division of labor can be reduced by allocating resources to the specification and enforcement of contractual terms at the cost of rising exogenous transaction costs in specifying and enforcing property rights. We can consider the welfare losses caused by the risk of coordination failure as anticipated endogenous transaction costs caused by the opportunistic behavior examined in chapter 9. Thus, we have a trade-off between the exogenous transaction costs of specifying and enforcing property rights and endogenous transaction costs. We can then see that the efficient trade-off between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs in the marketplace may involve imperfect specification and enforcement of property rights. A monthly ticket for a train or bus is an example that illustrates the implications of this trade-off. A monthly ticket does not precisely specify the correspondence between the riding fee and the amount of transport services (number and distance of rides) provided, and it may encourage inefficient travel that generates endogenous transaction costs. However, it involves much lower exogenous transaction costs in collecting payment for each ride than many singleride tickets. Another example might be the arrangements for financing construction of a bridge. There are different ways to finance a bridge. One is for the government to use tax revenue to finance it. Under this arrangement, individuals who never use the bridge are compelled to pay the tax while others pay no more for frequent use of it. This will generate distortions, which are endogenous transaction costs, so that, relative to the Pareto optimum, the output of the former type of individual is too little compared to that of the latter type. However, this arrangement does not involve many exogenous transaction costs in collecting fees from the users of the bridge. The other way is to allow a private company to construct the bridge and to collect fees from users. This method avoids endogenous transaction costs at the expense of the exogenous transaction costs of collecting fees. The most efficient method is the one with the minimum sum of the two types of transaction costs. If the exogenous transaction costs saved by financing the bridge through government taxes outweigh the endogenous transaction costs generated by the tax arrangement in comparison to the arrangement without the tax, then government finance can be used to promote division of labor and economic development, or to play a role in rectifying “market failure.” Otherwise, the government tax may generate “government failure” and restrict the market from fulfilling its function. In many less-developed countries, the government does not know how to use public finance to develop an infrastructure that promotes evolution of division of labor and related urbanization and economic development. On the other hand, in Soviet-style centrally planned economies, governments extend public finance to the degree that the market cannot play its role in the development process. The two extreme cases illustrate that it is not easy to find the efficient trade-off between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
305
One more example of the trade-off between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs in relation to coordination reliability is provided by a comparison of a piece-rate wage system with an hourly wage. If the quantity and quality of the job to be done can be precisely measured, the piece-rate wage can be used to precisely specify and enforce contractual terms and thereby reduce the risk of coordination failure of the network of division of labor. However, precise measurement of the quantity and quality of the job may involve prohibitively high exogenous transaction costs. If these costs are taken into account, an hourly wage with more vague contractual terms and with low exogenous transaction costs may be more efficient than a piece-rate wage, despite the fact that the former generates much higher endogenous transaction costs than the latter. The trade-off between exogenous and endogenous transaction costs is referred to by Milgrom and Roberts (1992, pp. 277, 377) as the trade-off between influencing cost and distortions caused by rigid rules intended to reduce employees’ ability to influence the decisions of their manager. We will consider the relationship between this interesting trade-off and economic development in section 10.3. In that section we will also consider one of the market mechanisms that can reduce the risk of coordination failure of a large network of division of labor. This mechanism employs competition between peer specialist suppliers to provide so-called parallel connections to the incumbent supplier that can significantly reduce the risk of coordination failure. But it involves cost for a buyer to keep in touch with many potential peer suppliers, so there is a trade-off between the costs in deepening the incumbent trade relationship and the costs in broadening potential trade relationships, in addition to the trade-off between economies of division of labor and all kinds of transaction costs. We shall consider the implications of this trade-off for economic development. Another institution that can be used to expand the network of division of labor is insurance. In section 10.4 we use a model of endogenous specialization to show why insurance can promote division of labor and economic development. Then the trade-off between risk sharing and incentive provision is specified in section 10.5, which also investigates the function of incomplete insurance in reducing endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard and in promoting economic development. Since incentive provision is associated with precisely enforced property rights, we have a trade-off between the positive effect of insurance on the reliability of the network of division of labor and the negative effect of insurance on the precise enforcement of property rights. This trade-off implies that the development implications of property rights are much more complicated than many economists have realized. The disappointing development performance of Russia and eastern Europe in the early 1990s illustrates the point. The Soviet Union mimicked the pattern of industrialization in the capitalist economies by developing a high level of division of labor through a central planning system. Each state or republic in the Soviet Union, or in the communist block of eastern Europe, was required to specialize in a particular sector. For instance, the Ukraine specialized in producing grain, Czechoslovakia specialized in producing locomotives, and Bulgaria specialized in producing fruit and vegetables. On the one hand, this high level of division of labor generated quite impressive development performance in the 1930s and 1950s. But on the other hand, it also significantly reduced the coordination reliability of the noncommercialized network of division of labor. A system of complete insurance was developed to reduce coordination failure of the large network of division of labor, while generating pervasive moral hazard. In a Soviet-style economic system there is complete insurance for each employee in a state enterprise. She can obtain complete medical insurance, she will never lose her job (a complete unemployment insurance), and she will receive a pension no matter what happens to her job, to her health, or to the enterprise that hired her (a complete insurance for pension payment). Also, each state enterprise is insured by the government through soft budget constraint against all kinds of risk in business operation. In China, such complete insurance is referred to as the
306 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
“iron rice bowl.” It generates a great deal of endogenous transaction costs associated with moral hazard on the one hand, and provides complete insurance that can maintain a reasonable coordination reliability of the network of division of labor on the other. In Russia’s reforms in the early 1990s, this form of complete insurance was abolished when an alternative insurance system had not yet been developed in the market. Hence, breakdown of an enterprise, sector, or link between two states generated spectacular coordination failure of the whole network of division of labor, resulting in the disappointing development performance of the Russian economy in the 1990s. The trade-off between the positive and negative effects of insurance relates to the trade-off between economic reforms requested by the IMF and the insurance mechanism associated with IMF financial assistance which was requested by South Korea and other Asian countries during the 1997 financial crisis. According to Radelet and Sachs (1998), a harsh push for reforms may exacerbate panic and crisis. Because of the trade-off between economies of division of labor and coordination reliability, no reforms can completely eliminate the risk of such a financial crisis. A certain insurance mechanism is essential for mitigating the damage caused by an unavoidable crisis. Then again, moral hazard caused by complete government insurance of the banking system was one of its causes. Terms of insurance and related financial assistance which are too soft are not efficient either. It is not easy to find the efficient balance of the trade-off. The trade-offs between risk sharing and incentive provision, and between endogenous transaction costs caused by imprecise enforcement of property rights and exogenous transaction costs in enforcing property rights, relate to public policies in handling so-called externality and public goods. In the conventional literature on the subject, represented by Pigou (1940), externality and non-exclusivity of public goods are exogenously given and the role of the government in rectifying market failure is the focus of the analysis. In the literature on the economics of property rights and endogenous externality – represented by Barzel (1989), Cheung (1983), Coase (1960), Hart (1995), Milgrom and Roberts (1992), and O. Williamson (1985) – the above trade-offs are used to endogenize the degree of externality, while the role of a variety of institutions, ownership structures, and contractual arrangements in sorting out the efficient trade-offs is the focus of the analysis. In this chapter we use Smithian general equilibrium models with transaction risk to formalize the notion of endogenous externality and to explore its implications for economic development.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n n n
n n n
What is the trade-off between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs? What is the trade-off between transaction costs in deepening incumbent relationships and transaction costs in expanding potential relationships? What are the implications of the trade-off between positive network effects of division of labor and reliability for economic development? Why can competition in the market substitute for precise specification and enforcement of property rights in promoting economic development? How does the market sort out the efficient degree of competition, the efficient degree of vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights, and the efficient level of division of labor? What are the effects of transaction risk and the degree of risk aversion on the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development? Why can insurance promote division of labor and economic development? Why will complete insurance and moral hazard generate endogenous transaction costs?
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
307
10.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN ECONOMIES OF DIVISION OF LABOR AND COORDINATION RELIABILITY We use an extended version of the model in example 7.1 to formalize North’s idea about the intimate relationship between economic development and secured property rights. The model is exactly the same as in example 7.1, except there is risk in each transaction. The story behind the algebra runs as follows. In each transaction there is a risk of delivery failure, which can be considered as a risk of losing property rights. A Cobb–Douglas utility function implies that utility is zero if the amount of any goods consumed is zero. Hence, if an individual purchases n − 1 goods and the risk of delivery failure of each good is 1 − r, then the total risk for her to receive 0 utility is (1 − r)n−1. As transportation efficiency is improved, the scope for trading-off economies of division of labor against transportation costs and transaction risk is enlarged, so that the equilibrium network of division of labor and the related extent of the market expand, productivity increases, and the efficient aggregate risk of coordination failure increases. If the risk of coordination failure for each transaction is reduced due, for example, to more secure property rights, the extent of the market, the network size of division of labor, and productivity will rise too. However, if the direct positive effect of the higher reliability of each transaction on the aggregate reliability of the network of division of labor is outweighed by its indirect negative effects through increasing the number of transactions, the aggregate reliability decreases. Otherwise, the equilibrium and efficient aggregate reliability of network of division of labor will increase. Example 10.1: A simplified version of the Yang–Wills model (1990). Consider an economy with M ex ante identical consumer-producers. The decision problem for a person selling good i is: Max: Vi ≡ Eui = ui P + 0(1 − P) s.t.
(expected utility)
ui = xi(kx ) x
(utility function)
P = r n−1
(reliability of n − 1 transactions)
xi + x = Max{li − α, 0}, xj = Max{lj − α, 0}
(production function)
li + (m − n)lj = 1
(endowment constraint of time)
pi x is = (n − 1)pr x rd
(budget constraint)
d n−1 m−n r j
s i
(10.1)
where xi, xj, x is , x id, li, lj, n, P are decision variables, r and k are parameters, pi is the price of good i. V = Eui is the expected utility, which is a weighted average of ui and 0, where the weights are P and 1 − P respectively. Let us examine the difference in specification between this model and the model in example 7.1. The Cobb–Douglas utility function ui is the same as in example 7.1. We have used the symmetry of that model; that is, tastes and production and transaction conditions are the same for all goods. Hence, the amounts of goods purchased, xrd, are the same for all r, the amounts of self-provided goods, xj , and the amounts of labor allocated to the production of nontraded goods, lj , are the same for all j. However, coordination reliability of division of labor P, which is the probability that all goods purchased are received, is new. 1 − r is the probability that the individual fails to receive a good from a purchase contract. We assume that the failure of a seller to deliver the good to
308 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
the buyer is an event that is independent of the failure of any of the other goods. The risk of coordination failure may be caused by traffic accidents or other stochastic events. That risk may also be caused by opportunistic behavior, as discussed in chapter 9. For this case 1 − r can be interpreted as the anticipated risk of coordination failure caused by opportunism. In the alternating-offer bargaining game of example 9.13, where players compete for the advantage of the first mover, there is a probability at which mutually beneficial gains to trade cannot be realized. The risk of coordination failure 1 − r in this chapter can be interpreted as that probability as well. Therefore, r is the probability that the buyer receives the good and P = r n−1 is the probability that she receives all n − 1 goods purchased. 1 − P is the probability that she fails to receive at least one of all goods that she buys. Since for the Cobb–Douglas utility function an individual’s utility is zero if the quantity of any good consumed is zero, a consumer-producer will receive 0 utility at probability 1 − P and receives ui at probability P. The production functions in (10.1) are the same as in example 7.1. α is a fixed learning cost in each activity, li and lj are respectively the levels of specialization in producing the traded good i and the nontraded goods j. The budget constraint in (10.1) is also the same as in example 7.1. Assume that prices are sorted out through a Nash bargaining mechanism, which generates the same utility between ex ante identical individuals who have the same disagreement point. As shown in chapter 9, this establishes the utility equalization conditions which, together with the market clearing conditions, will generate the same equilibrium as in a Walrasian regime. The equilibrium has equal prices of all traded goods and an equal number of sellers for each traded good, N = M/n, because of symmetry. With these results, the equilibrium values of decision variables can be solved as follows. For any i = 1, 2, . . . n xi = x rd = xj = [1 − α(m − n + 1)]/m
∀r ∈R, j ∈J
x = (n −1)[1 − α(m − n + 1)]/m s i
li = α + (n/m)[1 − α(m − n + 1)]
(10.2)
P = r n−1 V ≡ Eui = {1 − α(m − n + 1)/m}m(kr)n−1 n = m + 1 − (1/α) − [m/(ln k + ln r)] The inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium are: dn/dr > 0,
dn/dk > 0,
(10.3a)
dP/dr = (∂P/∂r) + (∂P/∂n)(dn/dr) < 0, if and only if (∂P/∂r) < |(∂P/∂n)(dn/dr)|
(10.3b)
dP/dk = (dP/dn)(dn/dk) < 0
(10.3c)
dV/dr = ∂V/∂r > 0,
(10.3d)
dV/dk = ∂V/∂k > 0.
dli/dr = (dli/dn)(dn/dr) > 0,
dli/dk = (dli/dn)(dn/dk) > 0,
(10.3e)
dx is/dr = (dx is/dn)(dn/dr) > 0,
dx is/dk = (dx is/dn)(dn/dk) > 0
(10.3f )
dN/dr = (dN/dn)(dn/dr) < 0,
dN/dk = (dN/dn)(dn/dk) < 0
(10.3g)
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
309
(10.3a) implies that the equilibrium level of division of labor increases as the reliability of each transaction increases, or as the anticipated risk of coordination failure of each transaction caused by endogenous transaction costs falls. (10.3b) implies that as the reliability of each transaction rises, total reliability P would fall if the negative effect of the increase in r, (∂P/∂n)(dn/dr), outweighs its positive effect, ∂P/∂r. Otherwise, total reliability rises. Here, (∂P/∂n) < 0 and (dn/dr) > 0. Since 1 − P can be considered as aggregate risk of coordination failure caused by anticipated endogenous transaction costs, (10.3b) can be interpreted in another way. It means that total endogenous transaction costs in terms of the aggregate risk increase as the endogenous transaction cost, 1 − r, for each transaction falls, if the positive effect of the fall on the total endogenous transaction costs through its impact on the number of transactions outweigh its direct negative effect on total endogenous transaction costs. Otherwise, total endogenous transaction costs decrease with the endogenous transaction cost for each transaction. Because of the connection between total endogenous transaction costs and the degree of softness of the budget constraint, this result implies that the budget constraint may become increasingly soft as the endogenous transaction cost for each transaction falls. (10.3c) implies that as the exogenous transaction cost coefficient, 1 − k, is reduced, or as transaction efficiency k rises, total anticipated endogenous transaction costs 1 − P, or the aggregate risk of coordination failure, increase (or aggregate reliability P falls). This is because as exogenous transaction efficiency is improved, the benefit of increasing division of labor rises in comparison to increasing endogenous and exogenous transaction costs, so that total endogenous transaction costs may increase to the degree that the increased endogenous transaction costs are outweighed by the increased economies of division of labor that are exploited. (10.3d) means that as the endogenous transaction cost for each transaction falls (or as the coordination reliability for each transaction rises), or as exogenous transaction efficiency is improved, expected real income V goes up. We have used the envelope theorem to get this result. (10.3e) and (10.3f ) imply that as the reliability of each transaction r rises, or as exogenous transaction efficiency k is improved, each individual’s level of specialization and per capita trade volume go up. Because of economies of specialization, the result implies that the labor productivity of each traded good goes up and the degree of self-sufficiency falls. (10.3g) implies that as the reliability of each transaction r goes up (or as the anticipated endogenous transaction cost for each transaction falls), or as exogenous transaction efficiency is improved, the number of sellers of each traded good, which represents the degree of competition, goes down. This results in a fall of aggregate reliability and a rise in total anticipated endogenous transaction costs. Since an increase in r can be caused by more secure property rights, this model formalizes North’s conjecture (1981) about the implications of secure property rights for economic development, evolution of division of labor, and expansion of the market. If transaction risk is introduced into the model with the CES utility function in example 7.2, then North’s idea about the intimate relationship between the extent of the market, secured property rights, and emergence of new goods can be formalized. However, our formal model predicts the possible increase in total endogenous transaction cost and aggregate risk of coordination failure as a result of improved transportation conditions (k or r is increased). This prediction invalidates the belief that more secure property rights and improved transaction conditions will always reduce the aggregate risk of coordination failure that results in economic crises like the Great Depression in 1930 and the Asian financial crisis in 1997. A high risk of coordination failure can be interpreted as a risk of mass unemployment, as all individuals will be forced to choose autarky when coordination of the division of labor breaks down. Hence, it is possible that secure property rights promote economic development on the one hand, and increase the aggregate risk of economic crisis on the other. The devastating consequences of
310 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
the Great Depression were a major reason that communism spread in many countries after the Second World War. But in the long run, the striking development performance difference between the capitalist systems and the Soviet-style systems shows that the costs of economic development caused by the greater risk of coordination failure associated with a large network of division of labor may be worth paying. From the experience of the recent Asian financial crisis we may better appreciate the trade-off between the positive effect of evolution of division of labor on economic development and its effect on the risk of coordination failure. A more general version of the model with endogenous r can be found in Yang and Wills (1990) or in Yang and Ng (1993, ch. 9). The endogenization of r is a feature of the economic literature on the trade-off between economies of division of labor and coordination reliability which distinguishes it from the engineering literature on reliability.
10.3 ENDOGENIZATION OF COORDINATION RELIABILITY IN EACH TRANSACTION AND SUBSTITUTION BETWEEN COMPETITION AND BETTER ENFORCED PROPERTY RIGHTS If probability for coordination failure in each transaction can be reduced by inputting resources into specification and enforcement of contractual terms and property rights, then there is a trade-off between endogenous transaction costs caused by imprecise enforcement of property rights and exogenous transaction costs incurred in enforcement. In addition, there are two ways to reduce risk of coordination failure or to reduce the endogenous transaction costs in each transaction. The first is to allocate more resources to reducing the risk of coordination failure of each incumbent transaction. The second is to allocate more resources to cultivating more potential relationships, which are in parallel connection with an incumbent relationship. This will increase the number of parallel connections for each incumbent transaction and reduce the risk of coordination failure of the transaction. In other words, extensive connections with many potential partners yield competitive pressure on the incumbent partner, so that the individual can turn to one of the potential partners when the incumbent one fails to deliver what is needed. Mathematically, the total risk of coordination failure of each transaction is (1 − r)N when there are N potential trade partners and each of their deliveries is realized with probability r. Then total reliability of each transaction P = 1 − (1 − r)N can be raised either by reducing the risk of coordination failure with the incumbent partner, 1 − r, or by increasing the number of potential partners, N. Note that r is between 0 and 1 and P increases as r or N increases. For a nontrivial transaction cost in keeping a potential relationship, there is a trade-off between costs in deepening incumbent relationships and costs in broadening potential trade connections. Hence, each buyer’s efficient number of potential sellers of a good with whom she keeps in touch may be smaller than the number of all sellers of the good in the market. This section uses a Smithian model to formalize this trade-off in addition to the trade-off between economies of division of labor and all kinds of transaction costs. The story behind the algebra runs as follows. In an economy, there are many ex ante identical consumer-producers who can choose their levels of specialization. In addition to the trade-off between economies of specialization and transportation costs, there are trade-offs between economies of specialization, transaction risk, and transaction costs in reducing such risk, and between transaction costs in deepening incumbent trade relationships and transaction costs in broadening potential trade connections. If an individual pays higher exogenous transaction costs in specifying and enforcing property rights and related contractual terms, the welfare loss caused by the risk of coordination failure 1 − r of each transaction can be reduced. Hence, 1 − r becomes an individual’s decision variable.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
311
From our experience of litigation (did you ever have such an experience?), an increase in legal service fees paid to lawyers, a form of exogenous transaction costs, can raise the probability that our property rights are well protected. The damage caused by infringement of property rights can be considered a form of endogenous transaction costs. There is a trade-off between exogenous and endogenous transaction costs. The question of how the efficient trade-off between the two kinds of transaction costs can be achieved is central to the economics of property rights and institutional economics. For instance, in a Soviet-style economy, the exogenous transaction costs associated with legal service fees are trivial. The income share of lawyers’ earnings is very low. But endogenous transaction costs are extremely high, because property rights are not well specified and enforced, individuals have no incentive to work hard, and the patterns of division of labor and resource allocation are distorted. Such endogenous transaction costs are not easy to measure directly. They can be indirectly measured from long-run development performance. In the US, the opposite situation prevails: exogenous transaction costs and the national income share of lawyers’ earnings are high, whereas endogenous transaction costs are low because of much better specified and enforced property rights. Individuals are more willing to work hard because of the much lower distortions in information transmission. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium generate the following interesting results. As the parameter that represents efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights is increased, the equilibrium level of division of labor and per capita real income go up. But two types of changes in transaction reliability may take place in response to improvement in specification and enforcement efficiency. Individuals can either divert resources from specification and enforcement to raising the level of division of labor in production, or allocate the resources that are saved by the more effective specification and enforcement of rights to raising the degree of precision of the specification and enforcement of property rights in each transaction. These two responses are to some extent substitutes in raising per capita real income. If the first generates a greater net benefit than the second, an improvement in specification and enforcement efficiency will generate a lower reliability of each transaction and thereby a higher aggregate risk of coordination failure when it promotes division of labor and economic development. If the second method is better, then an improvement in specification and enforcement efficiency will raise the level of division of labor and the reliability of each transaction, meanwhile generating a higher or a lower aggregate risk of coordinate failure. Its effect on the aggregate risk of coordination failure is parameter value dependent, since the positive effect of an increase in the number of transactions on the aggregate risk may or may not outweigh the negative effect of an increase in the reliability of each transaction. For a large value of the cost coefficient for deepening the incumbent relation relative to the cost coefficient for widening potential relations, “classical contracts” with many potential trading partners (similar to perfect competition) may occur at equilibrium. For a small value of the deepening cost coefficient, “relational contracts” without potentially alternative trading partners may occur at equilibrium. As shown in Yang and Wills (1990), in the model with endogenous risk of coordination failure of each transaction, if the transportation efficiency coefficient (which differs from the exogenous transaction efficiency coefficient in specifying and enforcing each contract) is increased, the equilibrium levels of division of labor, productivity, and per capita real income all rise, while the equilibrium degree of reliability of each transaction and the degree of competition decrease. The inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium explore very complicated relationships among the endogenous transaction costs of each transaction, exogenous transaction costs in specifying and enforcing property rights, exogenous transportation costs, aggregate endogenous transaction costs, and the level of division of labor. These sophisticated relationships imply that it is not efficient to entirely eliminate the aggregate endogenous transaction costs
312 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
that relate to distortions. The idea of eliminating all endogenous transaction costs is too naive to be realistic because it cannot explain why an hourly wage, which has a lower degree of precision in specifying and enforcing property rights than a piece-rate wage, becomes more common than the piece-rate wage as division of labor (commercialization) evolves. It is impossible for the government to identify the efficient trade-offs among so many conflicting forces. It requires a laissez faire regime, which allows individuals to choose freely among various structures of division of labor, institutions, and contractual arrangements to sort out the efficient trade-offs. The restriction of free choices among occupations and institutional configurations and interference with free pricing will paralyze the functioning of the market in sorting out the efficient trade-offs. Mokyr (1993, pp. 47–8) indicates that one of the main conditions for the Industrial Revolution in Britain in 1760–1830 was the British government’s de facto laissez faire policy. He writes: Compared with Prussia, Spain, or the Hapsburg Empire, Britain’s government generally left its businessmen in peace to pursue their affairs subject to certain restraints and rarely ventured itself into commercial and industrial enterprises. Seventeenth-century mercantilism had placed obstacles in the path of all enterprising individuals, but British obstacles were less formidable than those in France. More regions were exempt, and enforcement mechanisms were feeble or absent. One such enforcement mechanism, widely used on the Continent, was the craft guild, yet by the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the craft guild in Britain had declined into insignificance . . . During the heyday of the Industrial Revolution, even social-overhead projects that in most other societies were considered to have enough public advantages to warrant direct intervention of the state were in Britain left to private enterprise. Turnpikes, canals, and railroads were built in Britain without direct state support; schools and universities were private. Even the less invasive forms of state support, like the policies of William I of Orange in the Low Countries or the Saint-Simonians in France during the Second Empire, were notably absent in Britain. Until the end of the nineteenth century, the British government clearly was reluctant to invade what it considered to be the realm of free enterprise. The general consensus among historians today is that the regulations and rules, most of them relics from Tudor and Stuart times, were rarely enforced. The central government was left to control foreign trade, but most other internal administration was left to local authorities. Internal trade, the regulation of markets in labor and land, justice, police, county road maintenance, and poor relief were all administered by local magistrates. Although in principle these authorities could exercise considerable power, they usually elected not to. By ignoring and evading rather than altogether abolishing regulations, Britain moved slowly, almost imperceptibly toward a free-market society.
According to Coase (1960), even lighthouses, which are usually used in textbooks as a typical example of public goods, were built by the private sector in Britain. Example 10.2: An equilibrium model with a trade-off between deepening the incumbent relationship and broadening potential relationships. The model is the same as in example 7.1 except that there are only two consumption goods and each buyer has a risk of failing to receive the good she buys. The risk may be caused by a transportation accident when the good is delivered, or by some anticipated opportunistic behavior. If each of M ex ante identical consumer-producers chooses autarky, then there is no risk of coordination failure. An individual’s decision problem in autarky is Max: U = xy s.t.
(utility function)
x = Max{0, lx − α}
(production function of x)
y = Max{0, ly − α}
(production function of y)
lx + ly = 1
(endowment constraint of time)
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
313
where x, y, lx, and ly are decision variables. The per capita real income in this structure is UA = [(1 − 2α)/2]2. The decision problem for a specialist producer of good x is Max: Ux = xy dP s.t.
(utility function)
x + x = Max(0, lx − α)
(production function)
px x = py y
(budget constraint)
s
s
d
lc = cN
(labor cost of public relationship)
ls = sr
(labor cost for each incumbent relation)
lx + lc + ls = 1
(endowment constraint of time)
P = 1 − (1 − r) N
(total coordination reliability)
where x, y d, x s, lx , lc , ls , N, r, P are decision variables. c is the cost coefficient for the specialist producer of x to keep in touch with a seller of y. This may be interpreted as a cost of making a phonecall to a potential seller to inquire about prices and availability of goods, or as a cost of cultivating a relationship with the seller. A restriction on the free choice of trade partners, such as those institutional arrangements in a Soviet-style economic system which prohibit individuals from trading land and capital goods, will increase c to a very large value, so that the optimum choice of N will be at its minimum, 1. Hence, N represents the endogenous degree of competition and lc is the total labor cost of broadening potential trade connections. s is the cost coefficient for the specialist producer of x to increase by 1 percent the degree of reliability of the incumbent relationship. This can be interpreted as the cost of specifying and enforcing contractual terms with the incumbent partner. Hence, ls is the total labor cost in deepening the incumbent relationship. Uncertainties in trade may make the number of suppliers of a good an important determinant of the risk of coordination failure from the complex exchange interdependencies associated with the division of labor. To reduce such risk, a buyer of a good may maintain relationships with many suppliers, or alternatively she may increase the precision of the terms stipulated in a contract with the incumbent supplier. The former method of reducing a risk of coordination failure relates to transaction costs in delimiting rights to contracting, or lc, and the latter relates to transaction costs in specifying and enforcing the terms of a contract, or ls. If we draw the distinction between rights specified in a contract and rights to contracting, we may specify a trade-off between the two kinds of transaction costs and the substitution between increasing competition, which relates to lc , and increasing accuracy in specifying and enforcing the terms of a contract, which relates to ls. An example is the decision problem faced by an assistant professor who holds a tenure-track position. For her given ability and effort and the quality of the match with her incumbent employer, it is uncertain whether the employer will grant tenure to the employee even if she is qualified, and whether the employee will meet the terms of the contract even if the employer treats her fairly. To reduce the risk of being treated unfairly, the employee may spend time negotiating and enforcing the terms of the contract. Alternatively, she may spend time keeping in touch with potential alternative employers in order to reduce the risk of losing her job. Similarly, the employer may hire several tenure-track employees for one tenured position, or spend resources specifying and enforcing the terms of a contract. The question is: what is the efficient balance of the trade-off between the two alternative uses of resources to reduce the total risk of coordination failure? The efficient balance is crucial for the determination of the
314 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
efficient level of division of labor that balances, in turn, the trade-off between economies of specialization and various transaction costs. The trade-off between the two kinds of transaction costs relates to the trade-off, described by Williamson, between relational costs incurred in mitigating the hazards of opportunism and transaction costs incurred in stipulating detailed contingent contracts (O. Williamson, 1985). The public relations cost function, and the specification and enforcement cost function of each incumbent relationship in this section, formalize Williamson’s idea. It will be clear later that for a small value of the relation cost coefficient, “classical contracts” with many potential trade partners (similar to perfect competition) may occur at equilibrium. For a large value of the relation cost coefficient, “relational contracts” without potentially alternative trade partners may occur at equilibrium. Also, the trade-off between the two kinds of transaction costs relates to the trade-off between the distortions caused by imprecise contractual terms and bargaining costs in sorting out precise contractual terms, investigated by Milgrom and Roberts (1992, ch. 7). Milgrom and Roberts use this trade-off to explain why the piece-rate wage is replaced by the monthly wage and why some promotion rules according to seniority can restrain excessive bargaining and “influencing activities” at the cost of incentive provision. Each buyer of good y receives y d that she orders from a seller of y. She keeps in touch with N sellers of y and can turn to one of them if the incumbent seller fails to deliver the good according to the timing and quality that she requires. The reliability of each seller is r, or each seller has a risk of coordination failure 1 − r. Hence, the total risk of the buyer failing to receive good y when she keeps in touch with N incumbent and potential sellers is (1 − r)N, or her aggregate reliability to receive y d is P = 1 − (1 − r)N. You may interpret P as the probability that the transaction efficiency coefficient is 1 and 1 − P = (1 − r)N as the probability that the transaction efficiency coefficient is 0. The solution of the decision problem yields not only demand and supply functions for x and y, but also the optimum number of potential partners, N, with whom a buyer should keep in touch, the optimum risk of coordination failure of each relationship 1 − r, and the optimum aggregate coordination reliability P or optimum aggregate risk of coordination failure 1 − P. The decision problem for a specialist producer of y is symmetric to that for a specialist producer of x. Max: Uy = yxdP s.t.
(utility function)
y + y s = Max{0, ly − α}
(production function of y)
py y = px x
(budget constraint)
s
d
lc = cN
(labor cost of public relationship)
ls = sr
(labor cost of each incumbent relation)
ly + lc + ls = 1 P = 1 − (1 − r)
(endowment constraint of time) N
(aggregate coordination reliability)
where y, x d, y s, ly , lc , ls , N, r, P are decision variables. Structure D is a division of M individuals between the two professions. Using the symmetry of the model, we can show that the corner equilibrium-relative price of two goods px /py = 1 and the corner equilibrium numbers of two types of specialists are Mx = My = M/2 in structure D. Also, in the corner equilibrium, the number of trade partners with whom each individual keeps in touch, N, the reliability of the incumbent relationship, r, and the labor allocation between broadening potential relationships and deepening the incumbent relationship are all the same
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
315
Table 10.1 Equilibrium reliability and degree of competition C
s
α
r
N
P
≤ 0.05
0.1
1
1
1
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.69
4
0.991
≥ 0.02
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
0.01
0.2
0.1
0.43
6
0.966
≥ 0.02
0.2
0.1
1
1
1
0.01
0.3
0.1
0.33
8
0.959
0.02
0.3
0.1
0.46
5
0.954
0.03
0.3
0.1
0.57
4
0.966
0.04
0.3
0.1
0.69
3
0.97
0.3
0.1
1
1
1
≥ 0.4
0.1
1
r
≥ 0.05
for the two types of specialists. The corner equilibrium N and r are determined by the firstorder conditions 2c[1 − (1 − r)N ] = −(1 − cN − sr − α) (1 − r)N ln(1 − r)
(10.4a)
N = −s(1 − r) ln(1 − r)/c
(10.4b)
There are multiple solutions of (10.4). Also, (10.4) does not apply to the several possible corner solutions of r and N. Hence, an analytical solution of comparative statics of the corner equilibrium cannot be obtained. Table 10.1 reports part of the computer simulation results of comparative statics of the corner equilibrium reliability of each transaction, r, the number of trade partners with whom each person keeps in touch (degree of competition), N, and aggregate reliability P in structure D. It shows that if s is sufficiently small, then the corner equilibrium value of r is 1, its maximum, so that the equilibrium values of N and P are 1 too; if c is too large, the corner equilibrium value of N is 1, its minimum; as s increases relatively to c, the corner equilibrium value of r falls and the corner equilibrium value of N increases. This implies that as the cost of deepening the incumbent relationship increases in comparison to that in broadening potential relationships, the equilibrium degree of competition, N, increases and the equilibrium degree of reliability for the incumbent relationship, which relates to the degree of precision of contractual terms, decreases. A decrease in the transaction cost coefficient in broadening potential relationships, c, has the opposite effects, decreasing the equilibrium degree of competition and increasing the reliability of the incumbent relationship. The per capita real income in the structure with the division of labor is UD = [(1 − α − lc − ls)/2]2 [1 − (1 − r)N ]
(10.5)
where r = ls /s and N = lc /c are given by the labor cost functions in deepening the incumbent relationship and in broadening potential relationships, respectively. ls and lc are each individual’s decision variables. Applying the envelope theorem to (10.5), we can show that dUD /ds = ∂UD /∂s < 0
and
dUD /dc = ∂UD /∂c < 0.
(10.6)
316 P ART II: T HE F IRM
A
1
2
1
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
1
1
1
A
2 (a) Autarky
1
1 2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
A 2
A
AND
1
1 2
2
2 (b) Division of labor with N = 1
1
2 2 2 (c) Division of labor with N = 2
Figure 10.1 Different degrees of competition in equilibrium
Since per capita real income in autarky is independent of s and c, (10.6) implies that as s or c falls, it is more likely that the corner equilibrium in structure D will be Pareto superior to that in autarky. According to the Yao theorem in chapter 4, this implies that as s and/or c falls, the general equilibrium will jump from autarky to the division of labor. Figure 10.1, where population size M = 4, gives an intuitive illustration of different patterns of equilibrium market structure. In panel (a), large transaction cost coefficients for deepening the incumbent relationship and for broadening potential relationships generate autarky as the general equilibrium. In panels (b) and (c), falling transaction cost coefficients make the division of labor the general equilibrium. But in panel (b), a large transaction cost coefficient for broadening potential relationships, c, relative to the transaction cost coefficient for deepening the incumbent relationship, s, generates the equilibrium N = 1 in an economy with 4 individuals, so that the economy is fragmented into two separate local communities. There is division of labor and transactions within each of the local communities, but no interactions between the communities. In panel (c), a small transaction cost coefficient for broadening potential relationships relative to the transaction cost coefficient for deepening the incumbent relationship generates the equilibrium N = 2, so that each individual has one incumbent trade partner and keeps in touch with another potential partner to put pressure on the incumbent one. The economy is integrated as one market, though this degree of integration is not necessary for all incumbent trade relationships. Dashed lines denote possible trade between potential trade partners when the incumbent suppliers fail to deliver goods. This model shows that there are two functions of the market. One is to execute exchanges. The other is to keep the pressure of competition on individuals in order to reduce the risk of coordination failure in exchanges. The second function may require a local market size that is larger than required to complete all realized exchanges, because each individual may keep in touch with some potential trade partners in order to put pressure on the incumbent trade partners, thereby reducing the risk of coordination failure. If the number of goods is m rather than 2, and population size is greater than 4, then the following point will be clearer. The size of the market network that relates to potential trade partners may be greater than the network size of realized trade connections. For instance, in the model with many goods and large population size, if the equilibrium number of traded goods is 3 due to a low transaction efficiency, then three individuals can constitute a local community where each of them sells one good to and buys one good from each of the other individuals. But each individual may keep in touch with half of the population in the economy in order to put pressure on each of her incumbent trade partners to reduce the risk of coordination failure. The empirical work of Barro (1997), Sachs and Warner (1995, 1997), and Frye and Shleifer (1997) cited in chapter 7 provides strong support for the theory developed in this chapter. Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992) have tested this theory against the data set of rural China in 1979–87. The empirical studies show that the reforms in rural China during this period significantly
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
317
improved transaction efficiency in specifying and enforcing peasants’ rights to use, to transfer, and to appropriate earnings from goods, labor, land, and other assets. The institutional changes raised the level of division of labor, measured by the degree of commercialization in an extensive household survey, and per capita real income. The results of the model in this section differ from the conventional wisdom of market failure, which does not explain why markets do not exist for some commodities, for example, clean air and intangible entrepreneurial ideas. Our model formalizes Cheung’s argument (1970, 1983) that the determination of contractual forms is a matter of the degree of vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights, or, in less illuminating words, the degree of externality. In particular, if there are many goods, and transaction conditions differ across goods, it can be shown that markets exist only for those goods with better transaction conditions in specifying and enforcing property rights. Eliminating all externalities is not efficient because of the costs of specifying and enforcing exclusive rights to property. The efficient extent of externality will balance the trade-off between the welfare loss caused by the absence of markets and the costs of specifying and enforcing the property rights required for markets. Hence, the absence of the market for some goods is a consequence of the efficient trade-off between economies of division of labor and various transaction costs. Externality caused by the absence of the market is efficiently and endogenously determined in the market. The difference between the externalities in buying a pound of oranges and buying clean air is a difference of degree rather than a difference of substance. When people buy oranges, there are externalities resulting from vagueness in weighing oranges and in estimating their quality (Barzel, 1982). However, the equilibrium degree of vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights is much lower for oranges than for clean air because there is much greater efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights to oranges than to clean air. Since the degree of market competition (related to N) is endogenized in our model, the degree of involvement of a particular exchange in the market is endogenized. Hence, for those goods associated with a small equilibrium value of the number of potential trade partners, N, we may say that the exchange relationship has a low degree of marketization. This implies that our models can be used to explain why some nonmarket exchange relationships exist in a society when transaction costs in keeping extensive connections with potential trade partners are very high. As shown by Mauss (1925), individuals in a primitive society rely on such nonmarket and individual-specific exchange relationships to develop division of labor. Trade in such a primitive society is conducted via individual-specific exchanges of gifts. Such nonmarket exchanges are very common in many developing countries, where efficiency in keeping extensive market connections is very low. Efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights is determined by both the legal system and technical conditions. For example, low efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights in pre-reform Russia and China can be attributed to a legal system that restrained free trade in labor, land, and capital; while, in general, low efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights to clean air is due to the high cost of the technology used to measure pollution. The following examples provide the intuition behind the models in sections 10.2 and 10.3. Example 10.3: A trade-off related to the institutions of the library and the university. The institution of the university can be used to improve efficiency in specifying and enforcing rights to knowledge. Faculty members’ rights to the knowledge that is sold to students is specified and enforced via wage contracts between a university and the staff members and by student tuition payments. Transaction efficiency is lower when teachers collect payment from students individually than when teachers receive payment from students through the university. The improvement in efficiency in specifying and enforcing the right to knowledge that is associated with the emergence of a university will promote division of labor between the producers
318 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
of knowledge (faculty members) and future producers of other goods (students), and between different specialist teachers. However, monthly wage contracts are more common between universities and their teaching staff than between students and private tutors who usually charge an hourly fee. If property rights are more vaguely specified and enforced in a monthly wage contract than in an hourly fee contract, the above example implies that an increase in the division of labor caused by a lower exogenous transaction costs of the institution of the university is associated with a more vague specification and enforcement of property rights, as long as the benefits from the higher level of division of labor outweigh the cost caused by the higher level of vagueness of contracts. Further, the emergence of the institution of the university promotes division of labor between the professional management of books (libraries) and the users of books (teachers and students). The emergence of libraries increases the difficulty in framing and enforcing rights to the knowledge generated by books. Before professional libraries were established, an individual had to buy a book if she wanted to utilize the knowledge in it, since it was not easy to borrow many different books from other individuals. She could more easily borrow a book without any payment to its author once libraries emerged. Even if students’ tuition includes a payment for using a university library, the payment is not proportional to the frequency of book use, and the payment does not go to the authors of the books. This implies that rights to authors’ knowledge are more vaguely specified and enforced in a library system than in a book market without the institution of the library. However, the system with libraries will be the equilibrium as long as the benefits generated by division of labor between professional libraries and other sectors outweigh the utility loss generated by the higher level of vagueness in specifying and enforcing the rights to intellectual property. Nevertheless, a new institutional arrangement that charges for each use of a book in a library could be combined with copyright laws to increase the level of division of labor and decrease the level of vagueness in specifying and enforcing rights to intellectual property at the same time, if magnetic cards and a computer system were effectively employed to monitor and collect the required payments. Such arrangements emerged in some northern European countries in the 1980s. Intuitively, it would seem that the slight improvement in transaction efficiency due to the emergence of professional libraries increases both the equilibrium level of division of labor and the equilibrium degree of vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights, because this slight improvement is insufficient to allow both an increase in the level of division of labor and a decrease in vagueness at the same time. By contrast, the emergence of a system that charges for each use of a book, together with copyright laws, magnetic cards, and the computer system, will significantly improve transaction efficiency in specifying and enforcing authors’ rights to knowledge in books, so that the level of division of labor increases and the degree of vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights decreases, resulting in a significant increase in productivity and welfare. Here, the distinction should be drawn between non-exclusivity and nonrivalry of goods when we analyze endogenous externality. Nonrivalry is a technical characteristic. It implies that use of a good by a person does not prevent another person from using the same good. In other words, a good is nonrival if its production and/or consumption involves only fixed costs and no variable costs. A TV program is a nonrival good, since the cost of its production and consumption does not increase with the number of its viewers: there is only the fixed production cost of the TV program. Hence, nonrivalry implies significant increasing returns. This does not necessarily imply non-exclusivity, which is determined endogenously by institutions. If transaction efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights to a good with nonrivalry is very high, then in equilibrium, individuals will choose to fully specify and enforce property rights, so that nonrivalry does not cause externality. The following example illustrates the point.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
319
Example 10.4: Nonrivalry and non-exclusivity of TV programs. A TV program is a nonrival commodity. When a person watches a program at her home, it does not prevent others from watching the same program at their homes. The number of viewers of the same program can be very large. If the owners of the copyright of the TV program had very low costs for monitoring the consumption of the TV program at each person’s home, they could extract a fee for each viewing of the program by each person. If somebody refused to pay, they could take legal action against her. But in reality, we never see such institutional arrangements, not because it is impossible, but because the monitoring costs are prohibitively high. Hence, the efficient trade-off between the transaction costs in specifying and enforcing property rights and the distortions caused by imprecise specification and enforcement will result in free TV programs. This implies that TV programs are endogenously chosen as non-exclusive commodities. The non-exclusivity implies externality and related distortions. However, the degree of externality is endogenously chosen by individuals and the invisible hand (interactions between selfinterested behaviors). The functioning of the market in handling distortions caused by externalities is much more sophisticated than described by neoclassical marginal analysis. For the case of the TV program, there is multilateral trade among three parties: the owner of the copyright of the program, the viewers of the program who are buyers of other tangible goods, and the sellers of the tangible goods. A one-way trading chain may reduce the distortions caused by the non-exclusivity of the TV program. Sellers of the tangible goods make money by selling to TV viewers. The producer of the program makes money from selling advertising time to the sellers of tangible goods, while the viewers obtain utility from freely viewing the program. This one-way trade triangle generates distortions by forcing viewers to watch advertisements that they may not want to see. But it saves on the exogenous transaction costs which the producer of the TV program would incur in collecting payment from the viewers, thereby reducing the externalities caused by the non-exclusivity of the TV program. Compared to cable TV, the open TV system generates more distortions because of the inaccurate correspondence between the amount of payment by viewers and the quantity of TV programs consumed by them, and by forcing viewers to see something that they do not like. The cable TV system causes much less endogenous transaction cost of this kind. But the open TV system saves on exogenous transaction costs caused by deploying cable and collecting fees. As discussed in chapter 10, the market will efficiently trade-off economies of division of labor against endogenous and exogenous transaction costs to determine the efficient degree of externality. If the total endogenous and exogenous transaction cost is nearly the same between the open TV system and the cable TV system, they may coexist in a competitive market.
10.4 WHY CAN INSURANCE PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? In chapter 9, we learned the concepts of risk aversion and moral hazard. Let us review these concepts before developing new models utilizing them. In the presence of uncertainty, a decisionmaker maximizes expected utility. The institution of insurance can be used to pool risk. Hence, in an economy with a very large population, each individual can receive utility at the weighted average of contingent states. If the decision-maker’s utility function is strictly concave, she prefers the value of the utility function at the weighted average of contingent states, which can be provided by insurance that pools risk, to the weighted average of utility values at contingent states. Therefore, a strictly concave utility function implies that an individual prefers an outcome with insurance to outcomes with uncertainty. In other words, she is risk-averse. If individuals have different degrees of risk aversion, they can all gain from trading in risk. An individual who is more risk-averse than another can sell risk to the latter and both of them
320 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
can be better off. This can be considered as the former buying insurance from the latter. The neoclassical principal–agent model in example 9.1 can be regarded as a model with insurance in which the agent buys insurance from the principal. The principal plays the role of an insurance company. That model shows that complete insurance will generate moral hazard if the principal cannot detect the agent’s effort devoted to reducing risk. The efficient contract between the principal and agent entails incomplete insurance. That is, the payment to the agent is contingent: it is higher when the outcome is good than when the outcome is not good. In sections 10.4 and 10.5 we investigate further the relationship between insurance, division of labor, and endogenous and exogenous transaction costs. The story in this section runs as follows. Assume that there are risks in transactions in the model in example 7.1. In each transaction, transaction efficiency k takes on a great value at probability θ and a small value at probability 1 − θ. The transaction risk may be caused by traffic accidents or by opportunistic behavior that takes place with a probability as shown in example 9.13 of chapter 9. Moreover, we assume that all consumer-producers are risk-averse to the same degree, or they have ex ante identical strictly concave utility functions. In the model, there is a trade-off between economies of division of labor and coordination reliability, in addition to a trade-off between economies of division of labor and exogenous transaction costs. If an insurance company collects a premium from each individual and compensates her in the event of low transaction efficiency, each individual will have the weighted average of the two levels of transaction efficiency for certain by pooling risk. Such an insurance institution will certainly promote division of labor and productivity progress if all individuals are riskaverse. It will promote many other structural changes associated with evolution in division of labor, which we have discussed in chapters 4, 7, and 8. More interestingly, the improved transaction conditions enlarge the scope for trading off economies of division of labor against transaction risk, so that the equilibrium and efficient aggregate risk of coordination failure increases. Also, a decrease in the risk of coordination failure for each transaction may increase the efficient aggregate risk of coordination failure for the same reason. This story is formalized in the following example. Example 10.5: The Lio model (1998). The structure of the model is similar to the one in example 7.1 except that transaction efficiency k is a random variable. The decision problem for each consumer-producer selling good i is specified as follows: 1/ρ
⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ Max: Eui = E ⎨x i ∏ (k r x rd ) ∏ xj ⎬ ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ r ∈R j ∈J s.t.
xi + x is = Max{0, li − α},
(expected utility) xj = Max{0, lj − α}
(production functions)
li + (m − n)lj = 1
(endowment constraint)
pi x is = (n − 1)pr x rd
(budget constraint)
(10.7)
where xi is the amount of good i self-provided, x rd is the amount of good r purchased, kr is the transaction efficiency coefficient for good r, R is the set of n − 1 goods purchased, J is the set of m − n nontraded goods, n is the number of traded goods, xj is the self-provided amount of nontraded good j, x is is the amount of good i sold, li and lj are respective levels of specialization in producing goods i and j, and pi and pr are respective prices of good i and r. It is assumed that each individual is endowed with one unit of nonleisure time. α is the fixed learning cost in each production activity. We will see later that parameter ρ > 1 relates to the degree of risk aversion.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
321
The larger the value of ρ, the more risk-averse is the individual, since a larger value of ρ implies a more concave utility function. The endowment constraint and the budget constraint in (10.7) are obtained using the symmetry. The difference between this decision problem and the one in example 7.1 is characterized by the transaction efficiency coefficient: ⎧ kH with θ kr = ⎨ ⎩kL with 1 − θ
(10.8)
where θ ∈(0, 1) is the probability that transaction efficiency is high, kH > kL, r ∈R. That is, there is transaction risk. It is not difficult to see that a special case of the Lio model for ρ = 1, kL = 0 is the model in example 10.1. θ here is equivalent to r in example 10.1. Inserting all constraints into the utility function, the constrained maximization problem in (10.7) can be converted to a nonconstrained maximization problem:
⎛ ⎞ P ≡ E ⎜ ∏ kr ⎟ ⎝ r ∈R ⎠
Max: Eui = WP,
1/ρ
(10.9a)
where x is, li, and n are decision variables, P can be interpreted as the aggregate reliability, or 1 − P can be interpreted as the aggregate transaction risk, and W ≡ {(li − α − x is )[x is/(n − 1)] n−1[(1 − li)/(m − n) − α] m−n}1/ρ.
(10.9b)
Also, it can be shown, using symmetry, that pi/pr = 1 in equilibrium. The procedure to solve for x is and li is the same as in chapter 7. But the procedure to solve for n differs, since the solution of equilibrium n relates to the aggregate transaction risk E(∏ r kr)1/ρ. Let us have a close look at this term. The number of kr is n − 1. Suppose that s of them take on value kH and n − 1 − s of them take on value kL, while s can take on value from 1 to n − 1. Here, kH takes place with probability θ and kL takes place with probability 1 − θ. Therefore, the n − 1 of kr follows a binomial distribution. The probability for n − s of kr to take on value kH and for s − 1 of kr to take on value kL is
Ps = Cns−−11 θn −s (1 − θ) s−1
(10.10)
where Cns−−11 is s − 1 combinations of n − 1 elements. Following a binomial formula, it can be shown that
⎛ ⎞ P = E⎜ ∏ k r ⎟ ⎝ r ∈R ⎠
1/ρ
n−1
= ∑ Ps (k Hn− s k Ls−1 ) 1/ρ s −1
n−1 (n−1)/ρ n −1 = C 0n−1θn−1k H(n−1)/ρ + C 1n−1θn−2(1 − θ)k (n−2)/ρ k 1/ρ kL ] H L + . . . + [C n −1 (1 − θ)
= [θk
1/ρ H
+ (1 − θ)k
(10.11)
1/ρ n−1 L
]
where Ps is given by (10.10) and the final equality in (10.11) is given by the binomial formula. Having inserted (10.11) into (10.9), we can express Eui as a function of li , x is, and n. Letting the derivatives of Eui with respect to the three variables equal 0 yields the solutions for the corner equilibrium values of all endogenous variables when insurance is absent.
322 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
li = [n + α(n2 − mn + m − n)]/m lj = [1 + α(n − 1)]/m xi = x rd = xj = [1 − α(1 + m − n)]/m,
xis = (n − 1)xi/n
(10.12)
n = (1 − 1/α) + m{1 − 1/ln[θk H1/ρ + (1 − θ)k 1/ρ L ]} Eu = {[1 − α (1 + m − n)]/m}m/ρ[θk H1/ρ + (1 − θ)k H1/ρ] n−1 1/ρ n−1 P = [θk 1/ρ H + (1 − θ)k L ]
Differentiation of the corner equilibrium values of the endogenous variables with respect to parameters ks(s = H, L), θ, ρ yields comparative statics of the corner equilibrium with no insurance. dn/dks > 0, dli/dks > 0,
dn/dθ > 0,
dn/dρ < 0
dli/dθ > 0,
dli/dρ < 0
d[M(n − 1)x ]/dks > 0, d r
dEu/dks > 0,
(10.13a) (10.13b)
d[M(n − 1)x ]/dθ > 0 d
dEu/dθ > 0
dP/dks = (∂P/∂ks) + (∂P/∂n)(dn/dks) < 0, dP/dθ = (∂P/∂θ) + (∂P/∂n)(dn/dθ) < 0
d[M(n − 1)x ]/dρ < 0, d r
(10.13c) (10.13d)
and (10.13e)
where (n − 1)x dr = x rs is each individual’s aggregate purchase volume and M(n − 1)x rd = Mxsr is the aggregate demand for all goods in the market, which is the extent of the market. As in (10.4d), we have used the envelope theorem to obtain (10.13d). To obtain (10.13e), we have used the solution of n, given in (10.12), and the fact that αm < 1 if the solution of l j, given in (10.12), is between 0 and 1. Comparative statics imply that as transaction efficiency kH or kL rises, or as the probability of a high transaction efficiency, θ, increases (or as the risk of a low transaction efficiency decreases), or as the degree of risk aversion ρ falls, the following phenomena concur. The level of division of labor, n, increases. This implies increases in the number of markets for different goods, in diversity of structure, in market integration, and in production concentration. Aggregate coordination reliability of the network of division of labor, P, decreases, or aggregate risk for coordination failure of the network of division of labor increases. This is quite counterintuitive: an increase in the coordination reliability of each transaction or a decrease in the transaction risk of each transaction will increase aggregate transaction risk! The logic behind this result is that as transaction conditions for each transaction, ks , are improved, or as the risk of coordination failure of each transaction 1 − θ decreases, the scope for trading off economies of division of labor against transaction risk is enlarged, so that individuals can expand the network of division of labor to exploit more economies of division of labor, so that they can afford more aggregate risk of coordination failure of the network of division of labor. Each individual’s level of specialization increases. This implies increases in productivity, in the extent of the market, in the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, in aggregate demand, and in per capita real income. An interesting interpretation of an increase in k is a decrease in tax rate. Also, an increase in θ can be interpreted as a more stable tax rate. Mokyr (1993, pp. 46–58) provides historical evidence that a stable and nonpredatory tax system is essential for economic development. Sachs and Warner (1995a, 1997) provide empirical evidence that economic development performance negatively relates to the transaction risk caused by institutional deficiency. They use an institution quality index to measure this.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
323
Now, we assume that there is an insurance company from which individuals can buy an insurance contract. No matter what the level of transaction efficiency, an individual buying insurance must pay a premium π. If transaction efficiency is low, or is kL, the insurance company pays the individual c. Hence, the individual’s expected utility is Eui = W [θ(kH − π)1/ρ + (1 − θ)(kL − π + c)1/ρ]n−1
(10.14)
where the nonrandom variable W is given in (10.9b). If the insurance is complete and the market for insurance is competitive, the insurance company’s expected profit must be 0. The company receives premium π at probability 1 from the individual and pays the individual c at probability (1 − θ). Therefore, the complete insurance and zero-profit condition require π = (1 − θ)c
(10.15)
Inserting this expression into (10.14) and letting the derivative of Eui with respect to c equal 0 yields each individual’s optimum insurance policy c = kH − kL. Plugging the optimum policy c into (10.15) yields the optimum premium. π* = (1 − θ)(kH − kL)
(10.16)
Inserting the optimum premium and policy back into (10.14) gives the expected utility in the presence of insurance. Eui = W [θkH + (1 − θ)kL](n−1)/ρ
(10.17)
It says that no matter what the level of transaction efficiency, an insured person always gets the utility level at the weighted average of the high and low transaction efficiencies θkH + (1 − θ)kL. That is, the insured individual avoids all risk. Such insurance is called complete insurance. We now consider function f (k) = k1/ρ, which is the part of the utility function that involves uncertainty. The function is concave in the random variable k iff ρ > 1. A comparison between Eu in (10.12) and Eu in (10.17) indicates that an individual gets f (Ek) = [θkH + (1 − θ)kL]1/ρ if she is insured, and she gets Ef (k) = θk H1/ρ + (1 − θ)k 1/ρ L if she is not. Since for a strictly concave function f (k), the value of the function at the weighted average of two contingent transaction efficiencies is greater than the weighted average of the values of the function at the two contingent transaction efficiencies, (10.17) is certainly greater than the expected utility in the absence of insurance. (Recall the Jesen inequality and discussion of this in section 9.2 of chapter 9.) The first-order conditions for maximizing (10.17) are exactly the same as those for maximizing (10.9), except for the first-order condition for the equilibrium n. These conditions yield the corner equilibrium with insurance. l i′ = [n′ + α(n′ 2 − mn′ + m − n′)]/m l j′ = [1 + α(n′ − 1)]/m x i′ = x rd′ = x j′ = [1 − α(1 + m − n′)]/m,
x is′ = (n′ − 1)xi′/n′
(10.18)
n′ = (1 − 1/α) + m{1 − 1/ln[θkH + (1 − θ)kL ]} Eu′ = {[1 − α(1 + m − n′)]/m}m/ρ[θkH + (1 − θ)kL ](n′−1)/ρ P′ = [θkH + (1 − θ)kL ]n−1/ρ Primes of the variables denote corner equilibrium values with insurance. The differentiation of the corner equilibrium values of the endogenous variables with respect to parameters k, θ, ρ
324 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
indicates that comparative statics in (10.13) hold for the case with insurance. A comparison between the corner equilibrium in (10.12) and that in (10.18) indicates n′ > n,
li′ > li,
dn′/dks > 0, dP′/dks < 0,
P ′ > P,
dn′/dθ > 0, dP′/dθ < 0.
Eu′ > Eu,
Mxis′ > Mxis
dEu′/dks > 0,
(10.19a)
dEu′/dθ < 0
(10.19b)
This implies that the expected utility with insurance is greater than that with no insurance. Applying the Yao theorem, it can be shown that all individuals will choose insurance in a general equilibrium. The corner equilibrium with no insurance is not a general equilibrium. (10.19) implies also that the level of division of labor for society, individuals’ levels of specialization, productivity, aggregate coordination reliability of the network of division of labor, and the extent of the market are all greater in the corner equilibrium with insurance than that in the corner equilibrium with no insurance. The complete insurance in this model is equivalent to the complete insurance in a Sovietstyle economy. But in this model, it is assumed that the risk of low transaction efficiency is exogenously given, independent of the effort devoted to reducing such risk. Hence, complete insurance does not generate the endogenous transaction costs that are associated with moral hazard. But we know that complete insurance in a Soviet-style economy indeed generates tremendous endogenous transaction costs and moral hazard problems. In the next section, we will endogenize the risk of a low transaction efficiency and investigate the relationships between the level of division of labor, incomplete insurance, and complete insurance that generate moral hazard and endogenous transaction costs.
10.5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENDOGENOUS TRANSACTION COSTS CAUSED BY MORAL HAZARD Example 10.6: A simplified version of the Lio model (1996) with endogenous transaction costs caused by complete insurance. The difference between the two Lio models in this section and in the preceding section relates to the probabilities of different levels of transaction efficiency. Those probabilities are exogenously given in the last section, whereas here they are endogenously determined by an individual’s effort devoted to reducing the risk of low transaction efficiency. It is also assumed that this effort level is not observable to others or not verifiable in court when a dispute occurs, so that moral hazard may arise. Since the model with endogenous specialization and with moral hazard is much more difficult to manage than a model with endogenous specialization alone or with moral hazard alone, we assume that there are only two goods in this section. Hence, each ex ante identical consumer-producer’s decision problem is Max: Eu = E[ln(x + kxd ) + ln( y + kyd )] s.t.
x + x = Max{0, lx − α}, s
(expected utility function)
y + y = Max{0, ly − α} s
(production functions)
lx + ly + e = 1
(endowment constraint)
k = kH with probability 2/3 ⎫ ⎬ if e = 1/3 k = kL with probability 1/3 ⎭
(effect of effort on transaction risk)
k = kH with probability 0⎫ ⎬ if e = 0, i = x, y k = kL with probability 1 ⎭
px x s + py y s = px x d + py y d
(budget constraint) (10.20)
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
325
where it is assumed that kH > kL. Variable e is the level of effort devoted to reducing the risk of a low transaction efficiency. It can be considered as effort devoted to transporting goods carefully or to protecting the goods from being stolen. For simplicity, we assume that there are only two levels of such effort. The high level of effort e = 1/3 generates a low probability of low transaction efficiency (k = kL) and the low level of effort e = 0 causes low transaction efficiency for sure. Hence, the risk of low transaction efficiency is determined by the level of effort devoted to reducing transaction risk. Since the utility function is strictly concave in the quantities of the two goods consumed, all individuals are risk-averse to the same degree. Also, an increase in the effort level devoted to reducing transaction risk will reduce the amount of labor allocated to the production of goods and thereby reduce income and utility. Hence, each individual has an incentive to choose the low level of effort in reducing transaction risk if complete insurance is available. This implies that complete insurance will generate moral hazard if the division of labor is chosen. From the point of view of an insured, the insurance company cannot observe her effort level if she is completely insured. Her optimum decision is thus to choose the lowest level of effort. The insurance company will go bankrupt if every one of the insured behaves similarly. Hence, the insurance company will provide an incomplete insurance to restrain moral hazard. Suppose that each consumer-producer chooses premium π for a given policy of the insurance company, c. Then, the insurance company chooses the policy for a given π according to the incentive compatibility condition. The second step to sort out the insurance contract terms is equivalent to choosing a parameter β for a given π. The definition of β is given as follows. β = ( 2/3 )π/( 1/3 )(c − π),
(10.21)
where 1/3 is the probability of a low transaction efficiency and 2/3 is the probability of a high transaction efficiency, the denominator is the insurance company’s expected net payout in the event of a low transaction efficiency and the numerator is its expected premium earnings in the event of a high transaction efficiency. Since β is uniquely determined by c for any given π, choosing π for a given c is equivalent to choosing β for a given c. If β = 1, then the expected payout net of premium is the same as the expected premium, so that insurance is complete. If β > 1, the expected net payout is smaller than the expected premium, so that insurance is incomplete and the insured must take part of transaction risks. Hence, parameter β describes the incompleteness of the insurance contract for each transaction. Using the definition of β, we can express the insurance company’s payout net of premium in the event of low transaction efficiency as a function of β and π as well. We thus have c − π = 2π/β
(10.22)
Applying the Wen theorem to the model, there are 6 structures that we must consider. The first is autarky, denoted as A. In this structure, there is no trade or transaction risk, so that it is easy to solve for the corner equilibrium in this structure. The second class of structures features division of labor, but with no insurance, denoted as Bi, i = L, M, H. There are three structures in this class. In structure BL, there are two types of specialist producer of the two goods and they choose the low level of effort in reducing transaction risk, that is e = 0. In structure BM, the specialist producers of one good choose the high effort level e = 1/3 and the specialist producers of the other good choose e = 0. Because of symmetry, the outcome is unaffected by which specialist producers choose e = 0 and which choose e = 1/3 . In structure BH , both specialist producers of the two goods choose e = 1/3 . The third class of structures features division of labor with insurance, denoted Ci, i = L, M, H. Structure CL features complete insurance and e = 0. Since it is assumed in (10.20) that the
326 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
probability of the low transaction efficiency is 1 if e = 0, the uncertainty disappears for this case, so that the insurance company cannot survive. This implies that the corner equilibrium for this structure does not exist. In structure CM with the division of labor and insurance, one type of specialist producers chooses e = 1/3 and the other type of specialist producers chooses e = 0. Structure CH features division of labor, incomplete insurance, and e = 1/3 chosen by all individuals. Let us first consider structure CH. In this structure, the decision problem for a specialist producer of good x is: Max: Eux = ln x + ln y d + 2/3 ln(kH − π) + 1/3 ln(kL + c − π) s.t.
x + x s = Max{0, 1 − α − e}, px x = py y s
d
e = 1/3
(production condition)
(10.23)
(budget constraint)
We can use (10.21) and (10.22) to eliminate c, then solve for the optimum x, x s, y d. Inserting the solution back into (10.23) yields Max: Eux = ln( px/py) + 2 ln[(2 − 3α)/6] + 2/3 ln(kH − π) + 1/3 ln[kL + (2π/β)]
(10.24)
Each specialist in x chooses premium π to maximize Eux for a given β. The optimum premium is π = 1/3 (kH − βkL)
(10.25)
Inserting (10.25) back into (10.24) yields the expected indirect utility function for a specialist in x: Eux = ln( px /py) + 2 ln(2 − 3α) + ln(2kH + βkL) − 3 ln 3 − (ln β/3) − 2 ln 2.
(10.26a)
Following the same procedure, we can solve for the expected indirect utility function for a specialist in y: Euy = ln( py /px) + 2 ln(2 − 3α) + ln(2kH + βkL) − 3 ln 3 − (ln β/3) − 2 ln 2
(10.26b)
The expected utility equalization condition Eux = Euy determines the corner equilibriumrelative price of the two traded goods in structure CH, that is, px /py = 1. The market clearing condition Mx x s = My x d and the population equation Mx + My = M, together with the corner equilibrium-relative price, determine the corner equilibrium numbers of the two types of specialists Mx = My = M/2. An insurance company will choose β according to the incentive compatibility condition. This condition implies that the insured has a higher expected utility when she chooses e = 1/3 than when she chooses e = 0. Following the approach to calculating the expected indirect utility function, we can work out the expected indirect utility function for a specialist in x to choose e = 0. For this case, k = kL will occur for sure, so that the effect on the utility of the expected payout net of premium is ln(kL + c − π). After elimination of c − π using (10.23), the expected indirect utility function for a specialist in x who chooses e = 0 is: Eux = ln( px /py) + 2 ln[(1 − α)/2] + ln(2kH + βkL) − ln 3 − ln β
(10.27)
Incentive compatibility implies that (10.26a) is not smaller than (10.27), that is, the expected utility for a high effort level in reducing transaction risks is not lower than that for a low effort level. This inequality sets up a constraint for β.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
327
Table 10.2 Expected real incomes in seven structures Equilibrium structure
Expected corner equilibrium per capita real income
A
2 ln[(1 − 2α)/2]
BL
2 ln[(1 − α)/2] + ln kL
BM
ln(2 − 3α) + ln(1 − α) − 2 ln 2 + (ln kH/3) + 2/3 ln kL − ln 3
BH
2 ln(2 − 3α) − 2 ln 6 + 2/3 ln kH + (ln kL/3)
CL
No corner equilibrium exists
CM
ln[(2 − 3α)/3] + ln(1 − α) − 2 ln 2 + 0.5{ln kL − (ln β/3) + ln[(2kH/3) + (βkH/3)]}
CH
2 ln(2 − 3α) − 2 ln 6 + ln[(2kH /3) + (kLβ/3)] − (ln β/3)
β > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3
(10.28)
Further, a positive π implies kH > kH − π = (2kH/3) + (βkL/3), where we have used (10.25). This sets up another constraint on β: β < kH /kL
(10.29)
The two constraints on β imply that structure CH with insurance is equilibrium only if kH /kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3.
(10.30)
If this condition does not hold, the set of candidates for the equilibrium structure comprises only A, BL, and BH. If this condition is satisfied, the set comprises A, BL, BH, and CH. Following the procedure used in solving for the corner equilibrium in structure CH, we can solve for all corner equilibria in the seven structures, which are summarized in table 10.2. Using the table, it can be shown that Eu(BM) < Eu(BL), if Eu(BM) > Eu(BH). This implies that either Eu(BM) < Eu(BH) or Eu(BM) < Eu(BL). According to the Yao theorem 5.1, it follows that structure BM cannot be an equilibrium structure. Similarly, we can prove that BH can be an equilibrium structure only if 2
2
⎛ 1 − 2α ⎞ ⎛ 1 − 2α ⎞ −2 3 2/3 ⎜ 1 − α ⎟ > kL > 3 β ⎜ 2 − 3α ⎟ kH ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
(10.31)
which holds only if k 2H [(2 − 3α)/3(1 − α)]2 > 3β2/3 where β > 1. It is obvious that this inequality does not hold for α ∈(0, 1). Therefore, BH cannot be an equilibrium structure. Following a similar line of reasoning, it can be shown that BL cannot be an equilibrium structure if kH/kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3. Taking into account all of the relevant information, comparisons of expected real incomes in all structures yield the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics, as summarized in table 10.3, where γ ≡ 33[1 − 2a)/(2 − 3a)]2β1/3, A is the autarky structure, BL is the structure with the division of labor and with no insurance, where individuals choose the low effort level in reducing transaction risks, CH is the structure with the division of labor and incomplete insurance where individuals choose the high effort level.
328 P ART II: T HE F IRM Table 10.3
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics
kH /kL < [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3
kH /kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3
kL < [(1 − 2α)/(1 − α)]2
kL > [(1 − 2α)/(1 − α)]2
2kH + βkL < γ
2kH + βkL > γ
A
BL
A
CH
We need an additional assumption to determine the equilibrium terms of insurance or the equilibrium degree of incompleteness of insurance. Suppose that the market for insurance is competitive and the management cost for an insurance contract is b; then the expected profit for each insurance contract is π − (c/3) − b = 0. Free entry and competition will drive the profit down to 0. Hence, the equilibrium insurance contractual terms can be determined by the zeroprofit condition and equations (10.21), (10.22), (10.25). After manipulation of the equations, it can be shown that the equilibrium contractual terms are given by the following equations: β is given by f (β, b, kH, kL) ≡ 2(β − 1)(kH − βkL) − 9b = 0, c = 3b(2 + β)/2(β − 1),
π = (c/3) + b.
Then the equilibrium level of division of labor, endogenous transaction costs, and productivity are explained by the insurance management cost coefficient b. In this model, the efficient balance point (or efficient degree of incompleteness of insurance, β) of the trade-off between incentive provision and risk sharing is determined by the insurance management cost coefficient, b, the degree of risk that relates to 1 − θ, kH/kL, and ρ. Because of the connection between the degree of insurance completeness and the degree of softness of the budget constraint, the trade-off between risk sharing and incentive provision is equivalent to the trade-off between risk sharing and the softness of the budget constraint. This trade-off has many more general implications for the analysis of the relationship between economic development and institutions. From the experience of the Asian financial crisis in 1997, we can see that it is not easy to identify the efficient balance point of the trade-off. When the IMF emphasized the reforms of the financial market as a precondition for financial assistance for alleviating the damage of the crisis, it paid more attention to incentive provision in reducing the risk of a bad outcome. When the Korean and Indonesian governments asked for prompt financial assistance from the IMF, they emphasized risk sharing. The bargaining between the two sides was to find the efficient balance of the trade-off between incentive provision and risk sharing. Table 10.3 implies that if the two values of transaction efficiency are sufficiently small, the general equilibrium is autarky where there is no market or transaction risk. As kH and kL increase, the general equilibrium jumps to the division of labor with transaction risks. When the ratio kH /kL is not great, or the gains from a high effort in reducing risk of a low transaction efficiency are not great, insurance cannot survive moral hazard. Hence, the division of labor is not associated with insurance and individuals choose the low effort level in reducing transaction risk (structure BL ). When the gains are significant, insurance emerges from the division of labor and individuals choose the high effort level in reducing transaction risk (structure CH ). Next, we show that for kH/kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3, insurance can promote division of labor and productivity progress. Comparisons between corner equilibrium expected real incomes in structures A, BH, and CH, given in table 10.2 yield the following results: Eu(BH) > u(A) iff μ1 ≡ k H2/3k L1/3 > μ0 ≡ [3(1 − 2α)/(2 − 3α)]2 Eu(CH) > u(A) iff μ2 ≡ (2kH + βkL)/3β1/3 > μ0
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
329
A close examination of μ1 and μ2 yields μ2|β→k
H /kL
= μ1
and
∂μ2/∂β < 0 if β < kH/kL
(10.32a) and
∂μ2/∂β > 0 if β > kH/kL
(10.32b)
(10.32b) implies that μ2 reaches its minimum at β = kH/kL. This, together with (10.32a), implies that μ2 > μ1. This implies that Eu(BH) < u(A) and Eu(CH) > u(A) if μ0 ∈(μ1, μ2). In other words, structure CH with insurance is better than autarky, which is in turn better than structure BH with no insurance if μ0 ∈(μ1, μ2). This establishes the proposition that incomplete insurance in CH may promote division of labor and productivity progress. Next, we show that such incomplete insurance cannot eliminate the endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard, though it does reduce such endogenous transaction costs. To substantiate this claim, it suffices to prove that the corner equilibrium in structure CH is not locally Pareto optimal. It is easy to show that the corner equilibrium expected real income in CH increases as β tends to 1. Indeed, the local Pareto optimum for the division of labor can be calculated as the corner equilibrium in CH with β = 1. The locally Pareto optimum real income for the division of labor is V = 2 ln(2 − 3α) − 2 ln 6 − ln 3 + ln(2kH + βkL) − [(ln β)/3] and V > u(A) iff μ3 ≡ (2kH + kL)/3 > μ0.
(10.33)
A comparison between μ3 and μ2 indicates that μ3 > μ2. This implies that V is always greater than u(A) whenever Eu(CH) is greater than u(A). But for μ 0 ∈(μ2, μ3), V > u(A) > Eu(CH). Hence, if the effort level in reducing transaction risks is observable, complete insurance can be given only to those who choose the high effort level, so that moral hazard is eliminated and the expected real income is higher than that in structure CH, which is associated with β > 1. In other words, the corner equilibrium in structure CH is not locally Pareto optimal. However, the Pareto optimum is not a feasible utopia when CH is the general equilibrium structure. It is interesting to note three different cases of endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard. 1) Suppose kH /kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3 and μ0 ∈(μ2, μ3), which imply that the general equilibrium structure is A and the Pareto optimum is the division of labor with complete insurance and with no moral hazard. Hence, the division of labor and related welfare gains cannot be realized because of the positive equilibrium endogenous transaction costs. This kind of endogenous transaction cost is called type I endogenous transaction cost, which are associated with the Pareto inefficient equilibrium levels of division of labor and productivity and number of transactions. 2) Suppose kH /kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3 and μ2 > μ0, which implies that the general equilibrium structure is CH and is not Pareto optimal. Hence, the equilibrium resource allocation is not efficient (i.e., the relative quantity and relative price of the two goods are not efficient) because of the endogenous transaction costs caused by moral hazard, despite the efficient equilibrium level of division of labor. This kind of transaction cost is called type II endogenous transaction cost. 3) Suppose kH/kL < [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3 and kL > [(1 − 2α)/(1 − α)]2, which imply that the equilibrium structure is BL, is not Pareto optimal, and has a low effort level in avoiding transaction risk. Hence, moral hazard generates endogenous transaction costs that are associated with a low effort level in avoiding transaction risk, despite the Pareto efficient level of division of labor. This is referred to as type III endogenous transaction cost. 4) Suppose kH /kL > [3(1 − α)/(2 − 3α)]3 and μ0 > μ3 > μ2, which imply that the equilibrium structure is A and is Pareto optimal. Assume now that transaction efficiency is improved such
330 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
that μ 0 ∈(μ2, μ3). This implies that the general equilibrium jumps from structure A to structure CH and the equilibrium endogenous transaction costs increase from 0 to a positive level. In other words, concurrent increases in endogenous transaction costs, in productivity, and in the level of division of labor may take place as a result of reduced exogenous transaction costs (improved transaction efficiency). We call the kind of endogenous transaction cost that emerges from improved exogenous transaction costs and increased productivity type IV endogenous transaction cost. Type I and III transactions are similar to X-inefficiency, which causes a low productivity or a low effort level. But type I transaction cost causes organizational inefficiency (Pareto inefficient level of division of labor) while type II and type III endogenous transaction costs result in allocative inefficiency. Type IV endogenous transaction cost is due both to a higher productivity, which can be used to afford increased endogenous transaction costs, and to moral hazard. These results on endogenous transaction costs substantiate Coase’s conjecture (1960) that if there exist endogenous transaction costs, the interactions between self-interested individuals will sort out the contractual arrangements that maximize economies of division of labor net of endogenous and exogenous transaction cost, rather than minimize a particular type of transaction cost. If the trade-off between measuring the cost of effort level and moral hazard is introduced into the model with the trade-off between incentive provision and risk sharing, the story will be much more realistic and complicated. Milgrom and Roberts (1992, p. 336) survey several models that have the two types of trade-off. In one of the models, promotion according to seniority can reduce influencing (rent-seeking) cost in a firm, encourage continuous accumulation of firmspecific human capital, and provide risk sharing between the employee and the employer. But it will cause the endogenous transaction costs associated with inaccurate measurement of effort levels and prevent the realization of productivity-enhancing labor mobility. The effects of a promotion scheme according to performance are the opposite. Hence, the efficient promotion criteria must efficiently trade-off one against others among incentive provision, risk sharing, employment stability (or its reciprocal, labor mobility), and measurement costs. Example 10.7: Application of the models in examples 10.5 and 10.6 to the analysis of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. There are two opposite views of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. According to one of them, the financial crisis was caused by moral hazard associated with cronyism, and complete insurance of loans provided by the government. The other view (Radelet and Sachs, 1998a, and Stiglitz, 1998) holds that as the network of trade expands, aggregate risk of coordination failure inevitably increases, even if moral hazard is not that serious. Hence, policy missteps and hasty reactions by governments and international organizations may miss the efficient balance of the trade-off between insurance and incentive provision. For instance, overemphasis on financial reform programs which reduce moral hazard when insurance should receive more attention, added to the virulence of the banking panics. We can apply the models in examples 10.5 and 10.6 to assess this view. According to (10.13e) and (10.19b), it is obvious that even if moral hazard is absent, the aggregate risk of coordination failure 1 − P increases as transaction conditions are improved or as the risk of coordination failure for each transaction decreases. This is because as the risk of coordination failure for each transaction reduces, the scope for trading off economies of division of labor against aggregate risk is enlarged, so that individuals can afford a higher aggregate risk. Hence, choosing a higher aggregate risk of coordination failure is associated with economic development generated by evolution of division of labor, and it is efficient. This explains why a more successful developed economy has a higher risk of having an episode like the Great Depression than a less-developed economy. And this is why Radelet and Sachs call the 1997 Asian financial crisis a “crisis of success.” The higher risk is efficiently chosen, just like choosing the higher risk of being killed by driving on a freeway.
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
331
This implies that moral hazard is not the whole story; and is why more moral hazard generated by complete insurance in China and in the Soviet Union does not necessarily imply more risk of financial crisis. The model in example 10.6 indicates that the efficient way to handle the Asian financial crisis is to balance the trade-off between incentive provision in reducing the risk and risk sharing, rather than paying too much attention to one of them. If the time lag between financial decisions and market price signals is considered, we may have another trade-off between the strong incentive created by sensitive feedback of financial decisions to market shocks and the stability of the financial market. Financial reforms may increase the sensitivity of the feedback mechanism. But feedback that is too sensitive may make overshot more likely, and sometimes it may generate overreactions that create a financial crisis. Aghion, Bacchetta, and Banerjee (1998) develop such a cobweb model. See also example 19.5 for a Smithian model with such a trade-off. In policy-making, the trick is to identify the efficient balance of the trade-offs between insurance provision and moral hazard and between strong incentive and stability.
Key Terms and Review • Trade-off between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs • Trade-off between exogenous transaction costs in deepening the incumbent relationships and exogenous transaction costs in expanding potential relationships • Implications of the trade-off between economies of division of labor and various transaction costs, in addition to the above two trade-offs, for economic development • Externality; public goods • Differences between nonrivalry, non-exclusivity, and public goods • The difference between Pigou’s marginal analysis of the distortions caused by externalities and public goods, and inframarginal analysis of endogenous transaction costs and endogenous externality • Substitution between competition in the market and precise specification and enforcement of property rights • Why perfect competition and perfectly specified and enforced property rights may not be efficient if the trade-offs among various endogenous and exogenous transaction costs and economies of division of labor are taken into account • The connection between softness of budget constraint and vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights • The market mechanism that sorts out the efficient degree of competition, the efficient degree of vagueness in specifying and enforcing property rights, and the efficient level of division of labor • The relationship between risk aversion and a strictly concave utility functions • Degree of risk aversion • Effects of transaction risk and the degree of risk aversion on the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development • The effect of insurance on the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development • Complete insurance, moral hazard, incomplete insurance, and endogenous transaction costs • What are the features of a Soviet-style economic system with complete insurance? Why does it generate extremely high endogenous transaction costs? Why would productivity decline sharply if the complete insurance system was abolished before a developed market for insurance was available?
332 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
Further Reading Trading off different kinds of transaction costs: Cheung (1969, 1970, 1983), Milgrom and Roberts (1992), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, chs. 10, 11), Yang and Wills (1990), Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992), Williamson (1975, 1985), Monteverde and Teece (1982); Economics of property rights: Barzel (1989), Demsetz (1967, 1988), Demsetz and Lehn (1985), Furubotn and Pejovich (1974), Manne (1975), North (1981), North and Weingast (1989); New political economy models with endogenous stealing: Marcouiller and Young (1995), Skaperdas (1992); Soft budget constraint: Kornai (1980, 1991), Qian (1994); Theory of reliability: Shooman (1968), Sah and Stiglitz (1986, 1988, 1991), Sah (1991), Bazovsky (1961), Lange (1970), Blanchard and Kremer (1997), Kremer (1993). Historical evidence about the relationship between property rights and economic development: Macfarlane (1988), Baechler, Hall, and Mann (1997), Pipe (1999), Jones (1981), Baechler (1976), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986), and Mokyr (1990, 1993), Landes (1998); Empirical evidence for the relationship between better enforced property rights and economic development: Barro (1997), Sachs and Warner (1995, 1997), Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992), Frye and Shleifer (1997); Insurance and economic development: Lio (1996, 1998), Dixit (1987, 1989); Risk and insurance: Mas-Collell, Whinston, and Green (1995, chs. 6, 13, 14), Varian (1993, ch. 8), Milgrom and Roberts (1992); General equilibrium models of moral hazard: Legros and Newman (1996), Laffont and Tirole (1986), Helpman and Laffont (1975), Kihlstrom and Laffont (1979); Economic crisis and development: Sachs (1986d, 1987, 1989), Radelet and Sachs (1998a).
QUESTIONS 1 The automatic traffic-light system can be used to save on costs of hiring traffic policemen for manual control of traffic lights, but it causes endogenous transaction costs as well. The automatic system is not as flexible as a manually controled system, so that it quite often wastes drivers’ time in waiting for a green light. Technically, an ultrasound system for monitoring traffic conditions at each intersection can be used to reduce such endogenous transaction costs at the exogenous transaction costs of buying the ultrasound system. Discuss under what conditions (for instance, the salary of a policeman is low in a developing country, or technical progress could significantly reduce the price of the ultrasound system) acceptance of the endogenous transaction costs caused by the automatic traffic-light system is efficient. Why is the term “externality” misleading for addressing endogenous transaction costs? 2 Before patent laws were first introduced in Britain (the Statute of Monopolies, 1624), the invention of new technology involved substantial endogenous transaction costs in trading intellectual property. The patent laws significantly reduced such endogenous transaction costs at the cost of increasing the distortions caused by monopoly. A discussion on benefits and costs of the patent laws for the Industrial Revolution can be found in Mokyr, 1993, pp. 40–8. Why are the terms “externality” and “spread-over effect” which are used to describe such endogenous transaction costs misleading? 3 In the earliest postal system in Britain, postal fees were accurately calculated according to the weight and distance traveled of the mail in order to reduce the endogenous transaction costs caused by an inaccurate correspondence between fee and service provided. Analyze why that postal system was replaced with an inaccurate measurement of the correspondence between fee and service based on postage stamps and mailboxes. Why is the term “externality” misleading for describing the various transaction costs involved in the postal system? 4 Holmstrom and Roberts (1998, pp. 80–1) examine the difference between contractual arrangements in the US and Japan. In the US: When products were outsourced, the
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
333
design was typically done by the automaker, with the drawings being provided to the suppliers. This pattern is what Williamson’s hold-up stories would predict, for the investment in design is highly specific and probably cannot be protected fully by contracts; thus, external suppliers will not make such relationship-specific investments for fear that they will be held up by buyers after their investments are in place. In stark contrast, it is normal practice for Japanese auto firms to rely on their suppliers to do the actual design of the products supplied. The design costs are then to be recovered through the sale price of the part, with the understanding that this price will be adjusted in light of realized volumes. A second contrast: the traditional US practice has been that physical assets specific to an automaker’s needs are owned by the automaker. This clearly applies in the case of internally procured items, but it also holds in cases where the assets are used by the external supplier in its own factory. In Japan, in contrast, these specific investments are made by the supplier, who retains ownership of the dies. This would seem to present the automaker with temptations to appropriate the returns on these assets, once the supplier has made the relationship-specific investment. Moreover, because the Japanese auto manufacturers typically have a very small number of suppliers of any part, component or system, the supplier would also seem to be in a position to attempt opportunistic renegotiation by threatening to withhold supply for which there are few good, timely substitutes. The Japanese pattern is directly at odds with transaction cost theory. Meanwhile, the divergence in ownership of the dies between the two countries presents problems for Hart, Grossman, and Moore’s attempts to explain ownership allocation solely in terms of providing incentives for investments. Use the model in example 10.2 to explain the difference between contractual arrangements in Japan and the US in connection with Williamson’s theory of asset specificity and Hart’s theory of incomplete contracts (example 9.15). 5 Cheung, 1970; Barzel, 1982: Oranges can be grouped in a very fine or a rough way. One of the two extremes is to price each orange precisely according to its quality (taste, color, and size). The other is to set up the same price for all oranges of different qualities. In reality, grouping and pricing of oranges is in-between the two extremes. Apply the models in this chapter to analyze how the efficient degree of precision in measuring oranges is determined in the marketplace. Why is the existence of externality caused by the imprecise measurement of the quality of oranges efficient in the free market system? 6 Use the model of endogenous “externality” to formalize Coase’s and Cheung’s criticisms of Pigou’s welfare analysis of externality and public goods. According to Cheung (1970, 1983) and Coase (1960), so-called externality is endogenously chosen by individuals in efficiently trading off between endogenous and exogenous transaction costs, and if exogenous transaction costs in specifying and enforcing property rights are counted, keeping a certain degree of “externality” may be efficient. Also, inframarginal analysis across different structures of property rights is more appropriate than Pigou’s marginal analysis of quantities and prices for a given economic structure. In other words, discontinuous jumps between corner solutions should be taken into account for a general equilibrium analysis of the trade-off between the benefits of trade and all kinds of transaction costs. 7 Marshall (1890, p. 241) described the relationship between the network of division of labor, transaction conditions, and the development of new machinery as follows. “The development of the organism, whether social or physical, involves an increasing subdivision of functions between its separate parts on the one hand, and on the
334 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
other a more intimate connection between them. Each part gets to be less and less self-sufficient, to depend for its well-being more and more on other parts, so that any disorder in any part of a highly developed organism will affect other parts also. This increased subdivision of functions, or ‘differentiation,’ as it is called, manifests itself with regard to industry in such forms as the division of labour, and the development of specialized skill, knowledge and machinery; while ‘integration,’ that is, a growing intimacy and firmness of the connections between the separate parts of the industrial organism, shows itself in such forms as the increase of security of commercial credit, and of the means and habits of communication by sea and by road, by railway and telegraph, by post and printing-press.” Interpret the models in this chapter in connection with this description. 8 Mokyr (1990, p. 267) writes: “Small firms do not guarantee competitiveness. If firms are catering to a small enough market (that is, if transport costs are sufficiently high), even a single artisan could be a monopolist. Moreover, competitive industries can devise cushioning mechanisms that mitigate the sharp edges of competition and eventually make the industry behave as a monopolist in some respects. The guild system, although not set up for that purpose, clearly carried out that task in Europe for many centuries.” Use the models in this chapter to substantiate the conjecture on the relationship between the degree of competition and transaction efficiency. 9 If the capital market is not developed, a government postal system can be used to develop the market for postal services. Why may the government postal system generate greater endogenous transaction costs than the market for private postal services if the capital market is developed? Some economists use the notion of network externality to justify a government monopoly in the market for postal services. Why may this notion be misleading? 10 Comparative statics of the equilibrium model in example 10.2 can be used to identify the impact of the improvements in two kinds of transaction efficiency: efficiency in delimiting rights to contracting and efficiency in specifying and enforcing contractual terms. For instance, an improvement in transaction efficiency in delimiting rights to contracting may increase buyers’ dependence on competition between peer suppliers of a good, and reduce the equilibrium degree of precision in specifying and enforcing contractual terms. An improvement in efficiency in stipulating and enforcing a contract may have contrary effects, so that a buyer of a good will increase the precision of a contract rather than maintaining contact with many potential suppliers of the good. Meanwhile, improvements in efficiency of either kind may enhance the equilibrium level of division of labor, trade dependence, and productivity. This model can also be used to analyze the structure of property rights in a Sovietstyle economy. Socialist and comparative system economists are now realizing that equivocation in delimiting property rights under a state ownership system is a much more serious problem than distorted prices in a socialist economy. Many Chinese economists believe that more precisely delimited property rights are better. Use the distinction between efficiency in delimiting rights to contracting and efficiency in specifying and enforcing the terms of a contract to comment on that view. 11 Restrictions that exist on the trading of labor, land, and capital in a Soviet-style economy will substantially reduce transaction efficiency in delimiting rights to contracting, thereby restricting institutional development and economic growth. Under such restraints, the scope for people to balance the two types of transaction cost is very limited. Use the model in example 10.4 to analyze the difference between
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20 21 22
335
a state-run enterprise in a socialist country and a government owned firm in a free enterprise system, and the difference between a state-run enterprise in a socialist country and a private firm in a free market. The Chinese and Taiwanese governments use state revenue to develop the freeway system, while in Malaysia the major freeway system is developed by the private sector. Use the models in this chapter to analyze the relative advantages of the two ways of developing infrastructure. Use the models in this chapter to analyze the financial crisis in East Asia in 1997. Yang, Wang, and Wills use meticulous documentation of institutional changes in China to estimate sub-indices of transaction efficiencies in specifying and enforcing rights to use, transfer, and appropriate earnings from land, goods, labor, and financial assets. Then the 12 sub-indices are used to estimate a comprehensive transaction efficiency index over 9 years. A regression of the per capita real income on the degree of commercialization (a measure of the level of division of labor) and the transaction efficiency index, and a regression of the degree of commercialization on the index, show a significant positive relationship between per capita real income, the level of division of labor, and transaction efficiency in specifying and enforcing property rights. Derive more empirical implications, and find more empirical evidence for the theories developed in this chapter. Use the models in this chapter to analyze the function of the stock market in providing incomplete insurance for entrepreneurial activities and its development implications. In many less-developed societies, individuals allocate a lot of resources to the deepening of personal trade relationships to increase the reliability of exchanges. They do not rely on broad, impersonal market connections to secure transactions (see for instance Mauss, 1925). Use the model in example 10.2 to explain this phenomenon. North (1970) argues that the development of impersonal exchanges is essential for reducing transaction costs and for economic development. Use the models in this chapter to analyze the conditions for the development of impersonal exchanges. Analyze the functions of unemployment insurance, medical insurance, and other insurance in increasing the network size of division of labor and productivity. The Soviet-style economic system provides complete insurance for those specializing in different professions in the state sector. That insurance generates tremendous endogenous transaction costs because of moral hazard, but is an essential condition for the operation of a large network size of division of labor. Explain, using the models in this chapter, why the Russian economy drastically declined in the 1990s after the complete insurance system had been abolished. Analyze why the framework of consumer-producers and the notion of the positive network effect of division of labor on aggregate productivity are essential for exploring the productivity implications of insurance. Use the models of insurance in this chapter to explain the impact of the development of the insurance sector on the success of British commerce and the wealth of the nation in the eighteenth century. Use empirical data to test the concurrent evolution of division of labor and the income share of insurance, which are used to accommodate the increasing risk of coordination failure of a larger network of division of labor. A survey in the Economist (Sept. 5–11, 1998, pp. 4–7) found that the probability of a motorist getting in a traffic jam is higher in a city the faster the upgrading of its transportation infrastructure. Use the theory in this chapter about the trade-off
336 P ART II: T HE F IRM
23
24 25
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
between the benefit of expanding the network and the reliability of the network to explain why aggregate reliability declines as transaction conditions are improved. The model in example 10.6 shows that in a Smithian model of endogenous specialization, moral hazard, division of labor, and productivity may increase side by side as transaction conditions are improved. Hence, the distortions caused by moral hazard in a developed country might be greater than those in a less-developed country, despite higher productivity in the former. Use this result and other models in this chapter to comment on the claim made by some development economists that mainstream economics is not applicable to developing countries, because the non-existence of many markets in the developing countries creates many more distortions than in the developed countries. Use the models in this chapter to analyze division of labor in producing books and related ideas; and the role of copyright laws and their enforcement in promoting the division of labor. Endogenous transaction costs caused by interest conflicts in economic development, investigated in chapters 10 and 11, are treated in conventional development economics under the rubrics of “public goods,” “externality,” “market failure,” and “inequality of income distribution.” Assess the differences between these two approaches to studying obstacles to economic development.
EXERCISES
1 Yang and Wills, 1990: Assume that q in the model of example 10.1 is endogenously determined by labor effort in reducing transaction risk. Solve for general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 2 Mokyr (1993, p. 56) describes the trade-off between the negative effect of taxation and its benefit to economic development via developing infrastructure that improves transaction conditions. In the eighteenth and ninteteenth centuries, the British were more heavily taxed than the French, but a stable and pre-specified tax rule was never allowed to become as arbitrary and confiscatory as in France. Tax revenue was used to develop the institutional and transportation infrastructure and significantly improved transaction conditions. Hence, in 1788, British GNP per capita was about 30 percent higher than in France. Specify a tax rate on each dollar from sale of goods in the model in example 10.1. Assume that transaction reliability r is an increasing function of tax revenue. Use the extended model to explain Mokyr’s historical facts. Note that because of the trade-off between the positive and negative effects of taxation, there is an optimum tax rate which maximizes per capita real income. 3 Assume that q in the model of example 10.1 differs from good to good, and m = 3. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Use your results to analyze why a property that has the same consumption and production conditions as other properties, but involves more restrictions on its trading or has a greater transaction risk q, will have a lower market price if it is traded, and will be more likely not to be traded if only a subset of goods are traded in equilibrium. Apply the analysis to explore the welfare implications of a
C HAPTER 10: T RANSACTION R ISK , P ROPERTY R IGHTS , I NSURANCE
4
5
6
7
public housing program. Use the model to explain why, in many developing countries, government institutions, including government funded universities, are reluctant to buy all kinds of services from the market. They tend to have their own guesthouses instead of buying professional hotel services for their guests, to have their own lawyers instead of buying professional law services from independent law firms, and so on. Analyze the implications of such a tendency to self-sufficiency for the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development. Suppose good x in the model in example 10.4 is a producer good that is essential for the production of the consumption good y. Each consumer-producer’s utility is a function of the consumption amount of good y. There is no transaction uncertainty for good y. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. (Yang and Ng, 1993, ch. 11.) Holmstrom and Milgrom, 1991: The employer hires the employee to undertake two activities to generate profit. The employer’s certain equivalent (see section 9.2 of chapter 9 for the definition of this concept) is P(e1, e2) − (α + β1e1 + β2e2), where ei is the employee’s effort level in activity i, βi is the incentive intensity coefficient for activity i, P(e1, e2) is the expected gross profit, and α + β1e1 + β2e2 is the expected wage payment. Contingent wage payment is w = α + β1(e1 + x1) + β2(e2 + x2), where xi ~ N(0, σ) is a white noise in activity i and x1 and x2 are independent. The employee’s certain equivalent wealth is α + β1e1 + β2e2 − C(e1 + e2) − 0.5rvar(β1x1 + β2x2), where C(e1 + e2) is the disutility of total effort, r is the employee’s coefficient of absolute risk aversion, and var(β1x1 + β2x2) = (β 12 + β 22)σ. Find the optimum incentive intensity in each activity βi by maximizing the employer’s and employee’s total certain equivalent wealth subject to the first-order condition for maximizing the employee’s certain equivalent wealth. Show that the trade-off between balanced incentives for the two activities and the benefit of strong incentives for each activity generates the optimum incentive payment structure that entails much weaker incentives than in the conventional principal–agent model. Holmstrom and Milgrom use this model to show that the institution of the firm can use such a weak but balanced incentive contract to get a particular activity going, whereas the activity may not occur in the market without the firm. Discuss the difference between this model and the models in examples 8.1, 9.15, and 10.2. Li, 2001: Introduce stealing into the models in this chapter and assume that an individual can spend time stealing the goods of trade partners in transactions. Also, each individual can spend time protecting herself from theft. Specify a stealing function, of which the right-hand side is time spent stealing and the left-hand side is goods that can be obtained without pay. Then you may specify a protection function on the negative relationship between the degree of theft and the effort spent protecting her property. Use such a model to explore the implications of endogenous stealing for the equilibrium network size of division of labor and economic development. Criminal laws penalize stealing much more than direct economic cost caused by stealing. For instance, according to criminal laws, theft can get a jail sentence of several years, in addition to the fine that covers direct economic damage caused by the theft. Also, the moral code requires responsible individuals to do more than that which is suggested by a cold economic calculation of the cost and benefit of theft. What are the development implications of criminal laws which protect and a moral code respecting private property? Assume that in the model in example 10.5, m = 3 and α1 > α2 > α3. Solve for the corner equilibria with and without insurance, and for the inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the development implications of insurance.
337
338 P ART II: T HE F IRM
AND
E NDOGENOUS T RANSACTION C OSTS
8 Assume that in the model of example 10.5, m = 3 and kH and kL differ from good to good. Solve for the corner equilibria with and without insurance, and for the inframarginal comparative statics. Analyze the implications for the trade pattern of the difference in transaction risk across goods. 9 Assume that in the model of example 10.6 the utility function is u = [(x + kx x d )( y + ky y d )1/2 10
11
12
13
Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics. Develop a general equilibrium model, on the basis of example 10.6, to endogenize the emergence of professional insurance agents from the evolution of division of labor. You may specify the economies of specialization in estimating transaction risk. Discuss the possible implications of the economies of specialization, which might be used to get results that are contrary to some insurance models, which predict that the insured knows more about risk than the professional insurance company (adverse selection). Kremer, 1993: The production function for a neoclassical firm is y = kαqnnB, where y is the expected output level, k is the input level of capital, α ∈(0, 1), q is the probability that a worker does a job meeting a quality requirement, or 1 − q is the probability that this worker’s job does not meet a quality requirement, n is the number of jobs that are essential for production, and B is a contribution parameter of each qualified job to output. Market wage is a function of q, which is positively related to the quality of workers hired. Hence, w = w(q). The interest rate is r. Suppose that good y is the numeraire. Specify the first-order conditions for maximizing profit with respect to k and q and identify the market relationship between the wage rate and the quality of workers w(q). (Hint: insert the expression of the optimum k into the first-order condition for the optimum q, then solve for the differential equation dw/dq = f (q).) Sah and Stiglitz, 1988: Consider two patterns of the decision-making process in which a project is assessed by two decision-makers. In pattern A (series connection), person 1 assesses a proposed project first. She accepts a proposal with probability p and rejects it with probability 1 − p. A proposal that has been accepted by person 1 is then assessed by person 2, who accepts a proposal with p ∈(0, 1). In pattern B (parallel connection), each person assesses each proposal independently of the other’s assessment. Assume that 50 percent of the proposals are good and the others should be rejected. What is the probability that a good proposal is rejected (type I error) under each of the decision patterns? What is the probability that a bad proposal is accepted (type II error) under each of the decision patterns? In example 10.2, assume that reliability for each transaction r is a decreasing function of the number of potential partners, N (because the incumbent partner’s loyalty decreases as a person keeps in touch with many potential substitutes for the incumbent). Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics again. Use your result to analyze why many franchise contracts include a clause that imposes a high cost if the franchisee breaks free of the incumbent franchiser.
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 339
PART III Urbanization and Industrialization
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 341
URBANIZATION, STRUCTURAL DUALITY BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
11
11.1 WHY AND HOW CITIES EMERGE FROM THE DIVISION OF LABOR Xenophon (see Gordon, 1975, p. 41), William Petty (1683, p. 947), Adam Smith (1776, chs. 2, 3, book I), and Alfred Marshall (1890, chs. 9–10, book IV) recognized the intrinsic connection between division of labor and the emergence of cities. However, no general equilibrium analysis was developed to explain the emergence of cities from the evolution of division of labor until the 1990s. There are two ways to explore the relationship between urbanization and division of labor. One is proposed by Yang (1991) and Yang and Rice (1994), with the accentuation of the endogenization of individuals’ levels of specialization and degree of market integration. The other is proposed by Fujita and Krugman (1995), with the emphasis on the endogenization of the number of goods and economies of scale. Yang’s model (1991) predicts that if all individuals reside together within a small area to form a city, then transaction efficiency can be improved by reducing the distance between each pair of trade partners, so that the level of division of labor and productivity can be raised. But since the logic of that model suggests that all individuals should reside together, it cannot predict the emergence of a structural duality between rural and urban areas. The story behind the Fujita–Krugman model runs as follows. There are trade-offs between global economies of scale, the utility benefit of the consumption variety of manufactured goods, and transaction costs. Farming is land intensive, so farmers must have dispersed residences in rural areas. Manufactured goods are not land intensive, so manufacturers can reside together in the city. In addition, as the residences of manufacturers are concentrated in a city, there is a trade-off between the reduction of transaction costs between urban residents and the increase in transaction costs between rural farmers and urban manufacturers. An increase in population size or in transaction efficiency will enlarge the scope for individuals to trade-off among these conflicting forces, thereby increasing productivity, per capita real income, and consumption variety. The increase in the number of manufactured goods, an aspect of division of labor, will
342 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
move the efficient balance of the trade-offs toward a more concentrated residential pattern of manufacturers, making a city more likely to emerge. The benefit of concentrated manufacturers’ residences is called type I economies of agglomeration. As comparative statics of the general equilibrium model predict, a decrease in the unit transaction cost coefficient of agricultural goods or a larger population size will make a city more likely to emerge from a greater number of manufactured goods. But concurrent increases in the urban–rural land price differential, decreases in relative per capita consumption of land by urban and rural residents, the population size of urban residents as a share of total population, and increases of individuals’ levels of specialization cannot be predicted by the model. We shall study this model in section 11.2. Yang and Rice’s model (1994) of endogenous specialization predicts the emergence of cities, and of the dichotomy between urban and rural areas, as consequences of the evolution of division of labor and individual specialization. The story behind the model may be outlined as follows. Suppose the production of food is land intensive. The production of many manufactured goods is not land intensive. There are economies of specialization in producing each good, and trade generates transaction costs. Hence, there is a trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs. If transaction efficiency is low, individuals will choose autarky where no market and city exist. As transaction efficiency is slightly improved, the division of labor between partially specialized farmers and partially specialized cloth makers emerges as a consequence of the efficient trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs. Since farming is land intensive and cloth making is not, farmers will have dispersed residences while each cloth maker will reside near a farm to reduce the transaction costs caused by division of labor. Hence, the low level of division of labor between farming and cloth making does not generate cities. As transaction efficiency is further improved, the division of labor between cloth makers, house builders, and furniture makers emerges in addition to the division of labor between farmers and manufacturers. The manufacturers can have dispersed residences or reside together in a city since their production is not land intensive. In order to save on the transaction costs caused by the division of labor and related transactions among manufacturers, they will reside in a city. Hence, a city and a dichotomy between urban and rural sectors emerge from a high level of division of labor between specialist manufacturers and between professional manufacturers and farmers. In this story, if different specialist manufacturers reside in the city, the transaction cost coefficient for trade between manufacturers (urban residents) is much smaller than that for trade between farmers (rural residents) and urban residents. This transaction efficiency differential, due to the different degrees of land intensity in agricultural and industrial production, is a driving force behind the emergence of the city from the division of labor. In the development of urbanization and division of labor, urban residents’ levels of specialization and productivity increase more quickly than rural residents’, since the short distance between each pair of urban residents ensures higher transaction efficiency in the urban area than in the rural area. The dual structure, in terms of differences in productivity and in commercialized income between the urban and rural areas, takes place in the transitional phase as the economy moves from a low to a high level of division of labor. However, free migration between areas and between occupations will equalize the per capita real incomes of urban and rural residents, despite the inequality of their per capita commercialized incomes. As transaction efficiency is continuously improved, the economy will evolve to a state of complete division of labor. Then the dual structure will disappear and productivity, the degree of commercialization, and commercialized incomes will be equalized between the two areas. Section 11.3 uses a simplified version of the Yang–Rice model (1994) to formalize the story. Similar to the Fujita– Krugman model, the driving force of the story is type I economies of agglomeration, which look like externality of urbanization.
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 343
There is another way to explain the relationship between urbanization and the evolution of division of labor in the absence of a differential of transaction efficiency between agricultural and industrial goods. This explains urbanization by exploring the general equilibrium implications of interactions between the positive network effects of the division of labor and the geographical concentration of transactions that are required by a particular network of division of labor. Because of the positive network effect of the division of labor, the geographical concentration of transactions required by a particular network of division of labor can save on transaction costs by reducing total traveling distance for each individual. Hence, urbanization can promote division of labor by concentrating a large network of transactions in a city to reduce transaction costs. The benefit of a geographical concentration of transactions is referred to as type II economies of agglomeration, which differs from the benefit of geographical concentration of manufacturers’ residences. Type II economies of agglomeration imply that individuals may come to the city to conduct their transactions even if they do not reside in the city, while type I economies of agglomeration can be realized only if individuals reside in the city. It is interesting to note the interdependence among equilibrium transaction efficiency, equilibrium level of division of labor, and the equilibrium geographical pattern of transactions in this story. The concept of general equilibrium is a powerful vehicle in investigating the simultaneous determination of the interdependent variables. Section 11.4 will formalize the story of general equilibrium. In section 11.5, we extend this story to simultaneously endogenize the land price differential between the rural and urban areas, the level of division of labor, and the population density in the urban area. This is done by introducing the consumption level of land into the utility function. In addition to the trade-off between economies of division of labor and transaction costs, there is a trade-off between high transaction efficiency for urban residents and congestion in the city. Equilibrium is associated with an efficient trade-off that generates the following phenomenon. As transaction efficiency is improved, division of labor evolves. This generates increasingly significant economies of agglomeration (transaction efficiency increasing with the degree of geographical concentration of transactions), so that more individuals are willing to reside in the city. This bids up the land price of the urban area, resulting in a fall in the per capita consumption of land by urban residents compared to rural residents. The potential for the rise of land prices in the urban area is determined by the potential for the evolution of division of labor.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n What is the relationship between the emergence and development of cities, the level of division of labor, and transaction efficiency? n Why do the different land requirements of agricultural and industrial production generate a dual structure between urban areas with a high population density and rural areas with a low population density? n What are the effects of free migration and the absence of free migration on urbanization, evolution in division of labor, and economic development? n Why are transaction efficiency, the geographical pattern of transactions, and the level of division of labor interdependent? How are they simultaneously determined in the marketplace? n Why is the price of land in the urban area higher than in the rural area? What are the main economic determinants of the potential for the increase in urban land prices in the development process?
344 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
11.2 THE FUJITA–KRUGMAN MODEL OF URBANIZATION BASED ON A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND TRANSACTION COSTS Example 11.1: A simplified version of the Fujita–Krugman model (1995). Consider an economy with N identical consumers, an agricultural good, and n manufactured goods, where n is endogenous. It is assumed that the manufacturing activity needs no land. Hence, the central point of the geographic area is a city where all NM manufacturers reside. Suppose that NA = N − NM farmers’ residences are evenly located around the city. The area of land that is employed is endogenously determined in this model. Each rural resident has the following decision problem. Max: uA = z Aα [n(kxA)ρ](1−α)/ρ s.t.
pzA + nqxA = wA
(utility function) (budget constraint)
(11.1a)
where p is the price of the agricultural good, q is the price of the manufactured goods, zA is the quantity of the agricultural good consumed by a rural resident, n is the number of manufactured goods, and xA is the amount of a manufactured good consumed by the rural resident. Each consumer is endowed with one unit of labor, so that the income of a rural resident equals the rural wage rate wA. k ∈ (0, 1) is the transaction efficiency coefficient for the manufactured goods. We assume that there is no transaction cost for a rural resident to buy the agricultural good from the local rural market; transaction costs are incurred only in buying the manufactured goods. Note that we have used symmetry to justify equal prices and equal quantities of all manufactured goods consumed. Each urban resident has the following decision problem: Max: uB = (tzB)α [nxBρ ](1− α)/ρ s.t.
pzB + nqxB = wB
(utility function) (budget constraint)
(11.1b)
where subscript B stands for variables for an urban resident and t ∈ (0, 1) is the transaction efficiency coefficient for the agricultural good. If we assume that labor at the city is the numeraire, then wB = 1. We assume that there is no transaction cost for an urban resident to buy manufactured goods from the local urban market. Hence, the urban resident incurs transaction costs only in buying the agricultural good. The demand functions and indirect utility function and own price elasticity of demand for a consumer of type i = A, B are: zi = αwi /p,
E = −(n − ρ)/(1 − ρ)n
xi = (1 − α)wi /qn, uA = αα(1 − α)1−αn(1−α)(1−ρ)/ρk(1−α)wA /pαq1−α
(11.2)
uB = αα(1 − α)1−αn(1−α)(1−ρ)/ρt αwB /pαq1−α where the own price elasticity of demand E is calculated using the Yang–Heijdra formula (see expression 5.4 in chapter 5). The simple Leontief production function is assumed for the agricultural sector. So a units of labor and one unit of land are required to produce one unit of z. The zero-profit condition in the agricultural sector yields p = awA.
(11.3)
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 345
Here, it is assumed that each farmer owns land used for her production of food. Hence, rental income from land and land expenses in the budget constraint cancel out each other. Free migration between the urban and rural areas will establish utility equalization between the two areas. The condition uA = uB, together with (11.3), yields wA = tα/k1− α,
wB = 1.
(11.4)
A linear production function with a fixed cost is assumed for manufacturing a non-agricultural good. Hence, the amount of labor to produce output Q i is f + bQ i. A monopolistically competitive regime prevails in the market for any manufactured good. With the Yang–Heijdra formula for own price elasticity (see (5.4) in chapter 5), the conditions that marginal revenue equals marginal cost and zero profit yield nq(1 − ρ) = (n − ρ)(q − b),
(1 − α)(q − b)(NA wA + N − NA ) = fnq,
(11.5)
where NA is the number of farmers, NB = N − NA is the number of urban residents, and the equilibrium value of wA is given in (11.4). (11.4) and (11.5), together with the market clearing condition for labor or for the manufactured goods, can then be used to determine NA, q, wA, and n. The equilibrium total output level of the agricultural good, Z = zN, can be obtained by plugging the equilibrium price into the demand function, zi = αwi /p, where wi is given in (11.4). Therefore, the demand for labor from the agricultural sector is NA = aZ = a[(αNA/a) + (α(N − NA)/awA)] or NA = αk1−αN/[(1 − α)t α + αk1−α ],
(11.6)
where wA = t α/k1−α is given in (11.4). Inserting (11.6) into (11.5) yields the equilibrium value of the number of manufactured goods, which can be considered as the degree of industrialization. n = ρ + (1 − α)(1 − ρ)t αN/[(1 − α)t α + αk1−α] f.
(11.7)
Differentiation of (11.6) and (11.7) yields dn/dN > 0, dn/dt > 0,
and
d(NB /N )/dt > 0.
dn/dk < 0,
and
d(NB /N )/dk < 0.
(11.8)
This implies that as the population size and/or the transaction efficiency for the agricultural good increase, the number of manufactured goods increases, or industrialization develops. Also, comparative statics predict that as the transaction condition for the agricultural good is improved, the population share of urban residents increases, or urbanization develops. But the transaction efficiency for the manufactured goods has the opposite effects. The equilibrium land area employed for agricultural production is the same as the output level of the agricultural good z, which increases as the population size rises, as the transaction efficiency for the manufactured goods increases, or as the transaction efficiency for the agricultural good declines. Fujita and Krugman’s original model is slightly more complicated than this simplified version. They assume that transaction cost is an increasing function of the distance from the city, which is the middle point of a segment line. All farmers reside on the segment on the two sides of the city. Also, they have discussed the condition for more than one city to emerge from the evolution of the number of manufactured goods. According to Baumgardner (1988b), physicians in large cities are much more specialized than those in small towns. This empirical evidence is consistent with the conjectures of classical
346 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
economists. But the Fujita and Krugman model cannot predict this phenomenon, since individuals’ levels of specialization are not there endogenized. In the next section we consider a model with endogenous specialization and an endogenous emergence of cities from evolution of division of labor.
11.3 EMERGENCE OF A STRUCTURAL DUALITY OF URBAN AND RURAL AREAS FROM THE DIVISION OF LABOR Example 11.2: A simplified version of the Yang–Rice model (1994). We consider a simplified version of this model which has been worked out by Monchi Lio. The model is similar to those in chapters 4 and 7. There are three goods, cloth (good 1), furniture (good 2), and food (good 3). Goods 1 and 2 are industrial goods requiring little land in production. Hence, the residences of producers of these two goods can either be dispersed over a large area or concentrated in a small area. The production of good 3, food, is land intensive. The residences of the farmers must be dispersed over a large area. Though all M consumer-producers are ex ante identical, they can choose to specialize in producing different goods and choose their residence location pattern (far away from or close to neighbors). We call those individuals who choose to produce only industrial goods C-type persons, and those who choose to produce agricultural goods R-type persons. The transaction cost coefficient for a unit of goods purchased is 1 − K, or the transaction efficiency coefficient is K. But K differs between different types of persons and is dependent on individuals’ decisions concerning the geographic pattern of their residences. If C-type persons reside together within a small area, the transaction efficiency coefficient K = k between a pair of C-type persons. The transaction efficiency coefficient K = r between a pair of R-type persons and K = s between a C-type person and an R-type person. We assume that k > s > r. The first inequality is easy to understand, since the average distance between a pair of C-type persons who reside together is shorter than the average distance between an R-type person, who must occupy a quite large area of land, and a C-type person. Suppose an R-type person resides at the center of her farm, which has the shape of a circle with radius 1. Since a C-type person can minimize transaction costs by residing on the boundary of the farm if she trades with the farmer, the minimum distance between the R-type and C-type persons is 1. But the distance between two R-type persons who reside at the respective centers of their farms with radius 1 is 2. This is why transaction efficiency is higher between an R-type person and a C-type person than between a pair of R-type persons, or why s > r. As in the previous chapters, each consumer-producer’s utility function is u = (x1 + Kx 1d )(x2 + Kx 2d )(x3 + Kx 3d ).
(11.9)
Each consumer-producer has the following production functions and endowment constraint for working time: xi + x is = Max{li − α, 0}, α ∈ (0, 1),
li ∈ [0, 1],
l1 + l2 + l3 = 1, i = 1, 2, 3.
(11.10)
α is a fixed learning or training cost in producing a good, li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i, subscript i stands for good i, superscript s stands for the quantity sold (supplied), and superscript d stands for the quantity purchased (demanded). According to the Wen theorem, there are three types of configurations: Autarky (denoted A), shown in figure 11.1(a), consisting of selling good i and buying good j, denoted (i/j), and selling
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 347 3 A
1
3 A
2
1
1
1
2
1/3 2
3/1 3
2
1
1
2
1/23
2/13 2
3
3 3 3 A
1
3 A
1
2 2 (a) Autarky, no city, no market
1
1 1/3
3/1
1
2
3 2 3 (b) Partial division of labor, structure P2, no city
3/12
2
3 (c) Complete division of labor, structure D with cities
Figure 11.1 Emergence of cities from evolution of division of labor
Table 11.1 Eight corner solutions Configuration
Self-provided quantity
Level of specialization
Supply
Demand
Indirect utility function
A
xi = (1 − 3α)/3
li = 1/3
(1/2)
x1 = x3 = (1 − 2α)/3
l1 = (2 − α)/3
x1s = (1 − 2α)/3
x 2d = p1x1s /p2
[(1 − 2α)/3]3rp1/p2
(2/1)
x2 = x3 = (1 − 2α)/3
l2 = (2 − α)/3
x2s = (1 − 2α)/3
x 1d = p2 x2s /p1
[(1 − 2α)/3]3rp2/p1
(1/3)
x1 = x2 = (1 − 2α)/3
l1 = (2 − α)/3
x = (1 − 2α)/3
x = p x /p3
[(1 − 2α)/3]3sp1/p3
(3/1)
x3 = x2 = (1 − α)/3
l3 = (2 − α)/3
x3s = (1 − 2α)/3
x 1d = p3 x3s /p1
[(1 − 2α)/3]3sp3/p1
(1/13)
x1 = (1 − α)/3
l1 = 1
x 1s = 2(1 − α)/3
x di = p1(1 − α)/3pi
[(1 − α)/3]3ksp21/p2 p3
(2/13)
x2 = (1 − α)/3
l2 = 1
x = 2(1 − α)/3
x = p2(1 − α)/3pi
[(1 − α)/3]3ksp22/p1 p3
(3/12)
x3 = (1 − α)/3
l3 = 1
x3s = 2(1 − α)/3
x di = p3(1 − α)/3pi
[(1 − α)/3]3s2p23/p2 p1
[(1 − 3α)/3]3
s 1
s 2
d 3
s 1 1
d i
good i and buying goods j and t, denoted (i/jt). There are six of the second type of configuration: (1/2), (2/1), (1/3), (3/1), (2/3), and (3/1), as shown in figure 11.1(b). There are three of the third type of configuration: (1/23), (2/13), and (3/12), as shown in figure 11.1(c). Combinations of these configurations yield four structures. M individuals choosing configuration A constitute an autarky structure A. A division of M individuals between configurations (1/2) and (2/1) constitutes a partial division of labor structure P1. A division of the population between configurations (1/3) and (3/1) constitutes structure P2, as shown in figure 11.1(b). Since a structure based on configurations (2/3) and (3/2) is symmetric to structure P2, and yields the same per capita real income as P2, we omit it. A division of individuals between the other configurations (1/23), (2/13), and (3/12) constitutes the complete division of labor structure D, as shown in figure 11.1(c). Following the inframarginal analysis developed in the previous chapters, we can solve for the corner solutions in the eight configurations, as shown in table 11.1. From the utility equalization and market clearing conditions, we can solve for the corner equilibria in the four structures, as shown in table 11.2. Comparisons of per capita real incomes in the four corner equilibria, together with the Yao theorem, yield the results shown in table 11.3, regarding the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics.
348 P ART III: U RBANIZATION Table 11.2 Structure
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Corner equilibria in four structures Relative price
Number of individuals selling different goods
Per capita real income [(1 − 3α)/3]3
A P1
p1/p2 = 1
M1 = M2 = M/2
[(1 − 2α)/3]3r
P2
p1/p3 = 1
M1 = M3 = M/2
[(1 − 2α)/3]3s
D
p2/p1 = 1, p3/p1 = (k/s)1/3
M1 = M2 = M/[2 + (s/k)1/3] M3 = (s/k)1/3M/[2 + (s/k)1/3]
[(1 − α)/3]3(s4/k2)1/3
Table 11.3 General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics > k0
k
< k0
s
< s0
∈(s0, s1)
> s1
< s2
> s2
Equilibrium structure
A
P2
D
A
D
where s0 ≡ [(1 − 3α)/(1 − 2α)]3 < s1 ≡ [(1 − 2α)/(1 − α)]9/k2 iff k < k0 ≡ [(1 − 2α)4/(1 − α)3(1 − 3α)]1.5, and s2 ≡ [(1 − 3α)/(1 − α)]9/4/k0.5.
A comparison between structures P1 and P2 indicates that structure P2 always yields greater per capita real income than does P1. That is, under partial division of labor, it is impossible that two types of individuals exchange industrial goods and self-provide agricultural goods, since in this pattern of partial division of labor all individuals are of R-type (producing food), who have a larger transaction cost coefficient than between the R-type person and the C-type person in structure P2. But structures P1 and P2 can exploit the same economies of division of labor (due to the symmetry of the model). Note that transaction efficiency between two R-type persons, r, is lower than that between a C-type person and an R-type person by assumption. Hence, the set of candidates for the equilibrium structure consists of A, P2, and D. Comparisons of per capita real incomes across structures A, P2, and D indicate that P2 is better than A iff s > s0, D is better than P2 iff s > s1. A comparison between s1 and s0 indicates that s1 > s0 iff k < k0. This implies that for k < k 0 the general equilibrium structure is A if s < s0, is P2 if s is between s0 and s1, and is D if s > s1. For k > k0, structure P2 is inferior to either A or D. Hence, A occurs in equilibrium if s < s2 and D occurs in equilibrium if s > s0. Note that in structure P2, no individual selling an industrial good produces the agricultural good, so that she can either reside far away from her trade partner/farmer or reside on the boundary of the farmer. She will choose the latter geographical pattern of residence to save on transaction costs. This implies that each partially specialized seller of an industrial good will reside next to a partially specialized farmer. Therefore, there is no city in structure P2, despite the division of labor between farmers and manufacturers of industrial goods. This establishes the statement that the division of labor is necessary, but not sufficient, for the emergence of cities. For structure D, the division of labor between completely specialized manufacturers of industrial goods 1 and 2 can be organized in such a way as to save on transaction costs by all specialist manufacturers residing in cities. If two manufacturers reside in a city, transaction efficiency is k between them. If they have dispersed residences, transaction efficiency is s, which is smaller than k.
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 349
As transaction efficiency increases from a low to a high level, the general equilibrium evolves from autarky (A) to the partial division of labor between farmers and manufacturers of industrial goods (P2) where no cities exist, followed by the complete division of labor between specialist manufacturers of industrial goods and between professional farmers and the manufacturers (D). Cities emerge from this high level of division of labor between manufacturers of industrial goods and between farmers and the manufacturers. Hence, a sufficient condition for the emergence of cities from the division of labor is a sufficiently high level of division of labor in producing industrial goods which are not land-intensive. Figure 11.1 gives an intuitive illustration of the story based on the formal model. Panel (a) is autarky where there are no transactions or cities, panel (b) is the partial division of labor without cities (P2), and panel (c) is the complete division of labor with cities, where two specialist manufacturers reside in a city denoted by the dashed circle. The geographical distance between the residences of the two manufacturers is much shorter than that between a manufacturer and a farmer. In panel (c) only a local community is used to illustrate structure D. In structure D, there are M/[2 + (s/k)1/3] such local communities, M1 + M2 urban residents who are specialist manufacturers, and M3 professional farmers, where the equilibrium values of Mi are given in table 12.2. In each of the local communities, 2 manufacturers reside in a city and (s/k)1/3 farmers reside in the countryside. In order to save on transaction costs, individuals will trade with those closest. Hence, there is no trade between different local communities. In structure D there are M/[2 + (s/k)1/3] cities. If we introduce many goods into the model, it is not difficult to show that the number of local communities and the number of cities decreases and the size of each city increases as continuous improvement in transaction efficiency raises the equilibrium level of division of labor. Yang and Rice (1994) extend the simple model in this section to the case with 4 goods and nonlinear production functions. They draw the distinction between an urban and rural structural duality in terms of the differential of population density, and an urban and rural structural duality in terms of the differential of level of specialization and productivity between the two sectors. They show that as transaction efficiency is improved, there will be a transitional stage of unbalanced division of labor as the economy evolves from a low level to a high level of balanced division of labor. During that stage, urban residents have higher levels of specialization and productivity, and higher levels of per capita commercialized income and commercialization. This is because in the transitional stage, the levels of specialization cannot be the same between rural and urban residents, while a higher level of specialization for urban residents generates a higher per capita real income than a higher level of specialization for rural residents because of the higher transaction efficiency for urban residents. However, free migration will ensure that per capita real incomes become the same between urban and rural residents despite their unequal commercialized incomes. As transaction efficiency is further improved, such a dual structure in terms of a differential in productivity and level of specialization will disappear as it is replaced by complete and balanced division of labor, where levels of specialization and productivity in the two sectors converge.
11.4 WHY CAN THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONCENTRATION OF TRANSACTIONS IMPROVE TRANSACTION EFFICIENCY? The method to explain the emergence of cities from the evolution of division of labor in the preceding section relates to type I economies of agglomeration, which occur as manufacturers’ residences are concentrated, given farmers’ dispersed residences. The other way to explain the emergence of cities from the evolution of division of labor relates to type II economies of
350 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
agglomeration that are associated with the network effects of division of labor and a concentrated location pattern of transactions. If the geographical pattern of individuals’ residences is fixed and each pair of trade partners trade in the geographical midpoint of their residences, total travel distance and related cost will increase more than proportionally as the network of transactions required by a particular level of division of labor is enlarged. If all individuals conduct their transactions at a central place, the large network of transactions can be geographically shrunk and can be concentrated in that central place to significantly reduce the total travel distance of all individuals. The economies of agglomeration differ from economies of scale. Some economists call them positive externalities of cities. Indeed, they are generated by interactions between the positive network effects of division of labor and the effects of the geographical concentration of transactions. In other words, not only do the equilibrium topological properties (whether a person has a trade connection with another person) of economic organisms depend on the pattern of resource allocation (quantities of flows of goods and factors which are nontopological properties of economic organisms), but they also depend on the geographical properties of economic organisms (which are also nontopological properties of those organisms). One of the implications of the interplay between the topological and nontopological properties of economic organisms relates to the potential for a rise in land prices in the urban area. If we do not understand this implication, we will not be able to explain why the price of land in Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei has increased by more than 40 times since the Second World War! The most important determinant of the land price of a city is the size of the network of division of labor that is associated with the city as its center of transactions. While that size is determined by transaction efficiency, this itself depends on the geographical pattern of transactions. The effect of the geographic pattern of transactions on transaction efficiency is in turn determined by the level of division of labor. Hence, transaction efficiency, the geographical pattern of transactions, and level of division of labor are interdependent and should be simultaneously determined in general equilibrium. The notion of general equilibrium is a powerful vehicle to explore a mechanism that simultaneously determines all of the variables. We first use a simple example to illustrate why the geographical concentration of transactions can improve transaction efficiency through the network effects of division of labor. Example 11.3: A general equilibrium model endogenizing the geographical pattern of transactions, transaction efficiency, and the network size of division of labor. Let us look at the case where n = 7 in figure 11.2. Panel (a) or (b) represents a local community with 7 traded goods in a symmetric model in chapter 7. Seven ex ante identical consumer-producers reside at 7 vertices of a grid of triangles with equal sides, which are represented by 7 points. The distance between each pair of neighbors is assumed to be 1. Due to symmetry, each individual sells a good to, and buys a good from, each of the other six individuals in equilibrium. In panel (a), each pair of individuals trades at the geographical middle-point of their residences, which is represented by a small circle. In panel (b), all individuals go to the center of the local community, represented by the small circle, which is the residence of an individual, to trade with each other. Suppose that exogenous transaction costs are proportional to the travel distance of individuals in conducting the transactions required by the division of labor. This assumption implies that there are increasing returns in transactions. Transaction costs are independent of the quantity of goods traded. Imagine that within a certain quantity range of the goods you purchase, transportation cost is proportional to the quantity of gas that you use for your car, which is proportional to the driving distance but independent of the quantity that you buy. That is, your car is large enough to generate increasing returns in transportation. In the next section, this assumption is relaxed and variable transaction costs are specified as an increasing function of the quantity of goods traded. The relaxation will not change the essence of our result as long as increasing
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 351 n=2
n=3
(i)
(ii)
n=4
n=5
n=6
n=7
(a) Dispersed location of transactions
(b) Concentrated location of transactions
Figure 11.2 Dispersed and concentrated location patterns of transactions
returns in transactions are sufficiently significant. Moreover, we assume that one unit of travel distance costs $1. Let us now calculate total transaction cost for the two geographical patterns of transactions. In panel (a), each of the six individuals residing at the periphery of the community has a most distant trade partner. She travels to the center, which is the middle-point between them, to trade with that partner. She can trade with the person at the center by way of the trip. The travel distance for the return trip costs $2. She has two other neighboring trade partners. It costs her $1 to trade with each of them. The distance between her and each of the other two trade partners is 3; a return trip to the middle-point between her and each of them is thus 3. Hence, it costs her $2 3 to trade with the two partners. Her transaction costs with
352 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
six trade partners then total $(2 + 2 + 2 3 ) = $7.46. For the person at the center, transaction costs are zero, since all other individuals will trade with her at the center as they stop by there to trade with their farthest partners. In the geographical pattern in panel (b), all individuals not residing at the center bring their goods there to trade. Total transaction cost for each of them is $2. A comparison of transaction costs between panels (a) and (b) indicates that the geographical concentration of transactions can save on transaction costs if the size of the network of division of labor is sufficiently large. O. Williamson refers to the pattern of transactions in panel (b) as the wheel pattern, and that in panel (a) as the pattern of all channels. If the purpose of traveling is to obtain information about products, prices, and partners, then increasing returns to the geographical concentration of transactions will be more significant. However, if the geographical concentration of transactions (or exchanges) generates congestion problems for vehicles, and if new computer technology can significantly improve the transmission cost of information, then economies of geographical concentration of information exchange may generate such a concentration, as occurs in the case of the information superhighway, rather than a geographical concentration of the physical appearance of individuals and vehicles associated with the relevant exchanges.1 If the fixed construction cost of highways is considered, the increasing returns in transactions will be more plausible. We can define a central marketplace as a geographical location where many trade partners conduct transactions. This definition implies a corresponding geographical concentration of transactions. Geographically dispersed bilateral transactions are not associated with the market according to this definition. It can be shown that the market is not needed if the level of division of labor is low. Consider, for instance, a symmetric model in which there are two traded goods and a community of seven individuals. It can be shown that if the geographical pattern of transactions is such that each pair of trade partners trades at the midpoint between their residences, as shown in the case where n = 2 in figure 11.2, the transaction cost to each of them is only $1. But if all individuals go to the central marketplace to trade, as shown in figure 11.2, panel (b), for the case with n = 7, then each individual’s transaction cost is $2. This illustrates that for a low level of division of labor, geographically concentrated transactions will generate unnecessary transaction costs. Thus, the capacity of a geographically concentrated pattern of transactions to save on transaction costs depends on the level of division of labor. In other words, transaction efficiency is dependent not only on the geographical pattern of transactions, but also on the level of division of labor. But, as shown in the previous chapters, the level of division of labor is itself determined by transaction efficiency. This interdependence among the level of division of labor, the geographical pattern of transactions, and transaction efficiency implies that the three variables are simultaneously determined in a general equilibrium environment. It is analogous to the interdependence between the prices and quantities of goods that are consumed and produced in the neoclassical general equilibrium model, where the optimum quantities of goods consumed and produced are dependent on prices, while the equilibrium prices are themselves determined by individual agents’ decisions on the optimum quantities. Now we introduce the geographical pattern of transactions into the Smithian model in section 7.2 of chapter 7 to illustrate how the level of division of labor, transaction efficiency, and geographical pattern of transactions are simultaneously determined in general equilibrium. From (7.14) in chapter 7, we can see that the level of division of labor, n, is a function of transaction efficiency k, that is n = m + 1 − (1/A) − (m/ln k)
(11.11)
where m is the number of all consumer goods and A is the fixed learning cost in each production activity. Assume now that
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 353
k = β/d
(11.12)
where β is a parameter that reflects transportation conditions and d is the average traveling distance for each individual to trade with a trade partner, which obviously is related to the geographical pattern of transactions. For simplicity, we consider only the cases where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. We first assume a given value of n, then for the given n, compare values of d for different geographical patterns of transactions as shown in figure 11.2. According to the Yao theorem, it can be shown that in equilibrium, individuals will choose a geographical pattern of transactions that has the lowest value of d in order to minimize transaction costs for any given n. Thus, we can use (11.3) and (11.4) to calculate the critical value of β that ensures that values of the level of division of labor, n, transaction efficiency, k, and geographical pattern of transactions, reflected by d, are consistent with each other in equilibrium. Let us start with n = 2 to use the iterative approach to solving for general equilibrium. As we have mentioned previously, and indicated in figure 11.2, where n = 2 each individual’s traveling distance d is 1 and transactions are dispersed at the midpoints between each pair of trade partners. Other geographical patterns generate longer traveling distances and higher transaction costs for this level of division of labor. For society as a whole with this level of division of labor, there are M/2 local business communities. If we define an urban area as a place where many transactions take place among many individuals at the residences of some of them, then there is no city associated with this pattern of transactions, since all transactions are dispersed at many middle-points of many pairs of trade partners. Here, the definition of an urban area overlaps with the definition of a central marketplace, but the distinction between them is that an urban area relates to the residences of some of the trade partners, while the definition of market is independent of individuals’ residences. Inserting d = 1 into (11.12), then inserting (11.12) into (11.11), we can solve for the critical value of β for n = 2, which is β2 = e−mA/[1−(m−1)A], where A is the fixed learning cost in each production activity, m is the number of all consumption goods, and e ≅ 2.718 is the base of the natural logarithm. The level of division of labor n is at least 2 if β ≥ β2. In order to solve for the critical values of other levels of division of labor, let us look at figure 11.2. The graphs in the left column represent those geographical patterns of transactions in which transactions take place at the middle-points of each pair of trade partners, whereas the graphs in the right column represent those geographical patterns of transactions in which transactions take place at the center of all trade partners. The solid dots denote consumer-producers and the circles denote the locations where transactions take place. Here, we follow that assumptions that all individuals reside at the vertices of a grid of triangles with equal sides, and that the distance between each pair of neighbors is 1. Hence, the values of d for the different patterns of transactions that correspond to various levels of division of labor can be calculated from figure 11.2. All of the values of d, which are of course dependent on the geographical pattern of transactions as well as on the level of division of labor, are listed in table 11.4. In figure 11.2, it is evident that the best geographical pattern of transactions for n = 2 is at the midpoints between each pair of trade partners, so that d = 1 for n = 2. For n = 3, there are two geographical patterns of transactions to choose from. In one of them, each pair of partners trades at the geographical midpoint of their residences, so that all transactions in the economy take place at M places. In the other, all partners in a local community where each person trades with each of the other two go to the geographical center of their residences to conduct all transactions between them, so that all transactions in the economy are implemented at M/3 places. For the latter pattern, it is not difficult to use basic geometry to show that d = 0.5 3 < 1, whereas for the former d = 1. For the different geographical patterns of transactions that are associated with different values of d but with the same value of n, there are several corresponding corner equilibria. According to the Yao theorem, individuals will choose
354 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Table 11.4 Interactions between geographical patterns of transactions, transaction efficiency, and level of division of labor Level of division of labor
d for dispersed transactions
d for concentrated transactions
Transaction efficiency k
Critical value of βn for a given n
n=2
1
1
β
emA/[(m−1)A−1]
n=3
2/(n − 1)
2β/ 3 6β ÷ (1 + 3 ) 2β
( 3/2)e mA/[(m−2)A−1] (1 + 3 )e mA/[(m−3)A−1]/6
2
5β/2
2
2
β/3
1
n=4
(5 + 3 ) ÷ 2(n − 1)
(2 3 ) ÷ 2(n − 1) (1 + 3 ) ÷ 2(n − 1)
n=5
>2
2 ÷ (n − 1)
n=6
>2
n=7
>2
Table 11.5 Transaction condition β Equilibrium structure n
1
/2 e mA/[(m−4)A−1] /5 e mA/[(m−5)A−1]
/3 e mA/[(m−6)A−1]
General equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics < β2
∈(β2, β3)
∈(β3, β4)
∈(β4, β5)
∈(β5, β6)
∈(β6, β7)
β > β7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
the corner equilibrium with the greatest per capita real income that is associated with the smallest value of d for a given n. Hence, the concentrated pattern of transactions with d = 0.5 3 will be chosen if the equilibrium value of n is 3. There is no city, despite the existence of a marketplace in this structure. Following the same procedure, it can be shown that those concentrated patterns of transactions in the right column of figure 11.2 yield the smallest value of d for a given n > 2, and that the minimum value of d for any given n > 4 is 2. Inserting the minimum value of d for a given n back into (11.12) yields the values of transaction efficiency k for a given n, which are listed in column 4 of table 11.4. Plugging these values of k back into (11.11), we can work out the critical values of β for n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, which are listed in column 5. In fact, table 11.4 has already given us the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics, as summarized in table 11.5. The table shows that the general equilibrium is autarky if β < β2. If β ∈(β2 , β3) the general equilibrium is partial division of labor with n = 2, with the geographical pattern as shown in the left column of figure 11.2, and with the transaction efficiency k as shown by the entry of row n = 2 and column 4 in table 11.4. If β ∈(β3, β4) the equilibrium is the division of labor with n = 3, with the geographic pattern as shown in the right column of figure 11.2, and with the transaction efficiency k as shown in the entry of row n = 3 and column 4 in table 11.4. If β ∈(β4, β5), the general equilibrium is the division of labor with n = 4, with the geographic pattern as shown in the right column of figure 11.2, and with the transaction efficiency k as shown in the entry of row n = 4 and column 4 in table 11.4. If β ∈(β5, β6 ), the general equilibrium is the division of labor with n = 5, with the geographic pattern as shown in the right column of figure 11.2 for n = 5, and with the transaction efficiency k as shown in the entry of row n = 5 and column 4 in table 11.4. If β ∈(β6, β7), the equilibrium is the division of labor with n = 6, with the geographic pattern as shown in the right column of figure 11.2 for n = 6, and with the transaction efficiency k as shown in the entry of row n = 6 and column 4 in table 11.4. If β > β7, the equilibrium is the division of labor with n = 7, with the geographic pattern as shown in the right column of figure 11.2 for n = 7, and with the transaction
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 355
efficiency k as shown in the entry of row n = 7 and column 4 in table 11.4. Here, cities emerge from the division of labor with n = 5, 6, 7 and the number of cities is M/n. Marketplaces coincide with locations of the cities, and the number of marketplaces is the same as that of cities. There is no market nor any cities in autarky. For n = 2, there are M/n = M/2 marketplaces with two trade partners for each, and no cities. For n = 3, 4, there are M/n marketplaces with n trade partners for each, and no cities exist. The inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium suggest again that the division of labor is a necessary but insufficient condition for the emergence of cities. For n = 2, 3, 4, there is division of labor and related marketplaces, but no cities. It is easy to see that the volume of trade that is executed in a marketplace or in a city increases with the equilibrium level of division of labor, which is determined by the transaction condition parameter β.
11.5 SIMULTANEOUS ENDOGENIZATION OF LEVEL OF DIVISION OF LABOR, LOCATION PATTERN OF RESIDENCES, GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERN OF TRANSACTIONS, AND LAND PRICES Although the equilibrium model in the previous section simultaneously endogenizes the level of division of labor, transaction efficiency, and the geographical pattern of transactions, it has not endogenized the location pattern of individuals’ residences and the differential of land price between urban and rural areas, since we implicitly assume that d is the same for urban and rural residents. But the average traveling distance for necessary transactions d is much shorter for an urban resident than for a rural resident, since an urban resident can get all transactions done in the city where she resides without traveling around when all necessary transactions are concentrated in the city. In this section, we take into account the difference between traveling distances of urban and rural residents to develop a general equilibrium model with the endogenous geographical pattern of all individuals’ residences and the land price differential between the urban and rural areas. Example 11.4: A Smithian equilibrium model with endogenous residences of individuals and endogenous land prices (Sun and Yang, 1998). Consider a Smithian model similar to that in example 7.1 of chapter 7. We assume that production, consumption, and transaction conditions are the same as in that example, except for the following two new features. Each consumer-producer’s utility is a function of the amount of land consumed by her and of whether the city as a center of transactions emerges from the division of labor. When a dual urban–rural structure occurs in equilibrium, the transaction efficiency coefficient is kA for those who reside in the city and k for those who reside in the rural area. The emergence of cities from a sufficiently high level of division of labor generates a transaction cost advantage for urban residents whose transaction cost coefficient is much smaller than that for rural residents. For simplicity, we assume that the relative transaction efficiency coefficient of urban and rural residents is a constant greater than one, kA/k = λ > 1.
(11.13)
If free migration between urban and rural areas is assumed, then the residential pattern must be endogenously determined rather than exogenously given. Free migration, together with the transaction cost advantage for urban residents and the positive contribution of land consumption to utility, generates a trade-off between type II economies of agglomeration and per capita consumption of land in the urban area, which will be reduced by the competitive bidding up of
356 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
urban land prices. The balance of this trade-off in the market will generate equilibrium location patterns of individuals’ residences and of transactions, while the efficient trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs will determine the equilibrium network size of division of labor. Here, the location pattern of residences, the location pattern of transactions, the consumption pattern of land, the relative urban and rural land prices, and the network size of division of labor are interdependent. Therefore, the concept of general equilibrium is a powerful vehicle for figuring out a mechanism that simultaneously determines all the interdependent variables. It will be shown later that for n ≤ 2, the equilibrium location patterns of residences and transactions are trivial, that is, all individuals reside at vertices of the grid of triangles with equal sides, transactions take place at the midpoints between the residences of each pair of trade partners, and no cities exist. Hence, we first focus on the case with n > 2, where cities emerge from the division of labor. Later, it will be shown that the equilibrium value of n is greater than 2 if and only if transaction efficiency k is sufficiently large. Denote the traded goods produced in the urban (or rural) area A-type goods (or B-type goods). Producers of A-type goods (B-type goods) have an incentive to reside in the urban (rural) area to save on commuting costs between their residences and their work places. Therefore, for each consumer-producer, the decision on residence location and occupation choice becomes independent: they choose to reside in the urban (rural) area if and only if they choose to produce A-type (B-type) goods. Thus, we can use symmetry to simplify the algebra significantly. Since all individuals’ choices of nA, nB, and n determine the network size of division of labor and the location patterns of residences and transactions, their optimum values must be obtained from inframarginal analysis. A value profile of nA, nB, and n is a structure. First, all individuals’ utility maximizing decisions are solved for the given values of nA, nB, and n. Then the market clearing conditions and utility equalization conditions are used to solve for a corner equilibrium for a given structure. For different value profiles of nA, nB, and n there are many corner equilibria. The general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium with the highest per capita real income. The symmetry of the model implies that we need to consider only two types of decision problems. For an urban resident selling an A-type good, the decision problem is: m−n · RA Max: uA = (xA)(kAx dA)n −1(kx Bd)n x jA A
s.t.
B
xA + xAs = Max{0, lA − α}
(production function for a good sold)
xjA = Max{0, liA − α}
(production function for a nontraded good)
lA + (m − nA)ljA = 1
(endowment constraint for working time)
pA x Ad (nA − 1) + pB nB xBd + rA RA = pA xAs + EA
(11.14)
(budget constraint)
where nA (nB) is the number of traded goods produced by the urban (rural) residents; n ≡ nA + nB is the number of all traded goods; xA is the quantity of the A-type good that she self-provides; x As is the amount of the A-type good that she sells to the market; lA is her level of specialization in producing this good; x Ad is the amount of the A-type good that she purchases from the market; xBd is the amount of the B-type good that she purchases from the market; xjA is the amount of a nontraded good that she produces and consumes; and ljA is the quantity of labor that she allocates to the production of a nontraded good. Symmetry implies that xAd is the same for nA − 1 of A-type goods purchased, x Bd is the same for nB of B-type goods purchased, and ljA is the same for m − n nontraded goods. pA and pB are respectively the prices of A-type and B-type goods. rA and rB are respectively the prices of land in the urban and rural areas. RA is the
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 357
lot size of each urban resident’s house. EA = rA A/MA is the land rental, equally distributed to each urban resident, MA (MB ) is the number of urban (rural) residents. The decision variables are xA, xAs, lA, xjA, ljA, xAd, x Bd , RA , nA , and n. The choice of nA and n, which determines nB, determines how many goods an individual has to buy from the market and how many goods she self-provides. The solution of the decision problem for the given values of nA, nB, and n in (11.14) is an individual’s resource allocation for a given organizational pattern. Standard marginal analysis is applicable to such resource allocation problems. It yields the demand and supply functions and indirect utility function as follows: xAs = {npA [1 − (m − n + 1)α] − (m − n + 1)EA}/pA(m + 1)
(11.15a)
lA = [ pA(1 + nα) + EA]/pA (m + 1), xAd = {pA [1 − (m − n + 1)α] + EA}/pA (m + 1)
(11.15b)
xBd = {pA [1 − (m − n + 1)α] + EA}/pB (m + 1)
(11.15c)
RA = {pA [1 − (m − n + 1)α] + EA}/rA(m + 1) uA =
(11.15d) m +1
nB
kAn−1 ⎛ pA ⎞ ⎧ EA + pA [1 − (m − n + 1) α ⎫ ⎬ ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ rA pAm ⎝ pB ⎠ ⎩ m +1 ⎭
(11.15e)
.
The optimum decision for a rural resident is symmetric to (11.15), that is, it can be obtained by exchanging subscripts A and B in (11.15). A corner equilibrium is determined by the market clearing conditions for land and goods, the utility equalization condition between urban and rural residents, and individuals’ optimum decisions for given values of nA, nB, and n. The land market clearing conditions are MARA = A,
MB RB = B.
(11.16)
where A (B) is the exogenously given parameter of land area which can be used for urban (rural) development. The market clearing condition for A-type goods (the traded goods produced in the urban area) yields
npA [1 − (m − n + 1)α] − (m − n + 1)EA MA ⋅ (m + 1) pA nA p [1 − (m − n + 1)α] + EA MA p [1 − (m − n + 1)α] + EB ⋅ MB ⋅ = A (nA − 1) + B nA (m + 1) pA (m + 1) pA
(11.17)
The market clearing condition for B-type goods is not independent of (11.16) and (11.17) because of Walras’s law. The utility equalization condition yields
⎛ kA ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ k⎠
n −1
m+1
⎧ EA + pA [1 − (m − n + 1)α] ⎫ ⎨ ⎬ ⎩ EB + pB [1 − (m − n + 1)α] ⎭
=
rA ⎛ pA ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ rB ⎝ pB ⎠
m −n
.
(11.18)
(11.16) to (11.18), the population equation MA + MB = M, and the definitions EA ≡ rA A/MA and EB ≡ rBB/MB yield a corner equilibrium for a given structure defined by nA, nB , and n.
358 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
1/n
⎧ Bθ ⎫ (1−n )/n p p≡ A =⎨ , ⎬ λ pB ⎩ A(1 − θ) ⎭
l A = lB =
rA =
1 + (n − 1)α m
[1 − (m − n + 1)α]θM [1 − (m − n + 1)α](1 − θ) M p, rB = , mA mB
(11.19)
n M MB = B = (1 − θ)M, n
n M MA = A = θM, n
RA AMB A(1 − θ) = = , RB BMA Bθ k n −1 (1 + f ) ⎛ θ ⎞ uA = A (1− θ)n +1 ⎜ ⎟ Mf ⎝1 − θ⎠
(1−θ) n
m
⎧ [1 − (m − n + 1)α] ⎫ ⎨ ⎬ m ⎩ ⎭
1/( n +1)
n ⎡A ⎛ θ ⎞ ⎤ n −1 ⋅ ⎢ ⋅ where f ≡ , θ ≡ nA/n, and a B-type good is assumed to be the numeraire. λ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢B ⎝1 − θ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ A general equilibrium has two components. The first consists of a set of relative prices of traded goods and two types of land, and a set of numbers of individuals choosing different configurations of occupation and residence, a pattern of individuals’ residences, and a location pattern of transactions that satisfies the market clearing and utility equalization conditions. The second component consists of each individual’s choice of nA and n, or n and θ, and each individual’s resource allocation that maximizes the decision-maker’s utility. Following a similar procedure to that used to prove the Yao theorem in chapter 4, we can prove that the Yao theorem holds for the model in this section. Let us outline the proof. Because of the equal distribution of urban (rural) land among urban (rural) residents, we know that RA = A/MA and RB = A/MB. This implies that rj Rj = Ej for j = A, B. Hence, the decision problem in (11.6) can be rewritten by deleting rA RA and EA in the budget constraint and letting RA in the utility function equal a constant A/MA. The indirect utility function generated by the equivalent decision problem is nB
m
⎛ p ⎞ ⎧[1 − (m − n + 1)α] ⎫ A uA ( p, N ) = kAn−1 ⎜ A ⎟ ⎨ , ⎬ m ⎝ pB ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ MA where p ≡ pA/pB is the price of an A-type good in terms of a B-type good, N ≡ (n, nA, β) is a vector of decision variables. n and nA determine a person’s number and structure of traded goods and her network of trade partners and transactions. β relates to her choice of location of residence and transactions. The value of k is affected by β. Exchanging subscripts A and B, we can obtain a B-type person’s indirect utility function uB( p, N ). Note that ∂uA/∂p > 0
and
∂uB/∂p < 0.
(11.20)
Now, assume that N′ and p′ are the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium values of N and p respectively, and that N″ and p″ are Pareto inefficient corner equilibrium values of N and p respectively. To prove that a Pareto inefficient corner equilibrium is not a general equilibrium,
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 359
we need to establish that at the relative price p″ either urban or rural residents have an incentive to deviate from N″ to N′. Or at least one of the following inequalities must hold: uA( p″, N′) > uA( p″, N″)
and
uB( p″, N′) > uB (p″, N″).
(11.21a)
Since N′ at p′ is Pareto superior to N″ at p″ and utility equalization holds in each corner equilibrium, we have uA( p′, N′ ) > uA( p″, N″)
and
uB( p′, N′) > uB( p″, N″ ).
(11.21b)
(11.21a) and (11.21b) together imply that at least one of the two inequalities in (11.21a) holds if at least one of the following two inequalities holds. uA( p″, N′) > uA( p′, N′) uB( p″, N′ ) > uB( p′, N′).
and
(11.22a) (11.22b)
Because the functional forms on the two sides of each inequality in (11.22) are the same, and because of (11.20), (11.22) is equivalent to p″ > p′ 1/p″ > 1/p′.
and
(11.23a) (11.23b)
It is obvious that one of the two inequalities in (11.23) must hold. Hence, at least one of the two inequalities in (11.21a) must hold, that is, either urban or rural residents have an incentive to deviate from the Pareto inefficient corner equilibrium network of division of labor (N″ ) under the Pareto inefficient corner equilibrium-relative prices. Therefore, any Pareto inefficient corner equilibrium is not a general equilibrium. The Yao theorem is pivotal to the results in this chapter, since it establishes the claim that a decentralized market can fully utilize the economies of agglomeration (which look like externalities) and the network effects of division of labor by choosing the Pareto efficient pattern of individuals’ residences, the efficient location pattern of transactions, and the efficient network size of division of labor. This theorem also rules out multiple equilibria with different per capita real incomes, and shows that there is no coordination difficulty in a static general equilibrium model with network effects of division of labor and location patterns.2 The very function of the market is to coordinate individuals’ decisions in choosing the pattern and size of the network of division of labor and in choosing the location patterns of residences and transactions in order to fully utilize the network effects and the economies of agglomeration. The maximization of uA in (11.7e) with respect to n for a given nB and the maximization of uB, which is symmetric with uA, with respect to n for a given nA, together with the market clearing and utility equalization conditions, will generate a corner equilibrium that is not the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium. This corner equilibrium is based on individuals’ Nash strategies in choosing trade patterns (an A-type individual’s choice of n is dependent on a B-type person’s choice of nB). According to the Yao theorem, that Pareto inefficient corner equilibrium partly based on Nash strategies is not a Walrasian general equilibrium. Using the Yao theorem, we can prove the following proposition. Proposition 11.1: In a symmetric model, the economy is divided into M/n separate business communities. For n ≤ 2, all individuals’ residences are evenly located and all transactions (if any) are evenly dispersed. For n > 2 traded goods, all trade partners within a business
360 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
community will choose to execute all transactions that are essential for the division of labor among them in the central marketplace of the community, even if some of them do not reside in the central marketplace. Proof : It is trivial to prove the first statement since each person needs only n − 1 trade partners and will incur unnecessary transaction costs to trade with other n − 1 partners in the symmetric model. Hence, n trade partners will form a local business community that does not trade with other local business communities. We now check whether residences are evenly located when the equilibrium value of n is not greater than 2, and whether the dual urban–rural structure emerges from n > 2. Because all individuals are ex ante identical and have the same preferences for consumption of land, in equilibrium each person must consume the same amount of land in autarky, and the price of land must be the same everywhere, which means residences must be evenly located. For n = 2, it is not difficult to show that residences are evenly located too, because the ex ante identical individuals have the same tastes for land consumption. There are two possible location patterns of transactions. The pattern in figure 11.2(a) involves trade at the midpoint between two trade partners’ residences, and pattern 11.2(b) involves trade at one person’s residence (city). For the latter case, the land price in the city is high enough to offset the transaction cost advantage of residing in the city. Hence, patterns (a) and (b) are equivalent. Let us assume that unequal land prices between the urban and rural areas generate infinitesimally small disutility for urban residents. Then (a) is Pareto superior to (b). According to the Yao theorem (a) instead of (b) will occur in equilibrium for n = 2. For n = 3, simple arithmetic shows that a location pattern (ii) of transactions, with one person’s residence as a central marketplace, generates a lower total transaction cost than in (i) of panel (b), which generates a lower total transaction cost than in panel (a) of figure 11.2. Hence, a central marketplace will emerge from n = 3, which implies in turn that the transaction cost advantage of residing at the central marketplace will generate a land price differential, which implies that per capita land consumption is unequal between urban and rural residents and their residences cannot be evenly located in equilibrium. For n = 4 in a symmetric model, the location pattern in (i) of panel (b) is better than that in (a). But in (ii), two persons who reside more closely to the central marketplace certainly have a transaction cost advantage, so that the land price cannot be the same for all residential lots. This implies that the initial, even location of residences cannot be sustained in equilibrium, since that even pattern occurs only if the land price is the same for all localities. This implies that evenly dispersed residences cannot occur in equilibrium, so that the dual urban–rural structure, such as in (ii) where two persons reside in a city and the other two reside in the rural area with higher per capita consumption of land, may occur at equilibrium for n = 4. Following the same reasoning, we can show that the dual urban–rural structure occurs in equilibrium if and only if n > 2. Q.E.D. With the Yao theorem and proposition 11.1, we can solve for the general equilibrium by maximizing the corner equilibrium per capita real income given in (11.19) with respect to nA and nB. Since nA + nB = n, this is equivalent to maximizing per capita real income in (11.19) with respect to n and θ ≡ nA/n. The first-order conditions for this problem yield: −1
⎧1 − θ ⎡ A(1 − θ)λn −1 ⎤1/(n +1)⎫⎪ ⎡ A(1 − θ)λn −1 ⎤ 1 −2 ⎪ ln ⎢ θ + = +⎢ ⎨ ⎬ . ⎥ θ ⎥ Bθ θ Bθ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎩⎪ ⎭⎪ mα ln k + = −θ ln λ 1 − (m − n + 1)α
(11.24a) (11.24b)
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 361
(11.24a) determines the general equilibrium values of n and θ as functions of k, λ, α, m, A, B, which characterize the size and pattern of the network of division of labor and the location pattern of individuals’ residences and transactions. Note that the left-hand side of (11.16a) is an increasing function, while the right-hand side is a decreasing function of λn−1A(1 − θ)/Bθ, so that (11.24a) holds if and only if
λn −1 =
θ B ⋅ . A 1− θ
(11.25)
Differentiation of (11.25) yields
⎡ 1 ⎤ [ln λ ]dn = ⎢ ⎥ dθ ⎣ θ(1 − θ) ⎦
(11.26)
(11.26) implies that θ ≡ nA/n increases with n, or the number of traded goods produced in the urban area increases more than proportionally as the network size of division of labor n increases. Using (11.17) and (11.19), we can also show that the general equilibrium-relative price p = 1.
(11.27)
It can be shown that the first-order conditions in (11.24), together with the second-order condition that requires a negative definite Hessian matrix (D 2u (n, θ) < 0), leads to: −1
⎫ dn ⎧ mα 2 =⎨ − θ(1 − θ)(ln λ)2 ⎬ > 0. 2 dk ⎩ [1 − (m − n + 1)α] ⎭
(11.28)
The second-order condition can be worked out as follows. Inserting (11.25) and (11.27) into the second-order derivative of u* in (11.19) with respect to n and θ yields ∂2u n(n + 2) 1 ⋅ =− ∂θ2 (n + 1)2 θ(1 − θ)
(11.29a)
∂2u n(n + 2) ⋅ ln λ = ∂θ ∂n (n + 1)2
(11.29b)
mα 2 ∂2u θ(1 − θ)(ln λ)2 = − + [1 − (m − n + 1)α]2 (n + 1)2 ∂n2
(11.29c)
The negative definiteness of the Hessian matrix D2u(n, θ) < 0 requires that (11.29a) and (11.29c) be negative and 2
∂2u ∂2u ⎛ ∂2u ⎞ ⋅ > 0. − ∂θ2 ∂n2 ⎜⎝ ∂θ ∂n ⎟⎠
(11.29d)
362 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
(11.29a) and (11.29c) are negative and (11.29d) holds if mα 2 > θ(1 − θ)(ln λ)2 . [1 − (m − n + 1)α]2
(11.30)
Since (11.30) holds if and only if (11.28) holds, (11.28) holds if the second-order conditions for maximizing u* with respect to n and θ are satisfied. Since kA = λk where λ > 1 is a constant, (11.28) also implies
dn >0 dkA
(11.31)
This implies that the number of traded goods for each individual, as well as for society as a whole, increases with transaction efficiency. (11.26), (11.28), and (11.31) imply dθ dθ , >0 dkA dk
(11.32)
where θ ≡ nA/n. This implies that the number of traded goods produced in the urban area increases more than proportionally as improvements in transaction conditions enlarge the equilibrium network of division of labor, n. (11.28), (11.31), and (11.32) summarize comparative statics of the general equilibrium network size of division of labor and the equilibrium location patterns of residences and transactions because of the correspondence between choices of residences and occupations. Since all endogenous variables are determined by n and θ, comparative statics of the general equilibrium values of other endogenous variables can be worked out by using (11.28), (11.31), and (11.32). Differentiation of all corner equilibrium values of the endogenous variables in (11.19), together with (11.28), (11.31), and (11.32), yields comparative statics of general equilibrium. nA/nB = MA/MB = θ/(1 − θ) increases with transaction efficiency k rA = [1 − (m − n + 1)α]θM/mA increases with transaction efficiency k rA /rB = Bθ/A(1 − θ) increases with transaction efficiency k n increases with transaction efficiency k nA = θn increases with transaction efficiency k
(11.33)
RA/RB decreases with transaction efficiency k li (an individual’s level of specialization in producing the good sold) increases with transaction efficiency k u* (per capita real income) increases with transaction efficiency k. To identify the positive effect of k on u* in (11.33), we have used the envelope theorem to u* in (11.19). Adapting the analysis of chapter 7, we can also show that the following concurrent phenomena are different aspects of the evolution in division of labor driven by exogenous improvements in transaction conditions. The degree of diversity of economic structure (which is defined by the number of different occupations), the differences between different occupations,
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 363
and the number of markets for different goods, all increase. The number of transactions for each individual, trade dependence (which is defined by the ratio of trade volume to real income), interdependence among individuals of different occupations, the extent of the market (which is defined by per capita aggregate demand for all traded goods), and the degree of commercialization (which is defined by the ratio of the income from the market to total real income), all increase. The extent of endogenous comparative advantage (which is defined as the difference in productivity between sellers and buyers of traded goods) increases. The degree of market integration (which is defined by the reciprocal of the number of separate communities) increases as more separate local communities merge into fewer, increasingly integrated larger communities. The number of separate communities is also the number of cities in this model. Production concentration (which is defined as the reciprocal of the number of producers of each traded good) increases as per capita real income and productivity of each good increase. Now we consider the location patterns of residences and transactions that are associated with the general equilibrium values of division of labor, n = 1 and n = 2, respectively. If transaction efficiency k is sufficiently low, the transaction costs caused by a large network size of division of labor outweigh the positive network effects of the division of labor generated by the fixed learning cost in each activity, so that the general equilibrium level of division of labor n = 1. This implies that each individual’s number of goods purchased is n − 1 = 0, or autarky is chosen. According to proposition 11.2, all individuals’ residences are evenly located. Each individual self-provides m consumption goods, and no market or cities exist, as shown in figure 11.3(a). Only four of M self-sufficient consumer-producers are represented by four circles. Only four of m self-provided goods are represented by four lines. As transaction efficiency k is slightly improved, the equilibrium value of n increases to 2. Each pair of individuals will establish a local business community in which each trader sells one good to and buys one good from the other. In order to save on transaction costs, according to proposition 11.1, two trade partners meet at the midpoint between their residences to exchange goods 1 and 2. In order to maximize utility with respect to consumption of land, all individuals will reside at vertices of the grid of triangles with equal sides, so that the equilibrium price of land is equal for each residence. Hence, many local markets emerge from the low level of division of labor, but there is no central marketplace or city. All transactions are evenly dispersed at M/2 places, as shown in panel (b), where there is no division between the urban and rural areas. Only four of m goods are represented by lines and only four of M individuals are represented by four circles in (b). As transaction efficiency is further improved such that n > 2, then the central marketplace generates economies of agglomeration, according to proposition 11.2. In the symmetric model, each individual needs only n − 1 trade partners. In order to save on transaction costs, n individuals will form a local business community where each person sells her produce to, and buys one good from, each of n − 1 other individuals. The good that she sells is different from the one sold by each of the other n − 1 members of the community. All of the n members of the local community go to the central marketplace to trade with each other. As shown in figure 11.3(c), nA of the n individuals reside at the central marketplace which is a city, and nB of the n individuals reside in the countryside. The population size of each local community is then n, and the number of such local communities is thus M/n. The urban land size of each local community is An/M and the rural land size of each local community is Bn/M because of the assumption of fixed respective total sizes of urban and rural areas. In panel (c) M/n separate local business communities are represented by 4 medium squares and cities are denoted by small squares. All transactions in a community are executed at the city. The graph under (c) illustrates the network of transactions of all n urban and rural residents that are executed at the city when n = m = 4 and M = 16.
364 P ART III: U RBANIZATION (a) Autarky without market and cities 1
1
3
3
A
4 3
2
A 3
3
2 2
1
1 2
1
1
4
3
1 4
2
A
4
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
(b) Low level of division with market and without cities
1 2
A
4
AND
4
2 2
4 An/M nA
3
2
1
1
(c) Division of labor with market and M/n = 4 cities
nB
4
An/M nA
Bn/M
Bn/M
nB
3
2 An/M nA
An/M nA nB
Bn/M
Bn/M
nB
1 An/M nA nB
Bn/M
1
An/M nA nB
2 1 2 3 4
4 1
Bn/M 4 4
2 3 2
2 41 3
3 3
An/M nA nB (e) Very high level of division of labor with an integrated market and a city, M/n = 1
Bn/M
(d) High level of division of labor with M/n = 2 cities and 2 separate communities
Figure 11.3 Evolution of division of labor and location pattern of residences and transactions
Panel (e) represents a general equilibrium with a very high level of division of labor (n = M), where there is an integrated market and a single city. Big arrows denote the direction of the evolution of division of labor and the location patterns of residences and transactions caused by improvements of transaction efficiency. Note that if m < M, then the structure in (e), with a single city, cannot occur since n ≤ m. In other words, the number of occupations (number of traded goods), n, cannot be greater than the number of all goods, m, so that a single city for the integrated market does not occur in equilibrium if the population size M is much greater than m, which implies that the maximum value of the number of cities M/m > 1 in the symmetric model. As division of labor evolves (i.e., n increases) due to improved transaction conditions, the number of separate local communities (which is also the number of cities) decreases, the area size of each community as well as its urban or rural area increases, the land price in the urban area increases absolutely as well as relatively to that in the rural area. Relative per capita land consumption between the urban and rural areas declines.3 The degree of concentration of residential location increases not only because the relative population size of urban and rural residents increases, but also because the average population size of cities and the population density of the urban area increase as division of labor evolves.
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 365
In summary, we have Proposition 11.2: Improvements in transaction conditions will generate the following concurrent phenomena. The ratio of urban to rural land prices increases, the network of division of labor is enlarged, the number of traded goods for each individual as well as for society as a whole increases, the number of traded goods produced in the urban area increases absolutely as well as relatively to that in the rural area, the population ratio of urban to rural residents increases, each individual’s level of specialization increases, the number of markets increases, the diversity of economic structure increases, the number of transactions for each individual, trade dependence, and interdependence among individuals of different occupations all increase, the extent of the market and the extent of endogenous comparative advantage increase, the degree of market integration and production concentration increase, and per capita real income and productivity of each good increase. A distinguishing feature of the type II economies of agglomeration in this model is that even if which nB out of n traded goods to be produced in the rural area is indeterminate in equilibrium, a high level of division of labor will make the concentration of urban residences and all transactions in the urban area emerge from ex ante identical individuals with identical production conditions of all goods. The assumption made by Yang and Rice (1994, see example 11.2) and Fujita and Krugman (1995, see example 11.1) that land-intensive agricultural production must be dispersed in the rural area, is not necessary for the existence of type II economies of agglomeration. Also, a variety of manufactured goods that are not land intensive may be produced in the rural area because of the trade-off between economies of agglomeration and the high land prices in the city. This has a flavor of the theory of complexity: some phenomena that do not exist for each individual element of a system emerge from a complex structure of a collection of numerous identical individual elements. This is just like different DNA structures of the same molecules generating many species of animals. In this chapter, we have shown that one of the most important functions of the invisible hand (interactions between self-interested behaviors) is to sort out simultaneously the efficient location patterns of transactions and individuals’ residences, the related network size of division of labor, and transaction efficiency. Our models predict that the potential for increases of land price in the large cities is determined by the potential for evolution of division of labor. As a large city becomes the central marketplace for an increasingly more integrated large network of division of labor, land prices in the city can go up to a degree far beyond that which the marginal analysis of demand and supply may predict. Baumgardner (1988b) finds empirical evidence for the positive relationship between urbanization and individuals’ levels of specialization. Colwell and Munneke (1997) provide empirical evidence for the negative relationship between land price and distance from the city (and per capita consumption of land). Simon and Nardinelli (1996) find empirical evidence from a data set of English cities in the period 1861–1961 for a positive relationship between transaction conditions and city size, which is predicted by the Yang and Rice and Sun and Yang models in this chapter. They have also found empirical evidence against the positive relationship between the size of firms and city size, which is predicted by the Krugman and Fujita model in this chapter. They argue that the evidence suggests that external economies, rather than internal economies of scale, are a driving force of urbanization. Here, their notion of external economies of scale, from Marshall (1890), should be interpreted as the positive network effects of division of labor, since their data set shows a positive relationship between the evolution of occupation diversity and urbanization. Also, their data set suggests a positive relationship between urbanization and evolution of the employment share of the transaction sector. More empirical works are needed for establishing the positive relationship between the land price differential of cities
366 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
and rural areas, the degree of commercialization (level of division of labor), urbanization, and transaction efficiency. Y. Zhang (2000) has found empirical evidence that rejects a positive correlation between the degree of urbanization and average size of firms in urban areas: this positive correlation is referred to as type III scale effect. The theory of indirect pricing in chapter 8, together with the Smithian models of urbanization in this chapter, imply that increases in urbanization and in the level of division of labor and a decrease in the average size of firms concur if division of labor evolves between firms as a result of improved trading efficiency of goods relative to that of labor. If division of labor evolves within firms, a type III scale effect may occur as a phenomenon based on comparative statics of general equilibrium.
Key Terms and Review • The conditions essential for cities to emerge from division of labor • The relationship between urbanization, network size of division of labor, and transaction efficiency • The relationship between the difference of land intensity in producing agricultural and industrial goods, and the function of urbanization in promoting division of labor • The general equilibrium mechanism that simultaneously determines network size of division of labor, location pattern of transactions, and transaction efficiency • The general equilibrium mechanism that simultaneously determines the network size of division of labor, the location pattern of individuals’ residences, and the land price differential between urban and rural areas • Type I and type II economies of agglomeration • The relationship between the potential for rises of urban land prices and evolution of division of labor • The role of free migration, free choice of occupation configuration, and free pricing in enabling the market to simultaneously sort out the efficient location pattern of transactions, the location pattern of individuals’ residences, the network size of division of labor, and transaction efficiency
Further Reading Classical theory of the city: Petty (1683), von Thünen (1826), Wartenberg (1966); Division of labor and cities: Scott (1988), Marshall (1890, ch. 11), Smith (1776, chs. 2, 3), Petty (1683, pp. 471–2); Models of city and economies of scale: Ben-Akiva, de Palma, and Thisse (1989), Fujita, Krugman, and Venables (1999), Krugman (1991, 1993, 1994), Fujita and Krugman (1994, 1995), Tabuchi (1998), Fujita (1988, 1989), Fujita and Mori (1997), Fujita and Thisse (1996), Quigley (1998), Page (1999), Kendrick (1978); Hierarchical structure of cities: Yang and Hogbin (1990), Yang and Ng (1993, ch. 13), Fujita and Krugman (1994); Smithian models of cities and economies of specialization: Yang (1991), Yang and Rice (1994), Yang and Ng (1993, ch. 6), Sun and Yang (1998); Neoclassical models with constant returns to scale, transaction costs, cities: Kelley and Williamson (1984), Hahn (1971), Karman (1981), Kurz (1974), Mills and Hamilton (1984), Schweizer (1986), Henderson (1996); Urban biased development: Lipton (1977, 1984), Brown (1978), Sah and Stiglitz (1984), Sen (1977, 1981), Lin and Yang (1998); Economies of agglomeration, externality of cities, and size of cities: Abdel-Rahman (1988), Arnott (1979), Fujita (1989), Henderson (1974), Mills (1967), Kanemoto (1980); Dual economy: Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989a,b), Yang and Rice (1994); Land price of cities: Colwell and Munneke (1997); Empirical evidence: Simon and Nardinelli (1996), Baumgardner (1989), Y. Zhang (2000).
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 367
QUESTIONS 1 North (1981, pp. 158–62) finds historical evidence for the following fact. “An urban world is a development that has occurred during the last hundred years and is associated not so much with the industrial city as with a dramatic decline in the costs of transportation, the increase in agricultural productivity, and the agglomerative benefits of central places for economic activity.” Use the model in this chapter to explain this assertion. 2 Consider an extended version of the model in example 11.3. In the extended model, the equilibrium number of traded goods might be as large as 49. Consider the following hierarchical structures of cities. M consumer-producers are divided among M/49 local communities. In each of them, each person sells one good to and buys one good from each of the other 48 individuals. Each local community has one large central marketplace and 6 smaller central marketplaces. Each individual trades with her 6 neighboring trade partners through a small marketplace and goes to the large central marketplace to trade with the other 42 individuals. In other words, there is a hierarchical structure of cities. The large city is the central marketplace for the local community with 49 members, as well as the trade center for 7 individuals who reside near the large city. Each of the 6 small cities is a trade center among 7 individuals, similar to the one in figure 11.2(b). Another location pattern of transactions is that all 49 individuals go to the center of the community to trade with each other. The third pattern is that each pair of trade partners can trade at the middle-point between them. The fourth pattern is similar to that in figure 11.2(b), that is, M individuals are divided as M/7 separate local communities. Discuss under what conditions each of the four patterns occurs at general equilibrium. Analyze the difference in trade volume between the large and small cities in the first pattern. 3 Discuss the implications of a blend between the model in question 2 and the model in example 11.4 for a hierarchical structure of land prices between cities of different ranks. Use this model to predict the potential for increases of land prices in the large cities. Braudel (1984, II, ch. 2) provides historical evidence for the role of cities as the centers of transactions. Use the evidence in connection with your casual observation of the features of the cities you have seen in the real world to discuss the relevance of the models in this chapter. 4 Analyze the role of free migration, free choice of occupation configuration, and free trade and pricing of land in enabling the market to sort out the efficient pattern of urbanization and the efficient geographical pattern of transactions. 5 Baumgardner (1988b) finds empirical evidence for the positive relationship between urbanization and individuals’ levels of specialization. Design a method to test the concurrent evolution of division of labor and the degree of urbanization against empirical observations. Find a way to test the theories developed in examples 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 against empirical observations. 6 Discuss the differences between the models in example 11.1 and in examples 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4. Simon and Nardinelli (1996) find empirical evidence, from a data set of English cities over the years 1861–1961, for a positive relationship between transaction conditions and city size, which is predicted by the Yang and Rice and Sun and Yang models in this chapter. They and Y. Zhang (2000) have also found empirical
368 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
evidence against a positive relationship between the size of firms and city size, which is predicted by the Krugman and Fujita model in this chapter. Find more empirical observations that can be used to test these models against each other. Why does the Fujita–Krugman model predict a decline in the degree of urbanization as a result of improved transaction conditions of manufactured goods? 7 Fei and Ranis (1964) claim that agricultural development and a surplus of agricultural products are essential for industrialization and urbanization. But Jacobs (1969, pp. 6–9) claims that urbanization is a driving force of agricultural development rather than vice versa: “If we wait for the emergence of agricultural surplus without cities, such surplus never takes place. Industrialization and urbanization are the driving force of agricultural surplus rather than the surplus being the necessary condition for industrialization and urban development.” Use the concept of general equilibrium to comment on these views.
EXERCISES 1 Assume that in example 11.1., the agricultural good is the sole consumption good and all manufactured goods are employed to produce the agricultural good. Use the model to explain the structural changes caused by industrialization. Compare your explanation to the conventional theory of labor surplus and structural changes (Lewis, 1955, and Fei and Renis, 1964). 2 M. Lio: Extend the model in example 11.2 to a case with three industrial goods and one agricultural good. Solve for general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. Show that a dual economy, featuring an asymmetric structure of division of labor (i.e., urban residents have a higher level of specialization than rural residents), may occur during the transitional period from a low level (urban and rural residents have the same level of specialization and productivity) to a high level of balanced division of labor. 3 Yang and Rice, 1994: Assume that in the model in exercise 2, the production functions are x i + x is = l ia , a > 1. Solve for the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 4 Extend the model in example 11.3 to the case with the number of traded goods n ∈ [1, 49]. Analyze the possible equilibrium hierarchical location pattern of transactions, in which individuals trade with neighbors through a local marketplace, similar to that in figure 11.2(b), with n = 7, and trade with non-neighbors through a larger central marketplace, which may emerge from a large network size of division of labor with n = 49. The central marketplace looks like a large city that channels more transactions than each smaller marketplace. Discuss the possible evolution of the number of layers of the hierarchical system of cities if the level of division of labor is allowed to be [1, m]. 5 Assume that in the model in example 11.4, total land area is a fixed constant, but urban and rural land areas are endogenous variables. Solve for comparative statics of the general equilibrium. Analyze the effects of the evolution of division of labor on the relative areas of cities and countryside.
C HAPTER 11: U RBANIZATION 369
Notes 1 Quigley (1998) considers benefits from intracity informational spillovers. Tabuchi (1998), by combining the methods of Henderson (1974) and Krugman (1991), considers the trade-off between type I economies of agglomeration and the cost of intracity congestion. 2 But because of indeterminancy about who specializes in which activity, which n out of m goods are traded, and which nA out n traded goods are produced in the urban area in equilibrium, we have multiple equilibria that generate the same per capita real income. 3 The result that the number of cities decreases as division of labor evolves can be changed either by endogenizing population size or by endogenizing the number of layers of city hierarchy, as discussed in section 11.5.
370 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
INDUSTRIALIZATION, STRUCTURAL CHANGES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND DIVISION OF LABOR IN ROUNDABOUT PRODUCTION
12
12.1 THE FEATURES OF INDUSTRIALIZATION The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, we shall use the Smithian models to predict the emergence of new producer goods and related new technology from the evolution of division of labor. Second, a Smithian model of endogenous specialization with an endogenous number of links in a roundabout production chain will be developed to investigate industrialization. From as far back as Smith (1776, pp. 14, 105), Joseph Harris (1757), Josiah Tucker (1756, 1774), and Hegel (1821, p. 129), to Marshall (1890, p. 256) and Walker (1874, pp. 36–7), many economists have recognized that the emergence of new tools and machines, and the related invention of new technologies, are dependent on the development of division of labor. This classical mainstream view of invention and technology substantially differs from neoclassical saving and technology fundamentalism.1 According to the neoclassical view, innovation is a matter of investment in research and development (R&D), regardless of the levels of specialization for individuals and the level of division of labor for society (see chapter 15). In contrast, according to the classical mainstream, the invention of new machines and technology is a matter of the size of the network of division of labor and the related extent of the market. If the network of division of labor is not sufficiently developed, not only can new technology not be invented, but even if it were invented, it would be commercially nonviable. That is why the invention of paper, the compass, printing technology, and metallurgical technology by the Chinese in the twelfth century did not generate industrialization, whereas the commercialization of these technologies through the development in division of labor in Europe promoted other inventions that led to the Industrial Revolution in 1750–1830 (Elvin, 1973). However, all Smithian models of endogenous specialization developed so far in the previous chapters cannot predict the emergence of new producer goods from the evolution in division of labor.
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 371
In order to formalize the classical ideas about the emergence of new producer goods from the evolution in division of labor, we shall extend the model with an endogenous number of consumption goods and endogenous specialization in example 7.2 to endogenize the number of producer goods. If we specify the CES production function in the model of endogenous specialization in chapter 2, the classical ideas about the intimate relationship between invention of new technology, the size of the network of division of labor, and the institution of the firm can be formalized. According to Mokyr (1990, 1993), Huang (1991), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 145 –84), North (1981), Macfarlane (1988), Baechler (1976), and Sachs (1998), the driving mechanism for the Industrial Revolution worked as follows. A variety of polities and rivalries between hostile sovereignties in the same culture in Europe encouraged many different institutional experiments. As a consequence of the range of institutional experimentation and internal and external political pluralism, a particular set of institutions emerged in Britain prior to the Industrial Revolution.2 This set of institutions, featuring great adaptability and social learning capacity of institutional arrangements, significantly improved transaction conditions. Prior to and during the Industrial Revolution, extensive international trade, due to improved transportation conditions, stimulated evolution of division of labor.3 Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy provided long-run political stability. Patent laws and evolving common law secured property rights. The securing of residual rights to firms reduced transaction costs in setting up firms and encouraged specialized entrepreneurial activities, while secured rights to intellectual property directly improved transaction conditions for technology and encouraged specialized invention of new technology. When patent laws were not enough to protect entrepreneurial ideas and rights to inventions, the institution of the firm was used to protect intellectual property rights via the residual rights of the firm and trade secrets. As the sources cited in chapters 1 and 10 suggest, a stable, nonpredatory tax system and government laissez-faire policy encouraged business activities and the evolution of division of labor. Free association (i.e., where setting up private firms need no approval or license from the government) improved transaction conditions for the evolution of the institution of the firm. Hence, the endogenous and exogenous transaction costs for each transaction were significantly reduced, the level of division of labor in invention and other activities increased, and new producer goods and related new technology emerged. We will use two Smith–Young models of endogenous specialization to formalize this mechanism for economic development and technical progress. The earliest theories of industrialization were proposed by Smith (1776) and Young (1928). Smith conjectured that a decrease of the income share of the agricultural sector is caused by the relative difference in the benefits of specialization, compared to the seasonal adjustment cost caused by specialization between the industrial and agricultural sectors. An extension of this hypothesis implies that a decline in the income share of the agricultural sector occurs not because of a change in tastes, in income, or in exogenous technical conditions, but because the agricultural sector has a higher coordination cost of division of labor compared to the benefits derived from the division of labor, and it can improve productivity only by importing an increasingly number of industrial goods. These goods are produced by a high level of division of labor in the manufacturing sector, where transaction costs are more likely to be outweighed by economies of division of labor. Young considered industrialization as a process that involves evolution of division of labor in the roundabout production process, which enlarges the market network and increases productivity. There are at least three other types of models of industrialization. The first is the model with a labor surplus and dual economy (Lewis, 1955, Fei and Ranis, 1964). In the model with a labor surplus, the expansion of the industrial sector is explained by a labor surplus in the agricultural sector and exogenous technical progress or capital accumulation in the industrial sector. As
372 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
exogenous technical progress takes place, or as investment is used to raise the capital–labor ratio in the industrial sector, the marginal productivity of labor increases, so that demand for labor increases. Because of the existence of a labor surplus, increasing demand does not raise the wage rate and the cost of the expansion of the industrial sector. Hence, the industrial sector can be developed at a zero or low cost to the agricultural sector. Labor surplus in this model is caused by an ad hoc assumption that the price of labor is higher than the equilibrium level for some unspecified institutional reason. Since there is no trade-off between exploitation of exogenous comparative advantage and transaction costs in the model of labor surplus, this model cannot explain productivity progress in the absence of disequilibrium in the labor market. As shown in chapter 3, if we abandon the neoclassical dichotomy between pure consumers and firms, it is possible to specify the trade-off between the exploitation of exogenous comparative advantage and transaction costs in a model with constant returns to scale technology. The trade-off can be used to explain economic development by transaction efficiency in the absence of disequilibrium in the labor market. The second type of theory of industrialization, what Krugman (1995) calls “high-development economics,” was developed by Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Nurkse (1952), Fleming (1955), and Hirschman (1958). Those authors did not use general equilibrium models to formalize their vague ideas, which there are two ways to interpret. According to Krugman (1995), economies of scale are an important factor for industrialization. He argues that the theory of labor surplus was more popular than high-development economics because the former was easier to formulate in the context of a model with constant returns to scale, while economists did not know the right way to formalize the latter idea using the general equilibrium model with economies of scale. Hence, the models of monopolistic competition which we have seen in chapter 5, provide technical vehicles for substantiating high-development economics and the theory of industrialization. However, most high-development economists do not mention economies of scale. They talk about interdependencies of profitability in different industrial sectors, balanced and unbalanced industrialization, circular causation in the industrialization process, and pecuniary external economies of the industrial linkage network. All these notions are not difficult to formalize in a general equilibrium model. Circular causation is, of course, a notion of general equilibrium. In a standard neoclassical general equilibrium model, each individual’s decision in choosing her quantities demanded and supplied is dependent on prices, while general equilibrium prices are determined by all individuals’ decisions in choosing their quantities. This circular causation implies that all interdependent endogenous variables must be simultaneously determined by a general equilibrium mechanism (or a fixed point). Comparative statics of general equilibrium are a powerful technical vehicle to substantiate the mechanism. Thus, high-development economics relates to the notion of general equilibrium. When economists were unfamiliar with the technical substance of general equilibrium models, they could only use vague words to address general equilibrium phenomena, such as circular causation, interdependent decisions in different industries, pecuniary externality of industrial linkages (external economies that can be exploited via the market price system), and so on. (See questions 7–9 in chapter 5 and questions 16 and 17 in this chapter for more detail of high-development economics.) However, there are three types of general equilibrium model. In a neoclassical general equilibrium model with constant returns to scale, circular causation happens between quantities and prices and between individuals’ decisions in different sectors. In a general equilibrium model with economies of scale and an endogenous number of goods, the sort of model we saw in chapter 5, circular causation occurs among quantities, prices, productivity, per capita real income, and the number of goods, in addition to interdependencies among different markets and different individuals’ decisions. In the Smithian general equilibrium model we looked at in chapters 4, 6, and 7, there are interdependencies of the network
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 373
size of division of labor, the extent of the market, productivity, trade dependence, the diversity of economic structures, the number of goods, the degree of market integration, and the degree of endogenous comparative advantage, in addition to interdependencies among quantities, prices, different individuals’ decisions, and different markets. It seems to us that high-development economists’ discussion about pecuniary externality based on the industrial linkage network, circular causation, and balanced and unbalanced industrialization relates more closely to the positive network effect of division of labor in a long roundabout production chain than to economies of scale. The essence of Rosenstein-Rodan’s idea (1943) about big-push industrialization is to advocate state-led industrialization because of coordination failure in exploiting the network effects of division of labor in a decentralized market. Hirschman’s idea (1958) about the pecuniary externality of industrial linkages relates more or less to market-led industrialization, since the network effects of division of labor are pecuniary (and can be exploited by the price system). The phrase “balanced and unbalanced industrialization” may be misleading. Unbalanced industrialization strategy may be associated with specialization of a country in a particular sector and with the international division of labor between countries. Hence, from the point of view of the world market, such a strategy is a balanced industrialization strategy, although it is not balanced within a single country (Sheahan, 1958). High-development economics and the related theory of industrialization have been formalized by the general equilibrium models with economies of scale investigated in chapter 5. Recently, Smith and Young’s theory of industrialization was formalized by Shi and Yang (1995) and Sun and Lio (1996). The Smith–Young model of industrialization and endogenous specialization can also be used to formalize high-development economics. In this chapter, we use a Smith–Young general equilibrium model to predict a very important phenomenon of industrialization noted by Young (1928): an increase in roundaboutness of production. The models of economies of scale in chapter 5 can predict concurrent increases in productivity, in the number of goods, and in the output share of the industrial sector. They cannot, however, predict concurrent evolution in individuals’ levels of specialization, in productivity, and in the number of links of a roundabout production chain. Young calls the number of links “roundaboutness.” Industrialization is characterized by the following concurrent phenomena. Division of labor evolves and each individual’s level of specialization increases, the degrees of commercialization and trade dependence rise, new producer goods and related new technology emerge from evolution in division of labor, the degree of diversity of economic structure, the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, the degree of market integration, and the degree of production concentration all go up, and the institution of the firm and the labor market emerge and develop as division of labor evolves.4 More importantly, the number of links in a long, roundabout production chain increases and some new links in the industrial structure emerge from the evolution in division of labor. A comparison between a less-developed economy and a modern developed economy illustrates the point convincingly. In an ordinary American farm, the farmer may use sophisticated tractors and other equipment to work the land and various trucks to move things. All such machines are produced through a very long, roundabout production process. In contrast, a Chinese peasant family with a plot of land uses shoulder poles to move things and hoes to work the land. These simple tools are produced through a very short production chain. Of course, the long roundabout production chain in the US cannot be supported by a very low level of division of labor. Rather, it is supported by a large network of division of labor, which is in turn based on very high transaction efficiency (provided by a good legal system that protects individuals’ property rights), a good infrastracture (including transportation, banking, and other transaction-related facilities), and a moral code and cultural traditions which allow for
374 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
detailed contracts to be upheld. The low degree of production roundaboutness in China is associated with a very low degree of commercialization. This degree in rural China was 0.3 before 1978, that is, a typical rural Chinese produced 70 percent of what she consumed (Yang, Wang, and Wills, 1992). As we have learned from the previous chapters, the low degree of commercialization corresponds to a low level of division of labor, that is in turn associated with a low transaction efficiency caused by a legal system that allows the government to arbitrarily infringe upon private property, a deficient banking system due to a government monopoly in the financial market, and an underdeveloped transportation infrastructure. A general equilibrium model that describes industrialization must be able, at the minimum, to predict the following concurrent phenomena: individuals’ levels of specialization increase, the number of links in a roundabout production chain increases, the number of producer goods in each of the links increases, productivity and per capita real income increase, the market network expands, and the institution of the firm emerges and develops as transaction conditions are improved. Let us first tell the story behind the formal model in this chapter. In the story, there are many ex ante identical consumer-producers. Each of them could produce 4 types of goods: food, hoes, tractors, and machine tools. Labor is essential in producing machine tools. Labor and machine tools are essential for the production of tractors. Labor is essential for the production of hoes. Each individual can either use labor, or hoes and labor, or tractors and labor, or both hoes and tractors together with labor, to produce food. But if a tractor is used, part of the labor must be allocated to the production of machine tools. There are economies of complementarity between tractors and hoes in raising productivity of food. There are economies of specialization in producing each good. Trade will incur transaction costs. If hoes and tractors are not produced, there is only one link in production: labor is employed to produce food. If tractors are not produced, there are only two links in production: the production of hoes and the production of food. There is only one producer good in the upstream link. If tractors and hoes are produced, then machine tools, which are essential for the production of tractors, must be produced too. There are three links of roundabout production: the production of machine tools, the production of tractors and hoes, and the production of food, employing tractors and hoes. There are two producer goods in the middle link of the roundabout production process. There are three types of economies of roundaboutness. The total factor productivity of the downstream goods increases with the quantities of upstream goods employed in producing the downstream goods (type A economies of roundabout production); the total factor productivity of the downstream goods increases with the number of upstream goods (type B economies of roundabout production); the total factor productivity of the final goods increases with the number of links of the roundabout production chain (type C economies of roundabout production). Suppose that there exist all three types of economies of roundabout production in the Smithian model. Hence, the total factor productivity of food is the highest when all producer goods (hoes, tractors, and machine tools) are produced and is the lowest when none of them are produced. However, there is a trade-off between economies of roundabout production and economies of specialization, since each individual’s level of specialization would be very low if she produced many goods. If she wants to keep her level of specialization and the degree of roundaboutness high at the same time, then she must trade with others, so that there are tradeoffs between economies of specialization, economies of roundabout production, and transaction costs. Suppose transaction efficiency is very low; then economies of specialization are outweighed by transaction costs, so that individuals have to choose autarky where the scope for trading-off economies of specialization against economies of roundabout production is very narrow. Then, only a few goods that directly relate to final consumption are produced in autarky. For
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 375
instance, individuals may produce food with labor alone. As transaction efficiency is slightly improved, individuals can choose a larger network of division of labor, so that the scope for trading-off economies of specialization against economies of roundabout production is enlarged. Therefore, the degree of roundaboutness and all individuals’ levels of specialization can increase side by side through the division of labor between different specialists. For instance, the general equilibrium jumps from autarky with no producer goods to the division of labor between specialist manufacturers of hoes and professional farmers. As transaction efficiency is further improved, horizontal division of labor between the production of hoes and the production of tractors creates more scope for the vertical division of labor between the production of tractors and the production of machine tools, so that the number of links in roundabout production is further increased from 2 to 3. In this process, not only does a new link emerge from evolution in industrial structure, but also the number of producer goods in the existing upstream link increases. In other words, a higher transaction efficiency increases society’s capacity to acquire knowledge in different professions through increasing the size of the network of division of labor and the related extent of the market. The network effects cause new producer goods and related new technology to become commercially viable. The story of the invention of the steam engine by Boulton and Watt verifies our conjecture. Marshall (1890, p. 256) attributed this invention to a deep division of labor in inventing activities, which was induced by patent laws that improved the transaction efficiency of intellectual property. If transaction efficiency for labor is higher than that for producer goods, then the evolution in division of labor will be associated with the emergence and development of the institution of the firm. Hence, improvements in transaction efficiency will generate concurrent phenomena that are associated with industrialization and raise the income share of the roundabout production sector (sometimes called the heavy industry sector). In sections 12.2 to 12.4, we first use a model of endogenous specialization with an endogenous number of links in the roundabout production chain to formalize Smith and Young’s theory of industrialization. In section 12.5 we then use a more general model to investigate the relationship between economic development, industrialization, structural changes, and the evolution of the number of producer goods.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n
n n
What is the driving mechanism of industrialization characterized by the concurrent evolution of division of labor, production roundaboutness, the institution of the firm, the income share of the industrial sector, and the income share of the roundabout production sectors? What are the implications of private residual rights to the firm for the evolution of production roundaboutness? What are the implications of free pricing, free enterprise, and a free choice between occupation configurations, for the evolution of division of labor in roundabout production?
12.2 INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE EVOLUTION OF DIVISION OF LABOR IN ROUNDABOUT PRODUCTION Example 12.1: A Smith–Young model of industrialization. Consider an economy with a continuum of ex ante identical consumer-producers of mass M. Each consumer-producer’s ex ante utility function is u = z + kz d
(12.1)
376 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
where z is the self-provided quantity of food, z d is the amount of food purchased, and k is transaction efficiency. The ex ante production function of food is z p ≡ z + z s = Max{lz − α, ( y + ky d )1/3(lz − α), (x + kx d )1/3(lz − α)( y + ky d )1/3(x + kxd )1/3(lz − α)}
(12.2)
where z p is the output level of food, z s is the amount of food sold, lz is the amount of time allocated to the production of food, y is the amount of hoes self-provided, y d is the amount of hoes purchased, x is the amount of tractors self-provided, x d is the amount of tractors purchased, k is transaction efficiency, and α is the fixed learning cost in each activity. The specification of the production function for food implies that there are four ways to produce food: using labor only, using hoes together with labor, using tractors together with labor, or using both hoes and tractors together with labor. It is not difficult to see that if y + ky d > 1, then ( y + ky d )1/3(lz − α) > lz − α, which implies that it is more productive if hoes are employed than if they are not, even if the input level of labor is the same for the two cases. This means that there are type C economies of roundabout production of food if division of labor sufficiently increases demand y d. If we compare the total factor productivities of food for the two ways of production, we can also see that for x + kx d > 1, total factor productivity is higher when hoes are employed. Similarly, it can be shown that the total factor productivity of food is higher when tractors are employed than when they are not, because ( y + ky d )1/3(x + kx d )1/3(lz − α) > ( y + kyd )1/3(lz − α). This means that there are type B economies of roundabout production of food if division of labor sufficiently increases demand xd. It can also be shown that the total factor productivity of food increases with the amount of tractors or hoes employed, that is, there are type A economies of roundabout production. The ex ante production function for hoes is y p ≡ y + y s = Max{ly − α, 0}
(12.3)
where y p is the output level of hoes, y s is the amount sold, ly is the amount of time allocated to the production of hoes, and α is the fixed learning cost in producing hoes. The ex ante production function of tractors is x p ≡ x + x s = Max{(w + kwd )1/2(lx − α), 0}
(12.4)
where x p is the output level of tractors, x s is the amount sold, lx is the amount of time allocated to the production of tractors, w is the amount of machine tools self-provided, wd is the amount of machine tools purchased, and α is the fixed learning cost in producing tractors. The ex ante production function of machine tools is w p ≡ w + ws = Max{lw − α, 0}
(12.5)
where w p is the output level of tractors, w s is the amount sold, lw is the amount of time allocated to the production of machine tools. The ex ante endowment of nonleisure time is lx + ly + lz + lw = 24.
(12.6)
li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i. It is not difficult to verify that the total factor productivity of food or tractors increases with an individual’s level of specialization in producing the good, and that labor productivity of hoes or machine tools
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 377
increases with an individual’s level of specialization in producing the good. Hence, there are economies of specialization in producing each good. We draw a distinction between emergence of a new industry and emergence of a new sector. A new industry which might comprise several sectors emerges as a new link in the roundabout production chain emerges. A new sector producing a certain type of goods emerges if the number of goods at a certain link of the roundabout production chain increases. Hence, a new industry emerges from an increase in the number of links of the roundabout production chain and a new sector emerges from an increase in the number of producer goods at a particular link of the roundabout production chain. Here, a link is defined as the input–output relationship between upstream and a downstream industries. The number of links is the degree of production roundaboutness.
12.3 CORNER EQUILIBRIA AND THE EMERGENCE OF NEW INDUSTRY You are now familiar with inframarginal analysis, so we need not repeat the technical detail of the two-step approach of inframarginal analysis; we shall just define the various structures (shown in figure 12.1), and summarize all the corner equilibria in table 12.1. There are 12 structures that we have to consider. Four of them are autarky structures. A(z) represents an autarky structure where only labor is employed to produce food and all producer goods are not produced. A(zy) represents an autarky structure where hoes are employed to produce food. A(zxw) represents an autarky structure where machine tools are employed to produce tractors which are employed to produce food. A(zyxw) is an autarky structure where all three intermediate goods are employed to produce food. All four autarky structures except structure A(zxw) are shown in figure 12.1. Structure C comprises a configuration producing only food and a configuration producing only hoes. Each individual is completely specialized, but the number of producer goods in Structure C
Autarky
Structure G
Structure E (Z/XY)
z
z lz
z
Y
A(z)
lz ly
(X/Z)
lz
x
Z
(Y/Z)
lw A(zyxw)
W
ly Z
x
w
(Y/Z)
lw
X
z w lx ly
Z
(W/Z)
X x w lw
lx
W
z y
lz
ly
w lw
x lx
z Y l z ly Z
Z (Z/X)
Structure D
Figure 12.1 Various industrial structures
X
z Y
(X/WZ) (X/Z)
y lz
(X/WZ) lz
Y y
w l x lw
A(zy)
x
X
y ly
z y
(Z/XY)
(Z/Y)
(W/Z) Structure F
(Z/X)
lx Z
y ly (Y/Z)
lz Z Z
378 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Table 12.1 Corner equilibria Structure
Relative prices
Number of specialists
Per capita real income
A(z)
24 − α
A(zy)
3[(24 − 2α)/4]4/3
A(zxw)
3[(24 − 3α)/9]4/324/3
A(zxyw)
3[(24 − 4α)/11]11/625/3
C
py /pz = (1/3)22/3[(24 − α)/k]1/3/3
My /Mz = [(24 − α)pz /py3]3/2
(24 − α)4/3(2k)2/3/3
D
px /pz = 3[(24 − 2α)/k]1/3/28/3
Mx /Mz = [k(12 − α)]0.5(3pz /2px)3/2
(24 − 2α)11/6k2/3/(31/325/3)
E
[k(24 − α)]4/3[(24 − 2α)/27]0.521/3
F
(24 − α)11/6k5/6/27/3??
G
px /pz = 22/3(24 − α)1/3/3 py /pz = pw /pz = (2k)0.5(24 − α)5/6/3
Mx /Mz = 2k(pz /px)3(24 − α)pw /27py My /Mz = pz3 [(24 − α)k/py]2/(27px) Mw /Mx = [(24 − α)k/4](px /pw)3
(24 − α)11/620.5k3/2/3
upstream industry is small and the number of links in roundabout production is 2. Tractors and machine tools are not produced. In structure D, all producer goods, hoes, tractors, and machine tools are produced. This structure comprises a configuration producing both food and hoes and a configuration producing both tractors and machine tools. Each individual produces two goods and has an intermediate level of specialization, but the degree of production roundaboutness and the variety of producer goods at the middle link of the roundabout production are great. Structure E comprises three configurations. A professional farmer buys hoes and tractors and sells food. A completely specialized manufacturer of hoes sells hoes and buys food. The third configuration is not completely specialized. It produces both tractors and machine tools, sells tractors, and buys food. Structure F is symmetric with structure E. The producers of tractors and machine tools are completely specialized, but the third nonspecialized configuration produces both hoes and food. Structure G has a complete division of labor, which implies not only that all individuals are completely specialized, but also that the degree of production roundaboutness and the number of producer goods at each link are greatest. There are four completely specialized configurations. Each of them sells its produce. Each of the professional manufacturers of hoes, tractors, and machine tools buys food, each professional farmer buys hoes and tractors, and each professional manufacturer of tractors also buys machine tools. All of the structures are shown in figure 12.1, where configurations are defined by letters in the brackets: the letter before a slash denotes the good sold, and the letter after a slash denotes those goods purchased. For instance, configuration (x/z) denotes that an individual produces both tractors and machine tools, sells tractors, x, and buys food, z; (z/xy) denotes a professional farmer selling food and buying tractors and hoes. There are more structures that are not listed in figure 12.2. Structure H comprises a nonprofessional configuration that produces both food and tractors, sells food, and buys machine tools, and a professional configuration selling machine tools and buying food. In this structure, hoes are not produced. In structure I, which is symmetric with H, a professional farmer produces food, a nonprofessional manufacturer produces both tractors and machine tools, and hoes are not produced. Structure J is the same as structure G except that hoes are not
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 379
produced. If trade in intermediate goods is replaced with trade in labor, there are more structures with the institution of the firm. Some of them are shown in figure 12.2. The corner equilibria in the major structures are summarized in table 12.1. From comparisons of per capita real incomes across structures, we can show that the set of candidates for the general equilibrium structure comprises A(z), A(zy), A(zxyw), C, D, G. Each of the other structures generates lower per capita real income than at least one of the above structures. Three methods are used to exclude these structures. If we compare per capita real income in a structure with those in two other similar structures, we can obtain two critical values of k. When the two structures to compare are appropriately chosen, the initial structure generates a higher per capita real income than both of the others only if k is between the two critical values. For instance, structure F generates a higher per capita real income than structure D if and only if k > k′, and structure F generates a higher per capita real income than structure G if and only if k < k″. This implies that structure F is a candidate for the general equilibrium structure only if k ∈(k′, k″). Here, the critical values k′, k″ can be obtained by comparing the per capita real incomes in the three structures that are given in table 12.1. They are dependent on α. But a comparison between k″ and k′ indicates that k′ > k″, that is, the interval of (k′, k″) is empty. This implies that structure F generates a lower per capita real income than either structure D or structure G, or the per capita real income in F cannot be greater than that in structure D and G at the same time. According to the Yao theorem, this implies that the corner equilibrium in structure F cannot be a general equilibrium. The second method that we have used is to compare the critical values of k with 1. Since k cannot be larger than 1, if a critical value of k that makes a structure at least as good as another structure is greater than 1, then the former cannot be a candidate for the equilibrium structure. For instance, the per capita real income in structure G is greater than in structure C if and only if k > k′″. But it can be shown that k′″ > 1 if and only if α is smaller than a constant. Hence, we can conclude that structure G cannot be a candidate for the general equilibrium structure if α is greater than that constant. The third method that we have used is to identify the condition for per capita real income in each structure to be nonpositive. It is obvious from table 19.1 that if α is greater than a certain value, per capita real income in a particular structure is nonpositive. Repeatedly using the three methods, we can exclude structures A(zxw), E, F, H, I, and J from the set of candidates for the general equilibrium structure. The results, of course, relate to some of our specific assumptions. For instance, we assume that each individual has 24 units of time available for production and that the elasticity parameters of outputs with respect to input levels of intermediate goods are specific numbers. In addition, we have assumed the Cobb–Douglas production function and that the fixed learning cost and transaction efficiency are the same for all goods. If we relax these assumptions, then each of the structures we have outlined could be a general equilibrium structure within a certain parameter subspace. Shi and Yang (1995) have examined the effects of relaxing some of the assumptions. For example, they have assumed the CES production function with an elasticity of substitution that might not be 1. They have also assumed that the elasticity of output with respect to input is a parameter rather than a number. They have shown that within a certain parameter subspace, each of the structures could be a general equilibrium structure.
12.4 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM, INDUSTRIALIZATION, AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES Comparisons of per capita real incomes across structures, together with the Yao theorem, yield the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics, summarized in table 12.2.
380 P ART III: U RBANIZATION Table 12.2
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Emergence of new industry and evolution in division of labor
α
∈(0, 0.92)
k
< k1
∈(0.92, 3.57) ∈(k1, k2)
Structure A(zxyw) D
∈(3.57, 7.8)
> k2 < k3
∈(k3, k2)
> k2 < k4
G
D
G
where k1 ≡ 3225[(12 − 2α)/11(12 − α)]11/4, k3 ≡ 9(24 − 2α)−3/42−1.5, k5 ≡ 31.5/[2(24 − 2α)0.5],
A(zy)
∈(k4, k2)
A(z) D
∈(7.8, 23.5) ∈(23.5, 24) > k2 < k5 G
> k5
A(z) C
< k6 > k6 A(z) G
k2 ≡ (34/27)0.2[(24 − 2α)/(24 − α)]11/5, k4 ≡ 22.53.0.5(24 − α)1.5/(24 − 2α)11/4, k6 ≡ 32/3/[21/3(24 − α)5/9].
In order to compare topological properties between different structures, we define the level of division of labor of an economy by three measures: each individual’s level of specialization, the number of links in the roundabout production chain, and the number of goods at each link of the chain in a structure. According to this definition, structure C, in which each individual is completely specialized, the number of goods is 2, and the number of links is 2, has roughly the same level of division of labor as structure D, in which each individual has a lower level of specialization than in C, but the number of goods is 4 and the number of links of the roundabout production chain is 3. We now read the results in table 12.2 in connection with the graphs in figure 12.2. There are 5 patterns of evolution in division of labor. Let us look the case with α ∈(0, 0.92). Within this interval of parameter values, if transaction efficiency is sufficiently low, autarky structure A(zxyw) is the general equilibrium, where each individual self-provides all four goods, and productivity and per capita real income are very low. As transaction efficiency is improved to be greater than k1, the general equilibrium jumps to structure D, where some individuals produce both food and hoes and others produce both tractors and machine tools. The number of goods produced by each individual is reduced from 4 to 2, so that each individual’s level of specialization rises. As transaction efficiency is further improved to be greater than k2, the general equilibrium jumps to the complete division of labor, where each individual is completely specialized. For this pattern of evolution in division of labor, each individual’s level of specialization evolves in the absence of evolution in degree of production roundaboutness and in variety of producer goods at each link. This is because the fixed learning cost α is very small, so that economies of specialization are not significant. Thus, the tension between economies of specialization and economies of roundaboutness is not sufficiently great to induce evolution in production roundaboutness. As the fixed learning cost and, accordingly, economies of specialization increase, the correspondingly greater tension between economies of specialization and economies of roundaboutness will generate concurrent evolution both in individuals’ levels of specialization and in production roundaboutness. Suppose α ∈(0.92, 3.57). If transaction efficiency is sufficiently low, autarky structure A(zy) is the general equilibrium structure, where each individual self-provides food and hoes, each individual’s level of specialization is not high, only two goods are produced, the number of links of roundabout production is 2, and the number of producer goods in upstream industry is 1. Also, productivity and per capita real income are low and no market exists in autarky. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium jumps to structure D, where a new link and two new producer goods emerge, although each individual’s level of specialization remains unchanged. Productivity and per capita real income are higher than in A(zy), because more economies of roundabout production are exploited. As transaction efficiency is further improved, the general equilibrium jumps to structure G, where each individual’s level of specialization is increased so that productivity, per capita real income, and number of transactions are increased. This pattern of evolution in division of labor generates all the concurrent
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 381
phenomena associated with industrialization, except evolution of the institution of the firm. Individuals’ levels of specialization increase, the number of links in the roundabout production chain increases, the number of producer goods in each of the links increases, productivity and per capita real income increase, the size of the market network expands, the degree of market integration and production concentration increases, and the extent of endogenous comparative advantage rises. New ex post production functions and related new technology and new industries emerge from this process. This endogenous technical progress differs from the exogenous technical progress in the theory of labor surplus and dual economy. Suppose the fixed learning cost is greater, so that α ∈(3.57, 7.8). Then only one good will be produced in autarky because of a greater tension between economies of specialization and economies of roundaboutness. If transaction efficiency is extremely low, then the general equilibrium is structure A(z) where no producer goods are produced. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium jumps to structure D, where a new link and two producer goods emerge despite a decline of each individual’s level of specialization. As transaction efficiency is further improved, the general equilibrium jumps to structure G with the complete division of labor, generating evolution in each person’s level of specialization again. In this pattern of the evolution of division of labor, each individual’s level of specialization experiences nonmonotonic changes. It declines first and then increases. But the degree of production roundaboutness and the level of division of labor (involving each person’s level of specialization, the degree of production roundaboutness, and variety of goods at each link) rises with the evolution of industrial structure. Suppose α ∈(7.8, 23.5), the degree of production roundaboutness increases as transaction efficiency is sufficiently improved, so that the general equilibrium jumps from structure A(z) to structure C. However, structure G with the complete division of labor cannot be the general equilibrium. You may see that if the elasticity of output of tractors with respect to input of machine tools is much larger than 1/3, then the general equilibrium will jump from structure C to structure G as transaction efficiency k tends to 1. Suppose α ∈(23.5, 24), each individual’s level of specialization remains unchanged, and the degree of production roundaboutness and variety of producer goods at the middle link increase concurrently as transaction efficiency is sufficiently improved, so that the general equilibrium jumps from structure A(z) to structure G with the complete division of labor. If the number of possible goods is much larger than 4, then the story about industrialization will be much richer, so that the concurrent evolution of the three aspects of the division of labor – individuals’ levels of specialization, the number of links of the roundabout production chain, and the number of goods at each link of the chain – will be easier to see.
12.4.1 Changes in the employment shares of the industrial and agricultural sectors From tables 12.1 and 12.2, we can see that as transaction efficiency is improved and the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to the division of labor, for example structure C or D, the number of professional farmers in the structure with division of labor is smaller than the number of individuals who self-provide food. This implies, on the one hand, that the number of individuals in the agricultural sector declines compared to the number of individuals in the industrial sector, and on the other hand, that the income share of industrial goods rises due to both the increase in the number of producer goods and the evolution in division of labor. The structural changes caused by the concurrent evolution in division of labor and in production roundaboutness can be verified by empirical data. The input and output tables of the US (US Department of Commerce, 1975) indicate that the income share of the sector
382 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
producing intermediate goods increases and the income share of the sector producing consumption goods declines over time. Shi and Yang (1995; see Yang and Ng, 1993, ch. 12) extend the model in this section to the case with good v that is essential for the production of good y. They assume that goods y and v are intermediate goods or services (such as planting and harvesting) in the agricultural sector and that the transaction efficiency coefficients for the two goods are much smaller than that for goods x and w in the industrial sector. Then they show that as transaction efficiency is improved, division of labor will evolve only in the industrial sector, so that the income share of the industrial sector rises and the agricultural sector is increasingly dependent on importing the benefit of division of labor from the industrial sector. This substantiates Smith’s conjecture that the increase in the income share of the industrial sector is due to relatively more significant economies of specialization compared to coordination costs in the industrial sector than in the agricultural sector. This approach to explaining structural changes, which are different aspects of evolution in division of labor, substantially differs from that of Kuznets and Chenery. Kuznets (1966) explains structural changes by an increase in income and by exogenous changes in preferences or in technology. However, structural changes can take place in the Smithian model in the absence of exogenous changes in the parameters of the production and utility functions. Explaining structural changes by changes in income is certainly not a general equilibrium view. In a general equilibrium model, per capita real income is endogenous. It should be explained either by parameters in static models (comparative statics of general equilibrium), or by a spontaneous mechanism in dynamic models. For instance, per capita real income in the model in this section is determined by the level of division of labor, which is in turn determined by transaction efficiency. Again, we can see that productivity progress in the Smithian model is generated by evolution in division of labor in the absence of changes in ex ante production functions. Hence, it can be viewed as endogenous technical progress caused by institutional changes or urbanization that affect transaction efficiency. But the distinguishing feature of endogenous technical progress in the Smithian model in this chapter is that it is associated with the emergence of new industries and evolution in production roundaboutness. The model in this section formalizes Schumpeter’s idea about creative destruction. From figure 12.1 and table 12.2, we can see that for α ∈(0.92, 3.57) as transaction conditions are improved, the general equilibrium evolves from autarky to structure D, followed by structure G. In this process, some occupation configurations with a low level of division of labor, such as configurations (x/z) and (z/x) in structure D, disappear, replaced by new occupation configurations with higher levels of specialization, such as configurations (z/xy), (x/wz), (y/z), and (w/z) in structure G. Also, configurations producing new goods may emerge from creative destruction. Yang and Ng (1993, p. 313) have shown that this model can be extended to predict the disappearance of some goods which have low transaction efficiency and insignificant economies of specialization in production, as new goods emerge from the evolution of division of labor and the roundabout production chain. This creative destruction differs from Aghion and Howitt’s (1992) model of creative destruction, which does not explore the connection between the disappearance of old goods or the emergence of new goods, and the evolution of individuals’ levels of specialization. The policy implications of the model enable us to identify fatal flaws in various industrial policies. The Smithian model shows that one of the functions of the market is to sort out the efficient industrial structure and pattern of its evolution. If the model is asymmetric and has many possible goods and possible links, then it is impossible for any policy-maker to figure out what the efficient industrial structure is. However, the invisible hand (interactions between self-interested decisions) can do so. Some historical examples may illustrate this point. In China prior to the nineteenth century, policy-makers and intellectuals advocated an industrial policy
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 383
“promoting the agricultural sector and suppressing commerce.” Similarly, Japanese government had an industrial policy in the 1950s that restricted the development of the automobile industry. In the Japanese government’s judgment, Japan had no comparative advantage in manufacturing automobiles. But under a private property rights and free enterprise system, it is the owners of private firms, rather than the government, who have the ultimate right to choose the industrial pattern. Hence, the industrial policy of the Japanese government was rejected by the market. From many such cases, we can see that it is those countries that have many complicated industrial policies that promote or protect some industries and ignore or suppress others that have shown poor performance in economic development. Shi and Yang have also shown that if the production function of food is of the CES type and its parameters are not fixed numbers, then structure F may be the general equilibrium in the transitional period as the economy evolves from autarky to the complete division of labor. Structure F is a dual structure (see figure 12.1), in which producers of tractors and machine tools are completely specialized, while producers of food and hoes are not completely specialized. Hence, a professional producer of machine tools or a professional producer of tractors has a higher productivity and a higher level of commercialized income than an individual selfproviding hoes and selling food. This is referred to as a dual structure. The natural dual structure in a free market will generate equal per capita real income between the industrial and agricultural sectors despite unequal commercialized incomes. It emerges in the transitional period from a low level of division of labor to a high level of division of labor, and disappears as the complete division of labor has been reached. If more goods are introduced into the model, the number of corner equilibria will increase more than proportionally. Many of these cannot be solved analytically. Hence, the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium can be obtained only through numerical simulation on the computer. The complexity of calculation and variety of possible patterns of evolution of industrial structure imply that it is impossible for a central planning system to simulate what is going on in the market, and that the market is much more powerful than any one decisionmaker in sorting out the complex task of determining the efficient industrial structure.
12.4.2 The number of possible structures of transactions increases more than proportionally as division of labor evolves in roundabout production As division of labor evolves in roundabout production, the possibilities for replacing trade in intermediate goods with trade in labor imply that the number of structures with firms increases more than proportionally. If we consider structures where different specialist producers are the employers of firms, this point is even easier to see. Let’s look at figure 12.2, where possible structures with firms based on the complete division of labor (structure G) are drawn. In each of these structures, there are four types of specialist producers, of food (z), hoes (y), tractors (x), and machine tools (w). G1 represents a structure in which a specialist producer of food hires specialist producers of hoes and tractors, and buys machine tools from and sells food to independent specialist producers of machine tools. The rectangles with thick borders denote firms, circles denote employees, and the rectangles with thin borders denote independent specialist producers (or self-employed producers). Structure G1a has the same structure of division of labor and transactions as structure G1, but has a different ownership structure of the firm. In structure G1a, it is the specialist producer of tractors instead of the specialist producer of food who owns the firm. There is another variant of structure G1 where the specialist producer of hoes is the owner of the firm. The other drawings in figure 12.2
384 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Structure G1
Structure G2
Structure G1a Firms
a firm
lz
X Y
W
X Y W
W
Z l z
ly
lw
Z
ly
ly
W
lz
Z
Z
Z
Z
lz Z
ly
ly
W W
X Y lz ly ly Z lx
X
lw
Z
lw firms
firms
self-employed Z
Z
Z W W
X Z Z
lx
X Y
lz
lw
X
Z Y
Y
X
ly
lx
Z
W lx
ly
X
ly
Z
Z
Z W lx lw
lw lw Employees
Structure G3
Y
lz ly
lz
Y
lw
Employees Structure G4
Structure G5
Figure 12.2 Structures with firms
represent other structures of the firm based on the same structure of division of labor as in structure G. For each of them, there are more variants with the same structure of transactions, but with different ownership structures of the firm. In fact, on the basis of the structure of division of labor in G, there are at least 13 different structures of transactions and ownership of the firm. It is not difficult to see that the number of possible structures of transactions and ownership of the firm increases more than proportionally as the level of division of labor evolves in the roundabout production chain. Hence, the potential for improving transaction efficiency and for promoting productivity increasingly comes from entrepreneurial activities that search for the efficient structure of transactions and ownership of the firm as division of labor evolves. Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 145–84), and Mokyr (1990, 1993, pp. 26–110) have documented the evolution of the institution of the firm and the relationship between industrialization, the institution of the firm, and invention and innovation during the years 1750–1830. According to the documentation, entrepreneurial activities were much more important than scientists’ activities for the technical revolution during the Industrial Revolution. Entrepreneurial activities were encouraged by secured private property rights and patent laws in Britain. Significant improvements in transaction conditions, the emergence of a world market, and development of the commercial organization created the conditions for the development of entrepreneurship. According to the documentation, for those entrepreneurial activities that could not be protected by patent laws, the institution of the firm was used to protect entrepreneurs’ intellectual
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 385
property via trade secrets and claims to residual firm rights. Also, the commercial value of many important inventions was realized using the institution of the firm. Moreover, the institution of the firm was an important vehicle for providing venture capital for technical inventions and innovations, and for providing working capital. The protection of the residual rights of the owners of firms, trademarks, and business names, and the guarantee of free association by common law were some of the most important driving forces of the Industrial Revolution (North, 1981 and Mokyr, 1993). With these institutional conditions, Britain could commercialize many inventions and innovations, some of which were imported from other countries where inventions were commercially nonviable. Also, a large network of division of labor was organized within a firm to significantly reduce transaction costs caused by a high level of division of labor during this period of time. Although this section has explored how the market sorts out the efficient pattern of division of labor in a roundabout production chain through interactions between self-interested decisions, the functioning of the market in the real world is much more sophisticated than that described in the simple model. For instance, in the simple model, we assume that the total factor productivity of the final goods monotonically increases with the number of links in the roundabout production chain. In the real world, such a monotonic relationship may not hold universally. In some industries, as the degree of production roundaboutness increases slightly, the total factor productivity of final goods may decline at first, and then rise as the roundaboutness is further increased. The first steam-engine driven locomotive was slower and much more expensive than a horse. If dynamic economies of specialized learning by doing are explicitly considered (see chapter 16), it is possible that type C economies of roundabout production can be realized only if a sufficiently high degree of roundaboutness is maintained for a sufficiently long period of time. Suppose that each of 1,000 sectors producing final goods can have a long roundabout production chain. But only 100 of the 1,000 sectors have type C economies of roundabout production; the rest have diseconomies of roundabout production. Also, the economies can be realized only if the roundaboutness in several of the 100 sectors simultaneously increases. For such a model, there are myriad possible structures. If one adds to the scenario interdependency between information about relative prices and decisions in choosing one of many corner solutions, as described in chapter 17, it may take a long time for society to search out the efficient industrial structure, despite the power of the market in performing this task. What we can observe in the Industrial Revolution is a process through which an efficient industrial structure with the right pattern of division of labor in a long roundabout production chain has been sorted out by the market under a common law system that protects private residual rights to the firm and other private rights to various kinds of property. Before the Industrial Revolution, many other industrial structures with long, roundabout production chains had been experimented with. For instance, a quite long roundabout production method in producing a special vehicle out of wood was developed in the 220s AD in China. That roundabout production method could not stand the test of time, since it did not use durable steel or engines that could provide much more power than human and animal power. Hence, the economies of roundabout production were too small to offset the associated transaction and resource costs. In the Industrial Revolution, the invention of the engine, and the commercial use of steel, and all kinds of machines made out of steel and driven by engines, together with the evolution in division of labor in inventing activities and in roundabout production activities related to those inventions, brought about an efficient industrial structure that generated significant economies of roundaboutness. According to the model in this chapter, a high transaction efficiency provided by patent laws, a fair and adaptive common law system, and a laissez-faire regime were essential for the development of a large network of division of labor in roundabout production, which was in turn essential for the Industrial Revolution.
386 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
12.5 EVOLUTION IN THE NUMBER OF PRODUCER GOODS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT For the model in example 12.1, the maximum number of producer goods is 3. In this section, we use a model with m ∈[1, ∞] producer goods to study the relationship between industrialization, the evolution of division of labor, and the evolution of number of producer goods. Example 12.2: A simplified version of the Sun–Lio model of industrialization (1996). Consider an economy with a continuum of ex ante identical consumer-producers of mass M. There is one consumer good, y, and m types of intermediate goods. For an individual, the self-provided quantities of the consumer good y and producer good i are y and xi, respectively. The quantities sold of the consumer good y and producer good i are y s and x is respectively. The quantities purchased of the goods are y d and x id respectively. An individual uses both labor and m intermediate goods to produce the consumer good y. The consumer good is produced by a Cobb–Douglas production function with inputs ly and V, given by y p ≡ y + y s = e−cmV βl yα, 1/ρ
⎤ ⎡m V = ⎢∑( x i + kx id ) ρ ⎥ , ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ i = 1
α + β = 1,
α, β, ρ, k ∈(0, 1)
where y p is the output level of y. ly is the amount of the individual’s labor allocated to the production of y. V is a composite intermediate good, which is a CES function of inputs of m producer goods. The total factor productivity of y is an increasing function of the number of intermediate goods m, although the Cobb–Douglas function displays constant returns. It is assumed that α + β > 1 in the original Sun–Lio model. Since that assumption makes the algebra cumbersome, we will consider it later on. A producer of the consumer good can either self-provide or buy the intermediate goods used in the production process. The transaction efficiency coefficient is k. e−cm is the management cost of m producer goods in terms of loss of the output of the final goods. This management cost increases with the number of producer goods employed in producing the final goods, since the number of first-order conditions of the optimum decision increases with m. The management cost can be interpreted as the calculation cost of the optimum decision, which generates the trade-off between economies of variety of producer goods and calculation costs. The production function of intermediate good i exhibits economies of specialization, given by x ip ≡ xi + x is = l ib,
b > 1,
i = 1, 2, . . . , m
where x ip is the output level of good i. li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i. Parameter b represents the degree of economies of specialization in producing the intermediate good. The endowment constraint for each individual is: m
l y + ∑ li = 1,
ly, li ∈[0, 1].
i =1
Each individual’s utility function is u = y + ky d, where k is the transaction efficiency coefficient.
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 387 (a) Autarky: m = 2, n − 1 = 0
(b) Partial Division of Labor: m = 3, n = 2
A y
y x2
x2
x3
x2/y
x1
y/x2x3 y
x3/y y
x1 (c) Complete Division of Labor: m = n = 4 y
x1 x1/y
x4
y/x1x2x3x4 y
x4/y y
x3
x2 y
y
x2/y
x3/y
Figure 12.3 Industrialization and evolution of division of labor in the Sun–Lio model
The budget constraint for an individual is given by m
m
i =1
i =1
y d + ∑ pi xid = y s + ∑ pi xis
where pi is the price of good i in terms of the consumer good. There are three types of structure. In autarky structure A, each individual self-provides m producer goods and the final consumption good, as shown in figure 12.3(a). In structure P, with partial division of labor, shown in figure 12.3(b), the population is divided between occupation configurations (y/xi ) and (xi /y). A person choosing (y/xi) self-provides m − n producer goods, buys n producer goods, and sells the final good. A person choosing (xi /y) sells producer good i and buys the consumption good. In structure C, with complete division of labor, shown in figure 12.3(c), the population is divided between occupation configurations (y/xm) and (xi/y). A person choosing (y/xm) in C buys m producer goods and sells the final good. Configuration (xi /y) in C is the same as in P. Inserting y s = y d = x is = x di = 0 into an individual’s decision problem, we can solve for the optimum decision and per capita real income in autarky as follows: uA = e−β(1−bρ)/ραα(bβ)bβ(α + bβ)−(α+bβ)[β(1 − bρ)/(cρ)]β(1−bρ)/ρ, ly = α/(α + bβ),
mA = β(1 − bρ)/(cρ)
(12.7)
where uA is the per capita real income and mA is the equilibrium number of intermediate goods in autarky. Since the solution of mA in (12.7) is negative for b > 1/ρ but mA cannot be nonpositive, (12.7) implies that the corner equilibrium in autarky does not exist for b > 1/ρ. Differentiation of (12.7) yields dmA/dβ > 0, dmA/dρ < 0, dmA/dc < 0, and dmA /db < 0. The decision problem for a person choosing configuration (y/xi) in structure P can be obtained by assuming that y, y s, ly, lj, xj, x rd > 0 and y d, lr, xjs, x jd, xrs, xr = 0, where r = 1, 2, . . . , n
388 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
denotes producer goods purchased, and j = n + 1, n + 2, . . . , m, denotes producer goods selfprovided. This decision problem is given as follows:
Max: u y = e s.t.
− cm
⎤ ⎡ ρ ⎢∑ x j + ∑ (kx rd ) ρ ⎥ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ j ∈J r ∈R
l y + ∑ l j = 1, j ∈J
β/ρ
l yα − y s
(12.8)
y s = ∑ p r x rd r ∈R
where uy is the utility for configuration (y/x), r is the set of n purchased intermediate goods, and J is the set of m − n self-provided intermediate goods. We can use the symmetry which implies that ∑ x jρ = (m − n)xjρ, ∑(kxjd )ρ = n(kxjd )ρ, ∑ lj = (m − n)lj, ∑ pr xj = npr xj, to further simplify the decision problem in (12.8). Using y, y s, ly, lj, xj, x rd = 0 and y d, lr, y d, x rs , > 0, we have the decision problem for an individual choosing configuration (x/y): Max: ux = ky d = kpr s.t.
lr = x rs = 1,
(12.9)
yd = pr x rs = pr.
where ux is the utility for configuration (x/y). The solutions of the decision problems (12.8) and (12.9), together with utility equalization and the market clearing conditions, determine the corner equilibrium in structure P. The corner equilibrium is summarized as follows. pi = p = e−cmk{1 + [(cbρs)/(1 − β)(1 − bρ)]}(1−β)(b−1){[(1 − β)/(cbρ)]}(1−β)b (1 − bρ)(1−β)(b−1/ρ)(1 − ρ)(1−ρ)/ρ(cρ)1−β/ρββ/ρ ly = 1/{1 + (cbρs)/[α(1 − bρ)]}, x d = k[(1 − β)/(cρ) + s/[1 − bρ)]−1(1 − ρ)−1,
(12.10)
m = [β(1 − bρ)/(cρ)] + [ρ(b − 1)/(1 − ρ)]n = [β(1 − ρ)/(cρ)] − [ρ(b − 1)/(1 − bρ)]s n = m − s,
My = M/(1 + nx d ),
Mx = x dMy,
where the corner equilibrium value of s is given by f (s) ≡ [(1 − β)/(cρ) + s/(1 − bρ)]{cbρ/[(1 − β)(1 − bρ) + cbsρ]}b (1 − ρ)[(1 − bρ)/(1 − ρ)]1/ρ − k2 = 0,
(12.11)
where m is the corner equilibrium number of intermediate goods in structure P, n is the corner equilibrium number of traded intermediate goods and represents the level of division of labor in equilibrium, and s is the corner equilibrium number of self-provided intermediate goods and represents the level of self-sufficiency. Mx is the number of producers of a traded intermediate good and My is the number of sellers of the final good. (12.10) indicates that the corner equilibrium value of price pi is negative if ly is positive and if b > 1/ρ. This implies that the corner equilibrium in structure P does not exist for b > 1/ρ. A comparison between m in (12.10) and mA in (12.7) indicates that the number of producer goods
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 389
in structure P is always larger than in autarky. Differentiating (12.11) and then using the implicit function theorem, it can be shown ds/dk = −(∂f/∂k)/(∂f/∂s) < 0
(12.12)
where ∂f/∂k, ∂f/∂s < 0 if α + β = 1, ρ ∈(0, 1), and b ∈(1, 1/ρ). If structure P is a general equilibrium structure, p in (12.10) must be positive, which means that b < 1/ρ. Hence, (12.12) must hold if structure P occurs in equilibrium. Manipulating (12.10) to (12.12) yields comparative statics of the corner equilibrium in structure P: dm/dk > 0,
dn/dk > 0, dly/dk > 0,
d(m − n)/dk < 0,
(12.13a) dx /dk > 0. d
(12.13b)
Using the envelope theorem, it can be shown that per capita real income in structure P increases as k increases. Since the per capita real income in autarky is independent of transaction efficiency k, the per capita real income in structure P is more likely to be greater than in autarky as k increases. This, together with the Yao theorem in chapter 4, implies that the general equilibrium will jump from autarky to structure P as transaction efficiency is improved. (12.13a) implies that the number of all available producer goods m and the number of traded intermediate goods, n, increase concurrently, as transaction efficiency is improved. (12.13) implies that as transaction efficiency is improved, the number of traded intermediate goods, n, increases faster than the number of all intermediate goods, m, does. Hence, as transaction efficiency is sufficiently improved, the general equilibrium will jump from the partial division of labor to the complete division of labor (structure C). Also, (12.13b) implies that in this process, the level of specialization of each producer of the final good increases and her demand for each intermediate good increases. Since the optimum values of endogenous variables are discontinuous as n changes from a value smaller than m to m, we cannot obtain the corner equilibrium in structure C by simply letting n = m in (12.10) to (12.13). But it is not difficult to solve for the corner equilibrium in structure C by following the same procedure for solving the corner equilibrium in structure P. The corner equilibrium and its comparative statics are given as follows: m = β(1 − ρ)/(ρc),
xd = ρck/[(1 − ρ)(1 − β)]
p = k2β−1e−β(1−ρ)/ρββ/ρ(1 − β)1−β[ρc/(1 − ρ)]β[(1 − ρ)/(ρc)]β/ρ,
(12.14)
u = k2βe−β(1−ρ)/ρββ/ρ(1 − β)1−β[ρc/(1 − ρ)]β[(1 − ρ)/(ρc)]β/ρ, dm/dβ > 0,
dm/dρ < 0,
dm/dc < 0,
du/dk > 0,
du/dc < 0
where m = n is the number of traded intermediate goods as well as the number of all available intermediate goods in the complete division of labor. Somehow, the corner equilibrium in structure C is analogous to the general equilibrium in the Ethier model in example 5.2 of chapter 5. From this view, the Ethier model is a special case of the Sun–Lio model, that is, structure C in the Sun–Lio model is equivalent to the Ethier model. Figure 12.3 provides an intuitive illustration of industrialization, structural changes, and the evolution of division of labor in the Sun–Lio model. We first consider the parameter subspace b < 1/ρ. If transaction efficiency is very low, autarky is the general equilibrium, where the number of available intermediate goods is very small and there is no market. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium jumps to the partial division of labor in panel
390 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
(b), where the ex post production functions of a new intermediate good and the markets for two intermediate goods and the final good emerge from the network of division of labor. As transaction efficiency is further improved, the general equilibrium jumps to the complete division of labor in panel (c), where one more new intermediate good and two more markets for intermediate goods emerge from the evolution of the network of division of labor and related transactions. The evolution of division of labor can continue as transaction conditions are improved, since there is no limit for the evolution of the number of goods, which creates unlimited scope for the evolution of division of labor in roundabout production so long as the population size is not limited and ρ, c are very small (β(1 − ρ)/cρ is very large). For the parameter subspace b > 1/ρ (economies of specialization dominate economies of complementarity), the general equilibrium is always associated with structure C. As the management cost coefficient c declines, the equilibrium number of intermediate goods and utility increases, but all individuals are always completely specialized. In other words, gradual evolution of specialization occurs only if economies of complementarity dominate economies of specialization. Assume that the final good is the agricultural good, that the intermediate goods are industrial goods (tractors, fertilizer, and other equipment), and that b < 1/ρ. Now we consider the relative population sizes of industrial and agricultural sectors. This ratio is R = nMx /My where n is the number of different occupation configurations selling n intermediate goods, Mx is the number of manufacturers selling one type of industrial goods, and My is the number of farmers. From the budget constraints in (12.8) and (12.9), it can be shown that Mx /My = x d (see (12.10)). Then from (12.10) to (12.13), it can be shown that dxd/dk = (dxd/ds)(ds/dk) > 0, where dx d/ds < 0 from (12.10) and ds/dk < 0 from (12.12). Hence, we have dR/dk = (∂R/∂x d )(dx d/dk) + (∂R/∂n)(dn/dk) > 0 where dn/dk > 0 due to (12.13). This result implies that as improvements in transaction conditions generate industrialization, the employment share in the industrial sector increases compared to the agricultural sector, even if the industrial sector does not produce any final goods. Because of economies of specialization and economies of roundabout production in this model, productivities of all goods will increase as improvements in transaction efficiency drive division of labor to evolve in roundabout production. Also, the extent of the market, the degree of endogenous comparative advantage, the diversity of occupations and economic structure, production concentration, and market integration all increase as division of labor evolves in roundabout production. Sun and Lio (1997) have shown that comparative statics of the general equilibrium still hold even if α + β > 1, which implies that there are economies of specialization in the agricultural sector. This distinguishes their model from the Ethier model in example 5.2, where the agricultural sector has constant returns to scale technology. Sun (2000) solves for more corner equilibria with firms of this model, using the approach developed in chapter 8. He has shown that industrialization and a declining average size of firms can concur if transaction efficiency is improved in such a way that transaction conditions for goods become better than that for labor. Hence, it is possible to conduct empirical work to test the Sun–Lio model against the Ethier model. If a negative correlation between the relative size of the industrial and agricultural sectors and the average size of firms is verified by empirical observation, then the Ethier model, which predicts a positive correlation between the two variables, is rejected and the Sun–Lio model is confirmed. The positive correlation between the two variables or between the degree of urbanization and average size of firms is referred to as a type III scale effect.
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 391
Key Terms and Review • Type A, type B, and type C economies of roundabout production • Conditions under which a business that creates a new link in the roundabout production chain can make money • Relationships between transaction efficiency, the size of the market network, the size of the population or resource base, the three types of economies of roundabout production, the equilibrium level of division of labor, and the equilibrium number of links in the roundabout production chain • The mechanism that generates a decline in the income share of the agricultural sector and a rise in the income share of the industrial sector. The relationship between this phenomenon and the relative degree of economies of division of labor compared with transaction costs in the agricultural and industrial sectors • Why the scope for development of the institution of the firm will be enlarged more than proportionally as division of labor in roundabout production evolves • The significance of private residual rights to the firm for the evolution of production roundaboutness • Implications of free pricing, free enterprising, and free choice between profession configurations for the evolution of division of labor in roundabout production
Further Reading The Industrial Revolution: Macfarlane (1988), Baechler and Mann (1988), Jones (1981), Weber (1961), Baechler (1976), Braudel (1984), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986), Mokyr (1990, 1993), Hartwell (1965), Hughes (1970), Hicks (1969), Reynolds (1985), Morris and Adelman (1988); Historical and empirical evidence for the theory in this chapter: Kubo (1985), Chenery (1979), Kaldor (1967), Braudel (1984), Chandler (1990), US Department of Commerce (1975), Liu and Yang (2000); Classical and new Smithian models of industrialization: Smith (1776), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 14), Young (1928), Shi and Yang (1995, 1998), Sun and Lio (1997); High-development economics and the theory of industrialization: RosensteinRodan (1943), Nurkse (1952), Fleming (1955), Hirschman (1958), Krugman (1995); Structural changes: Kuznets (1966), Chenery (1979). Models of industrialization with economies of scale and an endogenous number of goods: Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989a,b), Krugman and Venables (1995), Yang and Wong (1998), Kelly (1997).
QUESTIONS 1 According to Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, p. 156), extensive use of steel, coal, and mechanical power was a feature of the Industrial Revolution. One interpretation of the use of steel in terms of the model in example 12.1 is an increase in degree of type A economies of roundabout production. The durability of steel implies that the elasticity of output with respect to intermediate input is great. Hence, as transaction efficiency is improved, division of labor is more likely to evolve in producing steel and other sectors that use it. Use the model in example 12.1 to explain why many machines made of wood could not generate an industrial revolution in Song Dynasty China.
392 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
2 According to Mokyr (1990, pp. 235–50, 1993), government violation of private property rights, the absence of patent laws, intrusive government and guild regulation, and a strong tradition of mercantilism and protectionism, explain why the Industrial Revolution did not take place first on the European continent. According to him, the following features of Chinese institutions explain why the Industrial Revolution could not occur in China before the nineteenth century. The state monopolized important industries and inventing activities, and could arbitrarily infringe property rights and confiscate the properties of private firms. The state monopolized trade and ideology, and provided an incentive to the elite only for political or military careers. Also, the state carried out an active industrial policy to promote agriculture and to suppress commerce, and directly intervened in economic activities. There were no free cities in China and the feudal system was replaced with a central government system after the first century. Compare this analysis with North, Mokyr, and others’ analyses of the conditions for the Industrial Revolution in section 12.1. Choose a developing country and examine whether the conditions for the British Industrial Revolution are still essential for industrialization of this country, and if the obstacles to industrialization in eighteenth-century France and China are still obstacles to its industrialization. 3 Interpret the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium in this chapter in connection with North’s observation (1981, p. 167): “The Industrial Revolution, as I perceive it, was initiated by increasing size of markets, which resulted in pressures to replace medieval and crown restrictions circumscribing entrepreneurs with better specified common laws. The growing size of the market also induced changes in organization, away from vertical integration as exemplified in home and handicraft production to specialization. With specialization came the increasing transaction costs of measuring the inputs and outputs. The resultant increased supervision and central monitoring of inputs to improve quality radically lowered the cost of devising new techniques. From handcraft to the putting-out system to the factory system spans more than three centuries; the key to explaining the transformation is growth in the size of the market and problems of quality control (that is, measurement of the characteristics of the good).” 4 Marshall (1890, p. 241) described the relationship between the network of division of labor, transaction conditions, and the development of specialized machinery as follows: “The development of the organism, whether social or physical, involves an increasing subdivision of functions between its separate parts on the one hand, and on the other a more intimate connection between them. Each part gets to be less and less self-sufficient, to depend for its well-being more and more on other parts, so that any disorder in any part of a highly-developed organism will affect other parts also. This increased subdivision of functions, or ‘differentiation,’ as it is called, manifests itself with regard to industry in such forms as the division of labour, and the development of specialized skill, knowledge and machinery: while ‘integration,’ that is, a growing intimacy and firmness of the connections between the separate parts of the industrial organism, shows itself in such forms as the increase of security of commercial credit, and of the means and habits of communication by sea and by road, by railway and telegraph, by post and printing-press.” Use the models in this chapter to formalize this description. 5 Many new growth models explain the emergence of new producer goods by investment in the R&D sector. This kind of model cannot explain why producers in less-developed economies usually do not adopt the latest machinery and technology
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 393
available at low cost (Olson, 1996), and why numerous goodwill attempts to introduce the newest production processes into less-developed countries meet with disappointing failure, as noted by Stigler (1951). Many peasants in less-developed countries do not use roundabout productive equipment and vehicles because a high level of division of labor is essential for producing the equipment at low price. But the government monopoly in the sector producing these producer goods, and in the distribution and banking systems, causes very high transaction costs, which make a high level of division of labor and sophisticated private organization nonviable. Also, the use of machines needs many very specialized services to provide cheap parts, instruments, and repair and transaction services. Due to the absence of a great variety of highly professional services, peasants prefer very primitive tools with a low degree of roundaboutness. As Stigler (1951, p. 193) noticed, the production process in the American industrialization model is usually too specialized for less-developed economies, as in them neither the vast network of auxiliary industries which producers in the United States take for granted can be available, nor can the necessary narrowly specialized personnel be supplied. Benjamin Franklin, observing manufacturing in the United States, a backward economy at his time, also pointed out that: “Manufactures . . . are carried on by a multiplicity of hands, each of which is expert only in his own part, no one of them a master of the whole,” so all the experts in the associated network of division of labor are needed to set up manufacturing in a foreign and underdeveloped land. But usually after “a complete set of good and skillful hands are collected and carried over, they find so much of the system imperfect, so many things wanting to carry on the trade to advantage, so many difficulties to overcome . . . and the project vanishes into smoke” (cited by Stigler, 1951, p. 193). Use the models in this chapter to explain Stigler’s and Franklin’s observations. 6 In response to question 5, many economists point to the purchasing power and income of peasants as the explanation for the low production roundaboutness in a developing country. But Young (1928) pointed out: “Taking a country’s economic endowment as given, however, the most important single factor in determining the effectiveness of its industry appears to be the size of the market. But just what constitutes a large market? Not area or population alone, but buying power, the capacity to absorb a large annual output of goods. This trite observation, however, at once suggests another equally trite, namely, that capacity to buy depends upon capacity to produce.” But production capacity is dependent on the level of division of labor. Hence (1928, p. 533), “in the light of this broader conception of the market, Adam Smith’s dictum amounts to the theorem that the division of labor depends in large part upon the division of labor . . . Even with a stationary population and in the absence of new discoveries in pure or applied science there are no limits to the process of expansion except the limits beyond which demand is not elastic and returns do not increase.” Use the models in this chapter to formalize Young’s idea about the relationship between the extent of the market, division of labor, and roundabout production. See also Young’s explanation of the Industrial Revolution, which “has come to be generally regarded, not as a cataclysm brought about by certain inspired improvements in industrial technique, but as a series of changes related in an orderly way to prior changes in organization and to the enlargement of markets” (p. 536). 7 McGuirk and Mundlak (1992) report evidence of an effect of transaction conditions on the choice of techniques of different degrees of roundaboutness. According to them, modern crop varieties (MVs) generate more output, but require considerably
394 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
more fertilizer per unit of land than do traditional varieties, which implies that MVs involve production processes using more intermediate goods and and which are more roundabout. Although MVs are well-known, they have to compete with traditional varieties for adoption. The adoption of MVs is positively and strongly influenced by the density of roads. The importance of roads therefore indicates that linking rural areas to market, or in our terminology, that the improvement in transaction conditions of these rural areas, strongly affects the adoption of more roundabout techniques as hypothesized by the Smithian model. Find more empirical evidence for the models in this chapter. 8 North (1958) has suggested that we should recognize that differences in ability to make efficient use of available knowledge are a factor as preeminent as differences in knowledge state for explaining the widely disparate experience of national economies. The development of division of labor allows us to cross the gap between what has been known and what can be realized. If a well-developed network of division of labor is lacking to support high degrees of roundaboutness, then to heavily invest in R&D seems to be a recipe for lowering the average productivity of the knowledge stock rather than for rapid economic progress. Use the models in this chapter to substantiate North’s conjecture. 9 If all individuals didn’t buy roundabout productive machines because they expected the prices of the machines to be high, then for the sector producing the machines the extent of the market would be very small and the level of division of labor very low, so that the prices of the machines would indeed be high. Also, if a sector producing final goods increases its demand for steel, the extent of the market for steel will be enlarged and its price may decline due to higher productivity generated by a higher level of division of labor within the sector producing steel. Hence, many other sectors may be able to afford the cheaper steel, so that a sequence of positive feedback may take place among many professional sectors. This implies that there are network effects of division of labor between roundabout production and the final sectors. Use the models in this chapter to explain how the market coordinates the division of labor and utilizes the network effects. Discuss the implications of free choice of occupation configuration, free pricing, and free enterprising for the market utilization of the network effects. Many economists call such network effects “linkage externality” (see, for instance, Hirschman, 1958). Use the models in this chapter to analyze under what conditions the network effect may not be associated with market failure. 10 According to Mokyr (1993, p. 26), the positive feedback loop between transaction efficiency, technical inventions, and network size of division of labor was an important driving force of the British Industrial Revolution during the period 1750–1830. Use the Chu model in exercise 14 of chapter 7, which specifies the feedback loop between transaction efficiency, the level of specialization in the transacting sector, and the extent of the market, and the models in this chapter, to conduct a thought experiment to explain the historical facts. 11 As an economy develops, many families self-provide increasingly more household services, such as using a washing machine at home rather than relying on a specialized laundry shop, and mowing the lawn using a mower rather than relying on specialized gardeners. Professors may use computers to do some jobs that used to be done by a secretary and professional publishing houses. However, the decrease in the level of specialization in the downstream sector usually concurs with an increase in division of labor and specialization in the upstream sector that specializes in
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 395
12
13 14
15
16
producing washing machines, lawn mowers, and computers. Based on the models in this chapter, develop a general equilibrium model to explain changes in the distribution of the degree of division of labor between upstream and downstream production activities. Explain why the increase in division of labor for society as a whole is an irreversible process, despite the changes that occur in the distribution of degree of division of labor. Shi and Yang (1998) introduce additional goods into the model in example 12.1 to show that as transaction efficiency is improved, the level of division of labor in an increasingly longer roundabout production chain evolves, thereby creating more scope for finer division of labor between firms and within each firm. Hence, a hierarchical industrial structure between firms and a hierarchical structure within each firm may evolve concurrently. If transaction efficiency for labor and for intermediate goods is improved at different speeds, the equilibrium dividing line between the decentralized network hierarchy in the market and the centralized hierarchy within each firm may evolve too. Discuss the conditions under which the decentralized hierarchy in the market becomes less and less important than the centralized hierarchy within each firm, a phenomenon described by Chandler (1990). Analyze why the potential to make money by playing around with the choice of structure of residual rights increases as the level of division of labor in an increasingly long roundabout production chain evolves. It has been claimed that in a modern society, all individuals are completely specialized and buy all the goods they consume from the market, so that there is not much room for a finer division of labor. Hence, models of endogenous specialization are not particularly relevant to a modern economy. Use examples, such as the emergence of the electric toothbrush or a commercially viable robot to do housework, to illustrate that the potential for further division of labor in producing consumption tools to replace existing self-provided consumption activities can never be exhausted, except for the limitations imposed by population size (the number of different professions cannot be larger than population size) and transaction costs. Then use examples, such as the finer division of labor in producing more than 10,000 parts for a robot or an automobile, and the many subprocesses involved in producing each of them, to illustrate the infinite possibilities for a finer division of labor in roundabout production. From the input–output tables of 8 countries, Kubo (1985) has found empirical evidence for concurrent increases in the output share of manufactured intermediate goods and in per capita real income. According to US input–output tables, the output share of the roundabout production sector steadily increased from 0.44 in 1947, to 0.54 in 1958, 0.55 in 1961, 0.57 in 1963, and 0.62 in 1967 (see US Department of Commerce, 1975). Kaldor (1967) also found empirical evidence for concurrent increases in the income share of the manufacturing sector and in per capita income. Try to find other methods to test the hypotheses generated by the models in this chapter against empirical observations. Use the model in this chapter to show that the ideas in high-development economics (see questions 8 and 9 in chapter 5) can be more appropriately formalized by the concepts of network effects and equilibrium network of division of labor. Use the concept of general equilibrium to analyze how interactions between self-interested decisions in the market can successfully coordinate individuals’ decisions in choosing patterns of specialization in order to utilize the network effects of division of labor.
396 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
17
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Fleming (1955) argues that the “horizontal” external economies of Rosenstein-Rodan are less important than the “vertical” external economies. His notion of horizontal external economies relates to type B economies of roundabout production and the network effects of division of labor, while his concept of vertical external economies relates to type C economies of roundabout production and network effects of division of labor. Assess Fleming’s view in connection to the model in this chapter. Why did Scitovsky (1954) argue that such externality (network effects) is pecuniary?
EXERCISES 1 Consider the model in example 12.1. Assume that production function (12.2) is replaced with z p = Max{Min{lz − α, y + ky d}, x + kx d} and x p = Min{lx − α, w + kwd}. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium. 2 Consider the model in example 12.1. Assume that transaction efficiency k differs from good to good. Identify the conditions under which the general equilibrium shifts from the autarky corner equilibrium producing goods x, y, z to the corner equilibrium with the complete division of labor with goods x, y, w produced. This implies that some goods may disappear as division of labor evolves. 3 Assume that in the model in this chapter, the production function of good y is y p = Min{ly − α, v + kvvd} and v p ≡ v + v s = lv − α. Suppose that transaction efficiency ki , i = x, y, z, w, v, differs from good to good, and that the endowment constraint for working time is lx + ly + lz + lw + lv = 1. v is a producer good used to produce y. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium. Show that if kv, ky are significantly smaller than kz, kx, kw, the division of labor evolves only in the sectors producing z, x, and y and does not evolve in the sectors producing y and v. If y is interpreted as harvesting and v is interpreted as sawing, then the model can explain why the development of division of labor in the agricultural sector is not as fast as in the industrial sector by the difference in transaction costs between the two sectors. Use the model to formalize Smith’s conjecture on the rationale for the increasing income share of the industrial sector compared to the agricultural sector. 4 Assume that in the model in this chapter, good w can be used to produce goods x and y, so that the production function of y is y p = Min{ly − α, w + kw d}. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium. Analyze the implications of the interdependencies between different production activities in the complicated input–output network for the equilibrium level of division of labor. 5 Shi–Yang model, 1995: Assume that in example 12.1, the production function for tractors (12.2) is replaced with the CES function z p = [(x + kxd )ρ + ( y + kyd)ρ]1/ρl z0.5. Solve the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. (Note that some corner equilibria cannot be solved analytically and computer simulation is needed for solving inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium.) 6 Sun and Lio state that transaction efficiency between the final goods and intermediate goods is different. Following their assumption, work out comparative statics of the general equilibrium to show the effect of the relative transaction condition on industrialization. Assume α + β > 1, as in the Sun–Lio original model. Solve for general equilibrium and its comparative statics (see Sun and Lio, 1996, for the answer).
C HAPTER 12: I NDUSTRIALIZATION 397
7 Assume in an extended version of the Sun–Lio model that there are two final goods: one of them needs intermediate goods in the production process and the other does not. Solve for comparative statics of the general equilibrium. Then use your results to analyze the relationship between industrialization and the evolution of division of labor. 8 Yang and Ng, 1993, ch. 12: Consider an economy with a consumption good (car) which can be produced by employing two types of specialized machine tools and labor, or by employing one of the two types of machine tools and labor. The CES production functions of cars are ex ante identical for M consumer-producers: z p ≡ z + z s = [(x + tx d )ρ + ( y + ty d )β/ρl zα,
β ∈(0, 1), ρ ∈(0, 1),
where x d and y d are the respective amounts of the two intermediate goods purchased from the market, and 1 − t is their transaction cost coefficient. The respective self-provided amounts of the two goods are x and y, lz is a person’s level of specialization in producing the consumer good, and z + z s is the output level of this consumer good. The production functions for the intermediate goods are x + x s = l xa
and
y + y s = l ya
where x + x s and y + y s are the respective output levels of the intermediate goods and lx and ly are a person’s respective levels of specialization in producing the two intermediate goods. The endowment constraint for labor is lz + lx + ly = 1,
li ∈[0, 1],
i = z, x, y
The transaction cost coefficient for the final good is 1 − k. The utility function is ex ante identical for all individuals and given by u = z + kz d. Solve for general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics. 9 Show that in the Sun–Lio model in example 12.2 the income share of an agricultural good (final good) decreases as transaction conditions are improved. Some economists call this Engels’ law and attribute it to changes in tastes and income. Why can Engels’ law hold in the absence of changes of taste and production functions (or in the absence of changes of the demand and supply sides)? 10 If intermediate goods in the Sun–Lio model are interpreted as capital goods, then as transaction conditions are improved, the equilibrium degree of capital intensity will evolve. Assume that there are two countries with the same population size (or labor endowment) in the Sun–Lio model. Show that a country will export increasingly capital-intensive goods even if the two countries have no exogenous endowment comparative advantage. Compare your results with the HO model in chapter 3 and discuss the essential difference in meaning of the notion of factor intensity in a neoclassical model with constant returns to scale and the Smithian model with economies of specialization. 11 Assume that two countries have different transaction efficiencies in the Sun–Lio model in example 12.2. Use comparative statics of general equilibrium to show that improvements in trading efficiency are more important for economic development than the choice of a particular set of goods to export. Use this model to analyze development patterns and strategies. Compare this extended model with the Krugman–Venables model in example 5.2 in chapter 5.
398 P ART III: U RBANIZATION
AND
I NDUSTRIALIZATION
Notes 1 The relationship between inventions, the network size of division of labor, transaction conditions, and division of labor in inventing activities during the Industrial Revolution (1750–1830) is documented by Mokyr (1993, pp. 26, 35), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986, pp. 163–5), and Marshall (1890, p. 256). According to them, the development of international trade prior to the Industrial Revolution provided a market extent and related network size of division of labor sufficiently great for the emergence of new technology. 2 According to Mokyr (1990, chs. 7–10), political pluralism in Europe also encouraged a variety of experiments with different education systems. The rivalry between the different education systems was a driving force of economic development too. The British education system was quite conducive to economic development in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, when entrepreneurship and practical experience were much more important than basic sciences, but was outperformed by some Continental education systems in the second wave of the Industrial Revolution, which required formal training in engineering and sciences. Industrial standardization on the Continent and in the US also outperformed the nonstandardized British industrial system. 3 According to North (1958, 1981, p. 166), “Productivity increase as a result of declining transaction costs had been going on since at least 1600, when the Dutch flute (a specialized merchant cargo ship) was used in the Baltic trade and subsequently adopted on other routes. The declining transaction costs – a result of reduced piracy, increases in size of ships, growing trade, and reduced turnaround time – led to substantial productivity growth beginning 150 years (at least) before the Industrial Revolution; and they, more than technological change, were responsible for productivity increases.” 4 Mokyr (1993, pp. 65–6) documents the evolution of division of labor during the Industrial Revolution. This evolution is sometimes referred to as “industrious revolution,” which implies that self-provided home production is replaced with commercialized production and a network of artisans, with a low level of division of labor and low degree of roundaboutness replaced with a large network of firms based on a high level of division of labor and great degree of roundaboutness.
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
PART IV Dynamic Mechanisms for Economic Development
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 399
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 401
NEOCLASSICAL MODELS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
13
13.1 EXOGENOUS VERSUS ENDOGENOUS GROWTH The Ramsey model (1928) is representative of the neoclassical growth models. In that model, saving can be used to raise per capita capital that contributes to the growth rate of per capita consumption in the future at the cost of current consumption. Ramsey used dynamic marginal analysis (calculus of variations) to solve for the efficient trade-off between current and future consumption, which determines the optimum time path of saving, production, and consumption. We define endogenous growth as long-run growth in per capita real income or in per capita consumption that has the following features. (i) The long-run growth can take place in the absence of any exogenous changes of parameters. (ii) The growth is based on individuals’ intertemporal optimum decisions (dynamic self-interested behavior). The Ramsey model meets the second criterion, since the optimum saving rate that maximizes total discounted utility in the Ramsey model describes self-interested behavior. If the production function in the Ramsey model is linear (a so-called AK function), the Ramsey model meets the first criterion too. Hence, a specific AK version of the Ramsey model is the first endogenous growth model. We define exogenous growth as growth that does not meet the foregoing two criteria. In the 1940s and 1950s, exogenous growth models (the Harrod–Domar model and the Solow model) were developed. The Harrod–Domar model is a system of state equations: It = v(Yt+1 − Yt ), St = It = sYt , where v is a coefficient of the investment requirement for each unit of increase in income, s is a fixed saving rate, St is the aggregate saving level, It is the aggregate investment level, and Yt is the aggregate income (and output) level at time t. The parameter v is assumed to be greater than 1 since one period’s output is typically less than the value of capital required to produce it. The system of equations generates an explosive time path of demand for investment, characterized by the difference equation Yt+1 = [(s + v)/v]Yt = [(s + v)/v]2Yt−1 . . . = [(s + v)/v]t Y1 = [(s + v)/v]t+1Y0. This equation does not have a steady state and generates an explosive increase in Y at rate s/v over time. Since no production function (supply side) is specified, the equilibrium growth
402 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
cannot be quarantined by the equation. If the Leontief production function Yt = Min{Kt/v, Lt/a}, where Lt is the amount of labor employed to produce Yt , is specified, then the equilibrium growth is consistent with the above difference equation only if the initial labor supply is not less than sK0/v, and the labor supply increases at a rate not lower than s/v. Even if we ignore the problem of the existence of equilibrium growth, the Harrod–Domar model is an exogenous growth model in the sense that no decision-making process of individuals is specified and the saving rate s is exogenously given. The Solow model (1956) specifies a Cobb–Douglas production function, Y = AK αL1−α, in addition to the saving equation, income and investment identities, and the market clearing condition for investment: S = sY,
Y ≡ C + S,
I = D,
S=I
where Y, K, L, S, I, C are functions of time t and D ≡ dK/dt is the change rate of capital. This system of equations yields a state equation in k ≡ K/L M = sAkα − kn where n ≡ E/L is an exogenously given parameter of the growth rate of population size. For simplicity, the labor force is assumed to be the same as the population size. Letting M = 0, we obtain a steady state of k, which is a function of the parameters s, A, and n. The steady state is an analogue of static equilibrium. In the long run (as t tends to infinity), k and per capita income y ≡ Y/L will converge to the steady state and stay there forever (growth stops) if the parameters are fixed. In this sense, the Solow model is an exogenous growth model, since it cannot generate long-run growth in the absence of exogenous changes in parameters. Also, the growth in the Solow model does not meet the second criterion for endogenous growth: that is, in the Solow model the saving rate s is exogenously given rather than endogenously determined by an intertemporal optimum decision (behavior). In the 1960s many growth models were developed. Most of them follow the Ramsey model in specifying a dynamic optimization problem. Hence, they meet the second criterion for an endogenous growth model. Some of them meet the first criterion too. The Uzawa model (1965) is representative of these. All of the growth models mentioned are macroeconomic models which do not spell out the microeconomic mechanism for economic growth in the following sense. It is assumed that investment can raise productivity in the future through increasing per capita capital. From a Smith–Young point of view, an increase in capital is an increase in division of labor in the roundabout production chain. The neoclassical growth models do not explain why and how the increased capital per person can increase productivity. A new wave of neoclassical growth models occurred in the 1980s. Judd (1985) developed a dynamic general equilibrium model, built upon the Dixit–Stiglitz (DS) model (1977). The trade-off between current and future consumption is added to the trade-off between economies of scale and consumption variety to tell a story about endogenous growth and spontaneous evolution in the number of goods. Romer (1990) developed a dynamic equilibrium model, built upon the Ethier model (1982), to explain economic growth by spontaneous evolution in the number of producer goods. Since then, many of this kind of neoclassical endogenous growth models have been developed. Since the reduced form of many of the models can be regarded as a special version of the Ramsey model with a linear production function, referred
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 403
to as the AK model, and many of the models involve endogenous research and development (R&D) decisions, the neoclassical endogenous growth models are called AK models or R&Dbased models. The new growth models not only generate long-run endogenous growth on the basis of individuals’ intertemporal optimum decisions in the absence of exogenous changes in parameters, but also explain the growth by interactions between self-interested dynamic decisions. They are dynamic microeconomic general equilibrium models that endogenize the relative prices of different goods and factors. They are, however, still neoclassical growth models in the sense that the neoclassical dichotomy between pure consumers and firms is retained, the neoclassical notion of economies of scale is used, and neoclassical (dynamic) marginal analysis is employed as the main analytical instrument. Hence, the models cannot explain endogenous evolution in the degree of market integration and in the levels of specialization of individuals. It can, however, predict an aspect of endogenous evolution in the network size of division of labor: evolution in the number of available goods. Since economies of scale are the central notion used in the new endogenous growth models, the models generate scale effects. There are five types of scale effect. A type I scale effect implies that the growth rate of per capita consumption or per capita income goes up as the size or growth rate of the population increases. A type II scale effect implies that productivity or growth performance positively correlates to average size of firms. A type III scale effect implies a positive correlation between the income share of the industrial sector and the average size of industrial firms, or a positive correlation between the degree of urbanization and the average size of firms. A type IV scale effect implies that the growth rate of per capita income goes up as the investment rate increases. A type V scale effect exists if the growth rate of per capita income goes up as the size of the research and development sector increases. The scale effects are wildly at odds with the empirical evidence. The AK model generates type I and type IV scale effects, and the R&D-based model generates type I and type V scale effects. Jones (1995a,b) and the empirical work reviewed in Dasgupta (1995) and the National Research Council (1986) have rejected the type I, type IV, and type V scale effects. Technically, the essential instrument to manage the neoclassical endogenous growth models is dynamic marginal analysis (calculus of variations). Control theory is not necessary for managing the models, though many authors use this. Dynamic inframarginal analysis (control theory and dynamic programming) is essential for managing the Smith–Young endogenous growth model, which will be studied in the next chapter. Section 13.2 studies the Ramsey model and one of its special versions, the AK model. Section 13.3 studies the R&D-based model.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n
What is the driving mechanism of economic growth in neoclassical growth models? What is the difference between endogenous and exogenous growth? Why do neoclassical endogenous growth models generate scale effects that are rejected by empirical evidence?
13.2 THE RAMSEY AND AK MODELS We shall first tell the story behind the Ramsey model. Each individual’s utility at each point in time displays diminishing marginal utility with respect to consumption, and she gives value to time, so that each individual prefers a fairly even distribution of consumption over time and
404 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
prefers current consumption to future consumption of the same amount of goods. It is assumed that saving and investment can be used to increase per capita capital, while per capita income in the future is an increasing function of per capita capital. The microeconomic mechanism that links productivity and per capita capital is not elaborated. The tension between consumption and saving, together with the productivity implication of saving and the preference for current consumption and for a fairly even distribution of consumption over time, therefore generates a trade-off between current and future consumption. The optimum intertemporal decision is to efficiently trade-off current consumption against future consumption in order to maximize total discounted utility over the decision horizon. The efficient trade-off will generate an optimum time path of savings, consumption, and production. The optimum saving rate is usually not a constant. Example 13.1: The Ramsey model with the Cobb–Douglas production function. Assume each individual’s utility at time t is u = f (c)
(13.1)
where c is her consumption level at time t. We may take a specific function, where f (c) = (c α − 1)/α, α ∈(0, 1). This utility function displays diminishing marginal utility. The assumption of diminishing marginal utility implies that an individual does not prefer concentrating consumption at a point in time. This rules out the decision that consumes nothing in the early stage, and saves all resources to increase per capita capital and concentrates consumption at a later stage. Assume that total population size is L at time t, aggregate income at t is Y ≡ C + I, where C is aggregate consumption and I is aggregate investment at time t. Assume aggregate capital at t is K and its change rate at t is D ≡ dK/dt. Since the change rate is caused by investment, in the absence of depreciation of capital, we have I = D. Plugging this into the income identity yields Y=C+I=C+D If we divide all variables by the population L, which is assumed to be the same as the labor force for simplicity, we have y ≡ Y/L, c ≡ C/L, k ≡ K/L. Hence, the income identity in terms of per capita variables becomes y = c + D/L Since M = (D/L) − (KE/L2), we have D/L = M + kn, where n ≡ E/L is an exogenously given growth rate of population. Inserting this back into the income identity, we have y = c + M + nk
or
c = y − M − nk
(13.2)
Suppose per capita output is an increasing function of per capita capital, or y = g(k) and g′(·) > 0 and g″(·) < 0. If the aggregate production function is of the Cobb–Douglas form, or Y = AK βL1−β, then g(k) = Akβ.
(13.3a)
If the production function is of the AK form, or Y = AK, then g(k) = Ak.
(13.3b)
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 405
Inserting (13.3) into (13.2), then into (13.1), we can express utility at t as a function of k and M. We now assume that an individual’s utility over the decision horizon is a weighted average of utilities at each point in time within the horizon. The weight is a continuously compounded discount factor e−ρt, where ρ is a subjective discount rate, which reflects the value of time for the individual, and e ≈ 2.718 is the base of natural logarithm. To understand where the discount factor comes from, we need to tell a story of a banking deposit. Suppose that you deposit $A in a bank at the beginning of the year. If interest is earned at the rate ρ, the principal and interest at the end of the year is A + ρA = A(1 + ρ). Now suppose you withdraw your principal and accrued interest from the bank in the middle of the year. At the interest rate for half a year, ρ/2, your total asset is A + Aρ/2 = A(1 + ρ/2) at the end of June. Then you deposit the money (principal A plus interest Aρ/2 in the bank again. The value of your asset at the end of the year will be A(1 + ρ/2) + A(ρ/2)(1 + ρ/2) = A(1 + ρ/2)2 = A(1 + ρ + ρ2/4), which is greater than A(1 + ρ), the value of your asset with no withdrawal and redeposit in the middle of the year. In general, if you do such withdrawals and redeposits m times each year, then the value of your asset will be A[1 + (ρ/m)]m at the end of the year. Suppose you do this for t years. Then the value of your asset at the end of year t is A[1 + (ρ/m)]mt = A{[1 + (ρ/m)]m/ρ}ρt. The limit of the formula as m tends to infinity is a well-known constant, which is B = Ae ρt. We call B the future value of a present amount $A, compounded continuously. Alternatively, we call A = Be−ρt the present value of $B in the future with continuously compounded discounting. The value of e−ρt is between 0 and 1 and is referred to as the continuously compounded discount factor. In practice, banks never pay continuously compounded interest. Instead, they pay interest at higher rates for long-term deposits than for short-term deposits. This practice uses different interest rates to approximate continuous compounding at the same rate. Assume that each individual’s objective is to maximize her total discounted utility over her decision horizon. The present value of utility at time t is F = ue−ρt. Inserting (13.2) and (13.3) into u, we can express the present value of utility as F(k, M, t) = f [g(k) − M − nk]e−ρt. The total present value of utility over the decision horizon T can be expressed as an integration of F(k, M, t) from t = 0 to t = T, where the decision horizon T can be infinity. Hence, the individual’s dynamic optimum decision at t = 0 is:
Max: U (T ) ≡
F(k, M, t)dt = T
T
0
0
ue −ρt dt
(13.4)
where u = f (c), c = g(k) − M − nk, and the decision variables are k and M. Integration can be viewed as the approximation of summation. The boundary conditions are k = k0 for t = 0 and k = kT for t = T. This is a problem in the calculus of variations. U(T ) is called the objective functional, which is a function of k, which is in turn a function of t. But U is not a function of t, U is dependent on the terminal time, T. The trade-off in the problem is between current and future consumption. An increase in k will increase future consumption through g(k) and will reduce current consumption through −M − nk in c = g(k) − M − nk. Here, nk is capital allocated to all newborn babies and M is current per capita savings; each of the two terms has a negative effect on current consumption. The efficient trade-off is given by the Euler equation, which is a dynamic marginal condition equivalent to the static marginal condition that marginal benefit equals marginal cost. We will not prove the Euler equation here. Rather, we provide some the economic intuition for the first-order condition for the intertemporal optimization problem. Since dynamic marginal
406 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
analysis is analogous to static marginal analysis, the efficient trade-off requires equal marginal benefit and marginal cost of investment. But in the dynamic marginal analysis, the marginal benefit generated by an investment lasts for a long time, since capital can be used for many years after it is formed. The marginal benefit at each point in time when investment has been made is ∂F/∂k. The total marginal benefit after an investment is made is therefore ∫(∂F/∂k)dt. The marginal cost of the investment is instant and does not last for a long time, since it reduces only current consumption through an increase in per capita saving which relates to M. Hence, the marginal cost of investment is ∂F/∂M. If the total marginal benefit is greater than the instant marginal cost of the investment, then the total benefit net of cost can be increased by increasing investment. If the total marginal benefit is smaller than the instant marginal cost of the investment, then the total benefit net of cost can be increased by reducing investment. The efficient trade-off will be achieved if the total marginal benefit equals the instant marginal cost, or if
(∂F/∂k)dt = ∂F/∂M Differentiating two sides of the equation and noting that d[∫(∂F/∂k)dt]/dt = ∫d[(∂F/∂k)dt]/dt = ∫d(∂F/∂k) = ∂F/∂k, we obtain the first-order condition for the efficient trade-off, which is referred to as the Euler equation: ∂F/∂k = d(∂F/∂M)/dt.
(13.5)
The Euler equation is usually a second-order differential equation in k. For the utility function f (c) = (cα − 1)/α and the production function g(k) = Akβ, where β ∈(0, 1), the Euler equation is J/c = (Aβkβ−1 − n − ρ)/(1 − α)
(13.6)
where c = Akβ − M − nk and J = (Aβkβ−1 − n)M − N. This is a second-order nonlinear differential equation in k. We cannot obtain an analytical solution of the equilibrium that gives the optimum time path of per capita capital, k. But we can use a phase diagram to figure out qualitatively the dynamics of the optimum time path of k. To do so, we rearrange the first-order condition as a system of differential equations in k and c J = (Aβkβ−1 − n − ρ)c/(1 − α) M = Akβ − nk − c
(13.7)
Letting J = 0, we obtain k = [β/(n + r)]1/(1−β), which is a vertical line in the phase diagram of k and c in figure 13.1, where the horizontal axis represents the value of k, the vertical axis represents the value of c, and arrows represent the direction of movement of the two variables over time. If the system is in the region on the right-hand side of the vertical line, J < 0 or c decreases with time. This is denoted by downward arrows in regimes (2) and (3) in the phase diagram. If the system is in regions (1) and (4) in the phase diagram, J > 0 or c increases with time. This is denoted by upward arrows in regimes (1) and (4) in the phase diagram. Letting M = 0, we obtain c = Akβ − nk, which is a concave curve cutting the origin, whose maximum point is at k = (Aβ/n)1/(1−β). If the system is in regions (1) and (2) below the curve, M > 0, or k increases with time. This is denoted by eastward arrows in regimes (1) and (2) in the phase diagram. If the system is in regions (3) and (4) in the phase diagram, M < 0 or k decreases with time. This is denoted by westward arrows in regimes (3) and (4) in the phase diagram. You can see that the phase diagram uses a two-dimensional graph of k and c to describe a three-dimensional system of k, c, and t.
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 407
J=0 (3) (4)
c*
M=0
(2) (1) 0
k*
(Aβ/n)1/(1−β)
n1/(β−1)
k
Figure 13.1 Phase diagram of the Ramsey model
The time dimension t is implicitly given by directed arrows. The steady state of the dynamic optimum decision is given by setting M = J = 0 or by the intersection between the two curves in the phase diagram: k* = [Aβ/(n + ρ)]1/(1−ρ),
c* = [Aβ/(n + ρ)]ρ/(1−ρ)[1 − Anβ/(n + ρ)].
(13.8)
(13.8) gives the static optimum levels of per capita consumption c and per capita capital k. Assume that the total factor productivity parameter A exogenously evolves according to the rule A = A0 e bt, then k* and y* evolve at rate b/(1 − ρ) and b[1 + β/(1 − ρ)] respectively. This is referred to as the steady growth rate. The steady growth rate may depend also on the growth rate of population size and the time preference parameter if population grows at a variable rate. The dynamic optimum decision given by the Euler equation describes the conditions for optimum transitional dynamics from the initial state to the static optimum. The dynamics are characterized by the stability of the static optimum or steady state. A steady state is stable if a deviation of the system from the steady state will generate movement of endogenous variables back toward the steady state. Otherwise the steady state is unstable. It can be seen from the phase diagram in figure 13.1 that the steady state is stable in regions (1) and (3), but is unstable in regions (2) and (4). This feature of dynamics is referred to as saddle-path stability. If the economy starts from a point near the saddle path in region (1), it will evolve from that point toward the steady state, where it will remain forever thereafter. Hence, there is no long-run growth. All growth takes place as transitional dynamics. In the transitional period from the initial state to the steady state (static optimum), the trade-off is between the benefit and the cost of a faster move to the steady state. The Euler equation gives the condition for the efficient trade-off in the transitional process. It can be seen that those time paths of c and k in region (2) are not optimal, since they will ultimately cut the vertical axis, generating 0 per capita capital and thereby 0 per capita consumption. Also, those time paths in region 4 are not optimal, since they generate lower per capita consumption than the saddle path from the same per capita capital at each point in time. If the phase diagram is not used, we can use the following approach to analyzing the stability of the steady state. We first expand the system of differential equations in (13.7) as a Taylor series in the neighborhood of the steady state. We take the linear terms with the first-order
408 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
derivatives in the series as the proxies of the original differential equations. By doing so, the original nonlinear differential equations are converted to linear differential equations. Then we can check the eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix of the system of linear differential equations. If the two eigenvalues are real and positive, then the system is unstable. If the two eigenvalues are real and negative, the system is stable. If the two eigenvalues are real with opposite signs, then the system is saddle-path stable. If the two eigenvalues are complex with negative real parts, then the system converges to the steady state in an oscillating manner. If the two eigenvalues are complex with positive real parts, the system is unstable and oscillating. If the two eigenvalues are complex with 0 real parts, the trajectories are then elliptical around the steady state. This version of the Ramsey model is sometimes referred as the neoclassical growth model, which cannot generate long-run endogenous growth in the absence of exogenous evolution in parameters. But if we assume that the parameter of total factor productivity, A, exogenously evolves over time, then this version of the Ramsey model will generate exogenous growth driven by exogenous technical progress. Such exogenous technical progress is not affected by individuals’ decisions concerning economic organization and resource allocation. The neoclassical growth model predicts a negative effect of the growth rate of population n on the growth rate of per capita income and per capita consumption. From (13.6), it is clear that the optimum growth rate of per capita consumption J/c is a decreasing function of the growth rate of population n. From the steady state, given in (13.8), it can be seen that as the growth rate of population increases, the steady state levels of per capita consumption and per capita capital decline. The intuition behind the negative effect of the growth rate of population on economic growth runs as follows. If population increases, then part of saving must be used to equip newborn babies with capital (hospitals, freeways, and other facilities), so that saving used to increase per capita capital is reduced. Since per capita output is an increasing function of per capita capital, this decrease in saving used to increase per capita capital will slow down economic growth. This intuition may not be compatible with observations of a positive correlation between economic growth and population growth in the early growth stages of the US, Australia, and New Zealand, though it shows some consistency with the negative correlation between economic growth and population growth found in some African and South Asian countries (Dasgupta, 1995). As shown by the Smith–Young models, scale effects (negative or positive) are not essential for economic growth. If transaction efficiency is very low due to deficiencies of the legal system and other institutional arrangements, a large and high-density population will be divided into many separate local markets with a low growth rate of per capita income. As transaction efficiency is improved, the local markets will merge into a more integrated market with a higher growth rate of per capita income. Example 13.2: the AK model.1 Now we consider a special version of the Ramsey model: the AK model, where the production function is Y = AK, or y = Ak. We assume the growth rate of population is 0. For the AK model, the Euler equation becomes J/c = (A − ρ)/(1 − α)
or
N + [ρ − (2 − α)A]M/(1 − α) + (A − ρ)Ak/(1 − α) = 0
(13.9)
with the boundary conditions k = k0 for t = 0 and k = kT for t = T. This is a linear second-order homogeneous differential equation in k. Its steady state is k = 0, which is not stable. This is a feature of long-run endogenous growth. The solution of the differential equation is: k* = B1e2At + B2e2(A−ρ)t/(1−α)
(13.10)
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 409
where the integration constants B1 and B2 are given by the system of equations k0 = B1 + B2
and
kT = B1e2AT + B2e2(A−ρ)T/(1−α).
(13.10) and the production function y = Ak yield the optimum time path of per capita income. The optimum growth rate of per capita consumption, given in (13.9), is a constant. But the optimum growth rates of per capita income and capital per person are not constants. The differentiation of (13.10) with respect to t yields the optimum growth rate of per capita capital M/k and the optimum per capita saving rate i = I/N = D/N = M, which, together with the production function, yield the optimum growth rate of per capita income R/y = AM/k. From the production function Y = AK, it is obvious that I/Y = D/K = (I/K)(AK/Y) = A(I/Y), that is, the growth rate of income is an increasing function of the investment rate. This type IV scale effect is rejected by empirical evidence found by Jones (1995). The growth rate of per capita consumption is always positive for A > ρ. Hence, long-run endogenous growth can take place in the absence of exogenous changes in parameters. However, a constant growth rate of per capita consumption is inconsistent with the take-off phenomenon in the industrialization process, which is associated with an accelerating growth (increasing growth rate) of per capita consumption and income, documented by Romer (1986) and Chen, Lin, and Yang (1999). It is also inconsistent with a slowing down of growth in the postindustrialization era, again documented by Chen, Lin, and Yang (1999). A test of the explanatory power of a growth model is to see if it can predict both accelerating and decelerating growth. Many authors introduce new features into the Ramsey model to enable it to tell more stories. For instance, the Uzawa–Lucas model in exercise 3 (below) introduces externality and a trade-off between working and education to endogenize evolution in the income share of human capital. An extensive empirical literature has been developed to test the two versions of the Ramsey model: the neoclassical version in example 13.1 and the AK version in example 13.2. It is claimed that the neoclassical version predicts conditional convergence, while the AK version would not predict this. Absolute convergence takes place when poorer areas grow faster than richer ones whatever the respective characteristics, represented by parameters of tastes, production conditions, and population size and its growth, whereas there is conditional convergence when a country or a region grows faster, the farther it is below its own steady state. The latter form of convergence is the weaker. Under certain conditions, conditional convergence even allows for rich countries to grow faster than poorer ones. Transitional dynamics in example 13.1 are determined by a system of nonlinear differential equations in (13.7). Using computer simulation, it can be shown that sequential decelerating– accelerating–decelerating growth pattern is possible during a transitional period. Hence, the transitional dynamics of the Ramsey model in example 13.1 do not always predict conditional convergence. If the total factor productivity parameter A in (13.8) evolves according to the moving rule A = A0 e bt, the steady growth rates of k and y are b/(1 − ρ) and b[1 + β(1 − ρ)] respectively, and they may depend on the growth rate of population, and the time preference parameter too if population grows at a variable rate. If the growth rate of population and parameters of time preference and production differ across countries and exogenous technical progress is present, the Ramsey model does not predict conditional convergence. Hence, all empirical work, such as Sala-i-Martin (1996) and Romer (1986), that confirms or rejects conditional convergence may not confirm or reject the Ramsey model.2 The real empirical distinction between the neoclassical and AK versions of the Ramsey model relates to type I scale effect. For the former, the growth rate of per capita income decreases with the growth rate of population, whereas the growth rate of per capita income increases with population size in the latter. Unfortunately, empirical evidence reviewed in Dasgupta (1995) and the National Research Council (1986) confirms neither of the predictions.
410 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
The second piece of empirical work is to find evidence for or against decreasing returns to capital. Romer (1987) has found evidence for a capital elasticity of output that is greater than one. But King and Levine (1994) find evidence for an elasticity that is smaller than one. In this literature, some interesting work rejects the entire neoclassical prediction that the capital– labor ratio increases as an economy grows. Cho and Graham (1996) have found that many poor countries ran down their capital–labor ratios between 1960 and 1985. This reminds us that the neoclassical framework and concepts may not be appropriate for analyzing the real economic development process. According to the Smith–Young theory of economic development, an increase in capital in statistical data is an indirect reflection of a finer division of labor in roundabout production or the evolution of division of labor between firms, and an increase in labor in statistical data reflects the evolution of division of labor within firms (see the models in chapters 8 and 12). It may have nothing to do with increasing or decreasing returns to capital. A declining capital–labor ratio in economic development may be associated with faster evolution of division of labor within firms, than between firms. Evolution of division of labor within firms will increase trade in labor and decrease trade in intermediate goods and services, while evolution of division of labor between firms has the opposite effect, resulting in faster increases in trade of labor than in trade volume of goods. This analysis indicates that it is more important to find the right analytical framework than to run a regression on the basis of inappropriate concepts and analytical frameworks. Various versions of the Ramsey model share the feature that they are aggregate decision models. The relative prices of different goods, and interactions between self-interested decisions, are not endogenized. In the next section, we shall consider dynamic microeconomic equilibrium models which endogenize the consequence of interactions between self-interested intertemporal decisions.
13.3 R&D-BASED ENDOGENOUS GROWTH MODELS R&D-based endogenous growth models have the following features. They are dynamic general equilibrium rather than decision models, so that they endogenize not only self-interested behavior, but also prices as the consequence of interactions between self-interested decisions. To endogenize evolution in the number of goods, they use the trade-off between economies of scale and economies of complementarity between goods in raising either utility or productivity. The CES function is a crucial vehicle for endogenizing the number of goods in the R&D-based growth models. We use Barro and Sala-i-Martin’s extended version (1995) of the Romer model (1990) to illustrate these features. Example 13.3: Barro and Sala-i-Martin’s version (1995) of the Romer model (1990). The pure consumer’s dynamic decision problem is
T
Max: U (T ) =
[(c α − 1)/α]e −ρt dt
s.t.
c + Q= rs + w
0
where s is the saving level at time t, r is the market interest rate at time t, so that rs is the level of interest earnings at time t, and Q is the rate of change of saving. We assume that each consumer is endowed with 1 unit of labor and receives the wage rate w. Later, we will see that perfect competition in the market for final goods and monopolistic competition in the markets for intermediate goods drive profit to 0. Hence, the consumer’s income comes only from interest earnings and wages. α ∈(0, 1) is a parameter of elasticity of substitution between consumption at different points in time, since ∫[(cα − 1)/α]e−ρtdt ≈ ∑s{[cα(s) − 1]/α}e−ρsΔts, which is a CES
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 411
function of c. ρ is a subjective discount rate. Using the budget constraint, we can express the function to be integrated as a function of s, Q, and t: F ≡ [(rs + w − Q)α − 1](1/α)e−ρt. The Euler equation ∂F/∂s = d(∂F/∂Q)/dt yields J/c = (r − ρ)/(1 − α)
(13.11)
where c = rs + w − Q. This is a second-order differential equation in s. The production function of the final good is n
y = AL1y−β ∑ xβi
(13.12)
i =1
where β ∈(0, 1), y is the output level of the final good, Ly is the amount of labor allocated to the production of the final good, xi is the amount of intermediate good i employed to produce the final good, and n is the number of intermediate goods. This production function displays constant returns to scale of Ly and xi. But it is a type of CES function in xi and total factor productivity is a monotonically increasing function of the number of intermediate goods. Hence, this function has external economies associated with the number of intermediate goods, which can generate endogenous productivity progress. The profit of the representative firm producing the final good is n
π y = y − wLy − ∑ pi xi i =1
where the decision variables are Ly and xi. We assume the final good to be the numeraire, so its price is 1. pi is the price of intermediate good i in terms of the final good. The two first-order conditions, the zero-profit condition, and the market clearing condition for labor yield w = (1 − β)An(βA/pi)β/(1−β)
(13.13a)
xi = L(βA/pi)1/(1−β)
(13.13b)
β/(1−β)
y = AnL(βA/pi)
(13.13c)
where the symmetry of the model is used and L is labor supply as well as population size. Next, we consider the firm producing intermediate good i. The firm spends b units of the final good to invent intermediate good i and gets a patent for it. Hence, the market for intermediate goods is monopolistically competitive. There is only one firm producing an intermediate good, so the price of the good is the monopolist’s decision variable. But free entry will drive pure profit to 0. Hence, total gross profit just breaks even against the investment to invent the good. If we assume that the production of good i employs labor, the decision problem for a firm producing good i that emerges at time t will be asymmetric to the decision problem for the firm producing another good, which emerges at time t′. This asymmetry renders the algebra intractable. Hence, we assume that only final goods are used as inputs to produce an intermediate good. Suppose 1 unit of the final good is needed to produce 1 unit of each intermediate good, so that the gross profit in producing intermediate good i is ( pi − 1)xi. Inserting the demand
412 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
function for intermediate good i, given in (13.13b), into the gross profit formula, the gross profit for the firm is thus πi = ( pi − 1)L(βA/pi)1/(1−β).
(13.14)
The optimum price that maximizes the gross profit is then pi = 1/β > 1.
(13.15)
This implies that the prices of all intermediate goods that are available from the market are the same at any point in time. This ensures the symmetry of the model. It can be verified that if labor is employed to produce the intermediate goods, the symmetry cannot be retained. Inserting the optimum price into (13.14), we can compute the total present value of gross profit from the time when the intermediate good becomes available to terminal time T. The total present value of gross profit is also the value of the firm in the market V(t).
( p − 1)x e T
V (t) =
i
i
− r ( τ−t )
dτ
t
e
(13.16a)
T
= [L(β A) 2
1/(1−β)
/β]
− r ( τ−t )
t
dτ.
Free entry and arbitrage will drive pure profit to 0, that is, the total present value of gross profit equals investment in inventing the good, or V(t) = b.
(13.16b)
With Barro and Sala-i-Martin’s assumption of a constant r, (13.16) yields the equilibrium interest rate r = (L/b)(β2A)1/(1−β)(1 − β)/β
(13.17)
Inserting the equilibrium price of the final good, given in (13.15), into (13.13b) yields the equilibrium wage rate. Hence, (13.13b), (13.15), and (13.17) give all the information about the dynamic equilibrium prices of goods and factors. Plugging the equilibrium interest rate, given in (13.17), into (13.11) yields the equilibrium time path of the growth rate of per capita consumption: J/c = {[(L/b)(β2A)1/(1−β)(1 − β)/β] − ρ}/(1 − α).
(13.18)
This growth rate is an increasing function of population size L. That is, the Romer model has a type I scale effect, which means a country with a larger population size grows faster than a smaller country. This empirical implication is rejected by empirical evidence in Dasgupta (1995) and from the National Research Council (1986). We can see that India did not have a high growth rate of per capita consumption until the recent reform period, despite its large population size. This is true as well for pre-reform China. Inserting the equilibrium price of the final good, given in (13.15), into the demand function for intermediate goods in (13.13b) yields the equilibrium quantity of each intermediate good xi = L(β2A)1/(1−β).
(13.19)
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 413
Plugging this back into the production function of the final good, given in (13.12), and using the market clearing condition for labor, we can express the equilibrium quantity of the final good as a function of the number of intermediate goods, n: y = (β2βA)1/(1−β)Ln.
(13.20)
Taking the logarithm of the two sides of the equation and then differentiating it with respect to t, we can see that the growth rate of output of the final goods is an increasing function of the growth rate of the number of intermediate goods, P/n and the growth rate of population E/L. Noting that the size of the R&D sector is bP, we can see that the growth rate of output of the final good is an increasing function of the size of the R&D sector. This is a type V scale effect. This Romer model scale effect is rejected by empirical evidence in developed countries ( Jones, 1995). The size of the R&D sector in the US increased by several times in the last several decades, but the growth rate of output was quite steady during the same period of time. In order to figure out the equilibrium dynamics of the model, we now consider the market clearing condition for the final good. Each consumer’s demand for the final good is c, so that L consumers’ total demand for the final good is Lc. 1 unit of the final good is needed to produce 1 unit of each of n intermediate goods that are available from the market at time t. Hence, total demand for the final goods from the n sectors is nxi. The number of new goods that emerges at time t is P. Each of them needs b units of the final good to invent. Hence, the demand for the final good from the R&D sector at time t is bP. The market clearing condition for the final good is therefore: y = cL + nxi + bP
(13.21)
Inserting (13.20) into (13.21), we have, together with (13.11), a system of first-order linear differential equations: J = Dc
(13.22a)
P = (L/b)(En − c)
(13.22b)
where D ≡ [(Aβ1+β)1/(1−β)(1 − β)(L/b) − ρ]/(1 − α), which is greater than 0 iff (Aβ1+β)1/(1−β)(1 − β)L > bρ.
(13.22c)
Also, we have E ≡ (β2βA)1/(1−β )(1 − β2 ) and P is positive iff En > c.
(13.22d)
We can thus use the phase diagram in figure 13.2 to describe the equilibrium dynamics of the Romer model. From (13.22), we can see that the necessary condition for long-run growth is that the population size L and total factor productivity of the final good A are sufficiently large, compared to the invention cost coefficient b and the subjective discount rate ρ. If this condition (13.22c) is satisfied, then a unique steady state of the equilibrium, given by P = J = 0, is c = n = 0, which is of course unstable. This is a distinctive feature of long-run endogenous growth, which implies that as soon as the economy starts to deviate from the steady state, it never comes back. Suppose condition (13.22c) is met; then the condition for long-run growth that is associated with an increasing number of intermediate goods, given by (13.22d), is that the economy starts
414 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS n J=0 P=0
0
c
Figure 13.2 Phase diagram of the Romer model
from a sufficiently large number of intermediate goods, compared to per capita consumption of the final good. This condition can be further illustrated by the phase diagram. Letting P = 0, we obtain a straight line in the phase diagram, given by n = c/E. Underneath the line, the dynamic equilibrium number of intermediate goods keeps decreasing, while above the line, this number keeps increasing. From (13.22a), we can see that c always increases for a positive c if the condition (13.22c) is met. Hence, if (13.22c) holds, there are only two regions in the phase diagram. Above the locus P = 0, economic growth is characterized by simultaneous increases in per capita consumption and in the number of intermediate goods, while below the locus P = 0, endogenous growth in per capita consumption is associated with a decline in the number of intermediate goods. If the initial number of intermediate goods is sufficiently large compared to per capita consumption, so that (13.22d) is met and the economy starts from a point above the locus P = 0, then endogenous economic growth features spontaneous evolution in the number of intermediate goods or the incessant emergence of new machines and related new technology. It is not difficult to verify that the coefficient matrix of the system of constant coefficient differential equations in (13.22) has two positive real eigenvalues. This can be confirmed by ∂J/∂c > 0 and ∂P/∂n > 0. This implies that the steady state of the dynamic equilibrium is unstable, a feature of long-run endogenous economic growth. The intuition behind the dynamic equilibrium runs as follows. If the population size L and total factor productivity of the final good A are sufficiently large, compared to the invention cost coefficient b and the subjective discount rate ρ, and the initial number of intermediate goods is not small, then saving can be used to invent more new machines, which improve productivity and raise income. Hence, consumption and saving can increase side by side. This implies more investment in the R&D sector and more invention of new machines, which will improve productivity and raise income again. This positive feedback, or virtuous circle, will generate incessant evolution in per capita consumption and in the number of intermediate goods. The intuition of the scale effect in the Romer model is that since the invention cost of a good b can be shared by more individuals as the population size increases, the per capita invention cost of each new good declines as the population expands. Though the intuition of the scale effect seems to make sense, it might be misleading. In the Romer model, the neoclassical dichotomy between pure consumers and firms is assumed. This implies that the whole economy is always an integrated market and separate local markets never occur in dynamic equilibrium. Each consumer indirectly consumes all n intermediate
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 415
goods that are available from the integrated market at a particular point in time. This implies that the neoclassical endogenous growth models cannot endogenize the evolution of the degree of market integration or the network size of division of labor. The scale effect is based on this feature of the neoclassical endogenous growth models. If we abandon the neoclassical dichotomy and adopt the Smith–Young framework with endogenous specialization, then the economy may be divided into many separate local business communities that do not trade with each other when transaction efficiency is very low. Hence, a large population size is not sufficient for an integrated network of division of labor to emerge from equilibrium. In the absence of that network, each local community duplicates the invention cost or learning cost of other local communities, and a large population size cannot fully utilize the positive network effect of division of labor between a professional R&D sector and the rest of the economy. Hence, from a Smith–Young point of view, whether positive network effects of the division of labor between the professional R&D sector and the rest of the economy can be exploited is determined by the equilibrium network size of division of labor, which is determined by transaction conditions rather than by the population size. As transaction conditions are improved, or as division of labor spontaneously evolves to a sufficiently high level (as shown in the next chapter), many separate local communities will merge into an ever more integrated market network, thereby generating endogenous growth and related development phenomena. This can take place in the absence of population growth and other scale effects. When we talk about a large market, as in the US or China, what we really mean is that transaction conditions are good, rather than that the population size is large. We know the population size of Europe is comparable to that of the US. But different languages and cultures, different tariff and monetary systems, and fragmented stock market, TV, and distribution networks in Europe imply that transaction conditions are substantially inferior to those in the US. Hence, the same population size does not mean the same size of the market. The population size in Taiwan (22 million) is much smaller than in mainland China (1.3 billion). But international and domestic trade volume for Taiwan was greater than that for mainland China in the 1970s and 1980s. When we say the Australian market is too small, what we really mean is that transaction efficiency for trade between this continent and other continents is too low due to Australia’s isolated geographical position. This implies that a large population size does not necessarily imply a large-sized market. The extent of the market, as we have shown in the Smith–Young models, is determined by the equilibrium network size of division of labor, which is determined by transaction conditions in a static model or by endogenous evolution in division of labor in a dynamic equilibrium model. If we understand the distinction between the network effect of division of labor and economies of scale, we will see that the intuition for scale effect is misleading. This is why the scale effect is conclusively rejected by empirical evidence. In the model in example 13.3, the dynamic equilibrium is not Pareto optimal since individual decision-makers do not take into account the positive effect of the number of intermediate goods on the total factor productivity of the final good. As in other R&D-based growth models, the external economies and spillover effects that are not exploited by the price system make the equilibrium growth inefficient compared to the Pareto optimum. For some endogenous growth models, such as the Romer (1986) and Lucas models (1988), no competitive equilibrium exists if external economies are internalized in individuals’ decision-making. Inserting the production functions of x and y and the endowment constraint of labor into the utility function of the representative consumer, the Pareto optimum in example 13.3 can be defined as the solution to the dynamic optimization problem maximizing the total discounted utility of the representative consumer. It can be shown that the Pareto optimum growth rate of per capita consumption is [(Aββ)1/(1−β)(1 − β)(L/b) − ρ]/(1 − α), which is greater than the equilibrium growth rate of per capita consumption, given in (13.18), for β ∈(0, 1).
416 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
This implies that the external economies and spillover effects are not the driving force behind long-run economic growth in the R&D-based growth models. Rather, they are an obstacle to growth. Spillover effects are a source of endogenous transaction costs, which impede economic growth by discouraging investment in intellectual property. China’s experience before the twentieth century is a good example. Then there were neither patent laws nor other laws to protect the residual rights of owners of firms in China. Hence, there were substantial spillover effects from smart Chinese inventions. Since the inventors of the new technology and entrepreneurial ideas could not appropriate incomes from their intellectual property, the Chinese were reluctant to invest in it. Chinese inventions could not be commercialized and expanded to create an industrial revolution. The real story of the economic growth process is that patent laws, laws that protected free association (including free enterprise) and private property, de facto laissez-faire policies, and other related institutions significantly reduced all kinds of endogenous transaction costs, including those caused by spillover effects, so that evolution in division of labor between the production of intellectual property and the production of tangible goods was significantly speeded up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Britain and western Europe (see Baechler, 1976, Macfarlane, 1988, Mokyr, 1993, North, 1981, and Rosenberg and Birdzell, 1986). The driving force of this process was not spillover effects, but rather the emergence of institutions that internalized these effects and that reduced endogenous transaction costs caused by them.
Key Terms and Review • Exogenous and endogenous growth • Differences between the Harrod–Domar model, the Sollow model, the AK model, and R&D-based models • The Euler equation and dynamic marginal analysis • Types I, II, III, IV, and V scale effects; why they are rejected by empirical observations • Saving and investment fundamentalism, technology fundamentalism • Dynamic general equilibrium mechanisms generating spontaneous co-evolution of the number of goods and productivity • Absolute and conditional convergence, β convergence, and σ convergence
Further Reading Neoclassical growth models: Barro (1991, 1997), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1991, 1992, 1995), Rebelo (1991), Solow (1956); R&D-based models and other endogenous growth models: Judd (1985), Lucas (1988, 1993), Romer (1986, 1987, 1990), Grossman and Helpman (1989, 1990, 1991), Aghion and Howitt (1992), Alwyn Young (1991), Weitzman (1998); Empirical evidence: Sala-i-Martin (1996), Jones (1995a,b), Chen, Lin, and Yang (1999), National Research Council (1986), Dasgupta (1995), Cho and Graham (1996), King and Levine (1994), Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992), Romer (1987), Liu and Yang (1999), Temple (1999), Aghion and Howitt (1998); Historical evidence: Baechler (1976), Macfarlane (1988), Mokyr (1993), North (1981), Rosenberg and Birdzell (1986), Marshall (1890), Allyn Young, Braudel (1979), Chandler (1990), Solow (1956), Lucas (1988), Craft (1997); Empirical research on micro development phenomena: Deaton and Paxson (1998a,b), Paxson, 1999, Deaton and Case (1998, 1999a,b).
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 417
QUESTIONS 1 What are the differences between the Ramsey model, the Harrod–Domar model, and the Solow model? 2 Romer (1986) and Lucas (1988) argue that the neoclassical growth model cannot predict observed divergence of growth rates of per capita income between different countries. Use the distinction between the concepts of conditional and absolute convergence to show that the Ramsey model in example 13.1 may predict the conditional divergence of growth rates of per capita consumption. In your analysis, consider the following three cases. (i) transitional dynamics for a sufficiently large difference between the initial state and steady state; (ii) a steady state with exogenous evolution of A = A0 e−bt; (iii) a population which grows at a variable rate. 3 What are the differences between the Ramsey model and the R&D-based model? 4 The driving force of the AK and R&D-based models are (internal or external) economies of scale and the driving force of the Smith–Young models in the previous chapters and the Smith–Young growth models in chapters 14, 15, 16, and 18 is the network effect of division of labor. The difference between the two approaches to explaining economic development originates in the debate between Allyn Young, who rejected the notion of economies of scale as a misrepresentation of economies of division of labor; his student Knight, who rejected the existence of any kind of increasing returns; and Marshall, who used the notion of external economies of scale to represent economies of division of labor (Blitch, 1995 and Young, 1928). Discuss the difference between the two approaches to explaining economic development. 5 In the Romer (1986) and Lucas models (1988) (see exercises 5 and 3), the key feature that ensures the existence of equilibrium is that economies of scale are external to firms or there exists externality of education. If the external economies are internalized by the market, what will happen to the equilibria in these two models? Suppose that a central planner solves for an optimum growth plan, which takes into account all external economies of scale and externality. What will the optimum growth rates of per capita consumption be? 6 An economist argues that since the population size of Australia is less than 20 million and that of the US is more than 200 million, the extent of the market in Australia is much smaller than in the US. Hence, all kinds of machines are much cheaper in the US than in Australia. The new endogenous growth models recently developed by Judd and Romer generate a similar prediction: that larger economies will generate higher growth rates and levels of per capita income. Use the model in this chapter to comment on this view. In your analysis, use the Smith–Young theorem according to which division of labor depends upon the extent of the market and the extent of the market is determined by the level of division of labor, to clarify the relationship between the extent of the market, population size, transaction efficiency, and the network size of division of labor. 7 The driving force of economic growth in the models in this chapter is an ad hoc “if and only if ” relationship between investment and productivity. Give some counterexamples to such a relationship. According to Smith and Young, investment creates economic growth because it promotes division of labor in roundabout production. Discuss the difference between the neoclassical ad hoc relationship between investment and growth and the classical way of explaining the wealth of the nation by division of labor. (See chapter 14 for more about this.) 8 Why can’t the models in this chapter explain the evolution of individuals’ specialization, the emergence of the firm, the increase of the income share of the industrial sector and of transaction costs, and many of the other interesting phenomena usually associated with economic development?
418 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
EXERCISES 1 Consider the Ramsey model in example 13.1. Assume the production function is Y = AK βL1−β and the rate of change of capital is D = I − γK if the depreciation rate of capital, γ, is taken into account. Solve the optimum growth rates of per capita consumption. Use a phase graph to describe the dynamics of per capita consumption and the capital–labor ratio. 2 Assume that in the model in exercise 1 the production function takes the AK form. Solve for the dynamics of optimum growth. 3 Consider the Uzawa–Lucas model, which is an extension of the Ramsey model. Redefine labor L in the Ramsey model as uH, where u ∈(0, 1) is the fraction of total human capital that is devoted to the production of goods and 1 − u is the fraction devoted to education. Thus, the production function is Y = AK β(uH )1−β, where H is total available human capital at each point in time. The growth rate C/H is a linear increasing function of 1 − u. The rest of the model is the same as in the Ramsey model. Solve for the optimum growth plan. Use the trade-off between education and production and the trade-off between current and future consumption to tell the story behind your solution. 4 Srinivasan, 1964: Interpret H in the Uzawa–Lucas model as population size and 1 − u as the fraction of human resources used to produce offspring. Discuss the implications of a model with endogenous population growth. 5 Romer, 1986: A representative consumer maximizes U = ∫ T0 ue-ρtdt, subject to u = (c b − 1)/b, w + rs = (ds/dt) + c, where c is consumption, w is wage rate, s is saving level, and r is interest rate. The population size is one. The income identity is i + c = y, where i = dk/dt, y is given by the production function y = Bkαl 1-α for a representative firm. This production function displays constant returns to scale for each firm. But there are external economies of scale, given by B = A(K/L)β, where K is the total amount of capital employed and L is the total amount of labor employed in production. In equilibrium, K = k and L = l = 1 if the number of firms is assumed to be one. It is assumed that a + b ≥ 1. Solve for the dynamic general equilibrium. Under what condition is the solution of this model with external economies of scale the same as that of the AK model? Analyze the difference between this model and the AK model in connection to Pareto optimality of equilibrium. 6 Use the Ramsey model in 13.1 to show that the steady growth rates of per capita capital and per capita income are dependent on taste and production parameters α and β when total factor productivity A exogenously grows at rate b. Use your result to show that the Ramsey model predicts conditional divergence, that is, the growth rates of two countries with different values of parameters α and β never converge, even if exogenous technical progress is the same for them. 7 Aghion and Howitt, 1992: Consider an economy with a representative consumer consuming y. The representative firm producing y has the production function ys = As xαs , where α ∈(0, 1), xs is the amount of intermediate good of generation s. In the market, only one generation of good is produced. When a new generation of good emerges, it replaces the old generation and As = γAs−1 where γ > 1 looks like an exogenous technical progress coefficient. The probability of the emergence of a new generation of intermediate good is λn where n is the amount of labor employed for invention. The production of each unit of intermediate good needs
C HAPTER 13: N EOCLASSICAL M ODELS
OF
E CONOMIC G ROWTH 419
one unit of labor. The market for intermediate goods is monopolistically competitive. This implies that the producer of the available intermediate good can manipulate the interaction between price and quantity of the good to maximize profit. But free entry will establish the following asset equation, which is analogous to a zero-profit condition in static models. rVs = πs − λnsVs where r is the interest rate, Vs is the value of the firm producing a good of generation s, πs is its profit, λns is the probability that this generation of good is replaced by the next generation of good, λnsVs is the expected loss of value of the firm if this replacement occurs, and Vs is the discounted expected payoff to the sth innovation. The population size and labor force are L. In the labor market, the wage rate for a worker producing the intermediate good must be the same as that for a researcher. The expected value of n units of labor in research is λnVs , so that this arbitrage condition requires ws = λnVs /n = λVs. A steady state is defined by ωs = ωs−1, where ωs = ws /As. Show that the expected growth rate of y is λn ln γ, which implies a type V scale effect (growth rate of per capita income increases with the size of the R&D sector). Solve for the equilibrium and show that the probability of the emergence of a new generation of goods λn is an increasing function of population size L, which implies a type I scale effect (growth rate of per capita income increases with the population size). Why are the type I and type V scale effects rejected by empirical evidence? 8 Mankiw, Romer, and Weil, 1992: Consider the neoclassical model in example 13.1 where output is given by Y = (AL)αK 1−α. The technology parameter A grows at rate x, the population at rate n, and the stock of capital depreciates at rate δ. There is a constant saving rate, s. Find an expression for the rate of growth of income toward the steady state that depends on initial income. Use this model to analyze a convergence phenomenon and upon what the convergence is conditional. Assume the production function is Y = (AL)1−α−βK αH β, where 0 < α + β < 1 and H is human capital, and that gross investment rates in the two types of capital are a fraction sk and sh of output, respectively. Use this model to analyze the convergence phenomenon. Is there unconditional convergence? 9 Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1995: Assume that the saving rate is fixed at s and the population grows at n in the neoclassical model in example 13.1. The work output per firm j is yj = Aβkαj , where A = A0 ∑ j kj /N where N is the number of firms. Find the differential equation for k when all firms are identical. Graphically represent the solutions to the model for the cases where the production function exhibits (i) diminishing returns to scale, β + α < 1, (ii) constant returns, β + α = 1, (iii) increasing returns, β + α > 1. What is the “razor-edge property” of the AK model? 10 Romer, 1990: Assume that a consumer’s decision problem is the same as in example 13.3. Final output is produced using labor and intermediate goods. Labor can be used either in manufacturing the final good (L1) or alternatively in research (L2). Total endowment of labor is L1 + L2 = B. Research generates designs (or licenses) for new intermediate inputs, and n is the current number of designs or the current number of intermediate inputs. The production function of the n α final good is Y = L 1−α 1 ∫ 0 x i di, where xi is the amount of intermediate good i. The variety of intermediate inputs is a continuum. There is a sunk cost of producing x units of a given intermediate input, namely, the price q for the corresponding design or license. The speed at which new designs are being generated depends on both the aggregate amount of research and the existing number of designs, according to dn/dt = δnL2. The market for intermediate goods is monopolistically
420 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
11
12
competitive. Show that the steady growth rate of output is equal to the growth rate of n, which is δL2. This is a type V scale effect: growth rate goes up as the size of R&D sector increases. This type of scale effect is rejected by empirical evidence ( Jones, 1995b). Then show that the steady growth rate of output increases with the population size B. This is a type I scale effect, which is rejected by empirical evidence surveyed in Dasgupta (1995). Show that the equilibrium growth is slower than the Pareto optimum due to spillover effects. Jones, 1995b: Consider the Romer model in the preceding exercise. Now the production function of the R&D sector is dn/dt = δnβLλ2 where λ ∈(0, 1). Show that a type V scale effect is avoided and a type I scale effect still exists. Show that the equilibrium growth is slower than the Pareto optimum due to spillover effects. Grossman and Helpman, 1991: Consider an economy with L consumer-workers. Each individual maximizes total discounted utility U = ∫ ∞0 [(cα − 1)/α]dt, s.t. c + Q = rs + w, where consumption c = [∑ 1n x βi ]1/β, w is the wage rate, r is the interest rate, n is the number of consumption goods, and xi is the quantity of good i consumed. Assume that the invention of each new good requires b units of final goods and the production of each unit of final goods needs a units of labor. Solve for the dynamic equilibrium and evolutionary path of the variety of goods.
Notes 1 Romer (1986) extends this version of the Ramsey model by specifying external economies of scale and interactions between self-interested decisions. Its reduced form is the same as the AK model. 2 Sala-i-Martin (1996) defines absolute β-convergence as the case in which poor economies tend to grow faster than rich ones, and σ-convergence as the case in which the dispersion of real per capita GDP levels of a group of economies tends to decrease over time. His empirical work shows that there was neither σ-convergence nor absolute β-convergence in the cross-country distribution of world GDP between 1960 and 1990, although the sample of OECD economies displays σ-convergence and so do the samples of regions within a country, such as the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, or Spain. Romer (1986) finds evidence for divergence from time series data.
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GENERATED BY ENDOGENOUS EVOLUTION OF DIVISION OF LABOR
OF
L ABOR 421
14
14.1 ECONOMIES OF SPECIALIZED LEARNING BY DOING AND ENDOGENOUS EVOLUTION IN DIVISION OF LABOR All Smithian models of endogenous specialization so far analyzed have been static and the role of learning by doing has not been explicitly considered. The evolution of division of labor generated by comparative statics is exogenous, because it never occurs in the absence of exogenous evolution of transaction efficiency and other parameters. In this chapter, we explicitly spell out a process of learning by doing. The interaction between learning by doing, specialization, transaction costs, and accumulation of human capital may generate endogenous evolution of the division of labor in the absence of any exogenous changes in parameters. A dynamic general equilibrium mechanism may generate the spontaneous evolution of endogenous comparative advantage, which is associated with economic growth and the evolution of trade dependence. The model in this chapter is the same as in chapter 4, except that learning by doing is explicitly specified and the number of goods is m instead of 2. The economies of division of labor come from the intimate relationship between knowledge commanded by society as a whole and the division of labor. Suppose that in the model in chapter 4, there are two individuals (M = 2), each having one unit of working time in each period. In addition to static economies of specialization, there are learning by doing effects. For simplicity, we consider only two periods. Each person’s output level of good i (= 1, 2) in period t is an increasing function of total labor input in producing good i over all periods up to t, or we may assume that p x itp = L1.5 it , where Li1 = li1, Li2 = li1 + li2, x it is the output level of good i at time t, lit is the amount of time allocated to the production of good i at time t, and Lit is the accumulated amount of time allocated to the production of good i at time t. This implies that productivity is dependent on experience that has been accumulated through learning by doing. The experience not only leads to avoidance of mistakes made in the past, but also can enhance the learning ability of society as a whole through division of labor based on specialized learning by doing.
422 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
If two persons choose autarky and spend half of their time producing each good in each period, then each of them knows little of each activity, and therefore output in each activity is 1.5 1.5 L1.5 = 0.354 in period 1, and is L1.5 = 1 in period 2 for each of them. Since i1 = 0.5 i2 = (0.5 + 0.5) two persons engage in the same activities, neither person’s knowledge is more than the other’s, and the total knowledge commanded by society as a whole is not more than that commanded by an individual. Hence, the aggregate transformation curve is a simple addition of individual transformation curves in each period, though a learning by doing effect raises each person’s labor productivity over time. Such a learning by doing effect diminishes over time. Each 1.5 person’s output of each good in period t is L1.5 it = (0.5t) , which increases at a diminishing rate as t increases (the second-order derivative of output with respect to t is negative). If the two persons choose the division of labor where person 1 produces only good 1 and person 2 produces only good 2, then person 1 knows more about the production of good 1 than person 2, and also more than either of them in autarky. This is because she concentrates her time on the production of good 1, so that she can inquire into the finer details of this activity and acquire more experience from learning by doing. She can thus acquire more knowledge of the production of good 1 than person 2 and than a person in autarky. More knowledge implies a higher labor productivity. Per capita output of good 1 is 0.5L 1.5 x1 = 0.5 in period 1, and 1.5 0.5L 1.5 = 0.5 × 2 = 1.414 in period 2, higher than person 2’s labor productivity of good 1 that x2 is 0, and higher than per capita output of good 1 in autarky that is 0.51.5 = 0.354 in period 1, and 1 in period 2. Here, per capita output of good 1 for the division of labor is the total output of good 1 produced by person 1, divided by 2. Similarly, person 2 has a higher labor productivity of good 2 than person 1 and than a person in autarky. Since one person’s knowledge differs from that of the other when they engage in division of labor, the total knowledge commanded by society is the sum of the two persons’ knowledge, which is more than that commanded by each specialist producer, who has more knowledge of her profession than each person in autarky. Hence, the division of labor increases the knowledge commanded by society and thereby increases aggregate productivity at each point in time. For our simple example of two persons, two goods, and two periods, per capita consumption of each good is 0.354 in period 1, and 1 in period 2, in autarky, while it is 0.5 in period 1 and 2 = 1.414 for the division of labor. In addition to the static network effect of division of labor, an expansion of the network size of division of labor over time generates compounded effects of learning by doing over time for each person, and effects of increasingly specialized learning by doing of different specialists. This will speed up the accumulation of human capital (experience) and keep learning by doing effects from diminishing. Hence, evolution of the network size of division of labor may generate accelerating growth (take-off ). The model in this chapter will show that learning by doing alone or division of labor alone may not be enough to generate accelerating growth of the kind that we have observed in the industrialization process. In the absence of evolution of division of labor, learning by doing effects or effects of specialized learning by doing may diminish. Our story of endogenous evolution of division of labor caused by compounded effects of learning by doing and network effects of division of labor runs as follows. At any point in time, there is a trade-off involved in an individual’s decision on the optimum level of specialization. Choosing to specialize more in the current period has the benefit of generating higher productive capacity in future periods (because of economies of specialized learning by doing). However, because of the preference for diverse consumption, greater specialization must be accompanied by a greater number and higher quantity of goods purchased from other individuals. This higher level of trade will incur greater transaction costs, which is undesirable because of the individual’s preference for current consumption. One dynamic equilibrium of this model involves the evolution of the economy from autarky to a state in which there is a high degree of division of labor. This equilibrium will occur if
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 423
in the early periods, the discounted value of the benefits from specialized learning by doing is not significant compared to the associated utility losses that arise because of transaction costs. Later, the effects of learning by doing will enlarge an individual’s scope for trading off the dynamic gains from specialization against the costs of forgone consumption, so that the efficient trade-off evolves over time, generating the evolution of division of labor and other concurrent phenomena. The evolution of division of labor will increase the extent of the market, the production concentration of each traded good, the diversity of different professions, the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, the degree of market integration, each person’s level of specialization, the income share of transaction cost, and each person’s productivity in her occupation, as well as speed up the accumulation of human capital. As long as the division of labor has evolved to a sufficient degree and the potential for further division of labor remains, the rate of growth of per capita income will increase over time. The intuition behind the model is quite straightforward. Suppose that there are transaction costs and productivity gains from specialized learning by doing and that consumer-producers prefer current diverse consumption. At t = 0, each person does not have much experience in producing each and every good, so that her productivity is low and she cannot afford the transaction costs caused by specialization and division of labor. Autarky is thus chosen. As time goes by, each person builds up some experience (human capital) in producing every good, so that her productivity goes up slightly and she can afford a slightly higher transaction cost and therefore will choose a slightly higher level of specialization. The specialized learning by doing will speed up the accumulation of professional experience. Consequently, each person’s productivity in her professional activity increases further, and therefore, she can afford an even higher transaction cost and will choose an even higher level of specialization, and so on until the potential for further evolution of division of labor has been exhausted. In the process, the growth rate of per capita real income declines initially due to a low level of division of labor, then increases (takeoff ) as the evolution in division of labor is speeded up by the compounded effects of learning over time and increasingly specialized learning at each point in time. It finally declines again (but is always positive) as the potential for further evolution of division of labor has been exhausted and learning over time becomes the sole driving force of growth. The trade-off between economies of specialized learning by doing, which increase future productivity through speeding up accumulation of human capital, and related transaction costs, which reduce current consumption, together with the trade-off between current and future consumption, are the driving forces of the story. Section 14.2 specifies a Smith–Young model of dynamic general equilibrium. Section 14.3 solves for the dynamics and comparative dynamics of general equilibrium. Section 14.4 shows several concurrent phenomena as different aspects of the endogenous evolution in division of labor. Section 14.5 reports some empirical work to test the Smith–Young growth models and other endogenous growth models in connection with the puzzle of scale effect and the debate over convergence, which have motivated some rethinking of development economics and endogenous growth theory.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n
What is the difference between endogenous and exogenous evolution of division of labor? What is the driving force of economic growth that increases the wealth of the nations? What is the difference between specialized learning by doing through division of labor in the Smith–Young growth models and learning by doing in neoclassical endogenous growth models?
424 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
14.2 A SMITH–YOUNG DYNAMIC MODEL WITH LEARNING BY DOING In this chapter we use a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium model to illustrate dynamic general equilibrium mechanisms of endogenous evolution of division of labor. Other Smith–Young dynamic general equilibrium models can be found in Borland and Yang (1995), Wen (1997), Yang and Ng (1993), and Zhang (1997). Example 14.1: The Smithian model of the endogenous evolution of division of labor (Yang and Borland, 1991). We consider an economy with a continuum of M consumer-producers and m consumer goods. The self-provided amount of good i at time t is xit . The amounts sold and purchased of good i at that time are x its and x itd , respectively. The transaction cost coefficient is 1 − Kt so that Kt x itd is the amount available for consumption after purchasing x itd of good i. The total amount of good i consumed is therefore xit + Kt x itd . The utility function at time t for any individual is m
ut = ∏ (xit + Kt xitd ).
(14.1)
i =1
The coefficient Kt is assumed to depend on the number of a person’s trade partners; this number is nt − 1. If all people reside at the vertices of a grid of triangles with equal sides, the average distance between a person and her trade partners will be an increasing function of the number of her trade partners and of the distance between a pair of neighbors (under the assumption that trade occurs first with those who are closest). If the transaction cost 1 − Kt increases with the average distance between a person and her trade partners, then Kt is a decreasing function of nt . More specifically, it is assumed that Kt = k/nt ,
0 0,
xitd = 0,
xrt = xrts = lrt = 0, xjt, ljt > 0,
xrtd > 0,
xjts = xjtd = 0,
∀r ∈R
(14.6)
∀j ∈J
where R is the set of nt − 1 goods bought and J is the set of m − nt nontraded goods. Note that nt = 1 or nt − 1 = 0 implies autarky. The set of conditions in (14.7) means that this person sells and self-provides good i, buys nt − 1 other traded goods, and self-provides m − nt nontraded goods. Let uit and Ui denote, respectively, the utility of a person who sells good i and her objective functional. Then the decision problem for such an individual is
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
Max Ui =
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 427
∞
uit e −rt dt
0
⎡ ⎤⎛ ⎞ s.t. u it = x it ⎢∏ ( Kt x itd ) ⎥ ⎜ ∏ x j ⎟ ⎢⎣ r ∈R ⎥⎦ ⎝ j ∈J ⎠
xit + xits = Lita,
xjt = L jta ,
(utility function at t) j ∈J
(production function)
lit + ∑ l jt = 1
(endowment constraint)
Kt = k/nt
(transaction technology)
pit xits = ∑ prt xrtd
(budget constraint)
j ∈J
(14.7)
r ∈R
nt|t=0 = 1, lst = dLst/dt,
Lst|t=0 = 0,
s = i, j,
lst ∈[0, 1]
j ∈J
(boundary condition) (state equation)
where pst is the price of good s at time t (s = i, r, where r ∈R). It is assumed that an individual does not save or borrow, although all trading decisions are made at t = 0. Hence, there is an instantaneous budget constraint. Replacing xit and xjt in Ui with their equivalents in the production functions and one of xrtd (r ∈R) with its equivalent in the budget constraint, we can construct a Hamiltonian function H i = u it + λ t (1 − l it − ∑ l jt + ∑ γ jt l jt + γ i l i j ∈J
(14.8)
j ∈J
where λt is the discounted dynamic shadow price of the labor endowment at time t, and γst (s = i, j, where j ∈J) is the discounted shadow price of the labor input to good s at time t. The Hamiltonian Hi is a function of state variable Lst; costate variables λt and γst ; and control variables xits , x rtd , lst, and nt, where r ∈R, s = i, j, and j ∈J. Only nt − 2 of the x rtd are in uit because the other is eliminated using the budget constraint. The first-order conditions for the control problem are given by the maximum principle (see appendix 14.1). It is interesting to note that the calculus of variations cannot be used to solve this model, because the optimum labor input for a good will jump to a corner solution from an interior solution as the number of traded goods increases. That is, we are solving a “bang-bang control problem” in which lit will jump to 1 from an interior solution and ljt will jump to 0 from an interior solution as nt tends to m. The optimum nt, Ljt, Lit , xits , and x rtd depend on the dynamic prices of all traded goods and on t. Inserting these optimal xits and x rtd into Ui, we can therefore express total utility as a functional of the prices of traded goods.
14.3.3 Dynamic equilibrium A dynamic equilibrium is characterized by a set of market clearing conditions and a set of utility equalization conditions. The market clearing conditions at time t are
Mr xrts = ∑ Mi xirtd , i ≠r
r = 1, . . . , m
(14.9)
428 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS 1 1
3
2 2
4 1 3
4
1
1 1
1 3
1
3
2
4
4
3
2
2 4 2 (a) Market structure A
3
2
4
1 2 2
2 1
3 3
3
4
2
4 1 4 (b) Market structure F
Figure 14.1 Different market structures in the early development stage
where Mi is the number of persons selling good i, Mr xrts is the total market supply of good r, xirtd is the demand of a person selling good i for good r at time t, and hence ∑i Mi xirtd is the total market demand for good r. Later we shall show that xirtd is identical for all i = 1, . . . , m except d r. Hence x irt is the same as x rtd in equation (14.7). Condition (14.9) consists of m equations; however, by Walras’ law, only m − 1 equations are independent. The utility equalization conditions are U1 = U2 = . . . = Um.
(14.10)
Condition (14.10) consists of m − 1 equations. (14.9) and (14.10), together with the population equation ∑j Mj = M, determine the relative prices and the numbers of persons selling different goods that define the dynamic equilibrium. At this stage, we turn to a discussion of the equilibrium structure of trade in the market. In one possible equilibrium, each person trades few goods in early periods but trades a progressively larger range of goods as time continues. In the early period, there are many possible market structures. One of them, which we shall signify as A, involves all people trading the same bundle of goods. As the number of a person’s traded goods increases over time, the number of sellers of each good previously involved in trade decreases, and some people change their occupations to specialize in producing the new traded goods. Another market structure, signified by F, involves a set of sellers (of mass M/m) of each good. People trade different bundles of goods but with the same number of traded goods for each person. As the number of a person’s traded goods increases over time, she buys more goods and sells more of a good to a larger set of persons, but she will not change her occupation. To illustrate this point, consider the example of M = m = 4 depicted in figure 14.1. Market structure A is shown in panel (a) and market structure F in panel (b). The lines signify the flow of goods. The arrows indicate the direction of flows of goods. The numbers beside the lines signify the goods involved. A circle with number i signifies a person selling good i. In market A, each person trades goods 1 and 2 and self-provides goods 3 and 4. The number of traded goods for each person, as well as for the economy, is two. In market F, persons 1 and 2 trade goods 1 and 2, but persons 3 and 4 trade goods 3 and 4. Each person trades two goods, but four goods are traded in the economy. It is not difficult to see that if all goods will eventually be traded, market F is Pareto superior to market A. There are two reasons: (1) Because of the complete symmetry of the model, the composition of trade has no effect on welfare in the initial periods; only the number of each person’s traded goods matters. Thus, individuals’ welfare in the initial periods is the same for the two market structures. (2) However, individuals’ welfare is greater in later periods in market
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 429
F than in market A because more experience in producing goods 3 and 4 has been accumulated in market F. In market F, experience in producing goods 3 and 4 is accumulated from an earlier point in time, and hence the productivity of labor input to these goods is raised in the future. In market A, however, such experience is not accumulated in the early periods. The Yao theorem can be established for the dynamic general equilibrium model with ex ante identical individuals. Hence, the corner equilibrium in structure A cannot be a general equilibrium model. The intuition is that there exist unexploited gains to trade in market A that can be captured through the Walrasian regime that prevails at t = 0, and hence some individual will always have an incentive to deviate from this market structure. Suppose that there is a dynamic corner equilibrium of market A in which the market clearing conditions are satisfied. In this corner equilibrium, in the early period some individual sells good 1 and others sell good 2; at a later period, all goods are traded. Consider the following deviation from market structure A: in the early period, an individual switches to selling good 3 at a price equivalent to those of goods 1 and 2 (this is feasible by the symmetry properties of the model), and at a later stage sells good 3 at a marginally lower price than in market A (feasible because of learning by doing and increasing returns). With this deviation, both the seller and buyers of good 3 will have higher total utility than in market A. Therefore, an individual in market A would have an incentive to switch to selling good 3 from selling good 1 or 2 in the early period. By this argument, market A cannot constitute a dynamic equilibrium market structure.1 With similar reasoning or directly applying the Yao theorem, it can be established that all other market structures are less efficient than market F and that a dynamic equilibrium does not exist for any market structure apart from F. We have the following lemma. Lemma 14.1: For nt ≥ 2, the equilibrium market structure is F, in which there are m types of individuals. The measure of sellers of every good is M/m; m goods are traded in the economy, although the number of any individual’s purchased goods, nt − 1, increases from 0 to m − 1 over time.2 In the equilibrium market structure described in lemma 14.1, the individual’s decision problems are exactly symmetric. Combined with the symmetry of the market clearing conditions and the utility equalization conditions in (14.10), this implies that when trade occurs, pit/pst = 1
for all i, s = 1, . . . , m.
(14.11)
When we insert the equilibrium relative prices given by (14.11) into (14.9), the first-order condition with respect to xrtd for the control problem implies that xrtd is identical ∀r ∈R.
(14.12)
With this information, the first-order condition with respect to xits gives xits = (nt − 1)Lita/nt, xrtd = Lita/nt,
(14.13)
∀r ∈R, for i = 1, . . . , m.
Here we have used the budget constraint to derive x rtd . When (14.11), (14.12), and (14.13) are inserted into (14.9) and (14.10), the complete symmetry of the necessary conditions for utility maximization of individuals selling different goods, the market clearing conditions, and utility equalization conditions imply the following lemma.
430 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
Lemma 14.2: xits is identical for i = 1, . . . , m; Lit and lit are identical for i = 1, . . . , m; Ljt and ljt are identical for all people; nt is identical for all people; Hi = H = ut + λ t (1 − lit − ∑ l jt ) + ∑ γ jtl jt + γ itlit , j ∈J
ut = k n −1(nt )1−2 n (Lit )an ∏ (L jt )a , t
t
t
for i = 1, . . . , m
j ∈J
for i = 1, . . . , m
j ∈J
The equilibrium nt , Lit, and Ljt are therefore determined by the first-order conditions s = i, j,
or
∂H/∂γst = dLst/dt, lst = dLst/dt
or
∂H/∂Lst = rγst − dγst/dt, antut /Lit = rγit − dγit/dt,
s = i, j, j ∈J antut/Ljt = rγjt − dγjt/dt,
j ∈J
(14.14a) (14.14b)
Max H with respect to integer nt or (i) ∂H/∂nt = utBt = 0, for nt ∈ (1, m) (ii) nt = 1 ∀t ∈ [0, ∞) if H monotonically decreases ∀nt ∈[1, m] (iii) nt = m ∀t ∈ [0, ∞) if H monotonically increases ∀nt ∈[1, m]
(14.14c)
Max H with respect to lst, s = i, j, j ∈J or (i) lst = 1 if γst > λt (ii) lst ∈ (0, 1) if γst = λt (iii) lst = 0 if γst < λt,
(14.14d)
lit + ∑ ljt = 1
(14.14e)
j ∈J
where Bt ≡ log(k) − 2[log(nt) + 1] + (1/nt) + a log(Lit). Condition (14.14c) is equivalent to an instantaneous problem, Max ut with respect to integer nt, since the rate of change of nt does not appear in H. The time path of nt that is given by ∂ut/∂nt = 0
(14.14f)
is a good approximation of the optimum time path of nt if m is very large because ut is strictly concave in nt if nt takes on a continuous interior value. Hence, we can approximate the optimum time path of nt, which is solved from a dynamic integer programming problem by the time path of nt given by equation (14.14f ). In what follows, nt is the approximation of the optimum nt. A careful examination of Bt indicates that it tends to negative infinity as k converges to 0 and a converges to 1 for any nt ∈[1, m] if Lit is limited. Hence, ∂H/∂nt is negative for any nt if k and a are too small. This, combined with (14.14c), implies that the equilibrium is nt = 1 for all t. If a and k are sufficiently large that Bt > 0, then ∂H/∂nt > 0 for any positive nt ≤ m. Therefore, the equilibrium nt is the maximum, m, for all t. This leads us to nt = 1 ∀t ∈[0, ∞) if k and a are sufficiently small nt = m ∀t ∈[0, ∞) if k and a are sufficiently great nt ∈(1, m) for at least some t if k and a are neither too large nor too small.
(14.15)
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 431
Since by the Wen theorem, a person sells at most one good, expression (14.15) implies that lit = 1 and ljt = 0 iff nt = m and that lit = 0 and ljt ∈(0, 1) iff nt = 1. Combined with the bang-bang control given in (14.14d), this implies that lit and ljt (for j ∈J) are between 0 and 1 when 1 < nt < m. Hence, γit = γjt = λt (for j ∈J) iff nt ∈(1, m). The first-order condition for an interior nt given in (14.14c) entails Bt = 0. Differentiating this equation with respect to t yields
ρn ≡
Pt nt
=
aρi >0 2 + 1/nt
nt ∈(1, m),
(14.16)
where ρi ≡ lit/Lit is positive for nt > 1. (14.15) and (14.16) implies that if k and a are neither too small nor too large, the equilibrium level of division of labor will evolve and nt will eventually reach m, and then the evolution in division of labor stops. Since (14.16) includes ρi ≡ lit/Lit that is yet to be solved, the dynamics of general equilibrium are yet to be figured out. Assume that k and a are neither too small nor too large, so that nt ∈(1, m) and the evolution of division of labor occurs at equilibrium for some period of time. This implies lit, ljt ∈(0, 1) when nt ∈(1, m). Hence, γst = λt according to (14.14d). Differentiation of this equation yields dγst/dt = dλt/dt. We can thus obtain Lit = ntLjt from (14.14b). The differentiation of this equation yields lit = Pt Ljt + ljtnt, which, together with Lit = ntLjt, implies ljt = (lit − PLit/nt)/nt. This verifies that ljt is the same for any j ∈J. Using this information, we can obtain ljt = (1 − lit)/(m − nt) from the time constraint (14.14c). Use the final two equations that we have obtained to eliminate ljt, we have lit − Pt Lit/nt = nt (1 − lit)/(m − nt). Inserting (14.16) into this equation yields
lit =
nt (2nt + 1) . m(2nt + 1) − ant (m − nt )
(14.17)
(14.17) < 1 iff nt < 1/(a − 2) and it converges to 1 as nt tends to 1/(a − 2). According to the bang-bang control in (14.14d), the value of some ljt must jump to 0 as nt increases (i.e., an individual must cease self-providing a good at the time that she starts to buy that good). Using Bt = 0 in (14.14c) again, we can express human capital Lit as a function of nt, that is, Lit = [n t2e2−(1/nt)/k]1/a
and
Ljt = Lit /nt.
(14.18)
(14.17) and (14.18) can be used to express the growth rate of human capital ρi ≡ lit/Lit as a function of nt. Using this function, we can finally express the growth rate of the level of division of labor as a function of the level of division of labor and the transaction condition parameter k:
ρn ≡
Pt nt
=
ant2 (1−1/a ) k1/a e1/an −2/a (2nt + 1)m − ant (m − nt ) t
for
nt ∈(1, m).
(14.19)
This is a nonlinear differential equation in nt that, together with the transversality conditions nt|t=0 = 1 and dnt/dt|n=m = 0, determines the dynamics and comparative dynamics of the general
432 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
equilibrium for an interior nt. Expression (14.19), together with (14.15), imply that nt = 1 forever from t = 0 if k and a are sufficiently small, nt jumps to m at t = 0 and stays there forever if k and a are sufficiently large, and nt increases over time until nt = m if k and a are neither too large nor too small. Also, expression (14.19) implies that the increase in nt is faster if k is larger (i.e., the better the transaction condition, the faster the evolution of the division of labor), since dnt /dt in (14.19) increases with k for nt < m. The time paths of demand, supply, and other endogenous variables are determined by the time path of the level of division of labor nt. But note that (14.19) does not apply to nt = m, which is a corner solution. Autarky nt = 1 is another corner solution to which (14.19) is not applicable either. Taking the log of ut in lemma 14.2 and then differentiating it with respect to t yields ρu ≡
@t = a[ntρi + (m + nt )ρj ] ut
= [(2nt + 1)m − ant (m − nt )]
ρn = ant1−(2/a )k1/a e (1−2 n )/an nt t
3u [(a − 2)nt − 1]ρn = ρu ant
(14.20a) t
(14.20b)
where ρu is the growth rate of per capita real income. (14.20a) indicates that there is no steady state of per capita real income, a feature shared with other endogenous growth models. Also, there is no steady growth rate of per capita real income. Rather, the growth rate of per capita real income keeps changing over time. (14.17), (14.19), and (14.20b) imply that the level of division of labor nt increases and growth rates of per capita real income declines when nt < 1/(a − 2). (14.17) to (14.20) can be used to identify several growth patterns and sub patterns. The expressions indicate that the growth rate of the level of division of labor, ρn, the growth rate of per capita real income, ρu , and each individual’s level of specialization lit are positive if and only if f (nt) = (2nt + 1)m − ant(m − nt) > 0 .
(14.21)
Note that for an interior solution, f (nt) must be positive. The upper bound of lit is 1 due to the endowment constraint, and its lower bound is 0 due to nonnegative constraint. (14.17) indicates lit takes on its upper bound, 1, when f (nt) = 0 and takes on its lower bound, 0, when f (nt) < 0. f (nt) can be used to identify three patterns of path of nt. Having differentiated (14.21) with respect to n twice, we can show that f (nt) is a nonmonotonous convex function with the minimum point n ≡ (a − 2)m/2a, as shown in figure 14.2. It is not difficult to see that for a ≤ 2, the minimum value of f (nt) is positive, so that f (nt) is always positive. If a > 2, the curve associated with f (nt) cuts the horizontal axis at two points (a single point for m = [2/(a − 2)]2a). From f (nt) = 0, the two cutting points can be solved as follows: n′ = {(a − 2)m − [(a − 2)2m2 − 4am]1/2}/2a,
(14.22a)
n″ = {(a − 2)m + [(a − 2) m − 4am] }/2a,
(14.22b)
2
2
1/2
where n″ ≥ n′. It is not difficult to show that n′ ≥ 1 if a ∈(2, 3) and n′ < 1 if a > 3. Since the minimum value of n is 1, which means autarky, n′ < 1 is impossible. Hence, for a > 3, n′ is irrelevant. This discussion generates three intervals of a that are associated with three growth patterns, as shown in figure 14.2. First we consider interval a > 3 in figure 14.2(c). Since the initial condition is nt = 1 for t = 0, the system starts from the point nt = 1 which is on the right hand side of the cutting point n′.
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION f (n)
f (n)
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 433
f (n)
n=1 n′ 0
1
n
n″ n
0
0
n′
n″
n
n=1 (a − 2)m/2a (a) a < 2
(a − 2)m/2a (b) 2 < a < 3
(a − 2)m/2a (c) a > 3
Figure 14.2 Intervals of a that divide between various growth patterns
At point n′, f (nt) = 0 implies that lit tends to be as large as possible according to (14.17) and (14.21), but the upper bound of lit is 1 because of the endowment constraint of time. The application of the maximum principle to the individual’s decision of level of specialization yields lit = 1. This implies that at t = 0, each individual jumps from autarky (nt = 1) to complete specialization (lit = 1 and nt = m). Afterward, the level of division of labor stays there and the growth rate of per capita real income declines although they are always positive. The paths of the level of division of labor and per capita real income for this growth pattern are shown in figure 14.3(a). This pattern features a single big-push industrialization in the absence of a smooth take-off and smooth evolution in division of labor. We cannot observe the phenomenon of human society jumping to a completely commercialized state from autarky as soon as the society comes to existence. The lack of empirical evidence for this pattern of growth can be attributed to the fact that the degree of economies of specialization, a, in the real world is not larger than 3. Of course, the threshold value of a would be much more complicated if the model were not symmetric. Let us consider the case of a ∈(2, 3) in figure 14.2(b). From (14.22), it can be shown that 1 < n′ < n″ < m and that n′ < 1/(a − 2) for this case. The dynamic equilibrium value of nt increases over time before t = t1 or before nt = n′ since nt < n′ for f (nt) > 0 which implies ρn > 0 according to equation (14.19). At t = t1 or at nt = n′, f (nt) = 0, which implies lit = 1 according to equation (14.17). Hence, the level of division of labor jumps from nt = n′ to nt = m (complete division of labor) at this point in time. From equation (14.20b), it is obvious that there is a point t1 before t2. The growth rate of per capita real income decreases (although they are positive) before t1 but increases between t1 and t2, as shown in figure 14.3(b). The subgrowth pattern before t1 is referred to as preindustrialization growth which features a low level of division of labor and decreasing growth rate. The subgrowth pattern between t1 and t2 is referred to as smooth take-off which features smoothly increasing growth rate of per capita real income and increasing nt. The subgrowth pattern at t2 is referred to as big-push industrialization, which features a discontinuous jump of the level of division of labor (or the level of commercialization). At this point, many new professions and new traded goods simultaneously emerge and many separate local business communities suddenly merge into the integrated market. After the big jump, the economy has reached the complete division of labor, and the economy enters the mature growth stage, which features a decreasing growth rate of per capita real income and zero growth in the level of division of labor. The potential for further evolution in division of labor has been exhausted. The growth rate of per capita real income is determined solely by the growth rate of human capital in producing the traded good (ρi) which equals 1/Li for lit = 1. Though ρi is always positive, it monotonically declines as human capital Li increases over time.
434 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS nt
ut
m
0
t 0 (a) a > 3 and k is sufficiently large
nt
t
ut
m
0
nt
t1
t 0 (b) a ∈(2, 3), k is sufficiently large
t1
t
ut
m
1 0
nt
t 0 (c) a ∈ (1, 2), k is not small
t1
t2
t
ut
1 0
t 0 (d) a < 1 and/or k → 0
Figure 14.3 Various growth patterns of nt and per capita real income
t
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 435
For a ∈(1, 2), equations (14.20b) suggest that the growth rate of per capita real income is always positive and declining if nt ∈(1, m). Also, equations (14.19) and (14.21) shows that the growth rate of the level of division of labor is always positive for nt ∈(1, m) and a < 2. The pattern of evolution in division of labor and the growth pattern of per capita real income for this case are illustrated by figure 14.3(c) which features decreasing growth rates of both per capita real income and the level of division of labor. Finally, expressions (14.15) and (14.19) imply that the growth rate of the level of division of labor is 0 if parameter k is close to 0. The application of the maximum principle to each individual’s decision concerning the level of specialization indicates that the optimum value of nt is always at a corner nt = 1 if k is sufficiently close to 0. If nt = 1 for all t, then the equilibrium is autarky and growth rate of per capita real income is: ρu = amρj = amlj/Lj = am/t
(14.23)
which declines monotonically as t increases. This pattern of growth is illustrated in figure 14.3(d), which features autarky and continuously decelerating growth. This pattern of growth is similar to so-called growth trap. However, in the Smithian model such a growth trap is not an accidental outcome caused by multiple steady states for given parameters. But rather, it is based on comparative dynamics (changes in the dynamic equilibrium in response to changes in parameters) and generated by a small k resulting from deficient institutional arrangements, a low degree of openness, high tariffs, underdeveloped transportation infrastructures, deficient banking and legal systems, landlocked geographical conditions, and other unfavorable transaction conditions. Intuitively, if economies of specialization are not significant (a is close to 1) and transaction conditions are not good (k is close to 0), then the equilibrium will be autarky forever. At the other extreme, suppose that a is large and k is close to 1. In this case the equilibrium will involve individuals completely specializing from time t = 0, since the benefits from the consequently higher volume of output outweigh transaction costs incurred in purchasing the other necessary consumption goods. For intermediate values of a and k, the equilibrium involves evolution of the division of labor. If in early periods the total discounted value of the benefits from specialization is outweighed by the current utility losses caused by such specialization due to transaction costs, then the level of specialization will be low. However, over time, learning by doing in production will raise the benefits from specializing relative to the costs of forgone consumption and a greater degree of specialization will occur. In order for the benefits from specialization to increase over time, both learning by doing and economies of specialization are necessary. Without learning by doing, although specialization may occur, the optimal level of specialization is invariant over time. On the other hand, in the absence of economies of specialization and given a positive transaction cost, specialization will never be optimal. Proposition 14.1: Dynamic equilibrium is autarky forever from t = 0 if transaction condition parameter k and the degree of economies of specialization a are sufficiently small, and is extreme specialization forever from t = 0 if k and a are sufficiently large. The division of labor will evolve until nt reaches m if k and a are neither too large nor too small. For such intermediate values of k and a, the better the transaction condition, the faster the evolution of the division of labor. For a ∈(2, 3), division of labor evolves over time. When nt ∈[1, 1/(a − 2)], growth rate of per capita real income declines. When nt ∈(1/(a − 2), n′), growth rate of per capita real income increases (smooth take-off ). At nt = n′, big-push industrialization takes place and the economy jumps to the complete division of labor. Then, the economy enters a mature
436 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS (a) Autarky, n = 1 1
1 2
A
4
3
3
1 4
2
A
4 1 2
A
4
2
A
3
3
1
2 1
1 3
24
4 1 4 4
3
1
2
2 1
3
3 2 2 1 4
(b) Partial division of labor with n = 2 1 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 1 3 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 2
4 3
(d) Complete division of labor with n = 4
2
4 1
2 3
1
2 3 2
4 3
4 1
3
4
3
(c) Partial division of labor with n = 3
Figure 14.4 Endogenous evolution in division of labor
growth stage with positive and declining growth rate of per capita real income in the absence of evolution of division of labor. Note that the driving force of economic growth is not growth in population size nor exogenous changes in the transaction, production, or preference parameters. Rather, growth is generated by a spontaneous evolution in division of labor. An example of such an evolution is illustrated in figure 14.4 for the case of m = 4. In panel (a), each person self-provides all goods she needs. In panel (b), each person sells a good, buys a good, and self-provides three goods (nt = 2). In panel (c), each person sells a good, buys two goods, and self-provides two goods (nt = 3). In panel (d), each person sells and self-provides a good, buys three goods, and trades four goods (nt = 4). The circles, lines, and numbers in figure 14.4 have the same interpretation as in figure 14.1. The graphs provide a better illustration of the topological and graphical properties of the evolution in division of labor than figure 14.3 and the algebra does. The dynamic equilibrium is Pareto optimal because of the Walrasian regime. In the models of Judd (1985), Romer (1986, 1990), Lucas (1988), and Grossman and Helpman (1989), the dynamic equilibrium is not Pareto optimal either because of external economies of scale, externality, or monopoly power. As in static symmetric models, there are multiple dynamic equilibria in the Smith–Young dynamic equilibrium model, since it is indeterminate who is specialized in producing which good in the model with ex ante identical individuals. Also, possible one-way trade (person 1 sell good 1 to person 2 who sells good 2 to person 3 who sells good 3 to person 4 who sells good 4 to person 1 when nt = 2) generates more possible dynamic equilibria. But if the assumption is made that there is neither a central clearing house nor money and related credit systems, then all of the structures with one-way trade (without double coincidence of demand and supply)
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 437
cannot take place at equilibrium (see chapter 17 for the definition of double coincidence of demand and supply and the relationship between money, central clearing house, and double coincidence of demand and supply). All of the multiple dynamic equilibria generate the same total present value of utility for each individual and have similar dynamics and comparative dynamics.
14.4 ENDOGENOUS EVOLUTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE MARKET, TRADE DEPENDENCE, ENDOGENOUS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES, AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURE In this section we consider some further implications of equilibria that involve evolution of the division of labor. Following the definitions of trade dependence and extent of the market given in chapter 7, we take the ratio of trade volume per head in terms of labor to total real income in terms of labor, 2(nt − 1)(Lit) a/nt , to be the measure of trade dependence, where (Lit)a is the output level of the good an individual produces for sale, and (nt − 1)/nt is the portion of the good that is sold. The extent of the market E is the product of population size M and (nt − 1)(Lit) a/nt. Hence, E = M(nt − 1)(Lit) a/nt. Differentiating E with respect to t yields the growth rate of the extent of the market ρE = B/E > 0 iff [ρn/(nt − 1)] + aρi + (F/M) > 0.
(14.24)
Here, ρn /(nt − 1), which is positive if ρn > 0 and nt ∈(1, m), is the contribution of the evolution of the division of labor to the expansion of the market, aρi is the contribution of learning by doing, which is always positive, and F/M is the growth rate of population. Suppose the growth rate of population is zero. If the potential for further evolution of the division of labor has been exhausted (nt = m), the first term tends to 0 and accordingly the rate of growth of the extent of the market is solely determined by the second term. The extent of the market is aggregate demand and supply as well. Hence, aggregate demand and supply will evolve as the division of labor evolves over time according to (14.24). This result substantiates Allyn Young’s idea that the extent of the market can expand as division of labor evolves in the absence of changes in population size. Since trade dependence R = 2E/M = 2(nt − 1)(Lit) a/nt, it evolves also as division of labor evolves. The endogenous comparative advantage of a producer is characterized by the difference between a seller’s per capita output of a good and a buyer’s per capita output of that good. Denoting this difference by D, we have D = [(Lit) a/nt] − G, where G is the buyer’s per capita output and its change rate is 0 since the buyer ceases to produce the good, so that professional experience is forgotten. If we differentiate this difference, it is evident that
ρD ≡
! > 0 if aρi > ρn . D
(14.25)
From (14.14), aρi > ρn if nt ∈(1, m). Hence, the comparative advantage of an expert over a novice increases endogenously as the division of labor evolves (even though there is no exogenous comparative advantage). The income share of transaction costs, S, is equal to the ratio of the cost of bought goods lost in transit to nominal income. Since prt xrtd is the same for all r ∈R, therefore, (1 − Kt)(nt − 1)prt xrtd is the transaction cost and (nt − 1)prt xrtd = prt xrts is per capita nominal income at time t. Hence
438 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
S ≡ 1 − Kt = 1 −
k . nt
(14.26a)
is the income share of the transaction cost. Differentiation of (14.26a) yields
dS (kd nt /nt dk) − 1 ∂S > 0, = if nt < m. dk ∂nt nt
(14.26b)
Condition (14.26b) implies that the income share of transaction costs increases as the division of labor evolves and as transaction efficiency is improved (the latter result holds provided that the level of the division of labor is elastic with respect to transaction efficiency). Since transaction costs can be viewed as roundabout production costs, condition (14.26b) implies that the income share of the roundabout productive sector rises as the division of labor evolves. It is interesting to note that transaction efficiency Kt = k/nt decreases as division of labor spontaneously evolves (nt increases). Since Dt/Kt = M/k − Pt/nt, it is possible that transaction efficiency Kt declines as transaction condition parameter k increases. This occurs when the increase in n caused by an increase in k dominates the increase in k itself. This result is intuitive. As transaction conditions are improved, the network of division of labor expands. Individuals must trade with more distant partners, so that transaction efficiency declines provided increases in division of labor are faster than increases in k. The results in this section are summarized in the following proposition. Proposition 14.2: The extent of the market, trade dependence, the extent of endogenous comparative advantage of an expert relative to a novice, and the income share of transaction costs increase as the division of labor evolves over time.
14.5 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND RETHINKING ENDOGENOUS GROWTH THEORY The Smithian model in this chapter generates the following empirical implications. (1) The income share of the transaction sector increases as division of labor evolves and per capita real income increases. (2) Growth performance and speed of evolution of division of labor critically depend on transaction conditions. (3) Economic development is positively associated with evolution of the degree of commercialization. Hypothesis (1) is verified by North’s empirical work (1986) which shows that the employment share of the transaction sector increased with economic development in the US in the past century. Hypothesis (2) is verified by historical evidence documented in North (1958) and North and Weingast (1989) and by empirical evidence provided in Barro (1997), Easton and Walker (1997), Gwartney and Lawson (1996, 1997), Gallup and Sachs (1998), and Sachs and Warner (1997). North shows that the continuous fall of ocean freight rates contributed significantly to early economic development in Europe. He and Weingast show that it was the institutions (constitutional monarch and parliamentary democracy) established after the Glorious Revolution (1688) that ensured a credible commitment by the British government to the constitutional order, and significantly reduced endogenous transaction costs caused by rent-seeking, corruption, and state opportunism. Hence, economic development could take off in the UK in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 439
Barro (1997), Easton and Walker (1997), Frye and Shleifer (1997), and Sachs and Warner (1997) have found empirical evidence for effects of institutions that affect transaction conditions on development performance. Hypothesis 3 is verified by historical evidence in Mokyr (1993, pp. 65–6) and empirical evidence in Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992). Mokyr documents evolution of the degree of commercialization during the Industrial Revolution. Yang, Wang, and Wills document the evolution of degree of commercialization in China and find positive effects of transaction conditions, of specifying and enforcing property rights, on the evolution and economic growth. In addition, the Smithian model can be used to address the puzzle of scale effect and the debate over convergence in the literature of endogenous growth theory. Two classes of major endogenous growth models, the AK model and R&D-based model, discussed in chapter 13, have recently been tested against empirical data (see Jones, 1995a,b). The AK model generates a type IV scale effect, which is a positive relationship between the growth rate in per capita GDP and the investment rate.3 The scale effect is rejected by the data, “suggesting that the AK models do not provide a good description of the driving forces behind growth” ( Jones, 1995a, pp. 508–9). The R&D-based model generates a type V scale effect, which is a positive relationship between the growth rate in per capita GDP and the level of resources devoted to R&D.4 Type V scale effect is also rejected by empirical observations ( Jones, 1995a,b). Jones (1995b), Young (1998), and Segerstrom (1998) have developed some models to salvage the R&D-based model, but the modified models still have type I scale effect, a positive relationship between the growth rate in per capita GDP and the growth rate of population, which is also wildly at odds with empirical evidence surveyed by Dasgupta (1995). As Jones (1995b) indicates, endogenous growth cannot be preserved if the scale effect in the R&D-based model is eliminated. The Smithian model in this chapter has the following attractive features that can be used to address the puzzle of scale effect. The driving force of economic growth in the Smithian model is the positive network effect of division of labor rather than economies of scale. Economies of division of labor differ from economies of scale as discussed in Allyn Young (1928). Investment in terms of transaction costs and related loss of current consumption enlarges scope for specialized learning by doing which enhances social learning capacity and related network effects on aggregate productivity in future. This implicit investment mechanism can generate long-term endogenous growth in the absence of interpersonal loans and commercialized saving.5 It does not necessarily generate a positive correlation between the tangible saving rate (or investment rate) and the growth rates of per capita real income. The endogenous evolution of the number of traded goods in the Smithian model is associated with endogenous evolution in the size of the network of division of labor. As the size of the network increases, many separate local communities merge into an increasingly integrated market. This can take place in the absence of an increase in population size and of other scale effects. Hence, the speed at which new traded goods emerge is determined by the speed of evolution of division of labor rather than by population size or the size of the R&D sector. In other words, in the R&D-based models, there is an “if and only if ” relationship between investment in R&D and the number of new goods and related technology. But in the Smithian model, there is no such relationship. Endogenous technical progress is a matter of whether the network of division of labor evolves to a sufficiently large size to create a social learning capacity and to make new traded goods commercially viable. Its individualspecific economies of specialized learning by doing distinguishes the Smithian model from the other models with learning by doing (Arrow, 1962, Lucas, 1988, Stokey, 1991, Young, 1993, and others). In the Smithian model, the blend of individuals’ specialized learning by doing and an increase in the size of the network of division of labor can generate network
440 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
effects of social learning without a scale effect. By contrast, the learning by doing in the other models is independent of evolution of division of labor and generates a scale effect. The growth rates of level of division of labor and per capita real income in (14.20) are independent of population size M. The population size plays a very passive role in this model. It sets up a limit for the evolution in division of labor: the number of occupations cannot be larger than population size. Let us now turn to the debate over convergence. The new theory of endogenous growth was motivated in part by criticism of the convergence theory based on the neoclassical growth model (Lucas, 1988, Romer, 1986). The absolute convergence hypothesis – which holds that per capita incomes of countries converge to one another in the long-run independently of their initial conditions – has been rejected by empirical data (Barro, 1991). Some new endogenous growth models have been developed to predict the divergence phenomenon, accommodating the empirical evidence. However, the new theoretical models are not only disturbed by the puzzle of scale effects, they are also challenged by the new evidence on convergence. Many slightly different concepts of convergence and divergence have been proposed (see Sala-iMartin, 1996, Galor, 1996). However, all of these new concepts of convergence do not alter the fact that convergence and divergence, no matter how defined, may coexist and that such coexistence has not received the attention it deserves. One of the empirical implications of the Smithian model is a sequential pattern in divergence and convergence phenomena. The Smithian model implies that three stages of growth will take place sequentially: preindustrialization growth, accelerating growth and takeoff, and mature growth. Growth rate first declines, then increases, and finally declines again. This is consistent with Rostow’s (1960) description of the three historical stages of economic growth. As the transaction condition parameter k increases, the growth rate of per capita real income rises, despite the fact that changes in k are not necessary for accelerating growth and for endogenous evolution in division of labor. The result of this comparative dynamics can be used to explain cross-country growth differentials, since different tariff regimes and degrees of openness, different institutional arrangements, different legal systems and related property rights regimes, and different geographical conditions across countries all imply different values of k across countries. Hence, those countries with a larger k enter the take-off stage earlier. The UK, for example, entered the take-off stage earlier than other countries since it is an island country, which, in a time when automobiles and trains did not exist, implies a higher shipment efficiency there than in hinterland countries, such as Germany and China. The UK was the first country to have a Statute of Monopolies (patent laws, 1624) which significantly improved transaction efficiency in trading intellectual property (see North, 1981). Evolving common law and a de facto laissez-faire policy and deregulation started in Britain long before the period of Smith’s advocacy of free trade significantly improved transaction conditions (Mokyr, 1993). Deficient legal systems, violation of private property rights, extreme protectionism (a low level of openness), and political instability, all of which generated a small k, meant that France and China, in constrast, entered the take-off stage later than Britain (Landes, 1998, pp. 34–6, Fairbank, 1962, Mokyr, 1990, pp. 235–50, 1993). In a sense our model in this chapter shares a feature with Alwyn Young’s model (1991): learning speed and the growth rate of per capita real income decline over time if each individual’s number of traded goods is fixed. As the number of traded goods increases, the network of division of labor expands, thereby creating more scope for specialized learning by producing a greater variety of traded goods in society. It is obvious that for an economy that has experienced mature growth, the time path of the structure of division of labor and per capita real income are like those in figure 14.3(b).
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION Britain
ut
t1
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 441
Germany
t
Figure 14.5 Sequential divergence and convergence
As t increases from its initial value towards infinity, the curve representing per capita real income is first concave, then convex, finally concave again, if short-run fluctuation is eliminated. However, economies may differ in their parameter k that represents transaction conditions. We should therefore see that different countries enter the take-off stage at different points in time. Between each pair of economies that enter the take-off stage at different points in time, the difference in per capita real incomes should be an inverted U curve in the coordinates of time and per capita real income. That is, when the country that enters the take-off stage earlier starts accelerating growth, the latecomer is still in the decelerating growth stage. Their per capita real incomes and growth rates will diverge. As the latecomer ultimately enters the takeoff stage and the leader reaches the mature growth stage, the differences in their per capita real incomes and growth rate diminish, and they experience convergence. This sequential divergence and convergence is illustrated in figure 14.5, in which per capita real incomes between two economies (the UK and Germany) diverge before t1 and converge thereafter. The convergence may be conditional and different economies may not end up with the same income level and growth rate due to differences in k between them and to possible changes in k over time. The hypothesis to test is that for a pair of economies that have experienced mature growth, the time path of the per capita income differential between them should be an inverted U curve. Chen, Lin, and Yang (1999) have tested the hypothesis against a data set of 15 OECD countries over the long period 1870–1992, provided by Maddison (1991) and the Penn World Table 5.6 (see Center for International Comparisons, 1996–2000). These countries are chosen because they all have experienced the stages of pre-industrialization decelerating growth, takeoff, and mature growth with declining growth rate. The UK is taken to be the benchmark country for examining the sequential divergence and convergence phenomena, as it was the first country to experience a take-off. The data show that the differences in per capita real income between the UK and the other 15 countries are roughly inverted U curves. Overall, the data set strongly supports the hypothesis: an inverted U relation exists for long-run per capita real income differentials between the UK and 13 out of 14 countries. It conclusively rejects the hypothesis of a monotonically increasing difference in per capita real income. Also, it rejects the hypothesis of a monotonically decreasing difference in per capita real income, except for Canada. The difference in per capita real income between the
442 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
UK and Canada monotonically decreases over time because of missing data of divergence which occurred before 1879, the first year for which internationally comparable data are available. The result is consistent with the Barro regression in Barro (1991) and Barro and Sala-iMartin (1992), which shows that within part (1960–1990) of the time period considered by Chen, Lin, and Yang, there is convergence among the OECD countries. The Barro regression misses the divergence part of the story, partly because it neglects the data before 1960 and partly because the regression of average growth rates in the initial income period may hide information about early divergence. The Smithian endogenous growth model is supported by Sachs and Warner’s (1995a) empirical work which uses a Barro regression to show that for those countries with high degree of openness and high quality of institution convergence occurs, but for all countries with high and low degrees of openness there is no evidence for convergence. The Smithian model in this chapter predicts that if the transaction condition parameter k is very small, a country will stay in autarky (the development trap) forever, while a country with a large k will enter the take-off stage eventually. Between these two countries, convergence never takes place. Since Sachs and Warner use the Barro regression and use data after 1960, their work misses possible divergence as well. What differentiates Smith–Young development and growth models from other endogenous growth models is that they make endogenous the level of specialization of individuals and the network size of division of labor. This feature allows us to capture Young’s (1928, p. 539) insight that “the securing of increasing returns depends on the progressive division of labor.” It also establishes a formal basis for his extension of Smith’s famous proposition: That not only does the division of labor depend on the extent of the market, but the extent of the market also depends on the division of labor. In proposition 14.2 it was shown that as the division of labor evolves, the extent of the market will increase. Although the circular causation between the extent of the market and the level of division of labor in this dynamic general equilibrium model is similar to that in a Smith–Young static general equilibrium model, co-movement of the extent of the market and network size of division of labor can take place in the absence of exogenous evolution of transaction conditions and other parameters in the dynamic model. In other words, the dynamic general equilibrium model has higher degree of endogenization than the static general equilibrium model. As static Ricardian and Smithian models in chapters 3 and 4 formalize Lewis’s idea on the evolution of dual structure between autarchic and commercialized sectors to completely commercialized economy, the model in this chapter can generate such evolution in the absence of exogenous evolution of trading efficiency. Hence, neither “labor surplus” nor “surplus of agricultural products” is necessary for this evolution in economic structure. From our theory, the necessary condition for this transition is the sufficient evolution of the division of labor. Therefore, the key issue for economic development and the transition of economic structure is the initiation and speeding up of the evolution of the division of labor rather than the existence of a labor surplus. Institutions that determine transaction conditions are essential determinants of the speed of evolution of division of labor. According to Kuznets’ (1966) and Chenery’s (1979) theory of structural changes, any transition of economic structure is based on an increase in per capita income. According to the Smithian model, however, the increase in per capita real income and all other phenomena associated with structural changes are simply different aspects of the evolution of the division of labor. It does not make sense to explain one aspect of this evolution by another. All of the interdependent endogenous variables should be explained by a dynamic general equilibrium mechanism. Allyn Young (1928) called such a mechanism “moving equilibrium.” In other words, Kuznets and Chenery miss the nature of circular causation (the feedback loop) between
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 443
per capita income and other endogenous variables in a general equilibrium mechanism for structural changes. There are many different ways to specify a dynamic equilibrium model that can predict evolution in division of labor. In the next chapter we will specify a model that explains the co-evolution of the division of labor by a trade-off between economies of division of labor and costs in acquiring information on the efficient pattern of division of labor. In chapter 18, we will explain the evolution of the division of labor in terms of trade-offs between economies of specialized learning by doing, cyclical unemployment, and transaction costs. Also, Wen (1997, see exercise 4) specifies k as a public good produced from government tax revenue. She explores a dynamic equilibrium mechanism that simultaneously determines interdependent aggregate productivity, income, optimum income share of government spending on transport infrastructure, transportation efficiency, and network size of division of labor. Zhang (1997, see exercise 5) introduces government monetary and fiscal policies into the model in this chapter to explore network effects of the policies on macroeconomic variables. A common feature of all the different methods for predicting the evolution of the division of labor is that more rapidly increasing diseconomies of division of labor than economies of division of labor, as the level of division of labor increases, are necessary to generate the gradual evolution of the division of labor. A technical difference between Smith–Young growth models and other growth models is that dynamic inframarginal analysis (bang-bang control) is essential for managing the Smith–Young growth models, while dynamic marginal analysis (calculus of variations) is enough and the control theory is not necessary for managing other growth models, though many authors use the control theory to manage their models. The limitation of the method developed in this chapter is that it is not easy to apply to reasonably realistic asymmetric models. Symmetry of the model is essential to keep this kind of dynamic general equilibrium model tractable. But symmetry cannot be preserved if the CES utility or production functions are introduced into this kind of model, since the decision problems for individuals producing new goods who must change occupation are asymmetric to those who do not change occupation. Hence, control theory does not work and dynamic programming is needed if the number of goods is an endogenous variable or if the parameters of taste and of production and transaction conditions are not the same across goods in this kind of model. Borland and Yang (1995), show that the algebra is cumbersome and results are very difficult to obtain even if dynamic programming is applied to asymmetric Smith–Young growth models. In the next chapter, we will develop a new method based on the concept of Walrasian sequential equilibrium and show that it is easy to dynamize all static Smith–Young models in this textbook by applying that approach. From chapter 6, we speculate that if exogenous comparative advantages are introduced into the dynamic model, it can be shown that endogenous advantages may be used to offset exogenous disadvantages. Suppose, for instance, that person A is exogenously more productive than person B in producing good 1 at t = 0 when both of them have the same labor allocation. However, if person B’s level of specialization in producing good 1 is higher than person A’s for a sufficiently long period of time, B’s productivity of good 1 may be higher than A’s. Hence, for this kind of dynamic model, in order to win in market competition it is much more important to get a person involved in a self-enforced evolutionary process than to rely on inherited genius. If a person overestimates the implications of her exogenous advantage, she may turn out to be a loser to an exogenously less capable person who can effectively get herself involved in a self-accelerated evolutionary process (via, for instance, a successful self-selling strategy or advertisement). In question 1 at the end of this chapter you are asked to use Smith– Young models to analyze a vicious circle between unemployment and endogenous disadvantage in accumulating professional human capital through learning by doing.
444 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
APPENDIX 14.1: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONTROL THEORY AND CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS The intertemporal decision problem in (14.7) is equivalent to maximizing the following Lagrange function: ⎛ ⎞ F = ue − rt + α i (l i − E i ) + ∑ α j (l j − E j ) + β ⎜ 1 − l i − ∑ l j ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ j j
where li = Ei , lj = Ej , and u can be expressed as a function of x is, x dr , n, li , lj using all constraints in (14.7), the symmetry, and equal prices of all goods. We have omitted the subscript of time for x is, x dr , n, u, αi , li, Ei , β, α j, Ej. αi and αj are the Lagrange multipliers for labor allocated to produce traded goods i and nontraded goods j, respectively. β is the Lagrange multiplier for the labor endowment constraint. Since ls (s = i, j) may discontinuously jump between the interior and corner values, F may not be differentiable with respect to Es, so that the calculus of variations, which requires continuous Es, may not be applicable. In order to avoid this trouble, we specify a Hamiltonian function ⎛ ⎞ H = u + γ i l i + ∑ γ j l j + λ ⎜1 − l i − ∑ l j ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ j j
which does not directly contain Es, though ls = Es. Here, λ and γs are dynamic shadow prices of labor endowment and labor allocated to the production of good s, respectively. They are called costate variables in the control theory. ls, n, x is, and x rd are called control variables. β = λe−rt, αs = γse−rt are the corresponding discounted shadow prices. Suppose that the control variables do not take on corner values. Then, the application of the Euler equation to the Lagrange function F generates a set of the first-order conditions in terms of H: ∂F/∂αs = d[∂F/∂(dαs /dt)]/dt = 0, which is equivalent to (14.14a): ∂H/∂γst = dLst /dt, ∂F/∂Ls = d(∂F/∂Es)/dt, which is equivalent to (14.14b): ∂H/∂Ls = rγs − dγs/dt, ∂F/∂n = d[∂F/∂(dn/dt)]/dt = 0, which is equivalent to (14.14c) (i): ∂H/∂nt = 0, for nt ∈(1, m). If the corner solutions are considered, then (ii) and (iii) in (14.14c) will be included in a general condition for maximizing F or H with respect to n. Maximization of F with respect to ls generates the same first-order condition for the maximization of H with respect to ls which is (14.14d): (i) lst = 1 if γst > λt; (ii) lst ∈(0, 1) if γst = λt; (iii) lst = 0 if γst < λt. Maximization of F with respect to αs and β is equivalent to the maximization of H with respect to γs and λ, which yield the constraint in (14.14e), lit + ∑j∈J ljt = 1 and the definitions ls = Es. Hence, by using H instead of F, we can get the first-order condition in (14.14), while avoiding the trouble caused by discontinuous jumps of control variables between corner and interior solutions. It is obvious that the control theory is equivalent to the Euler equation if control variables do not discontinuously jump between corner and interior solutions. But the Euler equation is more straightforward. Hence, for the neoclassical endogenous growth models in chapter 13, the Euler equation is better than the control theory. But the Euler equation does not work for Smithian endogenous growth models.
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 445
Key Terms and Review • Endogenous versus exogenous evolution of division of labor • Endogenous versus exogenous economic growth • The difference between Smith–Young endogenous growth models and neoclassical endogenous growth models (R&D-based models, AK models) • The relationship between the Smithian model and the Young theorem • The difference between specialized learning by doing through division of labor in Smith–Young growth models and learning by doing in neoclassical endogenous growth models • Different growth patterns, various growth stages, pre-industrialization growth, smooth take-off, big-push industrialization, mature growth, the growth trap • Implications of compounded effects of learning by doing over time and increasingly specialized learning by doing • Trade-offs between economies of specialized learning by doing, economies of evolution of division of labor, transaction costs, current and future consumption • Effects of transaction conditions on evolution of division of labor • The relationship between evolution of the number of traded goods and evolution of the network size of division of labor • Implicit investment that relates to transaction costs and economies of specialized learning by doing • The difference between investment in neoclassical growth models and that in the Smith–Young growth models • The function of long-run contracts in reducing endogenous transaction costs • Concurrent evolution of division of labor and income share of transaction costs • The difference between growth phenomena and development phenomena • State variable, control variable, and how one can be distinguished from the other • Hamiltonian function, costate variable, and dynamic shadow price • The first-order conditions for the control problem • The difference between dynamic marginal analysis and dynamic inframarginal analysis • The difference between dynamics and comparative dynamics of dynamic equilibrium • Theories of convergence, divergence, and sequential divergence and convergence • The five types of scale effect and why they are rejected by empirical evidence • The function of the market in sorting out the efficient speed of accumulation of human capital, and the efficient patterns of evolution of the network size of division of labor and economic growth
Further Reading Control theory: Seierstad and Sydsater (1987), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995, appendix), Chow (1975); Neoclassical growth models: Barro (1991), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1991, 1992, 1995), Rebelo (1991), Solow (1956); R&D-based models and other endogenous growth models: Judd (1985), Lucas (1988, 1993), Romer (1986, 1987, 1990), Grossman and Helpman (1989, 1990, 1991), Aghion and Howitt (1992), Alwyn Young (1991); Smithian growth models: Borland and Yang (1995), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, chs. 7, 16), Yang and Borland (1991a,b), Wen (1997), Zhang (1997); Structural changes and development economics: Lewis (1955), Fei and Ranis (1964), Stiglitz (1986a), Chenery (1979), Kaldor (1967); Big-push industrialization: Rosenstein-Rodan (1943), Fleming (1954), Nurkse (1953), Scitovsky (1954), Myrdal (1957), Hirschman
446 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS (1958), Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989a), Matsuyama (1991); Growth and endogenous specialization: Smith (1776), Allyn Young (1928), Schultz (1993), Lucas (1993), Rosen (1977, 1983), Tamura (1991, 1992); Surveys of evolutionary economics: Nelson (1995), Kirzner (1997), Conlisk (1996); Learning by doing: Stoky (1991), Alwyn Young (1991, 1993), Arrow (1962); The puzzle of scale effect: Chen, Lin, and Yang (1999), Jones (1995a,b, 1996), Bernard and Jones (1996), Young (1998), Segerstrom (1998); Debate on convergence: Chen, Lin, and Yang (1999), Baumol (1996), Delong (1988), Dowrick and Nguyen (1989), Sala-i-Martin, (1996), Quah (1993, 1996), Galor (1996), Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992).
QUESTIONS 1 Use the Smith–Young model in this chapter to analyze the vicious circle between unemployment and disadvantage in accumulating human capital through learning by doing. Suggest a way in which the market can avoid this vicious circle through a market for loans, and a retraining business which can make money by providing professional learning by doing opportunities for the unemployed, who can borrow money to buy this kind of opportunity. 2 Analyze the equivalence between learning by engaging in many activities over a long time and learning by doing in one activity within a short period of time. If learning by doing through time and social learning by doing through division of labor occur simultaneously, what is its effect on society’s capacity to acquire technical knowledge? What are the growth implications of these two types of learning by doing, compounded by evolution of division of labor? Use the tendency of divergence between professional languages documented in various professional dictionaries to explain how the market uses division of labor to speed up knowledge accumulation. 3 Use phenomena that you can observe from your daily experience to verify evolution of division of labor. You may also find such phenomena discussed by Marshall (1890), Young (1928), Braudel (1979), Chandler (1990), Rostow (1960), North (1981), Mokyr (1990, 1993) and other books on economic history. 4 Apply the model in this chapter to explain why division of labor evolved more quickly in Britain than in Germany in the eighteenth century, and why division of labor evolved more quickly in Japan than in China at the end of the nineteenth and in the twentieth centuries. 5 Explain why the following view might be misleading. Division of labor is determined by the extent of the market, which is the size of the economy. Use the dynamic general equilibrium model in this chapter to formalize Allyn Young’s idea that the extent of the market and the level of division of labor are interdependent from a dynamic general equilibrium viewpoint. They should be simultaneously determined by a dynamic mechanism that can generate spontaneous evolution of division of labor. 6 In the data set from the US in period 1870–1970, North (1986) has found empirical evidence of a positive correlation between evolution of the income share of the transaction sector and economic development. Find other ways to test the theory in this chapter against empirical observations. For instance, you may test concurrent evolution of division of labor, productivity, and the extent of endogenous comparative advantage. 7 Why can’t neoclassical growth models explain evolution of the income share of transaction costs and evolution of individuals’ levels of specialization?
C HAPTER 14: E NDOGENOUS E VOLUTION
OF
D IVISION
OF
L ABOR 447
EXERCISES 1 Prove the Wen theorem in the model in example 14.1 (see Yang and Borland, 1991, for the answer). 2 Since it is difficult to solve the Smith–Young growth models with asymmetry, a better way to extend the Smith–Young growth model in this chapter is to specify a discrete version of that model. Then dynamic programming can be used to solve for the extended asymmetric model. Here is an example (Yang and Borland, 1992). Consider an economy with M ex ante identical consumer-producers. The utility function at t is ut = (xt + kx td)( yt + ky td) − c, where c is a fixed cost for trade caused by the first transactions. c = 0 at t if an individual never trades or if she traded at t − 1. c is positive if she trades for the first time at t. The decision horizon is divided into three periods, so that total discounted utility over the three periods is U = u0 + δu1 + δ2u2, where δ ∈(0, 1) is the discount factor. Each individual’s production function is xt + x ts = (Lxt lxt)a, yt + y ts = (Lyt Lyt)a, where Lit = ∑ τt−=10 liτ is human capital at t and lit is labor input at t. The time endowment constraint for each person is lxt + lyt = 1, where lit ∈ [0, 1]. Enumerate all of each person’s configurations in each period and all configuration sequences over the three periods. Then specify a dynamic programming problem that maximizes a person’s total discounted utility with respect to choice of configuration sequence. Specify the market clearing condition in each period and the utility equalization conditions. Then solve for dynamic general equilibrium and its comparative dynamics. You might consult chapter 15 for the technique for managing dynamic programming problems. 3 Yang and Borland, 1992: Replace the utility function in the preceding exercise with the CES utility function ut = [(xt + kx td)ρ + ( yt + ky td)ρ]1/ρ. Solve for dynamic general equilibrium and its comparative dynamics and analyze the relationship between endogenous evolution of division of labor and emergence of new goods and related technology. Compare the model with neoclassical R&D-based endogenous growth models (studied in chapter 13), and discuss the difference in driving mechanism between the Smith–Young model and neoclassical R&D-based models. 4 Wen, 1997: Assume that in the model in this chapter, the transaction efficiency coefficient is defined by Kt = 1 − [1/(θt mx its + β), where m = M is the number of goods as well as the population size, and θmxits is total sales-tax revenue collected by the government and used to develop transaction infrastructure. β = 1/(1 − K0) is a constant related to the lower bound of transaction efficiency K0 in the absence of expenditure on infrastructure. θ is a tax rate, which is a decision variable of our benevolent government, which maximizes per capita total discounted utility over an infinite horizon. Because of symmetry, the equilibrium prices of all traded goods at each point in time are equal, so that the budget constraint at each point in time is (1 − θt )xits = ∑r∈R xrtd . Work out the conditions for dynamic general equilibrium (analytical expressions for the equilibrium level of division of labor nt cannot be obtained) and then analyze the dynamics and comparative dynamics of general equilibrium. 5 Zhang, 1997: Consider an economy in example 14.1. The government taxes sale of goods. Hence, the budget constraint for each individual selling good i is the same as in the Wen model. But transaction conditions are characterized by K = (k/nt)s b, where s is the tax rate, b > 0 is a parameter. Solve for dynamic general equilibrium
448 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
and analyze the effect of fiscal policy s on evolution of division of labor and economic development. According to Zhang, many macroeconomic models can be worked out to predict the effects of monetary and fiscal policies on aggregate variables which are determined by the network size of division of labor, if the effects of the policies on n via their effects on transaction conditions (K) can be appropriately specified. Try developing some Smith–Young macroeconomic models based on this idea.
Notes 1 This discussion of the market structure is relevant only in those cases in which trade will occur (i.e., obviously in autarky, structure F could not arise). 2 If the returns to specialization, preference, and transaction cost parameters differ across goods, then the equilibrium market structure in the early stages may be A rather than F. The reason is that trading only those goods with a greater degree of increasing returns, lower transaction costs, or more desirability in the early periods is more efficient than trading other goods. However, introducing ex ante differences in these parameters across goods removes the symmetry between decision problems so that the dynamic model becomes intractable. 3 According to Jones (1995a,b) and Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), the Romer model (1987), the Rebelo model (1987, 1991), the Barro model (1991), and the Benhabib and Jovanovic model (1991) can be considered to be the AK model, since their reduced forms are the same as that of the AK model. 4 Judd (1985), Romer (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1990, 1991), and Aghion and Howitt (1992), among others, take this line. 5 The relationship between interpersonal loans and division of labor will be investigated in chapter 16.
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS AND THE EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT
OF
D EVELOPMENT 449
15
15.1 HOW DOES ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED BY SOCIETY DETERMINE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? From what we have learned in the previous chapters, we understand that the level of division of labor determines the speed of accumulation of professional knowledge of production (human capital) and the capacity of society to acquire knowledge, while individuals’ knowledge about the efficient levels of specialization determines which level of division of labor will be chosen by society. But in the Smith–Young framework, each individual must choose one from many corner solutions, and society must choose one from many corner equilibria. Because endogenous variables are not continuous between corner solutions and between corner equilibria, the optimum corner solution can be identified and the economy can settle down in the Pareto optimum corner equilibrium only after completion of a total cost–benefit analysis of all corner solutions in addition to a marginal analysis of each. If it takes time for an individual to calculate a corner solution and for society to sort out the corner equilibrium prices in a structure, and if the calculation and pricing processes cause nontrivial costs, then we may have a very interesting interdependency between individuals’ dynamic decisions and the organizational information that they have acquired. Which configuration an individual chooses is dependent on corner equilibrium prices in the different structures that she knows, since she needs the information about relative prices to calculate real incomes in different structures, to compare them, and then to tell which configuration should be chosen. However, the available information on corner equilibrium-relative prices is in turn determined by which structure and which configurations are chosen by individuals. For instance, if all individuals choose the autarky configuration, then they never know the corner equilibrium-relative prices in other structures involving division of labor, so that they cannot tell whether they should engage in division of labor or which pattern of division of labor they should choose. This interdependency between decision and information is analogous to the interdependence of quantities and prices in a Walrasian general equilibrium model. Hence, our job in this chapter is to investigate the mechanism that simultaneously determines both of them.
450 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
Suppose an individual decides to go to a public place (or the marketplace, as we call it) to meet somebody else, and through bargaining to sort out relative prices under which both parties agree to specialize in different occupations. If no mutually agreeable prices can be worked out, then at least the individual can come back to autarky. But if both parties can find mutually beneficial terms of trade, then both can be better off than in autarky. No matter which case occurs, the individual always has an expected information gain from the pricing process: she receives the autarky pay-off (not worse off than in autarky) with probability ρ, and receives a higher pay-off yielded by mutually beneficial division of labor with probability 1 − ρ. The pricing process, however, incurs bargaining costs between individuals or communication costs between the Walrasian auctioneer and individuals. Hence, there is a trade-off between expected information gains from a social experiment with a particular structure of division of labor and the related pricing process and pricing costs (experimentation costs). The bargaining or Walrasian pricing mechanism becomes a vehicle to organize social experiments with various structures of division of labor. The principal questions that we shall address in this chapter are: how do individuals’ dynamic decisions about the price search process, or about an organizational experiment, affect the evolution of the organizational information that they acquire; and how does this information affect individuals’ dynamic decisions? The interactions between acquisition of organizational information and dynamic decisions in choosing a structure of division of labor are complex, since they involve a process of social experimentation in searching for the efficient network of division of labor. This is much more complex than a single decision-maker’s search process, as studied in Aghion et al. (1991) and Morgan and Manning (1985). One might suggest using the Kreps and Wilson (1982) notion of sequential equilibrium to describe the interactions between dynamic decisions and the evolution of information (see example 9.8 and exercise 4 in chapter 9). But we have two problems in directly applying the notion of sequential equilibrium – the first conceptual and the second technical. The sequential equilibrium (or Bayes perfect equilibrium) model is based on information asymmetry. The focus of the model is on possible devolution of information asymmetry rather than increases in organizational information acquired by all individuals. We must find a way to specify the trade-off between information gains and related costs in connection with possible concurrent evolution in the network of division of labor and in information about the efficient network of division of labor. We need some conceptual innovation here. The unbounded sequential rationality and complete information for one player (despite incomplete information for the other player) in Kreps’ sequential equilibrium model does not work for our purpose. We need the notions of bounded rationality and adaptive behavior to describe the complex interactions between individuals’ dynamic decisions, which affect social experiments, and organizational information, which is acquired by society. Hence, we will develop the concept of Walrasian sequential equilibrium in this chapter. The following two features distinguish our notion of Walrasian sequential equilibrium from Selten and Kreps’ notion of sequential equilibrium. First, in our Walrasian sequential equilibrium model, all individuals have no information at the outset, and the lack of information is symmetric between different individuals, whereas in the Kreps sequential equilibrium model, asymmetric incomplete information between individuals is assumed. Though uncertainty exists in Kreps’ sequential equilibrium model, each decision-maker’s dynamic decision never changes over time for given parameter values, despite the fact that there are different dynamic decisions for different parameter subspaces. Within some of them screening equilibrium occurs and within the other pooling equilibrium occurs. In our Walrasian sequential equilibrium, evolution in organizational information acquired by society generates adaptive decisions, so that each individual’s dynamic programming problem in one period may be different from that in the next period. The whole decision problem,
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 451
rather than merely a strategy, must be adjusted in response to updated information. This makes our Walrasian sequential equilibrium model more sophisticated and more realistic than that of Kreps. The increased sophistication of our approach has its cost. It is prohibitively difficult to simultaneously endogenize direct interactions between individuals’ decisions, evolution in information, and evolution in division of labor. Only very simple sequential equilibrium models in game theory can be solved, and even completely symmetric models of endogenous evolution of division of labor are very difficult to manage. Hence, we ignore the direct interactions between individuals’ decisions in our Walrasian sequential equilibrium model. However, individual decision-makers interact with each other indirectly through the Walrasian pricing mechanism. Our Walrasian sequential equilibrium comprises a sequence of static Walrasian corner equilibria. This enables our models to have high explanatory power while remaining reasonably tractable. The information symmetry in our Walrasian sequential equilibrium model is a setback. This assumption is made to avoid the problem of coordination and mismatch in experiments with various patterns of division of labor, thereby keeping the model tractable at the cost of realism. If information asymmetry is introduced, the coordination problem may generate interesting implications of the role of entrepreneurship in experiments with economic organization (see question 3). A technical advantage of the features of our approach is that all static Smithian models can be dynamized without much additional technical complexity. Also, this approach solves a wellknown recursive paradox associated with the decision problem based on bounded rationality (see Conlisk, 1996, for the notion of recursive paradox and a recent comprehensive survey of the literature of bounded rationality). This paradox implies that a decision or equilibrium model cannot be very closed in the absence of unbounded rationality. We will show that there is a way to satisfactorily close a dynamic decision problem and a dynamic general equilibrium model in the presence of bounded rationality. Our Walrasian sequential equilibrium model also echoes the criticisms of the recent endogenous growth models of Judd (1985), Romer (1990, ch. 13), Grossman and Helpman (1989), and Yang and Borland (1991, ch. 14) which feature, very unrealistically, an infinite decision horizon, complete information, unbounded rationality, and deterministic dynamics. As Nelson (1995) points out, the real economic growth process is an evolutionary process that features uncertainties about the direction of the evolution and with a certain trend of the evolution. The Walrasian sequential equilibrium model in this chapter is characterized by these two features. The first Walrasian sequential equilibrium model was developed by Ng and Yang (1997). Zhao (1999) extends the notion to a case with an endogenous decision horizon and many goods. He has applied the approach to endogenize the concurrent evolution of division of labor and the institution of the firm. Two examples may help to motivate our study of the Walrasian sequential equilibrium model. The founding of the McDonald’s restaurant network can be regarded as an experiment with a pattern of a high level of division of labor between specialized production of management and planning, and specialized production of direct services within the franchise, and between the specialized production of food and specialized production of other goods. Since all variables and demand and supply functions are discontinuous from corner solution to corner solution, marginal analysis based on interior solutions could not provide the founder of this franchise (Ray Kroc) with the information necessary for the right decision. Instead, he decided to use the market to experiment with a new pattern of business organization involving a higher level of division of labor within the franchise and between the franchise and the rest of the economy. Instead of adjusting prices at the margin, he tried a price of restaurant services that was much lower than the prevailing price. According to his calculation, the higher level of division of labor would generate productivity gains (for instance, a high productivity generated
452 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
by a high level of division of labor between the production of standardized cooking equipment and the production of food, and between specialized management and head-office planning and specialized production of restaurant services by franchisees), on the one hand, and more transaction costs on the other. McDonald’s franchise arrangements adopted a form of hostage mechanism, by which the great discretionary power of the franchiser and the intentionally great asset specificity of the franchisees would serve to protect the intangible intellectual property of the franchiser. It was hoped that these arrangements would reduce endogenous transaction costs to the extent that the benefit of the higher level of division of labor would outweigh its cost, so that the substantially lower price of services could stand the test of the social experiment. Though the subsequent success of the McDonald’s chain has clearly substantiated this idea, the founder might have gone into bankruptcy if the social experiment had proved the business to be inefficient compared to the prevailing pattern of organization. But such social experimentation through the price system is necessary for society to acquire information about efficient patterns of division of labor, even if it does generate business failures because of the interdependency between decisions in choosing a pattern of organization and the available information about prices, and because of discontinuity of decision variables between different patterns of division of labor. The second example involves the business practice of large-scale experimentation in the production of a new product. A successful research and development project that invents the new product may not be able to stand the test of large-scale commercialized production. Its ability to do so cannot be ascertained by the production costs of other new products. In order to tell to what degree the new product can generate economies of division of labor for society as a whole, a social experiment must be conducted. Without the experiment, potential buyers do not know the benefit of the product to them in comparison to its price, and the manufacturer does not know to what degree the average cost can be reduced to support a sufficiently low price to keep a reasonable market. Without knowledge of the price of the product, potential buyers cannot make purchase decisions. But if the price is determined simply by the high average cost incurred in the R&D process, nobody will buy the product. Hence, the entrepreneur must make a guess about the possible corner equilibrium price in the new structure of division of labor between the production of the new product and the production of other goods. A promotion campaign might be initiated, and the price set at a level much lower than its current average production cost in the hope that potential buyers will give up the selfprovision of substitutes for the new product and choose the new structure of division of labor. If the corner equilibrium in the new structure of division of labor is Pareto inferior to the prevailing corner equilibrium, then the entrepreneur will go bankrupt. If the new corner equilibrium is Pareto superior to the prevailing one, then she may make a fortune. The stockmarket can then be used to share the risk in social experiments initiated by the entrepreneur. Also, the R&D process must involve experimentation with different structures of division of labor between different specialties in the R&D activities. The success of the invention itself is determined by these organizational experiments. Hence, a business success is more dependent on social experimentation with a new structure of division of labor than on technical conditions. A striking feature of experiments with various structures of division of labor is that mistakes are not only unavoidable but also necessary for distinguishing the efficient structure from inefficient ones. The first textbook welfare theorem regarding the Pareto optimality of market equilibrium is incompatible with the notion of experimenting. An experiment with a Pareto inefficient structure of division of labor is certainly not Pareto optimal. But without experimenting with inefficient as well as efficient structures, society can never know which structure is efficient and which is not – because of the discontinuity of endogenous variables across structures and the interdependence between information and decisions. It follows that because
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 453
of bounded rationality, the Pareto optimum is a utopia and the simple and direct method of pursuing the Pareto optimum is not efficient. A sophisticated pursuit of the Pareto optimum structure of division of labor should encourage experiments with Pareto inefficient as well as efficient structures. The simple and direct pursuit of the Pareto optimum may impede the efficient search, since such a pursuit is like asking a researcher to find the optimum design without experimenting with inefficient patterns. Casual observation suggests that countries with many organizational inventions and innovations usually have relatively higher rates of bankruptcy of firms. This view of bounded rationality helps us not to overestimate businesses that are successful by and large because of luck in their experiments with various structures of division of labor. It also helps us not to underestimate the value of the failed businesses which might be necessary for society to acquire information about the efficient pattern of division of labor. In the model to be considered, there are many ex ante identical consumer-producers with preferences for diverse consumption and production functions displaying economies of specialization. Complicated interactions between economies of specialization and transaction costs in the market generate uncertainties about real income for different patterns of division of labor. Each person’s optimal decision is a corner solution. Combinations of different corner solutions generate many corner equilibria. Individuals may experiment with each possible pattern of division of labor via a Walrasian auction or Nash bargaining mechanism at a point in time, and thereby eliminate uncertainties and acquire information about the efficient pattern of division of labor over time. However, the costs in discovering prices generate a trade-off between information gains and experimentation costs in the information acquisition process. A decentralized market will trade off gains from information acquisition against experimentation costs to determine the equilibrium pattern of experiments with patterns of division of labor over time. In the process, individuals use the Bayes’ rule and dynamic programming to adjust their beliefs and behavior according to updated information. The determinants of the dynamics of the Walrasian sequential equilibrium are the transportation cost coefficient for trading one unit of goods, the degree of economies of specialization, the degree of economies of complementarity between two producer goods in producing the final good, the discount rate, and the pricing cost coefficient. Suppose the transportation cost coefficient and the degrees of economies of specialization and complementarity are fixed. If pricing costs are high, then the market will not experiment with any sophisticated patterns of division of labor. If pricing costs are sufficiently low, all possible patterns of division of labor will be experimented with. In this process, simple patterns of division of labor are experimented with before the more complicated ones, so that a gradual evolution of division of labor may occur. For a fixed pricing cost coefficient, more patterns of division of labor will be experimented with as the transportation cost coefficient decreases and/or as the degree of economies of specialization increases. Section 15.2 specifies a static Smithian equilibrium model. Then in section 15.3, the time dimension and the information problem are introduced into the model. Section 15.4 solves for the Walrasian sequential equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative dynamics.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n
n
Why are social experiments with various structures of division of labor a driving force of economic development in the presence of interdependency between organizational information acquired by society and individuals’ decisions in choosing occupation configurations? How does the price system coordinate social experiments with various structures of division of labor to facilitate the acquisition of organizational information?
454 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS n n n n
What is the difference between social experiments with various structures of division of labor and a decision-maker’s search process for the efficient decision? How does the trade-off between the information gains of social experiments and their costs determine the pattern of evolution of division of labor? Why is an adaptive decision rule more efficient than a deterministic decision rule when individuals are short of information and have bounded rationality? How is the capacity of society to acquire information about production technology and to achieve high productivity determined by its capacity to acquire organizational information?
15.2 A STATIC MODEL WITH A ROUNDABOUT PRODUCTION CHAIN OF ENDOGENOUS LENGTH AND AN ENDOGENOUS DIVISION OF LABOR Example 15.1: A static Smithian model with endogenous production roundaboutness. In this section, we consider a model where each consumer-producer has the following utility and production functions and endowment constraint: u = y + kyd
(utility function) α y
α y
y ≡ y + y = Max{l , l (x + kx ) } p
s
x ≡x+x =l p
s
β x
lx + ly = L, li ∈ [0, L]
d 0.5
(production function of final good) (production function of intermediate good) (endowment constraint of working time)
where y and x are respectively the amounts of the final good (called food) and the intermediate good (called a hoe) that are self-provided, y s and x s are the amounts of the two goods sold, yd and x d are the amounts of the two goods purchased, y p and x p are the output levels of the two goods, k is the transaction efficiency of goods, and li is the individual’s level of specialization in producing good i. Food can be produced either from labor or from labor and hoes. Each individual is endowed with L units of working time. α is the degree of economies of specialization in producing food. When only labor is employed to produce food, there exist economies of specialization in producing food if α > 1; when both labor and hoes are employed in producing food, there are economies of specialization if α > 1/2. The total factor input for the latter case is TF ≡ X 0.5/(0.5+α)l yα/(0.5+α) where X ≡ x + kxd. The total factor productivity is TFP ≡ y p/TF = X 0.5/(α−0.5)/(α+0.5)l yα(α−0.5)/(α+0.5), which increases as the level of specialization in producing y, ly, rises if α > 1/2. The production function of hoes displays economies of specialization if β > 1. The system of production functions displays economies of division of labor if there are economies of specialization in producing both goods. If the production function of a good displays economies of specialization and the other displays diseconomies of specialization, the economies of division of labor exist when the economies of specialization dominate the diseconomies of specialization. Applying inframarginal analysis, we can solve for the corner equilibria in three structures. The first autarky structure A is shown in figure 15.1(a), where each individual self-provides food in the absence of hoes. The second autarky structure B is shown in figure 15.1(b), where each individual self-provides both hoes and food. The structure with division of labor, C, is shown in figure 15.1(c), where some individuals choose specialization in producing hoes, or configuration (x/y), and other individuals choose specialization in producing food, or configuration (y/x). All information about corner solutions in the four configurations and the corner equilibria in the three structures is summarized in table 15.1.
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
K NOWLEDGE
AND
x
xs
OF
D EVELOPMENT 455
xd y
x A
B
x/y y
(a) Structure A
y/x
yd
(b) Structure B
ys (c) Structure C
Figure 15.1 Configurations and structures in the static model
Table 15.1 Three corner equilibria Configuration and structure
Corner solutions and corner equilibria
A
lx = 0, ly = L, y = Lα, u = Lα
B
lx =
(x/y)
l x = L, l y = 0, x s = Lβ , y d =
(y/x)
l x = 0, l y = L, y s =
C
py = 2L0.5β − α, M y = px
αL 0.5βL , ly = , x = l βx , y = x 0.5l yα , u = y 0.5β + α 0.5β + α px Lβ kp Lβ , u= x py py
kp L2α kpy L2 α d py y s ,x = , y= y , u= y px 4 px 4 px
M 2
⎛p ⎞ 1 + 0.25k ⎜ y ⎟ L2α − β ⎝ px ⎠
, Mx = M − M y , u = 0.5kL0.5β + α
Table 15.2 Static general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics Parameter
L < L0
L > L0
Subspace
k < k0
k > k0
k < k1
k > k1
Equilibrium Structure
A
C
B
C
Comparisons of per capita real incomes in all structures, and application of the Yao theorem, yield the general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics, summarized in table 15.2, where L0 ≡ (1 + 2α/β)(1 + β/2α)2α/β, k0 ≡ 2L−β/α, k1 ≡ 2αα(0.5β)0.5β(0.5β + α)−0.5β−α. Since dL 0/d(α/β) > 0 and L < L 0 imply that the relative degree of economies of specialization of food to hoes, α/β, is sufficiently large, while L > L0 implies that economies of specialization in producing food is not that significant in comparison to that in producing hoes (α/β is small), the results in table 15.2 imply that if economies of specialization in producing food are sufficiently more significant than in producing hoes, then individuals use labor alone to produce food, and hoes are not produced in autarky. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium jumps from autarky to the division of labor and a new intermediate good emerges from the exogenous evolution in division of labor. If economies of specialization in producing hoes are significant compared to food production, then the evolution in division of labor is not associated with evolution in the length of the roundabout production chain and the emergence of new producer goods.
456 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
15.3 INTERACTIONS BETWEEN DYNAMIC DECISIONS AND EVOLUTION IN ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Example 15.2: A Walrasian sequential equilibrium model. We now introduce the time dimension and the information problem into the static model. But we assume that there is no real dynamic learning by doing, nor uncertainty in production and consumption. This assumption is not highly realistic, but is essential for keeping the model tractable. The time dimension and information problem affect only what individuals know about corner solutions and corner equilibrium prices in different structures. There are 4 periods, t = 0, 1, 2, 3. In period 0, all individuals are in structure A and each of them knows her real income uA = Lα (see table 15.1). She does not know per capita real incomes in structures B and C. If she wants to know real income in structure B, she must spend the time necessary to calculate the optimum decision in that structure and the real income yielded by the decision. This computation process not only needs time, but also causes disutility. Suppose the fraction 1 − sB of expected utility disappears due to the computation cost. Then only the fraction sB of expected utility can be received if the individual carries out the computation. If she wants to know per capita real income in structure C, she must pay two kinds of experimentation costs. First, she must bargain with another person to sort out the terms of trade required by the division of labor, or alternatively sort out the price through a Walrasian auction mechanism. Though the Nash bargaining and Walrasian mechanisms will generate the same terms of trade, either will incur a pricing cost. Second, she must compute corner solutions of the two configurations in order to make a decision in choosing a profession. This computation causes disutility. If an individual wants to try a structure, she can always propose a relative price to attract others to get involved in bargaining. But bilateral bargaining is not sufficient to sort out the corner equilibrium numbers of different specialists. The corner equilibrium numbers, which relate to the corner equilibrium-relative price, can be sorted out only if all individuals participate in the experiment with structure C. We shall show that all individuals’ decisions about the experimentation pattern are consistent. Otherwise, coordination difficulty may occur. Suppose the three types of experimentation costs for structure C are summarized by the experimentation efficiency coefficient sC , which is smaller than sB due to pricing and more computation in C than in B. It is assumed that each individual’s subjective discount factor is δ ∈ (0, 1). We now consider each individual’s information at t = 0 and the relationship between the available information and her decision about experimenting with configurations in B and C. In period 0, each individual does not know real incomes in structures B and C, nor the probability distribution function of those real incomes. But she knows there are 6 possible ranking orders of 3 per capita real income levels in the 3 structures. Let the order of letters A, B, C represent the ranking of per capita real incomes in structures A, B, C. The 6 possible rankings are: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA, where, for instance, ABC denotes that the per capita real income in structure A is greater than that in B, which is greater than in structure C, and BAC denotes that per capita real income in B is greater than that in A, which is greater than in C. We assume that each individual has no information about per capita real incomes in structures B and C in period 0. This implies that each of the 6 rankings occurs with probability 1/6 . Also, we assume that each individual knows the difference between two consecutive levels of per capita real incomes, which is an exogenously given parameter b0 in period 0. She can update her information about b according to a Bayes updating rule and observed differences between per capita real incomes in different structures, as shown later on. It is not difficult to show that the expected per capita real income in structure B or C based on the information in period 0 is uA. That is, each individual knows only the real income in structure A, uA. We call this structure of information at period 0 lack of information, which is different from incomplete information.
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 457
If an individual experiments with configuration B in period 1, then her expected utility in period 1, computed in period 0, is E0[u1(B)] = sB[0.5uA + 1/3(uA + b0) + 1/6 (uA + 2b0)] = sB δ (uA + 2b0/3).
(15.1)
The expected utility can be worked out as follows. According to what an individual knows in period 0, the probability that uA > uB is 0.5, since ABC, ACB, CAB account for half of the 6 rankings. If any of the 3 rankings proves correct, the individual will return to structure A after the experiment with structure B. Hence, based on what she knows in period 0, she expects to receive real income uA with probability 0.5 after the experiment with B. Since BAC and CBA account for 1/3 of the 6 rankings and uB = uA + b0 occurs for the 2 rankings, in period 0 the individual expects to receive uA + b0 with probability 1/3 after the experiment with B in period 1. Finally, ranking BCA, which implies uB = uA + 2b0 , occurs with probability 1/6 . The individual expects to receive uB = uA + 2b0 with probability 1/6 after the experiment with B. This, together with the consideration of the experiment efficiency coefficient sB , implies that in period 0, the individual’s expected utility for the experiment with configuration B in period 1 is (15.1). Following this procedure, we can compute the expected utility in period 0 for the experiment with structure j in period t, E0[ut( j)]. Assume that each individual’s decision horizon is of 2 periods. Then an individual’s dynamic programming problem in period 0 can be described by figure 15.1, where individuals are in structure A in period 0. In period 1, each individual can choose any among 4 configurations: A, B, (x/y), (y/x). Since the dynamic programming process depends only on information that a person has in period 0, the discount factor, experiment efficiency si, and b0, and they are the same for every individual, all other individuals will choose either (x/y) or (y/x) if one chooses to experiment with (x/y) or (y/x) in period 1. Free choice between occupation configurations and the Walrasian pricing mechanism (or Nash bargaining) will coordinate the division of M individuals between configurations (x/y) and (y/x) as soon as one of them is chosen by somebody. This implies that structure C will be experimented with if an individual chooses to experiment with either configuration (x/y) or (y/x) in period 1. Therefore, as shown in figure 15.2, there are 3 nodes, A, B, C, in period 1. We assume that in each period, each individual has perfect recall of the past history of the economy. This, together with the path dependence of the dynamic equilibrium, implies that there are more nodes in period 2 than in period 1. Nodes A, B, C in period 2 are the same as in
A
r 2u A
A
ru srv
B
srv
2
sr 2v 2 sr w
sr v sr 2w
B
C 2
rv
C
BO
r 2v CO Period 0
Period 1 u ≡ uA, v ≡ uA + 2b/3, w ≡ uA + b
Figure 15.2 An individual’s dynamic programming problem in period 0
Period 2
458 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
period 1. Node BO implies staying with the better of A and B with no new experiment in period 2 after the experiment with B in period 1. Node CO implies staying with the better of A and C with no new experiment in period 2 after the experiment with C in period 1. Each individual’s dynamic decision in period 0 about the optimum pattern of experimental sequence in periods 1 and 2 is to maximize the following expected total discounted utility over periods 1 and 2. 2
Max:
∑ δ E [u (i)] t
0
(15.2)
t
t=1
where nodes that can be chosen in period 1 are i(1) = A, B, C and in period 2 are i(2) = A, B, C, BO, CO. Following the method used to establish (15.1), we can prove that E0[ut(A)] = uA,
E0[u1(B)] = sB(uA + 2b0/3),
E0[u1(C)] = sC (uA + 2b0/3);
If A is chosen in period 1, then E0[u2(B)] = sB(uA + 2b0/3),
E0[u2(C)] = sC (uA + 2b0/3);
If B is experimented with in period 1, then E0[u2(C)] = sC (uA + b0); If C is experimented with in period 1, then E0[u2(B)] = sB (uA + b0) and E 0[u2(BO)] = E0[u2(CO)] = uA + 2b0/3. The essence of the dynamic programming problem is the trade-off between information gains from the experiments and the experimentation costs. If each individual has an experiment with one configuration, the expected utility will increase from uA to uA + 2b0/3. If she has two experiments with 2 configurations in different structures, the expected utility uA + b0 is even higher. This is because she can always go back to the best configuration if the one experimented with is not as good as that arising from any previous experiment. The worst situation is at least as good as before. But the probability of a higher utility is nontrivial. This is the information gain from experimentation. However, there is an experimentation cost. The fraction 1 − s of the expected utility, which includes information gains, disappears because of the experimentation cost. This cost is oneoff, but the associated information gains are perpetual. If an individual has experimented with configuration B in period 1, she pays the calculation cost in period 1 and enjoys the information gains forever, with no further experimentation cost after period 1. Hence, the trade-off between the information gains and the experimentation cost (or investment in information) is analogous to the trade-off between current consumption and future consumption that can be raised by investment in the conventional growth model. But the investment in our model is in organizational information acquired by society rather than in production, information (R&D), education, or physical capital. We call a pattern of structures that are experimented with over successive periods an experimental sequence, or sequence for short. From (15.2), we can see that the expected total discounted utility, in terms of the present value in period 1, generated by sequence CB is U(CB) = sC (uA + 2b0 /3) + sB δ(uA + b0). It is always smaller than the expected total discounted utility, in terms of the present value in period 1, generated by sequence BC, which is U(BC) = sB(uA + 2b0 /3) + sC δ(uA + b0). To see this, we first note that if the experimentation cost is ignored, the two expected utility levels are the same due to the lack of information in period 0. However, if account is taken of
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 459
Table 15.3 Optimum dynamic decisions in period 0 Value of s
sB < sB0
sB > sB0, sC < sC0
sC > s C0
Structure sequence
AA
BO
BC
the facts that the experimentation cost is higher for C than for B because of a higher pricing cost in C, and that time has value, that is, δ ∈ (0, 1), then it is better for individuals to try structure B with a lower experimentation cost first if they have no information about which of B and C generates the higher per capita real income. Similarly, we can show that sequence CO is not as good as BO. Hence, we can narrow down the set of candidates for the optimum sequence, which now comprises the 4 sequences AA, AB, BO, BC. Comparisons of expected total discounted utility levels in the 4 sequences yield the analytical solution of the dynamic programming problem, summarized in table 15.3, where
sB0 ≡
Lα − 2b0 δ/3 , Lα + 2b0 /3
sC0 ≡
Lα + b0 . Lα + 2b0 /3
The dynamic optimum decision and its comparative dynamics imply that if the experimentation efficiency for structure B is too low, individuals will always stay in autarky with no experimentation. If the experimentation efficiency is increased to the critical value sB0 , but the experimentation efficiency for structure C is not high, then structure B will be experimented with in period 1 and no further experiment will take place in period 2, that is, sequence BO is chosen. If the experiment efficiency for structure C is increased to reach the critical value s C0 , the optimum sequence is BC, which experiments with B in period 1 and with C in period 2. Since the dynamic optimum decision depends only on information in period 0, on real income in structure A, uA, and on b0, s, δ, which are the same for all individuals, the dynamic optimum decision is the same for all individuals, so that there is no coordination difficulty. As demonstrated in Ng and Yang (1997) and in Zhao (1999), the analytical solution of such a dynamic programming problem will become very complicated as the numbers of structures and decision horizons increase. Zhao (1999) has worked out the analytical solution of such a dynamic programming problem with any limited decision horizon and with 4 structures. To our knowledge, the analytical solution of a dynamic programming problem with more than 4 structures to experiment with and with a decision horizon of more than 4 periods is too complicated to be tractable.
15.4 WALRASIAN SEQUENTIAL EQUILIBRIUM AND CONCURRENT EVOLUTION IN ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION AND DIVISION OF LABOR We now consider information updating in period 1 and interactions between information and adjustment of dynamic decisions. If individuals try structure B in period 1, then their information will be changed by such experimentation after they have seen per capita real income in B. Hence, their optimum dynamic decision in period 0 is out of date. They must adjust their dynamic decisions about further experiments according to the updated information. We assume that the decision horizon for the new dynamic programming problem based on updated information in period 1 is also divided into two periods. In each period in which a new structure is experimented with, the new dynamic programming problem for further experiments in the next two periods is different from the one in the last period. The recursively adjusted dynamic
460 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
decision according to updated information is referred to as an adaptive decision, which distinguishes our notion of Walrasian sequential equilibrium from Kreps’ concept of sequential equilibrium in game theory. Suppose sB < sB0. Then individuals will not try structures B and C. Their updated information in period 1 is the same as in period 0. Hence, their adjusted new dynamic programming problem in period 1 is the same as that in period 0, so that the optimum decision is to stay in autarky with no further experimentation. The recursive deduction shows that the sequential Walrasian equilibrium is a sequence of structure A over all periods. Suppose sB > sB0. Then individuals will try structure B in period 1. Then there are two possible cases. If L < L0, individuals will find in period 1 that A is better than B, as shown in table 15.1. Hence, they will go back to A at the end of period 1. If L > L0, they will find in period 1 that B is better than A and choose B at the end of period 1. No matter which case takes place, the experiment changes the information that an individual knows in period 1, so that her dynamic optimum decision in period 0 is out of date. She must reformulate a new dynamic programming problem for further experiments in periods 2 and 3. Let us see what information an individual knows after she has tried B in period 1. Suppose L < L0, so that A is better than B, which implies that BAC, BCA, and CBA are impossible. The set of possible rankings now comprises ABC, ACB, CAB. A is better than C with probability 2 /3 and uC = uA + b1 with probability 1/3. This method of updating information according to new observations is referred to as the Bayes updating rule. Here, b1 also needs to be updated according to any observed difference between uA and uB. We assume that before individuals have observed two differences in per capita real incomes between structures, they believe that b is the same between each consecutive pair of real income levels. After they have tried B in period 1, they have seen uA − uB ≡ θ. If θ is positive, individuals know that only rankings ABC, ACB, CAB are possible. With probability 1/3, ACB or uA − uB = 2b occurs. That is, θ = 2b with probability 1/3. Also, θ = b, or either of ABC and CAB occurs, with probability 2/3. Hence, the expected value of θ is Eθ = 1/3 2b1 + 2/3 b1 = 4/3 b1. This implies that according to the Bayes updating rule the estimate of b1 from observed θ is b1 = 3θ/4 = 3(uA − uB)/4, where the values of uA and uB can be found in table 15.1. If the individual chooses structure sequence AA, that is to stay in A without experiment with C in periods 2 and 3, her expected total discounted utility in periods 2 and 3 is U(AA) = uA (1 + δ). According to her updated information in period 1, only ranking CAB among ABC, ACB, CAB entails a higher utility in C than in A. Hence, if she tries C in period 3, she expects to obtain uA + b1 with probability 1/3 and uA with probability 2 /3. Therefore, if she chooses structure sequence AC, that is, to stay in A in period 2 and to try a configuration in C in period 3, her expected total discounted utility over the two periods is U(AC) = uA + δsC [(uA + b1)/3 + 2uA/3] = uA + δsC (uA + b1/3). Now let us consider sequence CO in periods 2 and 3, which implies trying C in period 2 and staying with the better of A and C in period 3. Remember that we are concerned with an individual’s decision in period 1 after she has tried B and knows A is better than B. Using the Bayes updating rule, we can find that the expected total discounted utility generated by sequence CO over periods 2 and 3 is U(CO) = (uA + b1/3)(sC + δ). Comparisons between U(AA), U(AC), U(CO) yield U(AC) > U(AA) iff sC > sC3 ≡ b1uA/(uA + b1/3)
and
U(CO) > U(AC) iff sC > s ≡ [uA/(1 − δ)(uA + b1/3)] − [δ/(1 − δ)]. 4 C
(15.3)
It can be shown that sC3 > s C4 . This implies that AC is worse than AA if s < s C4 < sC3 and AC is worse than CO if s > s C4 . In other words, AC, which delays experimentation with C by one period, cannot be chosen, since it is better to try C earlier if a person wants to try it due to the
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 461
Table 15.4 Adjusted optimum dynamic decisions in period 1 L < L0
A is chosen at t = 1
L > L0
B is chosen at t = 1
s < sB1
s > s B1
s < sC2
s > sC2
AA
CO
BB
CO
perpetual value of information and the value of time. Otherwise, no experiment with C is better than the delayed experiment with it. This result is dependent on the assumption about the absence of dynamic learning by doing. If the dynamic learning by doing in chapter 14 is introduced, the result may be changed. We now need to consider only sequence AA and CO. A comparison between U(AA) and U(CO) yields U(CO) > U(AA) iff sC > sC1 ≡ [(uA + 1 − δ)/(uA + b1/3)] − δ.
(15.4)
We have now finished the analysis for the case that sB > sB1 and L < L0. For this case, individuals will try structure B in period 1 and know that A is better than B at the end of period 1. Based on the new information, her adjusted new dynamic decision tells her that she should try C in period 2 if sC > sC1 . Otherwise, she should stay in autarky forever. Let us now consider the case in which sB > s B1 and L > L 0. For this case, individuals try structure B and know B is better than A by the end of period 1. Following the same procedure, we can show that, based on the updated information, individuals will find out by the end of period 1 that U(CO) > U(BB) iff sC > sC2 ≡ [(uB + 1 + δ)/(uB + b1/3)] − δ,
(15.5)
where b1 can be estimated according to the Bayes updating rule in the same way as before. All of the dynamic optimum decisions about further experiments over periods 2 and 3, made in period 1 according to updated information, are summarized in table 15.4, where AA denotes that an individual stays in A with no experimenting over periods 2 and 3. For L < L 0, CO denotes that an individual tries C in period 2, chooses the better of A and C at the end of period 2, and stays with it in period 3; For L > L 0, CO denotes that an individual tries C in period 2, chooses the better of B and C at the end of period 2, and stays with it in period 3; BB denotes that an individual stays in B with no experimentation over periods 2 and 3. Let us now consider dynamic general equilibrium in the marketplace, which is the consequence of interactions between all individuals’ dynamic optimum decisions and between the dynamic decisions and information that individuals know. One of the differences between the Walrasian sequential equilibrium and Kreps’ sequential equilibrium is that in the former, individuals indirectly interact with each other through the Walrasian pricing mechanism. Also, the adaptive decision rule and the initial lack of information of all individuals in the former differ from the deterministic decision rule and the asymmetric and incomplete information in the latter. Walrasian sequential equilibrium is a sequence of sets of relative prices of traded goods, a sequence of numbers of individuals choosing various configurations, an evolutionary path of information that each individual knows, and all individuals’ dynamic optimum decisions in choosing quantities of goods produced, traded, and consumed, and in choosing the experiment sequence of configurations and the configuration sequences that are chosen after experiments in each period. We call the combination of individuals’ dynamic decisions, time
462 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
paths of prices, numbers of different specialists, and information a dynamic organism. The Walrasian sequential equilibrium is a dynamic organism that satisfies the following three conditions. i) In each period, each individual’s dynamic optimum decision in choosing an experimental sequence of configurations in the future two periods maximizes her expected total discounted utility over the two periods for given information that she knows in this period. Her choice of configuration after experimenting in each period is optimal for the given updated information generated by the experiments up to this period. Her decision in allocating resources in a given structure realized in a period maximizes her utility in this period for given corner equilibriumrelative prices of traded goods and for given numbers of individuals choosing different configurations in this period. ii) Information is updated according to Bayes’ rule and observed prices and numbers of different specialists on the basis of perfect recall of the past. iii) The corner equilibrium-relative price of traded goods and numbers of individuals choosing different configurations in the structure that is experimented with or is ultimately chosen in a period equalize all individuals’ utility and clear the markets for traded goods in this period. Putting together information about static equilibrium in table 15.1 and information about dynamic decisions in periods 0 and 1 in tables 15.2 and 15.3, we can solve for the Walrasian sequential equilibrium, as summarized in figure 15.3, where b0 is a given parameter, sB0 ≡
Lα − 2b0 δ/3 , Lα + 2b/3
L0 ≡ [1 + (2α/β)][1 + (β/2α)]2α/β,
sC2 ≡
uB + 1 + δ − δ, uB + b1/3
sC2 ≡
3 b1 ≡ |uA − uB|, 4
k1 ≡ 2αα(0.5β)0.5β(0.5β + α)−0.5β−α,
sC0 ≡
Lα + b0 , Lα + 2b0 /3
uA + 1 + δ − δ, uA + b1/3 k0 ≡
2 Lβ/α
uA = Lα
uB = (0.5β)0.5βαα[L/(0.5β + α)]0.5β+α.
A
A
A
L < L0 sB > s B0 (B) L > L0
B
k > k0 sC > s C1
Period 0
Period 1
C
C
B
B
(C) k > k1
sC > s C2 (C) sC < s
A
k < k0
sC < s C1
sB < s B0
A
2 C
Period 2
k < k1
Period 3
Figure 15.3 Walrasian sequential equilibrium: interactions between evolution in division of labor and evolution of organizational information
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 463
In figure 15.3, the capitalized letters in brackets denote the structures that are experimented with, and the capitalized letters without brackets denote the structures that are finally chosen. Let us interpret figure 15.3. Start from structure A in period 0. If sB < sB0, then individuals stay in A forever. No additional information becomes available from which they can learn, so that posterior information is the same as the prior information, that is, they have no organizational information at all. If sB > s B0 , individuals try structure B in period 1, denoted by (B) at the lower node in period 1. This can be verified by the dynamic decision as shown in table 15.3. After the experiment with B, if L < L0, individuals will go back to structure A, denoted by the node A in the middle, at the end of period 1 since tables 15.1 and 15.2 indicate that utility in A is greater than in B if L < L0. If L > L0, individuals will stay with B, denoted by the lower node B, at the end of period 1. Suppose L < L0, so that individuals have chosen A at the end of period 1. From their dynamic optimum decisions made in period 1 about structure sequence over the future two periods 2 and 3 given in table 15.4, we can see that if sC < sC1 , they will stay in A forever. Individuals have learned some organizational information. They know now which is the better of A and B, but do not know which is the better of A and C or of B and C. If sC > sC1 , each individual will try a configuration in structure C in period 2. Since all individuals’ dynamic decisions are the same, structure C will be tried out in period 2. At the end of period 2, individuals will go back to A if k < k0, since table 15.2 indicates that A is better than C for k < k0 and L < L0. Note that the middle node A at the end of period 1 can be reached only if L < L0. If k > k0, then the static corner equilibrium in structure C, given in table 15.1, is realized at the end of period 2. No matter which of A and C is chosen at the end of period 2, individuals have acquired all the organizational information after they have tried B and C. Now we come back to the lower node B at the end of period 1, which will be reached if sB > sB0 and L > L 0. Suppose sC < sC2 . From table 15.4, we can see that individuals’ dynamic decisions at the end of period 1 are to stay in B in period 2 with no further experiments forever. This implies that individuals have learned part of the relevant organizational information. If sC > s C2 , then individuals will try structure C in period 2 and learn all the organizational information. But for k < k1, individuals will go back to structure B at the end of period 2, since table 15.2 indicates that B is better than C for k < k1 and L > L0. Note again that the experiment with C can take place in period 2 only if L > L0. For k > k1 and L > L0, individuals will stay with C at the end of period 2 and afterward. So far, we have partitioned the parameter space into several subspaces. Within each of them, the dynamic general equilibrium is determined by a particular sequence of structures that have been experimented with, a particular sequence of structures that have been finally chosen, and a particular evolutionary path of information. The inframarginal comparative dynamics of the Walrasian sequential equilibrium are summarized in table 15.5. For instance, for sB > sB0 , sC > sC2 , L > L0, and k > k1, the equilibrium sequence of structures that have been experimented with over periods 0, 1, 2 is ABC, and the equilibrium sequence of structures that have been finally chosen is also ABC. Partial organizational information is acquired at the end of period 1 and all the organizational information is acquired by society at the end of period 2. For sB > sB0 , sC > sC1 , L < L0, and k < k0, the equilibrium sequence of structures that have been experimented with over periods 0, 1, 2 is ABC, while the equilibrium sequence of structures that have finally been chosen is AAA. Partial organizational information is acquired at the end of period 1 and all organizational information is acquired by society at the end of period 2. For sB > sB0 , sC < sC2 , and L > L0, the equilibrium sequence of structures that have been experimented with is ABB, and the equilibrium sequence of structures that have finally been chosen is also ABB. Partial organizational information is acquired by society. The sequential equilibrium organizational information stops evolving at the end of period 2, either because the maximum available amount has already been acquired by society, or because the efficient trade-off
464 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS Table 15.5
Inframarginal comparative dynamics of Walrasian sequential equilibrium
Parameter subspace
sB < sB0
sB > sB0 L < L0 sC < sC1
L > L0 sC > sC1
sC < s C2
k < k0
k > k0
sC > s C2 k < k1
k > k1
Structure sequence tried
AAA
ABA
ABC
ABC
ABB
ABC
ABC
Structure series chosen
AAA
AAA
AAA
AAC
ABB
ABB
ABC
between information gains and its cost, based on updated information, signals that the information acquisition process should stop. Hence, the chosen structure in period 3 and afterward is always the same as in period 2. But if there are many goods and many structures to try, then the concurrent evolution of division of labor and organizational information can occur over many periods. Since a Walrasian sequential equilibrium is partly determined by a sequence of static corner equilibria, the time paths of individuals’ resource allocation decisions, equilibrium-relative prices, and numbers of individuals choosing different configurations can be found by putting table 15.1 and figure 15.3 together, to create table 15.5. For instance, for sB > sB0 , sC > sC2 , L > L0, and k > k1, the corner equilibrium in structure B is tried out and is chosen in period 1; the corner equilibrium-relative prices, numbers of different specialists, and demand and supply in C, given in table 15.1, are tried out and are chosen in period 2. For sB > sB0 , sC > sC1 , L < L0, and k < k0, the corner equilibrium in B is tried out in period 1, but the chosen resource allocation in period 1 is the optimum decision in A; the corner equilibrium-relative price, number of different specialists, and resource allocation in structure C are tried out in period 2, but the chosen resource allocation in period 2 and afterward is the optimum decision in structure A. As we promised, the Walrasian sequential equilibrium involves some uncertainty about the evolution of the economic organism; nevertheless, that evolution displays an identifiable trend. In period 0, nobody knows where the evolution of the economy will head. All evolutionary paths in figure 15.3 are possible. This evolutionary uncertainty will gradually be resolved as individuals and society gradually acquire organizational knowledge. But the resulting evolution has a recognizable trend: it involves a progression from a simple organism to an increasingly complex one. Although absence of evolution is a possibility, devolution never takes place. The evolution in organizational information acquired by society is irreversible too. The intuition for this feature is that since there is no general definite relationship between the complexity of organisms and their efficiency, and since the experimentation cost is lower for the simple than for the complex organisms, when society is short of organizational information it always tries a simple organism before more complex ones. Interactions between individuals’ dynamic decisions and acquired organizational information are similar to, though distinct from, the sequential equilibrium in game theory. Individiduals’ dynamic decisions concerning the sequence of configurations that are experimented with, and the sequence of configurations that are finally chosen, together determine the time path of organizational information that they can know, while the evolution of organizational information itself determines the adjustment of dynamic decisions. However, each individual does not have perfect sequential rationality. She must use an adaptive decision rule to adjust her dynamic decision as she gradually learns organizational information. This is different from Kreps’
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 465
sequential equilibrium model where for each subspace of parameters, a player’s dynamic decision rule is deterministic and never changes, though the decision itself is contingent upon updated information. Hence, each player has only one dynamic programming problem that is not adjusted over time. But in our model, each individual’s dynamic programming problem in each period may be different from the one in the next period. Though there is no information asymmetry in our model, the social learning process may be more sophisticated than in Kreps’ sequential equilibrium. In our model, each individual does not know others’ utility and production functions and endowment constraints and even does not know the distribution functions of states of the physical conditions that others privately know. Hence, this situation can be regarded as absolute information asymmetry, which is a feature of the Walrasian equilibrium model. The social learning process in our model does not involve the transmission of such private information between individuals and accordingly does not reduce the absolute information asymmetry, though individuals acquire organizational information through the price system in this process. All individuals simultaneously acquire organizational information at the same rate. Comparing figure 15.1 and figure 15.3, we can see that if experimental efficiency s is sufficiently high, then the organizational information acquired by society will spontaneously evolve over time. If transaction efficiency k is sufficiently high too, the evolution of organizational information is associated with evolution also in division of labor and in the length of the roundabout production chain, and with the emergence of new machines and related new technology. The essential message from the model is that organizational information acquired by society determines the network size and pattern of division of labor, which determine the capacity of society to acquire technical knowledge, which in turn determines productivity and technology progress. Institutional arrangements affect the efficiency of society in using the pricing mechanism to experiment with structures of division of labor and to acquire organizational information. Our model shows that free pricing and the market mechanism cannot guarantee that all individuals will obtain all organizational information unless all possible structures of division of labor have been experimented with. The free pricing/market system is a vehicle for society to organize and coordinate social experiments with various structures of division of labor in order to acquire organizational information. Our model can be used to show that the application of the notion of Pareto optimality to economic analysis that involves bounded rationality is much more sophisticated than in neoclassical economics. In our Walrasian sequential equilibrium model, it is a matter of luck to have Pareto optimum sequential equilibrium. Moreover, the Pareto optimum sequential equilibrium is almost meaningless to human society. From table 15.2 and figure 15.3, we can see that structure A is Pareto optimal if k < k0 and L < L0, while the sequential equilibrium achieves the Pareto optimum if sB < sB0 . This implies that for a sufficiently low transaction efficiency and degree of economies of roundabout production, structure A over all periods is Pareto optimal. If experimentation efficiency happens to be low too, then no experiments will take place, so that the Pareto optimum will be achieved. If sB > sB0 , unnecessary experimentation cost will be incurred, despite the fact that organizational information is acquired. If sB > sB0 , sC > sC2 , k > k1, and L > L0, then the corner equilibrium in structure C is Pareto optimal and the sequential equilibrium will eventually settle down in the corner equilibrium. However, the sequential equilibrium is not Pareto optimal, since society can learn the organizational information about the Pareto optimum pattern of division of labor only if it has experimented with all corner equilibria, including Pareto inefficient ones. In this sense, the nontrivial Pareto optimum Walrasian sequential equilibrium is a utopia. The simple way of pursuing it, recommended in textbooks, is dangerous since it may discourage experiments with Pareto inefficient patterns of division of labor, which are essential for acquiring information about the Pareto optimum pattern of division of labor. We could call this the dilemma of Pareto optimality.
466 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
The model can provide three insights into economic development. First, it explains why those economies with laissez-faire policy regimes, such as Hong Kong in recent decades and Britain in the nineteenth century, are more successful in economic development than those with a lot of government intervention, such as China in the seventeenth century, which discouraged commerce and the industrial manufacturing sector, and the Soviet Union, which took industrial planning under the complete control of the government. If a government believes that it knows what the efficient industrial structure is, and actively pursues industrial policies to achieve this, then such a naive idea will slow down, and perhaps destroy, the search process for an efficient industrial structure which would otherwise be initiated by spontaneous entrepreneurial activities. The failures during the 1960s and 1970s of many policies recommended by development economists provide evidence for the implications of our model. China and India used protective tariffs, import substitution, state enterprises, various industrial policies, and central planning to pursue industrialization during the 1950s to 1970s. But their development performance during this period was very disappointing. The Hong Kong government promoted quite a classical laissez-faire regime with free duty (except for cigarettes and liquor), trivial tariffs (just enough to cover the customs administration cost), and a free private enterprise system. But it was the invisible hand in Hong Kong that created the successful labor-intensive and export-oriented industrialization pattern, which the old industrialized economies had not experienced and which was later copied by Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and finally by mainland China and India. Why is such a successful development pattern always created by the invisible hand rather than by a government with an interventionist policy regime? The answer can be found in our model in this chapter. A laissez-faire atmosphere will encourage entrepreneurial activities that lead to spontaneous social experiments with various structures of division of labor, including inefficient ones. This will speed up the acquisition process of organizational information, thereby speeding up economic development. Government planning of industrial development and trade patterns is incompatible with the notion of experiments with various structures of division of labor, including inefficient ones, so that it will slow down the process of acquiring organizational information, thereby impeding economic development. The second insight into economic development that our model can provide relates to the concept of big-push industrialization. Big-push industrialization, which we described in chapters 5 and 14, implies that the level of division of labor and the related size of the input– output network between interdependent specialized sectors discontinuously jumps over many intermediate levels of division of labor. Many interdependent and highly specialized sectors simultaneously emerge, through comprehensive investment programs, from this process. As we mentioned earlier, a central planning and state enterprise system may slow down the social process of organizational information acquisition. However, if developed economies have already acquired a great deal of organizational information through a laissez-faire regime and through institutional arrangements that protect private property and the residual ownership rights, a latecomer to industrialization may use the free organizational information generated by those economies to mimic the efficient structure of division of labor through central planning and a state enterprise system. In this way, the latecomer may attempt to jump over many intermediate levels of division of labor and achieve big-push industrialization. This conjecture is verified by the quite successful big-push industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1950s, and that of mainland China in the 1950s. This explains why von Mises (1922) and Hayek (1944) failed to predict the survival of the Soviet-style economic system for half of the twentieth century. Economic mimickry did not occur to them, despite the fact that they correctly pointed out that a Soviet style economic system was incapable of searching for the efficient pattern of organization on its own. But the condition for survival of such an economic system is imitation of successful organizational patterns that have been tried
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 467
out by the free market system. As the potential for further imitation is exhausted, the fatal flaws of the centrally planned system destroy it. The Soviet-style economic system mimics the successful organizational patterns tried out by the free market system by precluding, or destroying, the very institutional infrastructures that created those efficient organizational patterns. That is, by killing the goose that laid the golden egg, it ensures that it cannot have its own golden eggs. This is why the new export-oriented big-push industrialization pattern created by Hong Kong cannot be created by a Soviet-style economic system, though the Soviet style economic system in mainland China has been able to mimic it in the 1980s and 1990s. This also explains why a transition from a Soviet-style economic system to a free market system is so difficult, since human society in Russia and China has had no experience of such a transition that can equally be mimicked. When the Chinese communist leaders abandoned the imitation strategy of Stalin and Lenin and tried to create their own institutions, such as people’s communes and public eating halls in 1959, the result was the most devastating manmade economic disaster in history. More than 30 million Chinese people died from the starvation and famine caused by this centralized institutional experiment (Chang and Wen, 1998). The experience of industrialization in Hong Kong and Taiwan is very different. Within 50 years, per capita real incomes in those two economies increased from less than US$200 in 1950 to about US$20,000 in the end of the last century. But the early success of China’s big-push industrialization based on the Soviet-style economic system in the 1950s could not prevent its failure in the long term. The country has achieved two-digit growth rates of real GDP and industrial output in several periods since 1950. Although China started in 1950 with the same economic conditions and per capita real income as Taiwan, its per capita income was less than US$1,000 at the end of the last century. Hence, the third insight that our model can provide is that although big-push industrialization based on the Soviet-style economic system may yield some short-run success, it cannot survive in the long run, since it destroys the function of the price system in coordinating social experiments with various structures of division of labor, and accordingly restricts the capacity of society to acquire organizational information. This insight contrasts sharply with Lange’s market socialism (Lange and Taylor, 1964). We will consider this in chapter 19, where we argue that market socialism is rejected by empirical evidence and by many formal models. However, the fatal flaw of market socialism relates to the function of the free market in coordinating social experiments with various structures of division of labor. The function of the market is not just to allocate resources. Nor is it only to find the efficient network pattern of division of labor. Its more important function is to organize social experiments to acquire organizational information. The central planning and state ownership of firms in market socialism are incompatible with the notion of experimentation, which involves the trial of inefficient patterns of organization. Market socialism gives the government monopoly power in designing institutions and in experimenting with different patterns of economic organization. The experimental process is not competitive. In particular, entrepreneurs’ claims to the residual rights of firms, together with the free price system and the function of the stockmarket in sharing risk, are crucial for providing entrepreneurs with an incentive to take the risk involved in such social experiments. But market socialism rejects the legitimacy of residual rights to private firms and insists on the government monopoly in experimenting with structures of division of labor and residual rights. Hence, the process of acquiring organizational information will be much slower under market socialism than in a free market system based on private ownership of property and firms. Our model in this chapter explores functions of the market which are much more sophisticated than those in neoclassical general equilibrium models; our approach rejects Lange’s market socialism, which is based on the latter, more conclusively than ever before.
468 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
Key Terms and Review • Walrasian sequential equilibrium and the difference between it and Kreps and Selten’s concept of sequential equilibrium • The difference between lack of information and incomplete information • Information gains resulting from experiments with various structures of division of labor • Major determinants of the pattern of concurrent evolution of organizational information and division of labor • The Bayes updating rule • Interdependence between organizational information and decisions in choosing configuration and its implications for the concurrent evolution of organizational information and division of labor • Bounded rationality • Adaptive behavior • Solving analytically for a dynamic programming problem in choosing the efficient trade-off between information gains and experimental cost, and putting the analytical solution of this problem together with solutions of static corner equilibria of a Smithian model to work out the Walrasian sequential equilibrium • The implications of the decision horizon in a Walrasian sequential equilibrium model
Further Reading The sequential equilibrium model in game theory: Kreps and Wilson (1982), Kreps (1990), Maskin and Xu (1999); Walrasian sequential equilibrium models: Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1997), Zhao (1999); Search theory: Aghion, Bolton, and Jullien (1991), S. Grossman (1989), Morgan and Manning (1985), Reingnum (1982), Stigler (1961), Weitzman (1979), Arthur (1994), Lippman and McCall (1979); Free riding in the search process: King (1995), Banerjee (1992); Neoclassical theory and models of big-push industrialization: RosensteinRodan (1943), Murphy, Shleifer, and Vishny (1989a,b), Nurkse (1953), Fleming (1955), Hirschman (1958); The Soviet Union’s big-push industrialization: Zaleski (1980), Lenin (1939); China’s big-push industrialization: Riskin (1987), World Bank (1984); Taiwan’s big-push industrialization: Rabushka (1987); Evolutionary economics: Nelson (1995) and references there, Brian (1994); Bounded rationality: Conlisk (1996) and references there; Market socialism and capitalist development: Sachs (1993), von Mises (1922), Hayek (1944, 1945), Bardhan and Roemer (1993), Lange and Taylor (1964); Dynamic programming: Beckman (1968).
QUESTIONS 1 Why has the automobile industry developed much more successfully in the US, where the government does not have an industrial policy to this sector, than in China, where the government has very comprehensive industrial policies about the priority order of development of different sectors? Use the concepts of endogenous comparative advantage in chapter 4 and of Walrasian sequential equilibrium in this chapter to analyze why this happened, and what the implications are of a private enterprise system for social experiments in acquiring organizational information. 2 We have heard many stories about the successful career or business activities of somebody who has advanced through “discovering herself.” But from the theory that
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
3
4 5 6
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 469
you have learned in this chapter, you can see that “oneself ” is not predetermined. A person’s professional capacity is determined by her choice of a profession through which specialized experience can be accumulated. Interdependence between selfconfidence in one’s professional capacity and accumulation of experience in a professional sector may generate a positive feedback effect (virtual circles). Hence, we may see some cases of a not-so-smart person getting a chance to be involved in a profession and becoming more capable in it than a much smarter individual who did not have the chance to be involved in this profession. For such success stories, “designing oneself ” is a better expression than “discovering oneself.” In particular, designing oneself is an experiment with possible combinations of one’s inherited talent and all kinds of structures of division of labor. Success or failure is, to a certain degree, a matter of luck. Therefore, a positive attitude toward taking reasonable risk may be better than trying something only in the absence of risk. Use the model in this chapter to explain why many successful businessmen – such as Edison, who had no formal education – were once only marginal figures in society. Put together the theory of the firm in chapter 8, the theory about the implications of insurance for division of labor in chapter 10, and the theory in this chapter to develop a story about the role of the stockmarket. A possible version of the story may run as follows. Suppose there are economies of specialization in acquiring organizational information. Hence, a professional entrepreneur may have more organizational information than other specialist producers of tangible goods; and there is information asymmetry. The entrepreneur wants to try a structure of division of labor according to her organizational information, but others will not follow according to their information. Because of the information asymmetry, the entrepreneur cannot convince others to participate in the social experiment that she believes to be lucrative. She may use the institution of the firm to buy out others in order to launch the social experiment that she suggests. However, her organizational information may be incomplete despite the fact that she has more information than others. This implies that when she uses residual rights to a firm to indirectly price her intangible information, she also takes all the risks of the social experiment. If she is risk-averse, she will not choose to specialize in entrepreneurial activities. But if the stockmarket can be used to disperse the risk of social experimentation, then a higher level of division of labor between professional entrepreneurial activity and the production of tangible goods will occur in equilibrium, so that the sequential equilibrium may be associated with a faster evolution of the organizational information acquired by society. An entrepreneur (or a group of entrepreneurs) uses the stockmarket to experiment with a large shopping center. Discuss the function of the stockmarket in sharing the risk of social experimentation, as examined in question 3. Analyze why the success of the McDonald’s restaurant network cannot be explained by using marginal analysis. Why are inframarginal analysis and the notion of social experimentation essential to the explanation? The essence of the model in this chapter is that knowledge of economic organization determines productivity and technical conditions. This point becomes even more evident if many goods are introduced into the model so that the number of patterns of division of labor and the number of experimental patterns are increased. In this case, the number of periods necessary for experimenting with all possible patterns of division of labor will increase more than proportionally. For a completely symmetric model, the number of possible distinct patterns of the division of labor is m − 1 if
470 P ART IV: D YNAMIC M ECHANISMS
there are m goods. The number becomes ∑ mn=0 C mn = 2m, if n out of m goods are traded and preference and production parameters differ across goods, where C mn is n combinations of m factors. Suppose there are 100 goods (m = 100) and it takes one day for an economy to experiment with one pattern of the division of labor. It will take 2100/365 = 3.34 × 1027 years to experiment with all patterns of the division of labor if there are 10 final goods and each of them can be produced by a roundabout production chain with 2, 3, . . . , or 10 links. Each individual can produce 1, 2, . . . , 100 goods. Suppose, moreover, that it takes society one day to experiment with one structure of division of labor. How long will it take society to find the efficient structure of division of labor out of all the possible patterns of roundabout production? Use this example to analyze why it took a long time for human society to find the efficient pattern realized in the Industrial Revolution. 7 Zhao (1999) specifies a trade-off between the benefit of a long decision horizon, which enables the amortization of a fixed investment in organizational information over a longer period of time, and the higher computation cost and risk of making more mistakes. Hence, the optimum decision horizon is endogenized. Discuss the implications of the endogenization of the decision horizon. 8 Zhao also shows that if countries are ex ante different in some aspects, then their optimum decisions about experiments with various structures of division of labor may be different. If differences in language and culture isolate the social experiments in different countries, then social experiments with different structures of division of labor will be implemented simultaneously in a short period of time. Use this idea to explain why Europe, with many independent countries, may acquire organizational information faster than China, which has had a single government for a long period of time. 9 Discuss the possible free rider problem in the model in this chapter. If all individuals wait for others to experiment with different structures of division of labor in the hope of free riding the experiments, then the Walrasian sequential equilibrium may involve slower acquisition of organizational information. Discuss why in a symmetric model, like the one in this chapter, such free riding would not occur.
EXERCISES 1 Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model with endogenous middlemen in example 7.3. Analyze the implications of the degree of economies of specialization in transacting and production activities, the subjective discount factor, and pricing efficiency for transaction efficiency, the emergence of professional middlemen, and trade pattern. 2 Use the approach developed in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model of the institution of the firm in chapter 8. The answer can be found in Zhao (1999). 3 Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model of endogenous trade theory in chapter 7. You may assume that each individual considers only the current and next periods when she makes decisions about experiments with different configurations. The answer can be found in Zhao (1999). 4 Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the trade model with endogenouscum-exogenous comparative advantages in chapter 6. Analyze the implications of
C HAPTER 15: S OCIAL E XPERIMENTS
5 6 7
8
AND
K NOWLEDGE
OF
D EVELOPMENT 471
interdependence between organizational information and choice of configuration for the exploitation of endogenous and exogenous comparative advantage. Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model of urbanization in chapter 11. Analyze the implications of institutions that affect the pricing cost for the development of urbanization. Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model of property rights and insurance in chapter 10. Discuss the implications of institutions that affect the experimental cost of the social search process for the efficient institutions. Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model with an endogenous number of producer goods in chapter 12. Analyze the implications of interdependence between organizational information and choice of configuration, for the available number of producer goods in the market and the evolution of production roundaboutness. Use the approach in this chapter to dynamize the Smithian model of money in chapter 17. Discuss the implications of the subjective discount factor, transaction cost, degree of economies of specialization, and the pricing cost for the emergence of money from the evolution of division of labor.
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
PART V The Macroeconomics of Development
AND
S AVING 473
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
INVESTMENT, SAVING, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND
S AVING 475
16
16.1 CLASSICAL THEORY OF INVESTMENT AND SAVING Early neoclassical analysis assumed a dichotomy between pure consumers and pure producers, and thus it also was customary to keep the theory of consumption and saving behavior (for instance in Friedman’s permanent income model, 1957, and Modigliani’s life cycle model, 1989) separate from the theory of investment and capital. Many early neoclassical models of saving and investment are macroeconomic models rather than microeconomic general equilibrium models. They do not have sound microeconomic foundations in saving behavior. In recent microeconomic models of saving and credit the distinction is drawn between self-saving and interpersonal loans. A sound microeconomic foundation of saving and credit is established which explains them as generated by gains from intertemporal trade between individuals. Besley (1995) is a very good survey of this literature. In the literature there are several types of gain from self-saving. Differences in incomes at different points in time and uncertainty of future income are two common sources of gain from self-saving. Here, income differences may be caused by differences in endowments or in production capacity. In section 16.2 we consider such a model of self-saving. Also, there are several types of gain from intertemporal trade which are based on a general equilibrium mechanism of saving: (a) Differences in subjective discount rates or in tastes for goods at different points in time may generate intertemporal trade. (b) A significant source of gains from intertemporal trade arises from difference in the timing of endowments or production capacities between individuals. (c) Individuals may wish to lend to others who have a better technological advantage for transferring resources over time. (d) There may be a need for purchasing durable goods with a value that is much greater than an individual’s income flow at each point in time. In section 16.2, we consider two such models of interpersonal loans. Understanding the productivity implications of saving is essential for explaining the phenomenon observed by Lewis (1954, p. 155): the “central problem in the theory of economic development is to understand the process by which a community which was previously saving . . . 4 or 5 percent of its national income or less, converts itself into an economy where voluntary saving is running at about 12 to 15 percent of national income or more.” The most popular theory of the relationship between saving and productivity is called saving fundamentalism and claims an unconditional “if and only if ” relationship between current saving and future productivity. Current saving can increase future per capita capital, while labor productivity is a monotonically increasing function of per capita capital. This fundamentalism is taken as granted
476 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
in the growth models of Ramsey (1928), Solow (1956), Lucas (1988), Romer (1986, 1990), and Grossman and Helpman (1989, 1990). However, we might ask why productivity in the future can be increased by saving today. This positive relationship did not exist 2,000 years ago, when, for instance, peasants invested in corn seed each year. But that investment could only maintain simple reproduction without much of an increase in productivity. Similarly, Chinese peasants invested in houses which were completely self-provided in the 1970s. Productivity based on such an investment in durable houses was extremely low (Yang, Wang, and Wills, 1992). To these questions Lucas and Romer will respond by pointing to human capital generated by saving and investment. However, we can again use the Chinese case to argue that investment in human capital and education does not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity. Chinese people have a special preference for saving and for investment in education, but this did not generate significant productivity increases until the modern school and university system was introduced into China at the end of the nineteenth century. In traditional Chinese schools, there was no division of labor between teachers. Each teacher taught students a broad range of knowledge, from literature to philosophy. But in a modern university, there is a very high level of division of labor between different specialist teachers and between different specialized colleges. Equally, educated individuals are very specialized in their professions after their graduation from universities. The high level of division of labor ensures high productivity in providing education, so that investment in education can contribute significantly to productivity progress. Recent empirical evidence supports our observation. Pritchett (1997) shows that macro data reject an unconditional positive relationship between educational capital and the rate of growth of output per worker, despite the positive effects of education on earnings from micro data. To these further questions Grossman and Helpman might respond by pointing to investment in research and development. But Marshall attributed Boulton and Watt’s invention of the steam engine to a deep division of labor in the inventing activities (Marshall, 1890, p. 256). Edison’s experience is another example of the division of labor giving rise to successful invention. Edison specialized in inventing electrical machines for most of his life, and he also organized a professional research institution with more than 100 employees who specialized in different inventing activities ( Josephson, 1959). These observations imply that investment in physical capital goods, in education, or in research would not automatically increase productivity in the future if the investment were not used to develop the right level and pattern of division of labor. Hence, the essential point is not how much we invest and save, but rather what level and pattern of division of labor are used to invest in machines, education, and research. Recent empirical evidence that rejects type IV scale effect (a positive relationship between growth rates in per capita GDP and investment rates) supports our observation (see Jones, 1995a). Classical economists like Smith, Mill, Marx, and Marshall emphasized the connection between the division of labor and capital. Mill’s wage fund argument (1848, ch. 2, sec. 2, ch. 5, sec. 3) is somehow inconsistent with the modern dichotomy between investment and consumption. He stated that “capital, although the result of saving, is nevertheless consumed.” This proposition implies that a theory of investment should explain why a transfer of consumption goods from their producers to the producers of producer goods can improve productivity. In other words, we should use the concept of general equilibrium to explain gains from interpersonal and intertemporal trade of goods as the engine of investment and economic development rather than adhering to saving fundamentalism. In sections 16.3 to 16.4, we use a Smith–Young model of endogenous specialization to formalize the classical story of capital used to increase division of labor in roundabout productive activities. A dynamic general equilibrium model will be used to address the following questions: What is the relationship between saving, which generates investment, and the division of labor,
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 477
which determines the extent of the market, trade dependence, and productivity? What is the mechanism that simultaneously determines the investment level and the level of division of labor? And what are determinants of the equilibrium investment (saving) rate, the interest rate, the growth rate, and the equilibrium level of division of labor? Our story of capital originates in the work of Smith (1776) and Young (1928), who spelled out the relationship between the division of labor and capital. According to them, capital and investment are a matter of the development of division of labor in roundabout productive activities.1 This story runs as follows. There are many ex ante identical consumer-producers in an economy where food can be produced out of labor alone or out of labor and tractors. In producing each good, there are economies of specialized learning by doing. A fixed cost is incurred in the period when an individual engages in a job for the first time, or when job shifting takes place. Each individual can choose between specialization and self-sufficiency. The advantage of specialization is that it allows one to exploit economies of specialized learning by doing and to avoid job shifting cost. However, it increases productivity in the future at the expense of current consumption because of an increase in transaction costs caused by specialization. Moreover, in producing a tractor, there is a significant fixed learning cost. The production of a tractor cannot be completed until the learning cost has reached a threshold level. Hence, there are trade-offs among economies of specialized learning by doing, economies of roundaboutness, transaction costs, and fixed learning costs. Each consumer-producer maximizes total discounted utility over the two periods with respect to the level and pattern of specialization and the quantities of goods consumed, produced, and traded in order to efficiently trade-off one against others among the four conflicting forces. The interaction between these trade-offs determines the nature of the dynamic equilibrium for the economy. If the transaction cost coefficient is sufficiently great, the economy is in autarky in all periods – depending upon the level of fixed learning cost and the degree of economies of roundaboutness, this may entail each individual self-providing food, or self-providing both food and tractors, or it may entail evolution in the number of goods. If the transaction cost coefficient is sufficiently small and economies of specialized learning by doing and of roundaboutness are significant, in dynamic equilibrium the economy will develop a market structure in which individuals specialize in the production of either tractors or food and trade occurs. For the division of labor there are two patterns of investment and saving. If the fixed learning cost in producing tractors is not large, each individual will sacrifice consumption in period 1 to pay transaction costs in order to increase the level of division of labor, so that productivity in period 2 can be increased. This is a self-saving mechanism which does not involve interpersonal lending. Also, an evolution in the level of specialization and/or in the number of goods may take place in the dynamic equilibrium if the transaction cost coefficient and the degree of economies of specialization and of roundaboutness are neither too large nor too small. If the fixed learning cost in producing tractors is so large that the production of a tractor cannot be completed within one period because of the time required for specialized learning by producing commercially viable tractors, then an explicit saving arrangement which involves a loan from a specialist producer of food to a specialist producer of tractors in period 1 is necessary for specialization in producing roundabout productive tractors. Under the assumptions of a high fixed learning cost in producing tractors, a small transaction cost coefficient, and significant economies of specialized learning by doing and roundaboutness, dynamic general equilibrium yields the following picture. A specialist producer of food produces food using her labor only and makes a loan in terms of food to a specialist producer of tractors in period 1 when the production of a tractor is yet to be completed. In period 2, a specialist producer of tractors sells tractors to a specialist farmer in excess of the value of her purchase of food in period 2. The difference is her repayment of the loan received in period 1. Per capita consumption of food in period 1 is lower than in an
478 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
alternative autarky pattern of organization. But in period 2, tractors are employed to improve the productivity of food. The discounted gains will more than offset the lower level of per capita consumption in period 1 if the transaction efficiency coefficient and economies of specialized learning by doing and roundaboutness are great. Economic growth takes place not only in the sense of an increase in per capita real income between periods, but also in the sense that total discounted real income is higher than in alternative autarky patterns of organization.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n n n
n n n n
What are the gains from intertemporal trade and related saving and credit? What is the distinction between self-saving and interpersonal lending? What is the relationship between interpersonal loans and division of labor? What is the difference between the theory of endogenous gains from saving and the theory of exogenous gains from saving? What are the implications of the difference for the theory of investment? What is the relationship between transaction efficiency, rate of return to investment, and division of labor in roundabout production activities in the Smith–Young theory of capital? Under what conditions might the rate of return to investment suddenly jump to 0? How does the market sort out the efficient levels of saving, interpersonal lending, and investment? Why is saving and investment fundamentalism (type IV scale effect) rejected by empirical evidence?
16.2 NEOCLASSICAL GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODELS OF SELF-SAVING AND INTERPERSONAL LOANS In this section, we first consider Leland’s model of self-saving (1968) which shows that selfsaving level is an increasing function of the degree of uncertainty of future income. We then consider Diamond and Dybvig’s general equilibrium model of interpersonal loans (1983). Finally, we consider Besley, Coate, and Loury’s model of rotating savings and informal credit associations (1993). Example 16.1: Precautionary saving in autarky (Leland, 1968). An individual’s decision problem is
Max u( y1 − s) + δE[u( y2 + sr)], s
where y1 is a certain income level in period 1, y2 ~ N(0, σ) is a random income level with normal distribution of mean 0 and variance σ in period 2, s (a decision variable) is the saving level in period 1, r is a certain return rate of saving, and sr is total return to saving. Utility function u(·) is strictly increasing and strictly concave. According to section 9.4 in chapter 9, the certain equivalent of E[u( y2 + sr)] is approximately u(sr − 0.5Rσ)], where R = −u″(E[ y2 + sr])/ u′(E[ y2 + sr]) = −u″(sr)/u′(sr) is the degree of risk aversion. A well-known result (Leland, 1968) says that the optimum saving level s* increases with the degree of uncertainty σ, if u′′′(·) > 0. We use a specific form of u(x) = ln x to show this. For this specific functional form, the optimum saving s* is given by the following first-order condition f (σ, δ, r, s, y1) = r(1 + δ)s − [(1 − δ)σ/2rs] − (δσy1/2rs2 ) − δry1 = 0.
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 479
The differentiation of this condition and application of the implicit function theorem yield comparative statics of the optimum decision: ds/dσ = −(∂f/∂σ)/(∂f/∂s) > 0,
ds/dδ = −(∂f/∂δ)/(∂f/∂s) > 0,
ds/dr = −(∂f/∂r)/(∂f/∂s) > 0,
ds/dy1 = −(∂f/∂y1)/(∂f/∂s) > 0,
where ∂f/∂r < 0 for positive consumption level in period 2 or for s*r > (σ/2)0.5, ∂f/∂σ < 0, ∂f/∂s > 0, ∂f/∂δ < 0, and ∂f/∂y1 < 0. Comparative statics say that as uncertainty of future income, σ, returns rate of saving, r, current income, y1, and/or discount factor, δ, increase, the optimum saving level increases. Also, the optimum saving level is 0 if s*r < (σ/2)0.5 where s* is given by the first-order conditions as an increasing function of δ, r, y1. This implies that if δ, r, and y1 are too small and/or σ is too large, the individual cannot afford saving, so that the optimum saving level is 0. In examples 16.2 and 16.3 we consider general equilibrium models that explain saving as generated by gains from interpersonal and intertemporal trade of goods. There are three possible sources of gains from intertemporal trade of goods. In example 16.2, we assume that individuals’ subjective discount factors are different, so that those individuals with a lower subjective value of time (those who are more patient) will make loans to those with a higher value of time (those who are more impatient) to allow the latter to consume more at an early point in time in dynamic general equilibrium. Another way to explain gains from intertemporal trade is to assume that individuals’ production capacities differ from time to time, so that they will trade goods at different points in time to smooth out fluctuations of consumption flows. In example 16.3, we consider the third general equilibrium mechanism for intertemporal trade of goods. We assume the existence of some durable consumer goods in a general equilibrium model with ex ante identical consumers. Since a person’s income at each point in time is not enough to afford the durable goods which can be used for many years, consumers can pool their incomes to buy a piece of durable goods for one of them at each point in time. In order to make sure that some of the individuals will voluntarily postpone consumption of the durable goods, those who consume the goods earlier must pay an amount of money to compensate those who consume them later. The amount of money can be regarded as interest. Example 16.2: A neoclassical general equilibrium model with endogenous interest rates, saving, and interpersonal loans (Diamond and Dybvig, 1983). Consider an economy with two consumerproducers A and B, a consumption good, and two periods of time. Consumer A’s subjective discount rate is ρ ∈(0, 1), or her subjective discount factor is δ = 1/(1 + ρ) ∈(0, 1). Consumer B’s subjective discount factor is δ = 1. Consumer i’s consumption of the good at time t is xit. Each individual can produce 1 unit of the consumption good in each period. Hence, the two individuals’ decision problems are Max: UA = ln xA1 + δ ln xA2
s.t.
p1xA1 + p2xA2 = p1 + p2
Max: UB = ln xB1 + ln xB2
s.t.
p1xB1 + p2xA2 = p1 + p2
where Ui is individual i’s total discounted utility over the two periods, and pt is the price of the good at time t. The optimum solutions of the two problems yield the two individuals’ demand for the consumption good at time t: xA1 = (p1 + p2)/(1 + δ)p1,
xA2 = δ(p1 + p2)/(1 + δ)p2
xB1 = (p1 + p2)/2p1,
xB2 = (p1 + p2)/2p2.
480 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Adding the two persons’ demand and letting that total demand at time t equal the two persons’ total supply at time t, which is 2, yields the general equilibrium price of the good at period 2 in terms of that at period 1: p2 /p1 = (1 + 3δ)/(3 + δ). Inserting the equilibrium-relative price back into the demand functions, we can see that xA1 = 4/(3 + δ) > 1,
xA2 = 4δ/(1 + 3δ) < 1
xB1 = 2/(1 + δ) < 1,
xB2 = 2(1 + δ)/(1 + 3δ) > 1.
This implies that person A’s demand in period 1 is greater than her supply in period 1 and her demand in period 2 is smaller than her supply in period 2, while person B’s position is the opposite. Hence, a loan from person B to person A is made in period 1. Its amount is xA1 − 1 = 1 − xB1 = (1 − δ)/(3 + δ). The repayment of the interpersonal loan in period 2 is 1 − xA2 = xB2 − 1 = (1 − δ)/(1 + 3δ). The ratio of the repayment to the loan is (3 + δ)/(1 + 3δ) = p1/p2. The difference between the ratio and 1 is the equilibrium real interest rate, which is r = [(3 + δ)/(1 + 3δ)] − 1 = 2(1 − δ)/(1 + 3δ) = 2ρ/(4 + ρ) where δ = 1/(1 + ρ) is used. It is not difficult to verify that the equilibrium real interest rate r is an increasing function of person A’s subjective discount rate ρ. Also, r can be regarded as an endogenous (or dynamic general equilibrium) inflation rate, since 1 unit of the consumption good in period 1 can exchange for 1 + r units of the same good in period 2. In this general equilibrium model, commercial saving and interpersonal loans are distinguished from self-saving. If we take the same type of good at different points in time as different goods, then the interpersonal loan and its repayment are just the trading of different goods between individuals. The gains to such trade in this model are based on the exogenous difference in the subjective discount factors of the individuals. It is easy to extend the general equilibrium model to explain the gains from such trade by exogenous differences in production conditions or in endowments between individuals and between periods of time, or by the problem caused by differences between the timing of the purchase of durable consumption goods and the timing of consumption of the services that they provide. Compared to other neoclassical models of saving, this general equilibrium model of saving not only endogenizes the interest rate and the inflation rate, but also endogenizes the gains from exchanges of goods at different points in time. The gains from saving are endogenous since we cannot see them until the decisions are made and the equilibrium is worked out. By contrast, in many neoclassical models of saving and capital the gains from saving are exogenously given by an ad hoc positive relationship between current saving and future productivity. The productivity gain of saving can be seen
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 481
from a state equation before the decisions have been made. In the general equilibrium model of saving, the rationale for inflation or deflation in the absence of money is gains from trade between goods at different points in time. However, in the general equilibrium model of saving, saving has no productivity implication. Though the latter can be figured out by introducing intermediate goods or economies of scale in production into the model, the intimate relationship between interpersonal loans and the division of labor cannot be explored by models with no endogenous specialization. Example 16.3: Rotating savings and informal credit association (Besley, Coate, and Loury, 1993). There are many informal financial institutions in less-developed countries where exogenous and endogenous transaction costs for founding and developing formal financial market are very high. Roscas are one of the institutions. They travel under many different names, including Chit Funds (India), Susu (Ghana, Gambia), Kye (Korea), Dahui (China), and Tontines (Senegal). They operate by having a group of individuals committing to putting a certain sum of money into a pot which each period is allocated to one member of the group by a system of drawing lots (a random rosca) or by bidding (a bidding rosca). Each period of the process repeats itself, with past winners excluded, until the last member has received the pot. Imagine a world in which n individuals wish to acquire a durable good that costs b. Each has additive preferences over consumption: v(c) without the durable and v(c) + a with it. Ignoring discounting and supposing that each individual has a fixed income flow of y over a life of length T, an individual can save up for the durable under autarky and solves the following problem in doing so: Max (T − t)[v( y) + a] + tv(c) subject to t( y − c) = b, c, t
where t is the acquisition date for the durable and c is consumption during the accumulation phase. The first term in the maximand refers to the period after time t when the durable has been acquired, while the second term is utility during the period of accumulation. The constraint just says that enough saving must have been done before t to buy the durable. If we eliminate t in the objective function from the constraint, it is obvious that the value of the autarky program can be written as T [v( y) + a] − bμ(a), where μ(a) ≡ Minc{[v( y) + a − v(c)]/( y − c)}. The interpretation of this is clear. The first term represents maximal lifetime utility were the durable a free good, i.e., an individual could own it for his whole life without having to forgo any current consumption. The second represents the utility cost of saving up. A random rosca gives each member of the group of n individuals a 1/n chance of winning the pot at each of the rosca’s meeting dates. Thus viewed ex ante, the rosca gives uniformly distributed acquisition dates on the set {1, 2, . . . , n}. Assume that the time for obtaining the durable by self-saving is still t. Suppose now that an individual who joins the rosca wins the pot at the ith meeting. Therefore, she gets the durable at time (i/n)t. Note the probability for winning at the ith meeting is 1/n. E[(i/n)] = ∑ ni=1[(i/n)(1/n)] = (n + 1)/2n. Her lifetime expected utility is thus (T − t)[v( y) + a] + t[v(c) + (n + 1)a/2n] = (T )[v( y) + a] − t{v( y) − v(c) + [(n − 1)a/2n]}. Supposing that the rosca aims to maximize the expected utility of its representative member, it maximizes this subject to the budget constraint t( y − c) = b, which says that there are enough
482 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
funds in the pot at each meeting date to buy the durable. Eliminating t in the expected utility function from the budget constraint, the maximized expected lifetime utility in a rosca can be written as: T [v( y) + a] − bμ[(n − 1)a/2n], where μ[(n − 1)a/2n] ≡ Minc{{v( y) + [(n − 1)a/2n] − v(c)}/( y − c)}. It is easy to prove using the envelope theorem that μ′(·) > 0 and hence that, since (n − 1)/2n < 1, the random rosca lowers the utility cost of saving up to acquire the durable. The reason is, of course, plain to see. Even if it maintained the same saving pattern as under autarky, the rosca gives each of its members a chance of winning the pot early by drawing lots. In fact, all but the last member of the rosca is better off holding savings fixed. The rosca will, however, choose a lower savings rate than under autarky.
16.3 THE SMITH–YOUNG THEORY OF INVESTMENT AND SAVINGS 16.3.1 The model Example 16.4: A Smith–Young model of investment (Yang, 1999). Let’s consider a finite horizon (two-period) economy with a continuum of ex ante identical consumer-producers of mass M. There is a single consumer good (called food) produced by labor alone or by labor and an intermediate good (called tractors) together. Individuals can self-provide any goods, or alternatively can purchase them on the market. The self-provided amounts of food and of tractors in period t are denoted respectively yt and xt. The respective amounts sold and purchased of food in period t are y ts and y td, and those of tractors are xts and x td. The trading efficiency coefficient of x and y is k. The utility function is ut = ln( yt + ky td ),
(16.1a)
where ut will be negative infinity if yt = y dt = 0. As in chapter 14, trade in this economy is mediated through contracts signed in spot and futures markets which operate in period 1. Assume that the futures market horizon and any individual’s decision horizon are divided into two periods. The objective function for an individual’s decision problem is therefore total discounted utility, given by: U = u1 + u2/(1 + r),
(16.1b)
where U is total discounted utility, and r is a subjective discount rate. It is assumed that a fixed learning cost in terms of labor, A, is incurred in producing tractors. The fixed learning cost in producing food is B. The production functions for an individual are assumed to exhibit economies of specialized learning by doing: y tp ≡ yt + y ts = Max{(xt + kx td )a(Lyt − σB), (Lyt − σB)} x tp ≡ xt + xts = Max{(Lxt − σA)b, 0}, lyt + lxt = l, Lit = Lit−1 + lit,
lit ∈ [0, l] Lx0 = Ly0 = 0
b > 1,
a ∈(0, 1), B ∈(0, l)
A ∈(0, l)
(16.2a) (16.2b) (16.2c) (16.2d)
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 483
where y tp ≡ yt + yts and x tp ≡ xt + xts are respectively the total output levels of food and tractors in period t, yts and xts are respectively the quantities of the two goods sold at time t. x td is the amount of tractors purchased at time t. xt + kxdt is the amount of tractors employed. lit is an individual’s level of specialization as well as the amount of her labor allocated to the production of good i(i = x, y) in period t, and Lit is the labor accumulated in producing good i up to period t, referred to as human capital. (16.2a) implies that food can be produced either from tractors and labor, or from labor alone. In producing a good in period t, σ = 0 if an individual has engaged in producing the good in period t − 1 and does not shift between different activities in periods t and t − 1; σ = 1 if an individual changes jobs in period t or t − 1 or engages in producing the good for the first time in period t. Each person is assumed to be endowed with l units of labor in each period. The assumption A ∈(0, l) implies that it is possible that the production process of tractors cannot be completed in period t = 1 if A = l, so that a story of investment, saving, and capital may be told. It is assumed that economies of specialized learning by doing and the fixed learning cost are specific to each individual and to each activity. There are economies of specialization in producing each good since a person’s labor productivity in producing x increases with her level of specialization in producing x for b > 1 and total factor productivity of y increases with her level of specialization in producing y for a > 0 when x is used as an intermediate input. If labor alone is used to produce y, then the labor productivity of y increases with the person’s level of specialization in producing y, since the utilization rate of the fixed learning cost B increases with her level of specialization. Parameter b represents the degree of economies of specialization in producing tractors. The elasticity of output of food with respect to tractors is a. Therefore, the product ab can be interpreted as the degree of type A economies of roundaboutness. (16.2d) is the state equation and initial condition for human capital Lit. We assume that A + B > l − 1 to simplify the algebra. This assumption implies that selfprovision of two goods by each individual in two periods is not an optimal decision. A Walrasian regime prevails because economies of specialized learning by doing are individual-specific and the futures market nullifies the monopoly power which might occur from specialized learning by doing.
16.3.2 Configuration and structure sequences This subsection considers an individual’s production and trade decision problem and dynamic equilibrium. The Wen theorem can be applied to the model in this chapter. Hence, each individual sells only one good and does not buy and sell or self-provide a good at the same time. A feasible market structure consists of a set of choices of configurations by individuals. A sequence of configurations over 2 periods is a decision variable for each individual. As each individual chooses a certain sequence of configurations, a sequence of market structures is determined. For each sequence there is a dynamic corner equilibrium which satisfies the market clearing and utility equalization conditions, but may not satisfy the condition for maximizing an individual’s total discounted utility with respect to choice of sequences of configurations. The remainder of this subsection characterizes the dynamic corner equilibrium for each feasible sequence of market structures and then solves for the dynamic general equilibrium where each individual maximizes her total discounted utility. The Wen theorem implies that six configurations – depicted in figure 16.1, where the circles represent configurations and arrow-headed lines represent flows of goods – which constitute four feasible market structures, need to be considered for the optimum decision. In the first two types of autarky structure, there is no trade and each individual self-provides any good that is required. Two configurations, E and F, meet the criterion for autarky. For
484 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
configuration E the quantities traded of all goods are 0, xt = 0, and yt > 0 so that each individual self-provides food without using a tractor. For configuration F, the quantities traded of all goods are 0, but xt, yt > 0; in this case each individual self-provides both tractors and food. Each of these autarky configurations constitutes a structure. The two configurations are depicted in figure 16.1(a). In the other two types of structure, there is trade in tractors and/or food. We denote a configuration in which an individual sells tractors and buys food in a period by (x/y), a configuration in which an individual buys food and learns how to produce a tractor but is yet to complete its production by (0/y), a configuration in which an individual sells food and buys tractors by (y/x), and a configuration in which an individual sells food but buys nothing by (y/0). Given these possible configurations, there are two structures with trade: (i) the structure denoted C consists of a division of the M individuals between configurations (0/y) and (y/0), which are depicted in figure 1(b) – that is, professional farmers sell food to professional producers of tractors, retaining an amount for their own consumption; (ii) the structure denoted D consists of a division of the M individuals between configurations (x/y) and (y/x), which are depicted in figure 16.1(c). There are 24 = 16 sequences of the four structures over two periods: EE, EF, ED, EC, FF, FE, FD, FC, DD, DE, DF, DC, CC, CE, CF, CD, where the first letter denotes the structure in period 1 and the second that in period 2. For instance, CD, as shown in figure 16.2, denotes that structure C is chosen in period 1 and structure D is chosen in period 2. Some of them are obviously infeasible or cannot be equilibrium. For instance, CC involves a specialist producer of tractors choosing configuration (0/y) (buying food but selling nothing) over two periods and a specialist farmer choosing (y/0) (selling food but buying nothing) over two periods. The sequence cannot be equilibrium since it is incompatible with the budget constraint. If the fixed learning cost in producing tractors A = l, then sequences Di(i = E, F, D, C), FF, FE, and EF are infeasible and only EE and CD are feasible. Sequence CD involves explicit saving since a specialist producer of tractors buys food and sells nothing in period 1. This one-way trade can be regarded as a loan made by a specialist farmer to a specialist producer of tractors. A dynamic general equilibrium satisfies the following conditions, which are analogous to the conditions in the fixed point theorem. (i) For a given profile of the sequences of configurations chosen by individuals, a set of numbers of individuals choosing different sequences of configurations and a sequence of relative prices of traded goods at different points in time clear the market for goods and equalize the total discounted utility of all individuals; (ii) For a given set of numbers of individuals choosing different sequences of configurations and for a given set of sequences of relative prices of traded goods, individuals maximize total discounted utility with respect to the sequences of configurations and quantities of goods produced, consumed, and traded. It is possible to solve for the dynamic general equilibrium in two steps: first, by solving for a dynamic corner equilibrium for each structure sequence; then by identifying the Pareto optimum dynamic corner equilibrium that generates the highest total discounted per capita real income. The first step can be divided into two substeps. The first is to solve for an individual’s optimum dynamic decision for each sequence of configurations; and the second is to solve for a dynamic corner equilibrium for each structure sequence using the market clearing condition in each period and the condition that total discounted utility must be equalized for all individuals. In the following subsection, a dynamic corner equilibrium in each of the feasible sequences of market structures is solved for, and an expression is derived for an individual’s total discounted real income in each candidate for the dynamic general equilibrium.
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT y y
E
S AVING 485
AND
y
y/0
y/x ys
xd
ys
Market for y
Market for x
Market for y
x yd
F
xs
yd
0/y
y (a) Autarky
x/y
(b) Structure C
(c) Structure D
Figure 16.1 Configurations and market structures Structure sequence EF
Structure sequence ED
Structure sequence FD
period 1
period 1
period 1
period 2
y
period 2 y xd
y
y/x
ys
period 2 y xd
x
y/x
ys
y E
F
E
x
F xs
yd
xs
y
x/y y y/0
y/x
ys y
x/y y
y
y
y/x x
yd
y
y/x x
y
x
yd 0/y period 1
x/y
x/y
x/y
period 2
period 1
period 2
Structure sequence CD
Structure sequence DD
Figure 16.2 Investment and evolution of division of labor in roundabout production
16.3.3 Dynamic corner equilibria in 16 structure sequences 1. Sequences EE and FF: A dynamic corner equilibrium for autarky over two periods is equivalent to the solution to an individual’s optimum dynamic labor allocation decision for the sequence of configurations E and/or F over two periods. In configuration E, the quantities traded of all goods are 0, xt = 0 and yt > 0; inserting these values into equations (16.1) and (16.2), and substituting from (16.2) into (16.1a), then into (16.1b), gives the total discounted value of utility for sequence EE as: U(EE) = ln(l − B) + ln(2l)/(1 + r) where U(EE) is the total discounted utility for sequence EE.
(16.3)
486 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
In configuration F, the quantities of all goods traded are 0, and xt, yt > 0; inserting these values into equations (16.1) and (16.2), and substituting from (16.2) into (16.1a), then into (16.1b), gives the total discounted value of utility for sequence FF. Thus, the decision problem for the sequence is: Max U = ln y1 + ln y2 /(1 + r) = ln[x 1a (ly1 − B)] + ln[x 2a (ly2 − B)]/(1 + r) l xi
= ln[(lx1 − A)ab(l − lx1 − B)] + ln[(lx1 + lx2 − A)ab(l − lx1 + l − lx2 − B)]/(1 + r)
subject to yt = xta(Lyt − B),
xt = (Lxt − A)b
lxt + lyt = l,
(production function)
(16.4a)
(endowment constraint)
Lit = Lit−1 + lit,
Li0 = 0
(state equation and initial condition)
The solution to the decision problem is given by: lx1 = [ab(l − B) + A]/(ab + 1), lx2 = abl/(ab + 1),
ly1 = (abB + l − A)/(ab + 1),
ly2 = l/(ab + 1),
U(FF) = [(2 + r)/(1 + r)][ab ln(ab) − (ab + 1)ln(ab + 1)] + [(ab + 1)/(1 + r)][(1 + r)ln(l − A − B) + ln(2l − A − B)],
(16.4b)
where U(FF) is the maximum total discounted utility or total discounted per capita real income for sequence FF. As shown above, the autarky configuration F cannot be in equilibrium if A + B ≥ l, which implies a negative infinite utility in F. 2. Sequences EF and FE: Following the above procedure, the corner equilibria in sequences EF and FE and the corresponding total discounted per capita real incomes can be derived. Sequence EF involves an increase in the number of goods and the emergence of tractors in period 2. Sequence FE involves a decrease in the number of goods and the disappearance of tractors in period 2. 3. Sequence CD: Structure C consists of configurations (0/y) and (y/0) and structure D consists of configurations (x/y) and (y/x). Hence, this structure sequence consists of the sequence of configurations (0/y) and (x/y) and the sequence of configurations (y/0) and (y/x). There are two steps in solving for the dynamic corner equilibrium in the structure sequence: first, for each sequence of configurations the optimum dynamic labor allocation decision and demands and supplies for each good in each period (and hence the indirect total discounted utility of an individual who chooses that configuration sequence) are derived; and second, given the demands, supplies, and indirect utility function of an individual in each configuration sequence, the market clearing conditions and utility equalization conditions are used to solve for the set of corner equilibrium-relative prices and the number of individuals choosing different configuration sequences. 3.1. Sequence of configurations (0/y) and (x/y): In this sequence x2s , y td > 0, lxt = l, and s x 1 = xt = lyt = yt = xtd = yts = 0. This sequence will be chosen by an individual only if A = l which means that the production process of a tractor cannot be completed in period 1 due to the large fixed learning cost. If A < l, a sequence of (x/y) over two periods will be chosen, since it does not make sense to choose (0/y) which delays the sale of tractors when a tractor can actually be produced in period 1. Hence, we assume A = l in this configuration sequence, so that the decision problem for sequence of (0/y) and (x/y) is:
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 487
Max: U = ln (ky 1d ) + ln (ky 2d )/(1 + r) ytd
s.t.: x 1s = 0 and x 2s = (lx1 + lx2)b
(production function)
lx1 = lx2 = l
(endowment constraint)
px2x 2s = y 1d + py2 yd2
(budget constraint)
(16.5a)
where pit is the price of good i in period t in terms of food in period 1 which is assumed to be the numeraire, and y 1d is a loan in terms of food made by a specialist farmer to the specialist producer of tractors. The specialist tractor producer’s sales in period 2, px2x2s , are greater than his purchases in period 2, py2 y 2d. The difference is the repayment of the loan. The solution to (16.5a) is x2s = (2l)b,
y1d = (1 + r)(2l)bpx2/(2 + r),
y2d = (2l)bpx2/(2 + r)py2,
Ux = {(2 + r)[ln k + b ln(2l) + ln px2 − ln(2 + r)] − ln py2}/(1 + r) + ln(1 + r),
(16.5b)
where x ts and y dt are the supply of tractors and the demand for food in period t, respectively, Ux is the indirect total discounted utility function for the sequence. 3.2. Sequence of (y/0) and (y/x): By a similar process, the optimum dynamic decision for this sequence can be found as follows. x2d = (2akalpy2/px2)1/(1−a), y1s = {l − B − (1 + r)(1 − a)[2py2l(ak/px2)a]1/(1−a)}/(2 + r) y2s = {(1 + a + r)[2l(py2ak/px2)a]1/(1−a) − (l − B)/py2}/(2 + r), Uy = (2 + r){ln[l − B + (1 − a)[2py2l(ak/px2) ] + ln(1 + r) − ln py2/(1 + r)
(16.6)
] − ln(2 + r)}/(1 + r)
a 1/(1−a)
where Uy is the indirect total discounted utility function for the sequence. Utility maximization by individuals and the assumption of free entry (when individuals make decisions at t = 1) have the implication that the total discounted utility of individuals is equalized across the two sequences of configurations. That is, Ux = Uy.
(16.7)
Let Mi represent the number of individuals selling good i. Multiplying Mi by individual demands and supplies gives market demands and supplies. The market clearing conditions for the two goods over two periods are: Mx x2s = My x2d,
Mx ydt = My y ts,
t = 1, 2,
(16.8)
where Mx x2s and My x 2d are market supply and demand, respectively, for tractors in period 2, and Mx y td and My y ts are market demand and supply, respectively, for food in period t. Note that due to Walras’s law one of the three market clearing conditions is not independent of the others. There are three independent equations in (16.7) and (16.8), which determine three unknown variables: Mx/My, px2, py2, where pit is the price of good i in period t in terms of food in period 1, and Mi can be solved using the population size equation M = Mx + My as soon as Mx/My is determined. The corner equilibrium values of the three variables are thus given by (16.7) and (16.8) as:
488 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
px2 = (2 − a + r)(l − B)/(1 + r)k(2l)b, py2 = [(2 − a + r)/ak2(2l)b]a(l − B)/(1 + r)(2l)1+ab, Mx/My = ka/(2 − a + r),
(16.9)
U(CD) = ln(l − B) + [(2 − a + r)ln(2 − a + r) − (2 + r)ln(2 + r) + (ab + 1)ln(2l) + a(ln a + 2 ln k)]/(1 + r) where U(CD) is the total discounted per capita real income for structure sequence CD, which is derived by inserting the corner equilibrium-relative prices into the expression for indirect total discounted utility in (16.5) or (16.6). 4. Sequences ED, FD, DD, DE, DF, DC: By a two-step procedure analogous to that used to solve for the dynamic corner equilibrium of sequence CD, it is possible to solve for the dynamic corner equilibria in the 8 structure sequences. The other five of all 16 sequences, CC, EC, FC, CE, and CF, are obviously infeasible because of their incompatibility with the budget constraint.
16.4 INVESTMENT, CAPITAL, AND DIVISION OF LABOR IN ROUNDABOUT PRODUCTION Those corner equilibria that do not generate the highest total discounted utility do not satisfy the condition that each individual maximizes her total discounted utility with respect to sequences of configurations. We call the dynamic corner equilibrium that generates the highest total discounted per capita real income the Pareto optimum dynamic corner equilibrium. Following the method used to prove the Yao theorem in chapter 4, we can show that only the Pareto optimum dynamic corner equilibrium is the dynamic general equilibrium. Comparisons among the total discounted per capita real incomes for all feasible sequences of structure yield the results in table 16.1.
Table 16.1
Total discounted per capita real incomes in seven structure sequences
Structure sequence
Total discounted per capita real income
EE
ln(2l)/(1 + r) + ln(l − B)
FF
[(2 + r)/(1 + r)][ab ln(ab) − (ab + 1)ln(ab + 1)] + [(ab + 1)/(1 + r)][(1 + r)ln(l − A − B) + ln(2l − A − B)]
EF
{ab ln(ab) + (ab + 1)[ln(2l − A) − ln(ab + 1)]}/(1 + r) + ln(l − B)
ED
{a(2 ln k + ln a) + (1 − a)ln(1 − a) + ab ln(l − A) + ln(2l )}/(1 + r) + ln(l − B)
FD
{a(2 ln k + ln a) + (1 − a)ln(1 − a) + ab ln[ab(2l − A − B) + l ] + ln[(ab + 2)l − A − B]}/(1 + r) + ab ln(ab) + (ab + 1)[ln(l − A − B) − (2 + r)ln(ab + 1)/(1 + r)]
DD
(2 + r){a(2 ln k + ln a) + (1 − a)ln(1 − a)}/(1 + r) + ab ln(l − A) + ln(l − B) + [(1 + ab)ln(2l )/(1 + r)]
CD
ln(l − B) + [(2 − a + r)ln(2 − a + r) − (2 + r)ln(2 + r) + (ab + 1)ln(2l ) + a(ln a + 2 ln k)]/(1 + r)
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 489
16.4.1 Dynamic general equilibrium Structure sequence FE is obviously inefficient. Individuals prefer roundabout production in this model. They do not choose a structure with two goods, such as F, only if the forgone economies of specialized learning by doing are greater than the economies of roundabout production. If they can afford two goods in structure F in period 1, they will certainly be more able to afford the two goods in F in period 2 because of learning by doing. Hence, FF instead of FE will be chosen. Similarly, it can be shown that DE, which involves devolution in division of labor and in production roundaboutness, is inefficient. If D is better than E in period 1, then the benefit of division of labor must outweigh transaction costs – all the more so in period 2, because learning by doing is faster in D than in E. A comparison of U(EF) and U(FF) indicates that U(EF) > U(FF) if A + B > l − 1, which is assumed. Hence, we can further rule out structure sequence FF from consideration. Hence, we can compare total discounted per capita real incomes in 6 structure sequences in table 16.1 to partition the 6-dimension parameter space of a, b, A, B, r, k into several parameter subspaces. The dividing line between those structure sequences of autarky and those with division of labor is of course determined by a critical value of transaction efficiency k, because of the trade-off between economies of specialized learning by doing and transaction costs. The dividing line between CD and DD is determined by the fixed learning cost A. For A < l, we can show that DD, which has trade in tractors in period 1, is always better than CD, which does not involve trade in tractors in period 1, since it is obviously inefficient not to trade tractors that can be completed in period 1 for A < l. Hence, CD will be a candidate for dynamic general equilibrium only if A = l, which implies that it takes one period to complete the production of a tractor. We now consider structure sequences ED, FD, DD, which are candidates for dynamic general equilibrium if A < l and k is sufficiently large. From table 16.1, we see U(ED) > U(FD) iff γ > γ0,
(16.10a)
U(DD) > U(ED) iff γ > γ1,
(16.10b)
U(DD) > U(FD) iff γ > γ2,
(16.10c)
where γ = ab ln(l − A)/(1 + r) increases with the degree of economies of specialization in producing tractors, which is b, and with the degree of economies of roundaboutness, which is ab, and decreases with the discount rate r, γ0 ≡ {ab ln[ab(2l − A − B) + l] + ln[(ab + 2)l − A − B)] − (ab + 1)(2 + r)ln(ab + 1) − ln(2l)}/(1 + r) + [ab ln(ab) + (ab + 1)ln(l − A − B) − ln(l − B)], γ1 ≡ − [β + ab ln(2l)/(1 + r)]/r, β ≡ a(2 ln k + ln a) + (1 − a)ln(1 − a), γ2 ≡ [γ0 − β + ab ln(2l)/ (1 + r)](1 + r)−1. (16.6) implies that U(ED) > U(DD) and U(ED) > U(FD) iff γ ∈(γ 0, γ1) which holds only if
(16.11a)
γ1 > γ0.
(16.11b)
A comparison between γ1 and γ0 indicates that γ1 > γ0 iff A + B is smaller than l but also sufficiently large to be close to l. Hence, if A + B is sufficiently smaller than l, so that γ1 < γ0, we can exclude ED from consideration. Then the dividing line between FD and DD is given by (16.6c). If A + B is close to l, γ0 and γ2 tend to negative infinity. Hence, FD is ruled out. The set of candidates for dynamic general equilibrium comprises ED, FD, and DD. The dividing line between them is given in (16.6b).
490 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS Table 16.2
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Dynamic general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative dynamics
A k0
EE
CD
autarky with only food produced in 2 periods
division of labor with explicit saving
ab < ρ0
ab > ρ0
A + B is close to l
A, B are small
EE
EF
γ < γ1
γ > γ1
γ < γ2
γ > γ2
autarky with only food produced in 2 periods
autarky with tractor emerging in t = 2
ED evolution in specialization, tractor emerges in t=2
DD division of labor without evolution
FD evolution in specialization with 2 goods produced in 2 periods
DD division of labor without evolution
Suppose k is sufficiently close to 0, then all structure sequences with division of labor generate negative infinite total discounted per capita real income. The set of candidates for general equilibrium comprises EE and EF. A comparison between U(EE) and U(EF) generates the dividing line between the two structure sequences, as shown in table 16.2. Suppose A = l. Then, it takes a tractor specialist one period to build up enough human capital to produce a commercially viable tractor; and only EE and CD are feasible. ED is infeasible since a tractor is not produced in E in period 1 and it cannot be completed in period 2, even by a tractor specialist (see figure 16.2), a situation that is incompatible with the definition of D, which requires trade in tractors. FD is infeasible since in F, a person self-provides both tractors and food. Even if she allocates all time to the production of tractors in period 1, a tractor can be completed only in period 2, a situation that is incompatible with the definition of F, which requires that a person drive a self-provided tractor to produce food. DD is infeasible, again because D is infeasible in period 1 for A = l. A comparison between U(EE) and U(CD) yields the dividing line between EE and CD, as shown in table 16.2. All of the results of dynamic general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative dynamics are summarized in table 16.2. EE, as shown in figure 16.2, denotes that all individuals selfprovide food in the absence of tractors in both periods. EF, as shown in figure 16.2, denotes that all individuals choose autarky in both periods, but they self-provide only food in period 1 and self-provide both food and tractors in period 2. In other words, tractors emerge in period 2 and there is evolution in the number of goods and in production roundaboutness over time. ED, as shown in figure 16.2, denotes that individuals self-provide food in period 1, while in period 2 some of them specialize in producing food and others specialize in producing tractors. Evolution of division of labor takes place through increases in both individual specialization and in the number of goods. FD, as shown in figure 16.2, denotes that individuals self-provide both food and tractors in period 1 and choose specialization and trade the two goods in period 2. In other words, evolution of division of labor takes place through an increase in individual specialization in the absence of changes in production roundaboutness. DD denotes the division of labor and trade in the two goods in the two periods without its evolution, but with an implicit self-saving in period 1. CD, as shown in figure 16.2, denotes the division of labor in the two periods with explicit saving and an interpersonal loan. In table 16.2, ρ0 ≡ [ln(2l) − ln(2l − A) + ln(ab + 1)]/[ln(2l − A) − ln(ab + 1) + ln(ab)], γ = ab ln(l − A)/(1 + r) increases with the degree of economies of specialization in producing tractors, which is b, and with the degree of economies of roundaboutness, which is ab, and decreases with the discount rate r, γ0 ≡ {ab ln[ab(2l − A − B) + l] + ln[(ab + 2)l − A − B)] + (ab + 1)[ln(l −
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 491
A − B) − (2 + r)ln(ab + 1)] − ln(2l)}/(1 + r) + [ab ln(ab) − ln(l − B)], γ1 ≡ −[β + ab ln(2l)/(1 + r)]/ r, β ≡ a(2 ln k + ln a) + (1 − a)ln(1 − a), γ2 ≡ [γ0 − b + ab ln(2l)/(1 + r)](1 + r)−1, and ln k0 ≡ [(2 + r)ln(2 + r) − (2 − a + r)ln(2 − a + r) − a ln a − ab ln(2l)]/2a. Here, ab > ρ0 means that the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness is greater than a critical value. γ > γi means that the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness is greater and the discount rate is smaller than some critical value. k > k0 means that the transaction efficiency parameter is larger than a critical value. Note that γ1 and γ2 decrease as k increases, so that DD is more likely to be equilibrium compared to ED or FD if transaction efficiency is higher. Also, k0 decreases with ab, so that CD is more likely to be equilibrium compared to EE if the degrees of economies of specialization and roundaboutness are greater. The dynamic general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative dynamics are also summarized in words in the following proposition. Proposition 16.1: 1) The dynamic general equilibrium is an autarky sequence if transaction efficiency, k, is low. i) Equilibrium is EE where each individual self-provides food over two periods if the degrees of economies of specialization and roundaboutness are not great; ii) Equilibrium is EF which involves evolution in the number of goods and emergence of tractor in period 2, but without specialization and its evolution if the degrees of economies of specialization and roundaboutness are great. 2) The general equilibrium involves division of labor and/or its evolution but does not involve explicit saving if transaction efficiency is sufficiently high and if A < l. i) Total fixed learning cost A + B is close to l: a) Equilibrium is ED if the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness is not too great and the discount rate is not too small. The equilibrium sequence involves evolution in specialization as well as in the number of goods; b) Equilibrium is DD if the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness is great and the discount rate is small. The equilibrium sequence jumps to the highest level of division of labor as soon as possible and stays there; ii) Fixed learning costs A and B are small: a) Equilibrium is FD if the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness is not too great and the discount rate is not too small. The equilibrium sequence involves evolution in division of labor but not in the number of goods; b) Equilibrium is DD if the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness is great and the discount rate is small. The equilibrium sequence involves no evolution in division of labor nor in the number of goods; 3) If transaction efficiency is high and the fixed learning cost A = l, then equilibrium is CD where professional farmers make loans in terms of food to professional producers of tractors in period 1, and this explicit saving is then repaid in period 2 in terms of tractors. Proposition 16.1 provides a characterization of the conditions under which the various sequences of market structures will occur in dynamic general equilibrium. There are five parameters that determine the inframarginal comparative dynamics of the equilibrium: A (fixed learning cost in producing tractors), B (fixed learning cost in producing food), k (transaction efficiency), ab (degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness), and r (discount rate). Transaction efficiency determines whether specialization is more likely to take place in the equilibrium compared to autarky. The fixed learning cost A determines whether explicit saving is essential for the division of labor. If A is small, then explicit saving and interpersonal lending are not necessary for the division of labor. When specialization and related trade take place in DD, there is an implicit investment for increasing specialization, which is in terms
492 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
of a decrease in consumption of food in period 1 (compared to consumption of food in an alternative autarky structure), caused by transaction costs. However, such investment does not involve interpersonal lending. Hence, investment comes from self-saving rather than from commercial saving. This implicit saving in terms of a lower utility in an early stage of development caused by a faster evolution in division of labor is the same as in the dynamic equilibrium model in chapter 14. The time paths of per capita real income for different structure sequences are shown in figure 16.3, which describes the nontopological features of evolution of division of labor and economic growth. If A = l, then explicit saving and an interpersonal loan are necessary for the division of labor. If A < l but A + B is close to l, then FD is infeasible and ED will be equilibrium provided k is large and ab is not great compared to r. The degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness ab determines whether a larger number of goods and/or a higher level of specialization is more likely to take place in the equilibrium. Gradual evolution in individuals’ levels of specialization and/or in the number of goods will take place in the equilibrium if k is large but ab is small compared to r, or if k is small but ab is large. A larger discount rate r will make a small number of goods and a low level of specialization more likely to take place in the equilibrium. As in the Smithian models in other chapters, increases in the extent of the market, in trade dependence, in the extent of endogenous comparative advantage, in productivity, in the degree of production roundaboutness, in the variety of goods and professions, in the degree of production concentration, and in the degree of market integration are different aspects of the evolution in division of labor. But in this new model, not only are the level of division of labor and the extent of the market interdependent, but also the saving rate, returns to investment, and the level of division of labor. Returns to capital are dependent on the level of division of labor, which is determined by the saving rate, which is in turn determined by returns to investment. Here, the level of division of labor is organization capital that contributes to long-run productivity.
16.4.2 Nontopological properties of economic growth and the sudden decline of interest rates So far we have focused our attention on the inframarginal comparative dynamics of general equilibrium and related topological properties of the economic organism. Figure 16.3 shows some nontopological properties of economic growth (increase in per capita real income). Panel (a) shows that for A = l and a sufficiently high transaction efficiency, sequence CD generates a lower per capita real income than sequence EE in an early stage of economic development because of transaction costs caused by the division of labor in CD. Later, per capita real income generated by CD is increasingly higher than that in EE because of the effect of specialized ut
ut CD
DD ED
EE
t (a) Time paths of utility in CD and EE
EF
t (b) Time paths of utility in EF, ED, DD
Figure 16.3 Nontopological properties of evolution in division of labor and economic growth
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 493
learning by doing. Indeed, if the decision horizon is divided into more than just two periods, this feature will be more obvious. Panel (b) shows the similar features of sequences EF, DE, and DD when A < l and transaction efficiency is sufficiently high. If transaction efficiency, k, and the fixed learning cost, A, are sufficiently large, then dynamic general equilibrium is CD, where a loan in terms of food is made from a professional farmer to a professional producer of tractors in period 1 and repaid in terms of tractors in period 2. A farmer’s saving level and saving rate in period 1 are respectively S ≡ y 1s = a(l − B)/(2 + r),
s ≡ y 1s/( y1 + y 1s ) = a/(2 + r).
S and s increase with a, which positively relates to the degree of economies of roundaboutness, and decrease with the subjective discount rate. But more importantly, transaction efficiency k determines if CD or EE is equilibrium. If transaction efficiency k is very small due to a deficient tax system or a deficient legal system, then EE instead of CD will be equilibrium, which implies a zero saving rate. Also, the magnitude of the fixed learning cost determines whether implicit or explicit saving is essential for a high growth rate of per capita real income. The real saving level in CD can be calculated as the difference in utility between EE and CD in period 1. The real return on the saving can be calculated from the difference in discounted utility between CD and EE in period 2. The real interest rate is the ratio of the real return to the real saving, which is given as follows. R = [(2 − a + r)ln(2 − a + r) + 2(1 + r)ln(1 + r) − (2 + r)ln(2 + r) + a(b ln 2 + ln a + 2 ln k)]/(1 + r)[ln(2 + r) − 2 ln(1 + r) − ln(2 − a + r)] The inframarginal comparative dynamics of the general equilibrium imply that if the values of the parameters of transaction efficiency and economies of specialization and roundaboutness decline to threshold levels, then dynamic equilibrium shifts from CD to EE (autarky), and real returns to saving jump down to 0. The marginal comparative dynamics indicate that as the parameters change within the range defined by the threshold values such that equilibrium stays in CD, then the real interest rate R increases with transaction efficiency and with the degree of economies of specialization (∂R/∂k > 0, ∂R/∂b > 0). This result can be used to theorize the successful practice of the Hong Kong and Taiwan governments in carrying out liberalization and internationalization policies which stimulated investment and trade by reducing tax. The theory of capital and investment can be used to explain a sudden decline of interest rates. Suppose the transaction efficiency coefficient and the fixed learning cost are sufficiently large, so that CD is general equilibrium and the saving rate and real interest rate on the saving are positive. However, if the decision horizon is longer than two periods, then the opportunity for investment will suddenly disappear in period t > 2 as structure D, which involves the highest level of division of labor in the model, has been reached. If the number of goods is more than 2 in the model, then opportunities for lucrative investment may last longer than two periods. But there is a limit for the evolution in division of labor. For instance, the number of professional sectors cannot be larger than the population size, so that the highest level of division of labor will eventually be reached and no more opportunity for investment for increasing division of labor can be pursued if the number of professional sectors is close to the population size. This is an interesting explanation for a decline in interest rates, which is consistent with the classical theory of capital based on the intimate connection between capital and division of labor, but is substantially different from Keynes’ (1936) view of interest rates which focuses on the implication of pure consumers’ preference for liquidity, but has nothing to do with the implications of division of labor.
494 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
If CD is dynamic general equilibrium, then the growth rate of consumption of food for a specialist producer of tractors is ( y 2d − y 1d )/y 1d = [1/(1 + r)py2] − 1 where py2 = (l − B)[(2 − a + r)/ak2]a/(1 + r)(2l)1+ab is the price of period 2 food in terms of period 1 food; the price index of consumption goods. This index decreases with the transaction efficiency coefficient, or the discount rate, or labor productivity of food, in period 2 compared to that in period 1.
16.4.3 An endogenous decision horizon and effect of liberalization on opportunities for lucrative investment If the decision horizon is a decision variable, and uncertainty in realizing the gains from investment for increasing division of labor is introduced, there is another interesting trade-off between gains from a longer decision horizon which leads to the amortization of investment cost over a longer period of time, and a decreasing probability of realizing the gains. Suppose the fixed learning cost A = l in an extended model, which is the same as the original one except that the decision horizon T is each individual’s decision variable. The discount rate is assumed to be 0 and l is assumed to be 1 for simplicity. The probability of realizing gains of total discounted utility from a sequence with the division of labor and savings, compared to autarky, is f (T ) = 1/T, and the probability that the gain is 0 is 1 − f (T), which can be considered as the risk of failing to realize the gains from a longer decision horizon. This risk increases as the decision horizon becomes longer. Each individual maximizes expected gains in total discounted utility from choosing the division of labor. Then, it can be shown that the necessary condition for the equilibrium decision horizon is equivalent to the first-order condition for maximizing: V = f (T )F(T, k, a, b), F(T, k, a, b) = {[T − a(T − 1)]ln[T − a(T − 1)] + a(T − 1)(ln 2 + ln a + 2 ln k) + b[0.5(1 + T )T − 1]} where F is the difference in total utility over T periods between division of labor and autarky. Application of the envelope theorem to V = f (T )F(T, k, a, b) and of the implicit function theorem to F yields the comparative dynamics: dT */dk = −(∂2V/∂k∂T )/(∂2V/∂T 2) > 0, and dV(T *, k)/dk = ∂V(T *, k)/∂k > 0 where ∂2V/∂k∂T > 0, ∂2V/∂T 2 < 0. T * is the equilibrium decision horizon, which efficiently trades off the gains from a longer horizon against a decreasing probability of realizing them. The policy implications of the result are straightforward. A liberalization and internationalization policy which reduces tariffs, or a better legal system which reduces transaction costs, will increase individuals’ efficient decision horizon and increase the opportunities for lucrative investment for increasing division of labor. Our model shows that investment does not necessarily increase future productivity. Productivity in the future can be increased by an investment that is used to create a higher level of division of labor which can speed up the accumulation of professional experience (human capital) through specialized learning by producing roundabout productive equipment or services. Self-saving is enough for investment for increasing division of labor if the fixed learning cost in
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
AND
S AVING 495
roundabout productive activities is not large. A loan from a producer of consumption goods to specialist producers of producer goods is essential for such investment if the fixed learning cost is large. If the transaction cost coefficient is large due to a deficient legal system or to a protectionist tariff, the opportunity for lucrative investment for increasing division of labor does not exist, so that investment may not increase real income. A decrease in the degree of economies of specialization and roundaboutness, an increase in the transaction cost coefficient, and/or exhaustion of the potential for further evolution of division of labor, will reduce real return rates on investment and reduce opportunities for lucrative investment. This Smithian model of investment, capital, and saving endogenizes the gains from investment. There is no “if and only if ” relationship between saving and productivity progress. Whether saving and investment can raise productivity is up to the values of several parameters. This mapping is determined by individuals’ dynamic self-interested behaviors and interactions between them through the pricing mechanism. This model not only parameterizes the conditions under which investment and saving is lucrative and under which an interpersonal loan or self-saving is essential for lucrative investment, but also explores the intimate relationship between various patterns of evolution of division of labor and production roundaboutness and various saving mechanisms, such as interpersonal lending and self-savings.
Key Terms and Review • Capital, investment, saving and the relationship between them and evolution in division of labor • The difference between interpersonal lending based on differences in the valuation of time between individuals, which generate gains from trade in goods at different points in time, and interpersonal lending based on the development of division of labor in a roundabout production process • The difference between the function of self-saving (studied in chapter 14) and that of interpersonal lending studied in this chapter in promoting division of labor • Endogenous versus exogenous gains from savings • The difference between neoclassical saving and investment fundamentalism and the classical productivity implications of savings • The relationship between returns to investment, transaction efficiency, and division of labor • How the market fulfills the function of determining the efficient levels of saving, interpersonal loans, and investment • Type IV scale effect; why it is rejected by empirical evidence
Further Reading Neoclassical macroeconomic theory of saving behavior: Keynes (1936), Friedman (1957), Modigliani (1989); Neoclassical microeconomic theories of saving, credit: Besley (1995), Besley, Coate, and Loury (1993), Deaton (1990, 1991), Leland (1968), Barro (1997); Collateral, information, and credit: Stiglitz and Weiss (1986), Banerjee and Besley (1990); The reputation mechanism of credit: Diamond (1989), Patten and Rosengard (1991); Neoclassical saving fundamentalism: Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), Romer (1987, 1990), Lucas (1988, 1993), Solow (1956); Empirical evidence to reject saving fundamentalism: Jones (1995), Olsen (1996), and Liu and Yang (2000); The Smith–Young theory of saving and investment: Yang and Borland (1991), Borland and Yang (1995), Y.-K. Ng and Yang (1997), Yang (1999); Classical thinking on division of labor and saving: Mill (1848), Smith (1776), Young (1928), Marshall (1890).
496 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
QUESTIONS 1 Many neoclassical development economists use state equations (such as in the two gap model) or partial equilibrium models to justify worries about the shortage of investment flow into, or about capital flight from, the less-developed economies. But the general equilibrium models of saving and investment in this chapter show that transaction costs, which might be caused by state opportunism and deficient institutions and infrastructure, are responsible for these problems. Compare the two analytical methods and discuss their relevance to the real world. 2 According to neoclassical economics, the phenomenon that returns to capital are higher in developing countries than in developed countries is explained by the fact that the developed countries are capital abundant, so that marginal productivity of capital is lower than in developing countries which are short of capital. Use the Smith–Young theory of capital to explain the phenomenon. Analyze the differences between the two explanations and discuss which explanation is more convincing in connection with the following observation. In some less-developed countries, such as pre-reform India, shortage of capital did not imply a high return to capital. Explain why returns to capital in the more open coastal regions of China are higher than in hinterland regions despite the more serious shortage of capital in the latter than in the former. On the basis of your analysis, find empirical evidence for the theory in this chapter and against the neoclassical theory of capital. 3 What is the difference between self-saving and interpersonal loans? 4 Outline various possible self-saving mechanisms and discuss the differences between them. 5 Outline the gains from various possible forms of interpersonal lending and discuss the differences between them. 6 What is the relationship between lucrative interpersonal lending and development of division of labor? 7 What is organizational capital? Use the following fact to discuss the difference between neoclassical and Smithian notions of capital. Many successful entrepreneurs understand that the real constraint on the development of their businesses is not availability of investment funds. Instead, it is potential productivity gains from the division of labor, which can be held back by transaction costs. Hence, entrepreneurs who do not have much investment funds can make a fortune from organizational capital. 8 Compare the following two views on saving and investment and discuss their relevance to real economic development. One of them relates to investment fundamentalism which claims an if-and-only-if positive relationship between current saving and future productivity. This view generates worries about a shortage of domestic and foreign investment and foreign exchanges being the main obstacle to economic development. The other view focuses on gains from intertemporal trade of goods. According to it, transaction costs that prevent realization of gains are the main obstacle to economic development. 9 What is the difference between the functions of working capital and fixed capital in facilitating division of labor? 10 Use the examples of the high saving rate of the Soviet Union and Egypt in 5000 bc to illustrate why a high saving rate may not yield higher productivity progress.
C HAPTER 16: I NVESTMENT
11 12
AND
S AVING 497
What is the difference between saving used to buy durable goods, peasants’ saving of corn seed each year, and saving that can be used to raise productivity through promoting division of labor? Myrdal (1956, pp. 47–51) argued that despite shortage of capital in less-developed countries, free capital markets never generate much capital movement to them. Instead, the free market will lead to capital flight. Use statistical data to check if this claim is correct. Use the Smithian model of capital and investment in this chapter to explain why capital does not flow to some less-developed countries, but does flow to others.
EXERCISES
1 Consider the model in example 16.2. Assume that the utility functions are now uA = xA1x δA2, uB = xB1xB2. δ is a positive parameter. Solve for the equilibrium interest rates for δ = 1, δ < 1, and δ > 1, respectively. Identify the condition for person A to borrow money from person B. 2 Assume that in example 16.2, the utility function is the same for the two persons, but person A produces 2 units of goods in period 1, while person B’s capacity is always 1 in the two periods. Solve for the equilibrium interest rates. 3 Introduce moral hazard into the models in examples 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 to investigate the effects of endogenous transaction cost on the equilibrium saving rate. 4 Rule out the assumption in section 16.3 that A + B > l − 1. Show under what conditions the structure sequence FF will occur in equilibrium. 5 Assume B = 0 in section 16.3. Solve for dynamic equilibrium and its comparative dynamics. 6 Assume that the production function in section 16.3 is y ip = Min{xi + kx id, α(Lyt − σB)}. Solve for the dynamic equilibrium.
Note 1 Smith wrote (1776, p. 371): “when the division of labor has once been thoroughly introduced, the produce of a man’s own labor can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men’s labor, which he purchases with the produce, . . . of his own. But this purchase cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labor has not only been completed, but sold. A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work, till such time, at least, as both these events can be brought about.”
498 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
MONEY, DIVISION OF LABOR, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
17
17.1 NEOCLASSICAL AND CLASSICAL THEORIES OF MONEY In the previous chapters we have given no consideration to the relationship between economic development and money. All transactions have been on a barter basis and relative prices have been exchange ratios of goods. In those models with only final goods and with ex ante identical individuals who prefer diverse consumption, all transactions that are essential for division of labor necessarily involve a double coincidence of demand and supply. From figures 7.4 and 7.5, we can see that in a model with ex ante identical consumer-producers in the absence of producer goods, trade between each pair of trade partners is two-way. This implies that, for each pair of trade partners, if one sells good 1 and buys good 2, then the other must buy good 1 and sell good 2, just like when a boy and a girl simultaneously fall in love with each other: what he wants from her is what she wants to give him, and what she wants from him is what he wants to give her. However the double coincidence of demand and supply may not hold under at least two circumstances. We shall use the Kiyotaki–Wright (KW) model (1989), which involves ex ante differences between consumer-producers, to illustrate the first case, and the Borland–Yang (BY) model (1992) to illustrate the second case. Example 17.1: The Kiyotaki–Wright (KW) model of money. Consider the KW model, as shown in figure 17.1(a), where person A wants good z (meat), but produces only x (rice), person B produces only z, but wants y (bread), and person C wants good x, but produces only y. In this economy with different tastes and production capacities between individuals, trade between each pair of trade partners is one-way only, and a double coincidence of demand and supply does not hold in the absence of money. However, the absence of a double coincidence of demand and supply is necessary but not sufficient for the emergence of money. If all trade partners go to a central clearing house and simultaneously deliver goods to the right buyers according to Walrasian equilibrium prices, money is still not needed. Barter is enough to coordinate all essential transactions. But if it is impossible to implement all deliveries at the same time in such a central clearing house, money will be essential for this economy. For instance, if the production of y can take place only if person C has received x, then deliveries of x and y cannot be implemented at the same time. If it is impossible to implement all transactions at the same time, then a one-way delivery of x that takes place before deliveries of y and z is a sort of credit arrangement in the
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
z
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 499
B y
A
AND
A
z
B
x
C
y
x C (a) Absence of double coincidence of demand and supply
(b) Good y is commodity money
Figure 17.1 The absence of double coincidence of demand and supply based on ex ante differences between individuals
expectation of eventual delivery of z. If such a credit system is not available (as is very likely when, for instance, you buy a good from a stranger on the street whom you may never meet again), then person A who delivers x to person C will ask for some commodity as payment in order to secure property rights. But what A wants is z which person C does not produce, that is, there is no double coincidence of demand and supply between A and C. Suppose A accepts y, which is produced by C, but is useless for direct consumption by A. Then A can use y to exchange z with B, as shown in figure 17.1(b) where all transactions are two-way. Commodity y is here used by person A to facilitate her further transactions. Person A does not use y for her own consumption, or for her production. A commodity that satisfies this condition is called commodity money. Hence, in the structure of transactions in figure 17.1(b), good y becomes commodity money for person A. If person A delivers x to person C, and in return C gives A a note which specifies how much C owes to A, then A may give this note to B in exchange for z produced by B. Then B can use this note in exchange for y from C. In this case, the note becomes a money substitute. Travelers’ checks and money orders are common money substitutes, which themselves have no direct value for consumption and production, but can substitute for commodity money. If the money substitute is enforced by a government legal system and is not backed by any commodity money, we call it fiat money. Most of the currencies that we use in daily life are fiat money. The story described in figure 17.1 predicts that the commodity with the lowest transaction cost will play the role of medium of exchange. This story is not particularly interesting since we can predict this with no formal model.1 It cannot predict the emergence of money, and it cannot explore the intimate relationship between money and division of labor, since in that story individuals cannot choose their levels of specialization and they cannot survive in the absence of money or a related credit system. Furthermore, that story does not explore the productivity implications of money. Plato (380 bc, pp. 102–6) spelled out the connection between money and division of labor more than 2,000 years ago. Smith (1776, p. 37) and Turgot (1766, pp. 244–6, 264, 270) indicated that specialization is the driving force behind the emergence of money.2 Borland and Yang (1992; see also Yang and Ng, 1993, ch. 17) developed the first Smithian general equilibrium model to explain the emergence of money from evolution of division of labor in roundabout production. They have shown that even if all consumer-producers are ex ante identical in all aspects, money will emerge from a sufficiently high level of division of labor in a sufficiently long roundabout production chain. In their model, specialization and division of labor is necessary, but not sufficient for the emergence of money, while ex ante differences between individuals are not essential.
500 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
(a) Autarky x
x
(b) Partial division of labor y xy/z y/z z z
y
x x/z
zy/x
z
z
y z
x x
y
y y
x
x
y
y
y
z
z
z
z
z z (c) Complete division of labor
z (d) Good y plays role of money
Figure 17.2 Emergence of money and evolution of division of labor
Example 17.2: Borland and Yang’s model of money. The story of the emergence of money from the evolution of division of labor in roundabout production can be illustrated by figure 17.2. In that model there are many ex ante identical consumer-producers. Each of them can produce steel (x) from labor, then use steel, together with labor, to produce hoes (y), then use hoes, together with labor, to produce food (z) for her own consumption. This is an autarky structure as shown in panel (a), where dots denote the transformation process from intermediate inputs to outputs. For this autarky structure, trade, a market, and money are absent. This verifies the statement that division of labor is essential for the emergence of money. Individuals may choose a structure of partial division of labor: either between configuration (z/y) (complete specialization in producing food) and configuration (xy/z) (producing steel x and hoes y) or between configuration (x/z) (complete specialization in producing steel x) and configuration (zy/x) (producing both hoes y and food z). In this type of structure, shown in panel (b), barter transactions with a double coincidence of demand and supply are enough to facilitate partial division of labor. This substantiates the statement that specialization and division of labor are not sufficient for the emergence of money. The third type of structure with complete division of labor is shown in panel (c), where each individual completely specializes in producing one good and trade between a specialist in x and a specialist in y or between a specialist in x and a specialist in z is one-way. A specialist in steel sells steel (x) to a specialist in hoes (y), but she does not need hoes. A specialist in food sells food (z) to a specialist in steel, but she does not need steel. If there is no central clearing house where all traded goods can be simultaneously delivered, then the complete division of labor in the roundabout production chain with three links cannot be realized in the absence of money. If economies of specialization in producing each good and transaction costs are specified, then the general equilibrium will evolve from autarky to partial division of labor, followed by the complete division of labor as transaction efficiency is improved. In order to facilitate the complete division of labor in a roundabout production chain with three links, either a commodity money, or a money substitute, or a credit system will be used as a medium of exchange. Figure 17.2(d) shows the structure of transactions with good y as commodity money, where a x specialist exchanges x for y with a y specialist, then exchanges y for z with a z specialist.
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 501
Commodity y is not used by the x specialist for consumption and production. She uses y as a medium to facilitate further transactions. Borland and Yang (1992) demonstrate that if a money substitute is not available, or a credit system involves excessive transaction costs due to a war or other social turmoil, then the commodity with the smallest transaction cost coefficient will be used as money. If all commodities have the same transaction cost coefficient, then the commodity in the middle link of the roundabout production chain (y) will be used as money. If a credit system or a money substitute with a much smaller transaction cost coefficient is available, then the credit system or the money substitute will be used as a medium of exchange. Money can promote productivity progress through facilitating a high level of division of labor in a long roundabout production chain, which is infeasible in the absence of money. In the model the equilibrium price of commodity money in terms of other goods, the degree of monetization of an economy, the level of division of labor and the circulating quantity of money are all endogenized. In the next three sections, we use a simple general equilibrium model to illustrate the technical substance of this kind of model.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n
n n n n n n n n
Under what circumstances does the double coincidence of demand and supply not occur? What other condition, in addition to the absence of double coincidence of demand and supply, is needed for the emergence of money? What is the relationship between the level of division of labor, the length of roundabout production, transaction efficiency, and the emergence of money? Under what conditions can fiat money or other money substitutes play the role of medium of exchange? What features of a commodity are important for it to be chosen as money? In an economy, what is the relationship between the degree of commercialization, the degree of monetization, and the level of division of labor? What are the important determinants of the value of money? How can fiat money, money substitutes, and a credit system promote economic development? How does the market sort out the efficient monetary regime and the efficient level of division of labor? What are the productivity implications of money?
17.2 A SMITHIAN MODEL WITH AN ENDOGENOUS MONETARY REGIME AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Example 17.3: A simplified version of the Cheng model of money (1999). Consider a Smithian model with a continuum of M ex ante identical consumer-producers. Each of them has the utility function u = (x + x r )( y + y r) where x and y denote the quantity of food and clothing self-provided, respectively; and x r and y r denote the quantity of food and clothing received for consumption from the market, respectively. An individual incurs a fixed learning cost in terms of labor, 0.2, for each production activity in which she engages. Because of the fixed learning cost, the production system exhibits economies
502 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
of specialization. Of the two consumption goods, food is produced with a single factor, labor, such that x p ≡ x + x s = Max{lx − 1/5, 0}. where x is the quantity of food produced for self-consumption; x s is the quantity of food sold to the market; x p is the total output level of food; and lx is the proportion of labor devoted to food production. Clothing is produced with labor and an intermediate good, silk (z), using the Leontief production technology, y p ≡ y + y s = Min{z + zr, Max{ly − 1/5, 0}} where y is the quantity of clothing produced for self-consumption; y s is the quantity of clothing sold to the market; y p is the total output level of cloth; and ly is the proportion of labor devoted to clothing production. Silk is produced with a single factor, labor, such that z p ≡ z + z s = Max{lz − 1/5, 0} where z is the quantity of silk produced for self-production of clothing; zs is the quantity of silk sold to the market; and lz is the proportion of labor devoted to silk production. li is an individual’s level of specialization in producing good i. Each individual’s endowment constraint for time is lx + ly + lz = 1. If an individual trades in the market, transaction costs are incurred. The transaction cost coefficient for good i is (1 − ki). In market transactions, an individual may accept goods in exchange solely for their ability to exchange for some other goods. These accepted goods serve as media of exchange or commodity money, denoted with a superscript m. Denoting the total quantity of food, clothing, and silk demanded by an individual for consumption or production and as a medium of exchange as x d, y d, z d, respectively, the quantity that is finally received, net of transaction costs, is therefore kx x d, ky y d, kz z d, respectively. Hence, the material balance equations between what a person receives from purchase and its use are kx x d = x r + x m ky y d = y r + y m kz z = z + z d
r
(17.1)
m
where the left-hand side of each equation is the quantity of a good that a person receives from the purchase and the right-hand side is the allocation of the quantity between consumption or production and medium of exchange. x r, y r, and z r are the quantities of food, clothing, and silk allocated for consumption or production, respectively; x m, y m, and z m are the quantity of food, clothing, and silk allocated as a medium of exchange, respectively. To make the exchange between z and y possible without including inventories in the model, we assume that production is instantaneous once the required factors of production are available. Thus a clothing producer can buy silk from a silk producer, produce clothing, and pay the silk producer with some of the clothing produced. We also assume that trade is strictly bilateral and that an individual cannot trade with two different individuals simultaneously. This rules
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 503
out the possible existence of a central clearing house and makes sequential exchanges necessary. In addition, we assume a zero discount rate to avoid complications caused by the time dimension; and we make the assumption that no enforceable credit system exists, which we subsequently relax in the discussion of money substitutes.
17.3 POSSIBLE STRUCTURES AND MONETARY REGIMES There are 7 market structures that we have to consider. The first is structure A, where M individuals choose an autarky configuration. Each of them self-provides three goods, as shown in figure 17.3. There are three structures Ba, Bb, Bc, called partial division of labor. Structure Ba comprises configuration (x/y), which self-provides and sells x and buys y, and configuration (yz/x), which self-provides y and z, sells y, and buys x. Structure Bb comprises configuration (xy/z), which self-provides and sells x, self-provides y, and buys z, and configuration (zy/x) which sells z, self-provides z and y, and buys x. Structure Bc comprises configuration (zx/y), which self-provides x, sells z, and buys y, and configuration (yx/z), which self-provides and sells clothing and buys z. All of the structures are shown in figure 17.3. There are four structures C y, Cz, Cx, and D, referred to as complete division of labor. Cy comprises configurations (x/y), (y/xz), and (zy m/xy). Configuration (x/y) is the same as in structure Ba. Configuration ( y/xz) self-provides and sells y and buys x and z. Configuration (zy m/xy) sells z, buys x and y for consumption, and uses part of y as money. Structure Cz comprises configurations (y/xz) selling y and buying x and z, (z/xy) selling z and buying x and y, and (xz m/y), selling x, buying y, and using z as money. Structure Cx comprises configurations (x/y) selling x and buying y, (z/xy) selling z and buying x and y, and (yx m/zx), selling y, buying z and y, and using x as money. Finally we consider structure D where the circulation of commodity money is replaced by fiat money, other money substitutes, or a credit system. If the circulation of commodity money y m in structure Cy is replaced by the circulation of a money substitute, then a structure with a money substitute that is backed by commodity money y is shown as structure D in figure 17.3. Suppose the circulation of the money substitute involves zero transaction cost, then it makes no difference which commodity money backs the money substitute. Hence, we ignore the distinction between structures with money substitutes that are backed by different commodity monies. Following the inframarginal analysis that you should be familiar with from previous chapters, it is not difficult to solve for the corner equilibria in those structures with no money. The procedure to solve for the corner equilibria in those structures with money is slightly more complicated. We show the procedure for structure Cz here and leave solutions to the other corner equilibria as exercises. We first consider a professional farmer choosing configuration (xz m/y). She sells food x and buys clothing y. Though she does not need silk for consumption and production, she buys silk from the weaver and sells it in exchange for part of the clothing that she consumes from the tailor. Hence, the farmer’s total budget constraint is py y d = px x s
(17.2a)
where trade in z is not explicitly included. The quantity of x that is sold by her is x s ≡ x zs + xys , where x zs is the quantity sold to the weaver of z and x ys is the quantity sold to the tailor of y. The total budget constraint can be decomposed as two bilateral trade balance conditions. When the farmer uses y as money her trade balance with the weaver is pzb zd = px x zs
(17.2b)
504 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS x
D EVELOPMENT
OF
z
x y
A
z x
x/y
y
yz/x y
Autarky structure A
Structure Ba x x y/xz
x/y
y
y x
x x
x xy/z
zy/x z
x z
z
zy m/xy y
Structure Bb
Structure Bc
x
Structure C y x
x zm
x
xz m/y
y/xz y x
y
y
y
y
y
yx/z
zx/y
y
xm
x yx m/zx
x/y
y
x
y/xz
z/xy Structure Cz
y m z1 x y1 z2
y
m
x/y
y2 z
zm
z
m
z/xy Structure Cx
m
x m
y
y
z
zm/xym Structure D
Figure 17.3 Market structures and monetary regimes
where zd is the quantity of silk that the farmer bought from the weaver to use as money, pzb is the buying price of silk for the farmer, x zs is the quantity of food that the farmer sells to the weaver. The trade balance condition between the farmer and the tailor is py y d = pzs z m + px x ys
(17.2c)
where z m is the quantity of silk z, resold by the farmer to the tailor, p zs is the selling price of silk z, x ys is the quantity of food sold by the farmer to the tailor. Silk z is money for the farmer. She cannot have bilateral trade with double coincidence of demand and supply if she does not use silk as money in this particular structure. But if the selling and buying prices of silk are the same for the farmer, or if pzb = pzs, she will not be willing to use money, since the reselling involves extra transaction costs. Hence, the selling price must be higher than the buying price so that the difference can cover the transaction cost. The material balance equation in (17.1) implies kzz d = z m for the farmer since z r = 0 for her. This and a trade balance (17.2) can simultaneously hold iff pzb = kz pzs where kz ∈(0, 1). The difference between the selling and buying price can be regarded as a price discount used by the weaver to attract the farmer to use silk as money. The discount rate is kz. We may still assume that in the equilibrium the price of silk is pz, but the farmer can get the discounted buying price pzb = kz pz from the weaver. Therefore, the decision problem for a farmer choosing configuration (xz m/y) is
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
Max: u = xyr s.t.
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 505
(utility function)
x + x ys + x zs = 4/5 p x = kz pzz s x z
(trade balance with weaver)
p x + pz z = py y s x y
(production function)
d
m
d
(trade balance with tailor)
kzz d = zm
(transaction condition for z)
where x, yr, x ys, xzs, zd, z m, y d are decision variables and x ys, x zs are respective quantities sold to the tailor and weaver. We leave the solution of this problem to you as an exercise. The decision problem of a tailor choosing configuration (y/xz) is Max: u = x ry s.t.
(utility function)
y + y xs + y zs = Min{(z xr + z zr ), 4/5}
(production function)
py y = p z
(trade balance with weaver)
py y xs = pxxd + pzz zd
(trade balance with farmer)
s z
d z z
kx x d = x r
(transaction condition for x)
kz(z + z ) = z + z d z
d x
r x
r z
(transaction condition for z)
where y xs + y zs ≡ y s, y xs and y zs are the respective amounts of clothing y sold to the farmer and weaver, z zd + z xd ≡ z d, z zd and z xd are the respective amounts of silk bought from the weaver and farmer. z xr + z zr ≡ z r, z zr and z xr are the respective amounts of silk received from the purchase from the weaver and farmer. Since the tailor uses silk to produce clothing and consumes clothing and food, these commodities are not money to her. The decision variables are x r, y, yxs , yzs , z xs , z zr , x d, z xd, z zd . Again we leave the solution of this problem to you as an exercise. The decision problem of a weaver choosing configuration (z/xy) is Max: u = xr yr s.t.
(utility function)
z xs + z ys = 4/5 p z = py y s z y
(production function)
d
(trade balance with tailor)
k p z = px x s z z x
kx xd = xr,
d
(trade balance with farmer) ky yd = y r
(transaction contition)
where z xs + z ys = z s, z xs and z ys are the respective amounts of silk sold to the farmer and tailor. Since the buying price of silk for the farmer is discounted by kz, the weaver’s selling price of silk is kz pz. The decision variables are xr, y r, z xs, z ys, y d, x d. From the three decision problems, we can solve for the demand and supply functions of x, y, z and indirect utility functions for the three configurations in structure Cz. The utility equalization and market clearing conditions in the structure then yield the corner equilibrium in this structure. Repeating this calculation for all other structures, we can obtain all information about the corner equilibria in 8 structures, which is summarized in table 17.1. You should work out all corner equilibria and compare your answer to the results in the table. According to the Yao theorem, the general equilibrium is the corner equilibrium with the highest per capita real income. We can then compare per capita real incomes in all possible corner equilibria. The corner equilibrium in structure D is calculated on the basis of the assumption
Mz 1 Mx 1 + ky1/2 kx1/2 kzβ = , = M y kzβ M y kx kzβ
Mx 1 + ky1/2 kzβ Mz 1 = 1/2 , = My kx kzβ M y kzβ
D
My k1/2 (1 + kz )kzβ = 1/2 x Mx 2kx + (1 + kz )ky1/2 kzβ
Mz 2kx1/2 = 1/2 Mx 2kx + (1 + kz )ky1/2 kzβ
1/2
M kzβ ⎛ kx ⎞ , y = kzβ 1 + kzβ ⎝⎜ k y ⎠⎟ Mz
Cx
Cz
Mx
= =
1 + k y kzβ p 1 + k y kzβ (ky kx )− 1/2 , y = kzβ pz kzβ
=
1 + k1y/2 kzβ pz kzβ , = k1x/2 kzβ p y 1 + k1y/2 kzβ
px px = k1x/2 pz
py
pF kx kzβ p = , x = kx pC 1 + k1y/2 k1x/2 kzβ pz
pz p kzβ = (kx k y )− 1/2 , z = px p y 1 + k1y/2 kz3/2β
px
py
Relative price
k1/2 k k β (1 − α)2 × x 1/y2 z 4 1 + ky kzβ
kx k y kzβ (1 − α)2 × 4 1 + k1y/2 k1x/2 kzβ
k1/2 k k 3/2β (1 − α)2 × x 1/y2 z3/2 4 1 + ky kz β
(1 − α)2 kzβ kzβ × 4 1 + k y kzβ
4 kx1/2 + (1 + kz )kzβ(k1y/2 + k1x/2 ) [2kx1/2 + (1 + kz )kz k1y/2β]2
M(1 − α) k1x/2 kzβ × 1/2 1/2 2(1 + k y kzβ) 1 + kx + kzβ(k1y/2 + k1x/2 )
0.5M(1 − α) 1 + kx + kzβ (kx + k1y/2 k1x/2 )
M(1 − α)kx1/2 ×
M(1 − α) k1/2 k β × 1/2x z 1/2 2(1 + kzβ)(1 + k y kzβ) k y + k x
Circulation of money
4 (1 + βkz k y ) Per capita real income
D EVELOPMENT
My
Relative number of different specialists
OF
Cy
Structure
(1 − 2α)2 βkz k y
pz βkz = p y 1 + βkz k y
1 Mz = M y βkz
Bc
⎧ −βkx kz [β2 kx2 kz2 + 4 kx kz (1 + β)]1/2 ⎫ + ⎨ ⎬ 2 ⎩ 2 ⎭
(1 − 2α)2 β 4 (1 + β)
1/2
pz βk k [β2 kx2 kz2 + 4 kx kz (1 + β)]1/2 =− x z + px 2kx 2kx
(1 − α)(1 + β) ⎛ k y ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ (1 −2α)β ⎝ kx ⎠
Mx βkx kz [β2 kx2 kz2 + 4 kx kz (1 + β)]1/2 = + Mz 2kx 2kx
=
Bb
py
(1 − α)(1 − 2α)β 1/2 1/2 ky kx 4 (1 + β)
1/2
px
My
⎛k ⎞ =⎜ x⎟ Mx ⎝ k y ⎠
Per capita real income
Ba
Relative price (1 − 2α)(1 − 4α)β 4 (1 + β)
Relative number of different specialists
A
Structure
Table 17.1 Corner equilibria in eight structures
506 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 507
that the transaction efficiency coefficient for the money substitute and fiat money is 1. It is not difficult to show that per capita real income in D is always higher than in other structures with complete division of labor. For simplicity we assume that kx = 0.25. Comparisons between per capita real incomes in three structures with complete division of labor and commodity money suggests that structure Cx is the best if ky, kz < 0.25; Cy is the best if ky > kz, 0.25; and structure Cz is the best if kz > ky, 0.25. Let us now consider the three structures with partial division of labor. A comparison between per capita real incomes in structures Bb and Bc suggests that Bb is better than Bc iff ky < ky1 ≡ (k z2 + 30kz)1/2/kz[8 − (k z2 + 30kz)1/2]. But ky1 is always greater than 1 for any kz ∈(0, 1), while ky cannot be greater than 1. This implies that Bb is always better than Bc. We can therefore focus on structures Ba and Bb. A comparison between per capita real incomes in Ba and Bb suggests that Ba is better than Bb iff ky > ky0 ≡ (3/4)2(k z2 + 30kz). After this partitioning of the parameter space, we can see that the set of candidates for general equilibrium comprises A, Ba, and Cy if the transaction efficiency of clothing y is higher than that of other goods; A, Bb, and Cz if the transaction efficiency of silk z is higher than that of other goods; and A, Ba or Bb, and Cx if the transaction efficiency of food x is higher than that of other goods. Based on the partitioning of the parameter space into three subspaces, we can find the critical values of transaction efficiency that further partition each of the parameter subspaces. The resulting general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative statics are summarized in table 17.2. In words, the inframarginal comparative statics of the general equilibrium in table 17.2 can be summarized as follows. If transaction efficiency is very low, then the general equilibrium is autarky where the market and money are not needed. As transaction efficiency is improved, the general equilibrium evolves from autarky to partial division of labor, where the market emerges from the partial division of labor, but money is not needed, followed by complete division of labor, where money is essential for the complete division of labor. If social and institutional conditions ensure that the transaction cost coefficient of fiat money, a credit system, or other money substitutes is sufficiently small, then the money substitute will be used as the medium of exchange to facilitate the complete division of labor. But if, for instance, the money substitute can be easily counterfeited, the supply of fiat money increases drastically, so that its value declines quickly, or a war impedes the enforcement of the credit system, then the commodity money with the lowest transaction cost coefficient will be used as the medium of exchange to facilitate the complete division of labor. Cheng (1999) shows that if kx is a constant between 0 and 1 rather than fixed at 0.25, then structure Bc may be general equilibrium within a parameter subspace. The Borland and Yang model (1992; also see Yang and Ng, 1993, ch. 17) and the Cheng model show that specialization and division of labor is essential but not sufficient for the emergence of money. The Borland and Yang model also shows that a sufficiently high level of division of labor in a sufficiently long roundabout production chain is essential for the emergence of money. Because of the trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs in the Smithian models of money, the emergence of money can promote productivity progress by facilitating a high level of division of labor in a long roundabout production chain. Money promotes productivity progress in an interesting way in the Smithian models. Transaction costs may be increased because of the emergence of money. For instance, if money and its substitute are not available, due to the institutional environment (for instance, use of money is restricted, as in a Soviet-style economic system), and transaction efficiency of goods is sufficiently high, then the equilibrium is a structure with partial division of labor, and the complete division of labor is infeasible. As improvements in the institutional environment reduce the transaction cost coefficient for money or its substitute, then money will emerge and the complete division of labor becomes general equilibrium. In the structure with complete division of labor both productivity and
ky1 ≡ 3/5 kz, ky2 ≡ 3/5 k z3/2, ky3 is given by f3(kz, ky) = 0.
f3(kz, ky) ≡ 27ky kz − 9(kz2 + 30kz)0.5(1 + ky1/2kz) = 0.
f2(kz, ky) ≡ 18(kz2 + 30kz )1/2/[27kz − 9kz(kz2 + 30kz)1/2], kz3 is given by
f1(kz, ky) ≡ 27ky kz3/2 − 9(kz2 + 30kz)1/2(1 + ky1/2kz3/2) = 0, kz2 is given by
f0(ky, kz) ≡ 27ky3/2kz − 9(kz2 + 30kz)1/2(1 + ky kz) = 0, kz1 is given by
where ky0 ≡ (3/4)2 (kz2 + 30kz), kz0 is given by
Ba Cz A
A
Cy
Ba
A
ky < 1/4
ky > ky1
Ba
ky ∈ (0.25, ky3)
ky < ky1
Bb
kz ∈ (0.23, kz3)
ky < 1/4
/4 > ky , kz
1
A
kz < 0.23
kz > ky, 1/4
Cx
kz > kz2
ky > kz, 1/4
Bb
kz ∈ (0.23, kz2)
Money substitutes are available
ky > ky2
A
kz < 0.23
Money substitutes are not available
ky ∈ (0.25, ky2)
Cz
kz > kz1
/4 > ky , kz
1
D
kz > kz3
D
ky > ky3
Money substitutes are available
OF
ky > ky0
Bb
Bb
A
Cy
kz < kz1
kz ∈ (0.23, kz0)
kz < 0.23
kz > kz0
kz > ky , 1/4
ky > kz, 1/4
Money substitutes are not available
ky < ky0
Table 17.2 Inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium and emergence of money from evolution in division of labor
508 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS D EVELOPMENT
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 509
total transaction costs are increased in comparison to a structure with partial division of labor, provided the productivity progress benefit outweighs the increased transaction costs. Smith conjectured that a more saleable commodity is more likely to play the role of medium of exchange. There are two ways to interpret the notion of saleability of a commodity. According to some economists, a commodity is more saleable if more individuals accept it for their consumption and production. According to Smithian models of money, this interpretation is wrong. A commodity is more likely to be used as money if its transaction cost coefficient is smaller. In the Borland and Yang model of money in which steel is used to produce hoes, which are used to produce food, all individuals accept food for consumption in a structure with complete division of labor, but only specialist producers of hoes need steel. According to the first interpretation of saleability, food is more saleable than steel and hoes. But according to our interpretation of saleability, steel is more saleable if its transaction cost coefficient is much smaller than those of hoes and food. Historically, precious metals that very few individuals used for their consumption and production were used as money. Food, which has a low transaction efficiency due to its perishability and the low value of each unit of quantity, is rarely used as money despite the fact that everybody needs it. The commodities that are used as money usually have the following features: a high unit value, so that it costs little to carry the commodity in great value, ease of divisibility, and physical stability (durability). All of these features imply a low transaction cost coefficient, which includes storage cost and loss of value in transit or in dividing. The Smithian models of money are general equilibrium models.3 Hence, the equilibrium quantity of commodity money in circulation is endogenized. Also, the equilibrium price of commodity money in terms of other goods, which includes its value for consumption or production as well as its value as a medium of exchange, is endogenized.4 The circulation volume and value of commodity money not only continuously change within a structure in response to marginal changes in parameters, but also discontinuously jump between structures with various monetary regimes and different network patterns of division of labor as parameter values shift between subspaces which demarcate the structures. It can be shown that as transaction efficiency is improves and division of labor evolves in an increasingly longer roundabout production chain, the circulation and value of commodity money increase and the degree of monetization of the economy increases. This is a new way to explain the drastic increase of the price of gold during the Industrial Revolution. It can also be shown that use of a money substitute and a credit system can reduce the circulation of commodity money and thereby reduce its price in terms of other goods.
Key Terms and Review • Commodity money, fiat money, money substitutes, credit systems • Double coincidence of demand and supply and the emergence of money • The relationship between the level of division of labor, the length of roundabout production chain, transaction efficiency, and emergence of money • Conditions under which fiat money can substitute for commodity money • Properties of a commodity that is likely to be used as money • The relationship between the network size of division of labor, the degree of commercialization, and the degree of monetization of an economy • Productivity implications of commodity money and fiat money • The function of the market in searching for the efficient monetary regime and level of division of labor
510 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Further Reading Cheng (1996, 1998, 1999), Jevons (1893), Borland and Yang (1992), Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 17), Ostroy and Starr (1990), Alchian (1977), Brunner and Meltzer (1971), Clower (1967), Green (1987), Parkin (1986), R. Jones (1976), King and Plosser (1986), Kiyotaki and Wright (1993, 1989), Lucas (1980), Oh (1989), Starrett (1973), Ostroy (1973), Smith (1776, ch. 4), Menger (1871), von Mises (1934).
QUESTIONS
1 In a Soviet-style economy the government controls the pricing of most commodities. The official prices under government control are usually far away from their market clearing values. But those transactions facilitated by barter or commodity money between firms and between individuals can be done without compliance with the official prices, which are relevant only to transactions in terms of official fiat money. Hence, we can see a lot of “back door” transactions based on barter or commodity money in such an economy. Why? What are the implications of this feature for economic development? 2 Since 1990 firms in Russia have preferred barter or transactions in term of commodity money to transactions in terms of fiat money because of the extremely high inflation rates. Use the model in this chapter to explain this phenomenon. 3 Some economists interpret Smith’s concept of saleability of a commodity as referring to the population share of those who need the commodity for consumption or production. Is this interpretation correct? Why or why not? 4 Use a Smithian model of money to illustrate that use of money may increase transaction costs. What are the implications of such an increase when it is associated with the emergence of money for economic development? 5 Discuss the mechanism to endogenize the value of money in a Smithian model of money. Analyze the implications of monetary policy for productivity progress and the evolution of division of labor. 6 How do institutional arrangements determine the degree of monetization, the level of division of labor, and the productivity of an economy through affecting transaction efficiency? 7 Test the theory developed in this chapter against empirical observation. For instance, test the concurrent evolution of division of labor and the degree of monetization of an economy (the income share of economic activities that are facilitated by money). 8 Somebody asks an economist about the quick way to make money. The economist replies: there is no general rule for making money. You have to understand economies of division of labor, and the function of money in facilitating division of labor, in a particular business situation in order to understand the general equilibrium mechanism under which money can be made. Comment on this economist’s answer. 9 Use the Smithian model of money to explain drastic decline of the price of gold at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the fact that many governments no longer use gold to reserve the value of financial assets.
C HAPTER 17: M ONEY
AND
E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT 511
EXERCISES
1 Solve for a simplified Kiyotaki–Wright model where person A’s utility function is uA = kx and her production function is z = lA where lA is a fixed endowment of person A. Person B’s utility function is uB = ty and her production function is x = lB where lB is person B’s endowment of labor. Person C’s utility is uC = sz and her production function is y = lC where lC is her endowment of labor. x, y, z are the respective amounts of three goods and k, t, s are the respective transaction efficiency coefficients of the three goods, which could be interpreted as probabilities for receiving the goods purchased and which relate to probabilities that different types of persons are matched in the original KW model. Trade must be sequential and the discount rate is 0. Identify the conditions for a particular good to be money in equilibrium. 2 Solve for the general equilibrium and inframarginal comparative statics of the Borland–Yang model of money. Each consumer-producer’s utility function is u = z + zc, where z is the amount of food self-provided, zc is the amount of food received for consumption from purchase in the market. The production function of food is z + zs = [( y + y c)l za]0.5, where a > 1, z s is the amount of food sold in the market, y is the amount of hoe self-provided, y c is the amount of hoe that is received from the purchase in the market. lz is an individual’s level of specialization in producing z. The production function for hoes is y + y s = [(x + x c)l ya]0.5, where ys is the amount of hoes sold, x is the amount of steel self-provided, x c is the amount of steel that is received from purchase in the market, ly is an individual’s level of specialization in producing hoes. The production function of steel is x + x s = lx − A, where x s is the amount of steel sold, and lx is an individual’s level of specialization in producing x. The endowment constraint for working time is lx + ly + lz = 1. The material balance between use and quantity received are tx d = x c + x m, ry d = y c + y m, kzd = z c + z m. Superscript d denotes amount purchased, c denotes amount used for consumption or production, m denotes amount used as money. t, r, k are the respective transaction efficiency coefficients for steel, hoes, and food. 3 Suppose that in the Cheng model in example 17.3, kx is a parameter which might not equal 0.25. Solve for the inframarginal comparative statics of general equilibrium. Calculate the equilibrium value of money in terms of a numeraire good. Calculate the equilibrium degree of monetarization. Use your calculation to explain the drastic increases and decreases in the price of gold in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and to explain the concurrent increases in the degree of monetarization and commercialization as two aspects of economic development. As commodity money is increasingly replaced by fiat money as the media of exchange in the twenty-first century, what will happen to the price of gold relative to those of other goods? 4 Assume that the government issues fiat money Q in the model in example 17.3 and uses Q to buy x in period 1, then sells x for fiat money in period 2, then use fiat money to buy y and z in period 3, and finally sells y and z for fiat money again. What is the effect of a change in Q on nominal prices of goods and on the equilibrium level of division of labor and productivity? If Q changes at the end of period 3, will the equilibrium level of division of labor and resource allocation be affected? Use your answer to analyze implications of monetary policies.
512 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Notes 1 Kiyotaki and Wright’s original model with uncertainties looks much more complicated than the simplified version. However, the probability parameter in their model can be interpreted as the transaction cost coefficient in the simplified version. 2 According to Smith, once the division of labor has been thoroughly established, an individual supplies most of his product to others in exchange for goods he wants. But the exchange “must frequently” be “very much clogged” if one does not have what others want or others do not have what one desires. “In order to avoid the inconveniency of such a situation, every prudent man . . . has at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagines few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry” (p. 37). 3 R. Jones (1976) first developed a model formalizing the idea that money is a natural consequence of the “unconcerted” market behavior of individuals. His model was later extended by Oh (1989). 4 According to von Mises, “The earliest value of money links up with the commodity-value of the monetary material. But the value of money since then has been influenced not merely by the factors dependent on the ‘industrial’ uses, which determine the value of the material of which the commoditymoney is made, but also by those which result from its use as money” (1924, p. 106).
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 513
ENDOGENOUS BUSINESS CYCLES, CYCLICAL UNEMPLOYMENT, AND ENDOGENOUS LONG-RUN GROWTH
18
18.1 RETHINKING MACROECONOMIC PHENOMENA IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Macroeconomic phenomena relate to aggregate demand and supply and their relationship with the absolute general level of prices. Aggregate demand is the sum of the values of the total market demands for all individual goods. It differs from total market demand for a particular good, which is referred to as a disaggregate variable. Aggregate demand, aggregate supply, and the general price level are referred to as aggregate variables. From the Smithian static and dynamic general equilibrium models that we have examined in previous chapters, we can see that per capita real income can be regarded as the absolute price of labor, which is endogenously determined by the equilibrium level of division of labor. The endogenization of the absolute price level is associated with the endogenization of the network size of division of labor and related aggregate demand in the marketplace. In the Smithian framework, a corner equilibrium sorts out resource allocation (the relative prices of traded goods and numbers of individuals choosing different occupation configurations), while the general equilibrium sorts out the absolute price level of labor, the network size of division of labor, and related aggregate demand. Hence, the marginal comparative statics of a corner equilibrium in the Smithian framework have the same explanatory power as comparative statics of a neoclassical general equilibrium model, while the inframarginal comparative statics of Smithian general equilibrium can explain many macroeconomic development phenomena that neoclassical models cannot predict. Hence, we call the inframarginal comparative statics (or dynamics) analysis of Smithian models Smithian macroeconomic analysis of development, and the marginal comparative statics analysis Smithian microeconomic analysis of resource allocation. From this discussion, you can see that the focus of Smithian economics is on macroeconomic phenomena which relate to the network size of division of labor. In this section, we first consider various ways to explain unemployment and aggregate demand in the Smithian framework
514 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
and in a way that relates to the models that we have already studied. Then in the rest of the chapter we develop a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium model that can simultaneously endogenize efficient business cycles, efficient and cyclical unemployment, and long-run economic growth. Example 18.1: The Smithian model with an endogenous risk of mass unemployment. The first Smithian general equilibrium models which can endogenize mass unemployment are those set out in chapter 10 (see also Yang and Wills, 1990, and Lio, 1997). In these models, the efficient trade-offs among economies of division of labor, transaction costs, and coordination reliability of the network of division of labor generate an equilibrium and efficient risk of coordination failure of the network of division of labor. Comparative statics of the general equilibrium suggest that as transaction efficiency is improved, the equilibrium and efficient risk of coordination failure will rise. This risk of failure is indeed a risk of mass unemployment, since when the coordination failure of a very developed network of division of labor takes place, as in the Great Depression, all individuals are forced to choose autarky, which implies that many individuals are excluded from the network of division of labor and related network of the market, that is, they cannot find a job to work for the market or they are unemployed. The risk of mass unemployment has the following important features. First, it is efficient: the market efficiently trades-off the positive network effect of division of labor on aggregate productivity against transaction costs and the risk of coordination failure to determine the efficient risk of mass unemployment, just as we efficiently choose a higher risk of being killed on the freeway by driving on it more often as transportation conditions are improved. Second, a high risk of coordination failure never exists in an autarchic society. It is associated with a high level of division of labor (or a great degree of commercialization). Unemployment and business cycles are essentially phenomena that are inherent from the nature of the network of division of labor. In autarky each individual produces everything for herself. If her taste or technology changes such that one of the goods is not needed, she will just reduce the resources allocated to the production of that good. If she cannot work in winter or under bad weather conditions, she can just be idle. We would not call this unemployment since she still produces other goods or is busy under better weather conditions. But in a society in which each individual is completely specialized, as consumers’ tastes or technical conditions change, a professional sector may be out of the market and all specialists in that sector will be unemployed. In addition to mass unemployment caused by the efficient risk of coordination failure, there are two more types of unemployment. The first of them is “natural unemployment” and the second is cyclical unemployment. We model cyclical unemployment in sections 18.2 to 18.5. In the rest of this section we consider two ways to explain natural unemployment. Example 18.2: Natural unemployment caused by the integer problem. The integer problem in Smithian models may generate natural unemployment. Suppose that in the symmetric Smithian model with two goods in chapter 4 there are three individuals (M = 3), and the set of individuals is not a continuum. Then, the utility equalization and market clearing conditions yield the numbers of individuals choosing the two occupation configurations Mx = My = 1.5. This implies that one and a half persons specialize in producing each good. This is not only an unrealistic statement, but also it contradicts the notion of specialization to say that half a person specializes in producing x and her other half specializes in producing y. Suppose transaction efficiency is so high that person 1 chooses (x/y) and person 2 chooses (y/x), then persons 1 and 2 may establish an “equilibrium” with Mx = My = p = 1 that generates a higher per capita real income than the real income of person 3, who is forced to choose autarky. Person 3 has an incentive to specialize in producing a good and to sell it at a slightly lower relative price than the “equilibrium” one, so that the buyer of the good will turn to her. Thus, the prescribed
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 515 y 3 E Aggregate PPF for the division of labor
B F 2
C G
1 A
D H
0 Individual PPF
1
2
3
x
Aggregate transformation curve for autarky
Figure 18.1 Aggregate transformation curve for M = 3
equilibrium between persons 1 and 2 breaks down and the buyer of the good and person 3 may establish another “equilibrium” that forces the other person to choose autarky. That person will in turn have both the incentive and the capacity to break down the new “equilibrium” again. This process continues, such that an equilibrium can never be reached. It is not difficult to see that the Walrasian equilibrium does not exist in this two-good economy if the market clearing and utility equalization conditions yield non-integer numbers of different specialists. But if two individuals have much better transaction and production conditions than the other individual, then the two individuals can establish a Nash bargaining equilibrium with the division of labor and the third person is excluded from the market network. Hence, the third person appears to be in involuntary unemployment since she is willing to be involved in the division of labor. In figure 18.1 we can see that if M = 3 in the model in chapter 4, then the aggregate transformation curve involves three curvilinear figures. Curve A is an individual’s transformation curve. If two persons specialize in producing y and the third person produces two goods, then we can move curve A up by two units to obtain curve B. If two persons specialize in producing x and the third person produces two goods, then we can move curve A to the right by two units to obtain curve D. If a person specializes in producing x, the second specializes in producing y, and the third produces two goods, then we can move curve A up by one unit and to the right by one unit to obtain curve C. Curves B, C, and D constitute the aggregate PPF for the production function in chapter 3 if M = 3. Hence the number of curvilinear figures that constitute the aggregate PPF increases with the population size. As the population size tends to infinity, the aggregate transformation curve converges to a straight line and the gap between the aggregate production schedule for autarky and that for the division of labor, which represents the gains from division of labor, is enlarged. The integer problem of equilibrium disappears as the population size tends to infinity. For instance, in the model with two final goods, the natural unemployment rate is 1/3 if the population size is 3, and is 1/101 if the population size is 101. If we introduce many consumer and producer goods into the model, then the integer problem will become increasingly serious and complicated. From casual observation, we can
516 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
see that the natural unemployment rate caused by the integer problem is higher in an economy with a higher level of division of labor. But the integer problem in a model with many goods is much more complicated than this intuition suggests. First, unequal incomes may occur in a Nash bargaining equilibrium even between ex ante nearly identical individuals. Consider the Smithian model with m final goods in example 7.2 in chapter 7, where m = 100, the number of traded goods is 50 in equilibrium, and the set of individuals is finite and the population size is 101. We assume that those individuals who are marginally less productive than others will be excluded from the network of division of labor if the integer condition does not hold. But the difference in productivity is infinitesimally small, so that the symmetry of the model is retained. The market clearing and utility equalization conditions yield a non-integer number of specialists selling each good, 101/50. Thus, one individual who is marginally less productive than others will be excluded from the network of division of labor and be compelled to choose autarky, or unemployment. The other 100 individuals form two separate networks of division of labor. In each of them, each individual sells one good to and buys one good from each of the other 49 individuals. The equilibrium unemployment rate is 1/101. If transaction efficiency is improved, so that the optimum number of traded goods becomes 80, then 80 individuals will form a symmetric network of division of labor. But there are two possible patterns of organization for the other 21 individuals who are marginally less productive. They may form a symmetric network of division of labor with 21 traded goods, if doing so makes them better off than in autarky. In this smaller network of division of labor, economies of division of labor net of transaction costs are not fully exploited, so that per capita real income is lower than in the larger network of division of labor. However, as demonstrated in Yang and Ng (1993, ch. 5), each individual’s per capita real income under equilibrium prices might be a nonmonotonic function of the number of traded goods n. This case is illustrated in figure 18.2, where the vertical axis represents utility under the equilibrium-relative prices of traded goods and the horizontal axis represents the number of traded goods. In figure 18.2, an individual’s per capita real income is a nonmonotonic function of her number of traded goods. Her organization utility is maximized at n = 80 for a given transaction efficiency coefficient k. When the number of traded goods is 21, utility is lower than in autarky since transaction costs outweigh economies of specialization for n = 21. In this case, 21 individuals will choose autarky in equilibrium. The unemployment rate is 21/101. This example illustrates that there is no simple monotonic relationship between the level of division of labor and the natural unemployment rate caused by the integer problem. However, it is safe to say that as the equilibrium level of division of labor goes up, the average natural unemployment rate caused by the integer problem is more likely to be higher. In reality, the natural unemployment caused by the integer problem in a highly commercialized society (with a high level of division of labor) is a very common phenomenon. For u(n, k)
uA
0
21
80
Figure 18.2 An individual’s organization utility under equilibrium prices
n
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 517
instance, suppose that universities in an economy need two more economics professors, but there are three economics Ph.D. graduates of nearly the same quality. Then one of them must be unemployed until new demand emerges. You may ask why the universities cannot hire three part-time professors and require each of them to work for two-thirds of the full loading time. This cannot be equilibrium because of the economies of specialization. Since the part-time professors are only partially specialized they are not as productive as full-time professors who are completely specialized. From the example of the economy with two goods and three individuals, you can see that if transaction efficiency is sufficiently high, two of the three individuals will have division of labor and complete specialization, and will refuse to have division of labor with the other person who is marginally less productive, even if the third person is willing to produce x and y on a part-time basis and trade with others. As shown in chapter 6, in a Smithian model with ex ante different consumer-producers, even if the set of individuals is a continuum, a dual structure may occur in the transitional stage from autarky to the complete division of labor. In this dual structure ex ante identical individuals may be divided between autarky and specialization configurations. Self-sufficient individuals look underemployed or unemployed because they cannot find a job to work for the market. Example 18.3: Natural unemployment caused by changes in the structure of division of labor. The second reason for natural unemployment in a Smithian general equilibrium model is changes in the pattern of the network of division of labor caused by exogenous changes in parameters. We use the symmetric Smithian model with m consumer goods and n traded goods in example 7.2, where both m and n are endogenous, to illustrate this kind of natural unemployment. Suppose an oil crisis raises the cost of gas and reduces transaction efficiency k, so that the equilibrium values of m and n suddenly decline. This implies that, suddenly, the demand for some goods disappears or individuals stop consuming some non-essential goods. The specialist producers of those goods will lose their jobs. But because of fixed learning or job shifting costs, these individuals are not as productive as the specialist producers of the other goods which are still in demand, even if the unemployed individuals immediately shift to professional sectors which are still in the market. Therefore, these specialist producers must be unemployed before they get a chance to acquire experience in a profession to which they are new. This kind of unemployment would not take place in an autarchic society where each individual produces all goods for herself. In that case, a change in tastes or production conditions will cause an adjustment of each individual’s resource allocation between different goods in the absence of unemployment. It is easy to understand that the higher the equilibrium level of division of labor, the more likely it is that such unemployment will take place in response to exogenous changes in parameters. If the dynamic effect of specialized learning by doing is considered, then any change in the structure of division of labor will force some individuals to change occupation. In the transitional period, old human capital becomes useless, and the acquisition of new professional human capital depends on a new job that creates opportunities for learning by doing. But the unemployed are not competitive with those who have jobs with opportunities for specialized learning by doing, so that unemployment itself prevents the unemployed from finding a new job. Hence, a vicious circle may drive the unemployed out of the market forever. In exercise 7 below, the efficiency wage model endogenizes the equilibrium unemployment rate by specifying the trade-off between moral hazard and unemployment. Unemployment can play a role as a device to reduce workers’ shirk. This model, and the three Smithian ways discussed so far, to explain unemployment and the interrelation between network size of division of labor and unemployment, are not satisfactory. First, none of these models can predict longrun regular business cycles and related cyclical unemployment. Nor can the interdependence of long-run regular business cycles, cyclical unemployment, and long-run endogenous economic growth be explored by these models. In particular, they cannot explore the implication of durable
518 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
goods, compounded with a sophisticated network of division of labor, for long-run regular and endogenous business cycles and growth. Many experienced businessmen know the intimate relationship between the stock of durable goods and business cycles. In the rest of the chapter, we will use a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium model with durable producer goods to endogenize long-run regular efficient business cycles, long-run economic growth, and efficient cyclical unemployment. We will explore the implications of efficient business cycles and efficient unemployment for long-run economic growth and evolution of the network size of division of labor. Recent economic growth literature provides empirical evidence for a positive correlation between business cycles and productivity growth, although the evidence is still inconclusive. Using cross-sectional data on 47 countries, Kormendi and Meguire (1985) find that cyclical variability (measured as the standard deviation of real output growth) has a significant positive effect of on the mean annual growth rate. By constructing pooled cross-section/time-series data on 113 countries, Grier and Tullock (1989) find that the standard deviation of real GDP growth has a positive and significant effect on average economic growth. Ramey and Ramey (1995) confirm this result for the OECD countries when they use standard deviation of output growth as a proxy for cyclical variability. There are a number of versions of neoclassical models which attempt to explain how cyclical variability can coexist with an increase in economic growth. One literature explains the positive implication of output fluctuation by assuming that the economies face a positive risk–return trade-off in their choice of aggregate technology. Agents collectively would choose riskier technologies only if these technologies were expected to generate a greater return and hence greater economic growth (Black, 1979). A second literature looks at how R&D activities can be boosted when the economy goes through a recession. Typically, firms may find it profitable to reallocate employees to research and reorganization activities at economic downturn because the opportunity costs in terms of the forgone production are relatively low at a recession (see Aghion and Saint-Paul, 1991). A third line of research emphasizes the precautionary savings motive at recessions. Agents are expected to behave prudently and accumulate physical and human capital as a buffer stock to protect consumption against a bad state of the economy. The precautionary accumulation of human capital is particularly relevant for economic growth. Since low-skilled employment is disproportionately affected by cyclical variability, agents may want to accumulate human capital more rapidly so as to increase job security (see Deaton, 1991, Skinner, 1988, Dellas, 1991). A fourth literature treats the “creative destruction” model largely initiated by Aghion and Howitt (1992; see exercise 7 in chapter 13). In their endogenous growth model, vertical innovations lead to the replacement of incumbent firms through a Schumpeterian process of creative destruction, and the average economic growth rate and the variance of the growth rate increase with the size of vertical innovations. A fifth literature concerns the model of implementation cycles constructed by Shleifer (1986). If each innovator must incur a fixed cost in the period prior to innovation, large sales during booms may be necessary to enable the entrepreneur to cover her fixed costs, while innovation introduced during the slumps may lose money. Thus a cyclical equilibrium may enhance innovation and productivity growth, while a stabilization policy may be harmful. A sixth literature centers on the “cleansing effect” model initiated by Caballero and Hammour (1994), according to which business cycles are good for long-term economic growth because recession may cleanse the production structure by shaking out the least productive firms and allowing the entry of more efficient producers. All of the neoclassical models cannot explore the intrinsic connection between business cycles and evolution in division of labor. They cannot explore creative destruction based on evolution of division of labor which replaces old occupations of low level of specialization with highly professional new ones. In particular they cannot simultaneously predict the following concurrent phenomena: increases in each individual’s level of specialization and in the degree
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 519
of commercialization (division of labor) for society as a whole; endogenous, efficient, long-run, and regular business cycles; endogenous, efficient, long-run, regularly cyclical unemployment; endogenous, long-run, and cyclical economic growth; a more volatile fluctuation of the output level of durable goods than that of nondurable goods (Barro, 1997). The Smithian dynamic equilibrium model presented in the rest of the chapter can simultaneously predict all of these phenomena.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n
n n
n n n n n n n n
What is the relationship between marginal comparative statics and microeconomic phenomena and between inframarginal comparative statics and macroeconomic phenomena in Smithian economics? What is the relationship between endogenization of the network size of division of labor and endogenization of aggregate demand? What are the differences between unemployment caused by the integer problem, that caused by risk of coordination failure of the network of division of labor, that caused by changes in the structure of division of labor, and that caused by long-run endogenous regular and efficient business cycles? What is the difference between exogenous and endogenous business cycles? What is the relationship between long-run endogenous business cycles and long-run endogenous economic growth? What is the relationship between the division of labor in producing roundabout productive durable goods and long-run regular endogenous business cycles? What is the relationship between business cycles, transaction efficiency, economies of specialized learning by doing, job shifting costs, and durability of goods? What is the trade-off in determining the efficient pattern of business cycles and economic growth in the marketplace? Why can the equilibrium pattern of business cycles be Pareto efficient? How does the market sort out the efficient pattern of business cycles, economic growth, and unemployment? What is the likely consequence of government manipulation of the pattern of business cycles and unemployment?
18.2 LONG-RUN REGULAR EFFICIENT BUSINESS CYCLES, CYCLICAL UNEMPLOYMENT, LONG-RUN ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND DIVISION OF LABOR IN PRODUCING DURABLE GOODS In this section, let’s first look at the story behind the model, before you become mired in the algebra. From daily life experience, we can see that many cyclical physical processes can generate much more power than noncyclical processes. The laser is an example: it can generate cyclical light that has much more power than noncyclical light. The human sex-life is cyclical: if it were not, we might not be able to have children. Engineers can give you more examples of cyclical physical processes that generate more power than noncyclical processes. The examples remind us that business cycles may have positive productivity implications. Many economists, from Karl Marx to John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Stiglitz, attribute business cycles to market failure. Many efforts have been made by governments and business communities to rectify this “failure” by eliminating business cycles. But none of those efforts has changed the basic features and regularities of the business cycle. Moreover, the business
520 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
cycle is not a significant and persistently regular phenomenon in an autarky economy with low productivity, while it is unavoidable in an economy with high levels of specialization, division of labor, and productivity. The concurrence of business cycles, a high level of division of labor, and a high productivity reminds us that persistent business cycles may have efficiency and productivity implications and that there is an intricate relationship between the division of labor and the business cycle. Consider an economy with many ex ante identical consumer-producers. Each individual can produce a nondurable consumer good called food and a durable producer good called tractors. A tractor is indivisible and each driver can drive one and only one tractor to produce food at any point in time. There are economies of specialized learning by doing in producing any good, and two types of costs will be incurred if an individual shifts between productive activities. An individual will forget the experience she has built up in an activity if she shifts from that activity to another. Also, there is an entry cost, such as a threshold learning cost, into any activity. Assume, further, that a tractor can be used for two years. Each consumer derives utility from food and maximizes her total discounted utility. For this simple economy, there are at least three possible organizational structures of production and consumption. The first is autarky structure A, shown in figure 18.4, where each person self-provides each good herself. She spends some time producing a tractor and the rest of the time driving the tractor to produce food in the first year, and produces only food using the tractor in the second year. Therefore, neither business cycles nor unemployment exist for this structure. In the second structure, C (complete division of labor), shown in figure 18.4, the population is divided between the production of tractors and the production of food. Professional farmers drive tractors to produce food in each of the two years. Professional producers of tractors produce tractors in the first year and are unemployed in the second year. The aggregate output level is higher in the first year than in the second. This is a business cycle of two years with unemployment in the second year. The second cycle occurs over the third and fourth years, and so forth. The third structure, P (partial division of labor), shown in figure 18.4, is the same as the second except that the producers of tractors shift to the production of food in the second year. In other words, farmers are completely specialized, but producers of tractors, who produce food as well in every other year, are not completely specialized. Autarky involves job shifting costs but no division of labor and business cycles. Also, structure A involves no transaction costs and cannot exploit productivity gains from specialized learning by doing. Structure C with complete division of labor can speed up the accumulation of human capital through specialized learning by doing. It does not incur job shifting costs, but it generates transaction costs as well as cyclical unemployment of physical labor. Structure P with partial division of labor involves job shifting costs for producers of tractors but does not generate business cycles. Economies of specialized learning by doing can be more fully exploited by farmers than by producers of tractors. The level of transaction costs in structure P is in between that in structure A and that in structure C. Hence, there are many trade-offs among economies of specialized learning by doing, transaction costs, job shifting costs, faster accumulation of human capital, and cyclical unemployment of physical labor. If job shifting costs, transaction efficiency, and economies of specialized learning by doing are sufficiently great, then complete division of labor with business cycles and unemployment is Pareto superior to autarky and partial division of labor without business cycles and unemployment, since the benefit from faster accumulation of human capital through specialized learning by doing and from a lower job shifting cost in structure C outweigh the transaction costs in this structure, compared to structures A and P. Hence, the market mechanism (the invisible hand) will choose the efficient structure with business cycles and unemployment. In structure C, specialist producers of tractors sell tractors and buy food in years 1, 3, 5, . . . The value of tractors that are sold is in excess of the value of food that is purchased. The
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 521 ut
utility in structure C
utility in structure P utility in structure A t 0 (a) Case with high transaction efficiency and job shifting costs and significant economies of specialized learning by doing ut
utility in structure A utility in structure C
utility in structure P
0 t (b) Case with low transaction efficiency and job shifting costs and insignificant economies of specialized learning by doing Figure 18.3 Growth patterns with and without business cycles and unemployment
difference is the saving that the tractor specialists will use to buy food in years 2, 4, 6, . . . when they are unemployed, as shown in figure 18.4. Since trade is one-way in years 2, 4, 6, . . . and commodity money does not work for this kind of saving of purchasing power, fiat money or a credit system is essential for realization of structure C. Because of freedom of choice of profession configuration, total discounted real income must be the same between tractor specialists and professional farmers. In other words, income in the sector producing durable goods must be sufficiently higher than in the sector producing nondurable goods during the boom period, so that the difference is enough to compensate for unemployment in the sector producing durable goods during recession. This implies that the invisible hand (price mechanism) can coordinate self-interested behavior to sort out the efficient trade-offs among the conflicting forces: economies of specialized learning by doing, transaction costs, and job shifting costs. The different time paths of per capita real incomes in the three structures within different subspaces of parameter values are shown in figure 18.3. Panel (a) shows the time paths when transaction efficiency and job shifting cost are high and economies of specialized learning by doing are significant. In the early stage, structure A generates higher per capita real income than structures P and C because of the transaction costs in the two latter structures and the fact that it takes time for economies of specialized learning by doing to speed up accumulation of human capital. As time goes by, per capita real income in structure P first exceeds that in structure A, then per capita real income in structure C overtakes that in structures A and P despite business cycles in structure C.
522 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Panel (b) shows the time paths of per capita real incomes in the three structures when transaction efficiency and job shifting cost are low and economies of specialized learning by doing are insignificant. Structure A always generates a higher per capita real income than structures P and C. Even if the per capita real income in C catches up to that in A and P later on because of a faster accumulation of human capital in C, C may be still Pareto inferior to A and P because of a lower total discounted per capita real income in C than in A and P. Three features distinguish our Smithian theory of business cycles from the existing business cycle models. First, in our model the network size of division of labor and related levels of specialization for each individual are endogenized in a microdynamic equilibrium model. Second, the Smithian model generates the following three macroeconomic phenomena simultaneously: Persistent, regular, endogenous, and efficient business cycles; endogenous cyclical and efficient unemployment; long-run endogenous economic growth that might be speeded up by business cycles and cyclical unemployment. Our model is characterized by economies of specialized learning by doing, shifting costs between jobs, and indivisibility and durability of producer goods. These characteristics are necessary for a dynamic equilibrium with business cycles to be Pareto superior to noncyclical dynamics. Our model explores the implications of business cycles and cyclical unemployment for long-run endogenous economic growth. It predicts that output of durables fluctuates more than output of nondurables, a macroeconomic phenomenon confirmed by a lot of empirical evidence and which many economists consider to be one of the most important phenomena that needs to be explained by macroeconomic theory (see for instance Barro, 1997). Third, our model can be used to explore the roles of fiat money and saving in enabling the market to use business cycles and cyclical unemployment to speed up accumulation of human capital, thereby speeding up endogenous long-run economic growth. In our model, saving is used to finance purchases by specialist producers of durable goods who are unemployed during recession, such that the market can use business cycles to avoid job shifting costs and speed up human capital accumulation. Hence, the gains from saving are not based on trade between goods at different points in time. Therefore, commodity money cannot be used to facilitate such saving. Money substitutes, fiat money, or a credit system is essential for such saving to facilitate efficient business cycles and efficient cyclical unemployment. Compared with shock-dependent business cycle models, such as the Samuelson model (1939) and the Hicks model (1950), our model is an endogenous business cycle model which can generate persistent business cycles in the absence of any exogenous shocks. Our model generates productivity implications of business cycles and unemployment which other endogenous business cycle models, such as those of Vogt (1969) and Goodwin (1951), cannot generate. In contrast to labor shift models (see Lilien, 1982 and Black, 1987), in the model presented in this chapter business cycles and unemployment occur when individuals do not shift between professional sectors, whereas unemployment is caused by such shifts in the labor shift models. Hence, the incompatibility between empirical observations, which indicate much more job shifting during the boom period than that during recession, and labor shift models (see Abraham and Katz, 1986, and Murphy and Topel, 1987) may be avoided by our theory. Recently developed real business cycle models (see Kydland and Prescott, 1982, Long, Jr. and Plosser, 1983, and King and Plosser, 1984) need an exogenous stochastic process to generate “business cycle phenomena” which are not business cycles, according to Prescott (1986). However, our model can generate persistent business cycles in the absence of any exogenous stochastic process. All the above-mentioned business cycle models are macroeconomic models, whereas our model in this chapter is a microdynamic equilibrium model. Weitzman’s micro-equilibrium model with increasing returns to scale (1982) has endogenized unemployment. However, he considers unemployment to be a consequence of coordination failure in the market and his model
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 523
cannot generate persistent business cycles. Models of monopolistic competition and sticky prices (see, for example, Mankiw, 1985, Ball, Mankiw, and Romer, 1988) and the efficiency wage models (see, for example, Yellen, 1984, Stiglitz, 1986, and exercise 7 below) attribute unemployment to a market failure in equilibrating demand and supply. They cannot generate endogenously persistent business cycles. Stiglitz has developed a model (1992) to explain business fluctuations, again, by a failure of the capital market caused by incomplete information. The business cycles in Ng’s (1986, 1992) mesoeconomic model is based also on coordination failure to maintain an efficient equilibrium in an imperfectly competitive economy with a continuum of real equilibria. In contrast, the model in this chapter attributes business cycles and unemployment to market success.
18.3 A SMITHIAN DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL OF BUSINESS CYCLES, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Example 18.4: The Yang model (1993; Yang and Ng, 1993, ch. 18) of endogenous and efficient business cycles. Let’s consider a model with a continuum of M ex ante identical consumerproducers. There is a nondurable consumer good called food and a durable producer good called tractors. At any point in time an individual can drive one and only one tractor to produce food, and a tractor can be used for two years. The amount of food which an individual selfprovides in year t is denoted by yt. The amount of food sold in year t is yts. The amount of food purchased in year t is y td. The transaction efficiency coefficient for food is k, so that ky td is the amount available for consumption from the purchase of food. The quantity of food consumed in year t is yt + ky td. For the moment we assume that each individual’s decision horizon is two years and her subjective discount factor is δ ∈(0, 1). An individual’s objective function is her total discounted utility which is a function of the quantity of food consumed: U = ln( y1 + ky 1d ) + δ ln( y2 + ky 2d ).
(18.1)
In producing food, the output level is determined by tractor input, current labor input, and production experience (which depends on the total accumulated labor in producing food). We assume that an individual will forget all her experience in producing a good, and therefore previous labor has no effect on the current output level of the same good if she shifts between activities. Also, an entry cost into an activity will be incurred in year t if an individual shifts into this activity in year t. Hence, the production function of food is specified as follows. yt + yts = X tα (Lyt − cyt)a,
⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ t X t = Min⎨∑ ( xτ + xτd ), 1⎬, ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ τ = 1
a > 1 and α > 0
(18.2a)
t
∑ (x +x τ
d τ
) ≥1
(18.2b)
τ =1
xτ and x dτ are nonnegative integers,
(18.2c)
t
Lyt = ∑ l y τ where s is the latest time when a person enters into the τ=s
production of good y; the initial condition is: Ly0 = 0.
cyt = c if a person enters into sector y in year t, and cyt = 0 if a person has stayed in sector y since she previously entered into this sector.
(18.2d)
(18.2e)
524 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
where yt + y ts is a person’s output level of food. Xt is the effective input level of tractors used to produce food. xτ is the self-provided quantity of tractors in year τ, and xτd is the quantity of tractors bought in year τ. The two variables must be integers because of the indivisibility of a tractor. The output level of food in year 2 depends not only on the input level of tractors in year 2, but also on that in year 1, since the tractor is a durable good that can be used for two years. (18.2b) implies that a person can drive one and only one tractor at any point in time, so that extra tractors have no effect on an individual’s output level of food. Lyt is a person’s level of human capital in producing food in year t. This level equals a person’s accumulated labor in producing food if no shift between jobs occurs, and equals the current labor input level, lyt , if any shift between jobs occurs in year t or t − 1. The entry cost coefficient c is a given positive constant. Expressions (18.2b) to (18.2e) are crucial for the model to generate the productivity implications of business cycles and unemployment. Let x ts denote the quantity sold of tractors in year t; a consumer-producer’s production function for tractors is: xt + x ts = (Lxt − cxt)b,
b>1
(18.3a)
t
Lxt = ∑ lx τ where s is the latest time when a person enters into τ=s
the production of x; the initial condition is: Lx0 = 0.
cxt = c if a person enters into sector x in year t cxt = 0 if a person has stayed in sector x since she previously entered into this sector
(18.3b)
(18.3c)
where xt + xts is an individual’s output level of tractors, which may not be an integer if we assume that several producers of tractors can produce an integer number of tractors together; Lxt is a person’s level of human capital in producing tractors; liτ is a person’s level of labor input into the production of good i as well as her level of specialization in producing the good in year τ. It is assumed that each consumer-producer is endowed with 2 units of labor and that economies of specialized learning by doing are individual-specific and activity-specific. Hence, there is an endowment constraint in year t for each consumer-producer: lxt + lyt ≤ 2
∀t.
(18.4)
The system of production in (18.2) to (18.4) displays economies of specialized learning by doing which imply that a person’s labor productivity of any good is higher if she specializes in producing that good over a long period of time than if she shifts between jobs and produces all goods. This system formalizes a trade-off between economies of specialized learning by doing and unemployment which can be avoided by increasing job shifting costs when durable producer goods are indivisible. In order to fully exploit economies of specialized learning by doing, the population should be divided between professional farming and professional tractor manufacturing. But the division of labor will generate unemployment of professional producers of tractors in year 2, since tractors are indivisible durable producer goods. In order to avoid unemployment and associated business cycles, producers of tractors should shift to producing food in year 2. But this will generate shifting costs between jobs and prevent full exploitation of economies of specialized learning by doing. If the decision horizon is much longer than two years, this trade-off will be more obvious. Also, we have a trade-off between economies of specialization and transaction costs (related to the coefficient 1 − k). If transaction efficiency k is sufficiently low, then economies of
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 525
specialization are outweighed by transaction costs. Hence autarky, which does not involve business cycles and unemployment, would be more efficient than the complete division of labor, which might generate business cycles and unemployment. If transaction efficiency is sufficiently high, then the dynamic equilibrium in a decentralized market may be a complete division of labor that generates efficient unemployment in year 2 and business cycles. This story is worked out in the next section.
18.4 CYCLICAL AND NONCYCLICAL CORNER EQUILIBRIA 18.4.1 Regime specification, configurations, and market structures As in chapter 14, all trade is entirely determined in a futures market which operates at t = 0 and through two-year contracts. This ensures a Walrasian regime with price taking behavior at t = 0. Following the approach to dynamic equilibrium models based on corner solutions (which we developed in chapter 16), it can be shown that each consumer-producer’s optimal decision in this model is a corner solution and that an individual does not buy and sell the same goods; she sells at most one good at any point in time. Because of the indivisibility and durability of tractors, it is trivial to show that a professional farmer buys one tractor in year 1 and does not buy tractors in year 2. Having taken this into account, there are five possible corner solutions for each consumer-producer. The combinations of the five corner solutions generate three possible market structures. In the first configuration, autarky, denoted by A and depicted in figure 18.4, there is no trade and each individual self-provides all goods. That is, autarky implies a configuration where x ts = x td = y ts = y td = 0. For configuration A, yt , x1 > 0, so that each individual self-provides a tractor which is an input along with labor in producing food. M individuals choosing configuration A constitute structure A. The second market structure is referred to as complete division of labor, or simply C. Let (x/y) denote a configuration in which an individual sells tractors in year 1 and buys food in two years, and (y/x) denote a configuration in which an individual sells food in two years and buys a tractor in year 1. Market structure C consists of the division of the M individuals between configurations (x/y) and (y/x), that is, professional farmers exchange food for tractors in year 1 with professional producers of tractors. The latter save some money in year 1 in order to buy food in year 2 when they are unemployed. Market structure C is depicted in figure 18.4. t=1 x1 A y1
t=1 y1
t=2 y2
y/x
y/x
t=1 y1
t=2 y2
y/x
y/x
x1d
x1d
y1s
y2s
s 1
d 1
d 2
y2s
y1s
x1 A y2 t=2 Structure A
x1s x
y x/y
y x/y
Structure C (complete division of labor with business cycles)
Figure 18.4 Structures with and without business cycles
y1d xy/x x1
y2d xy/y y2
Structure P (partial division of labor without business cycle)
526 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
The third market structure is referred to as partial division of labor, or simply P. Denote by (xy/y) a configuration in which an individual specializes in producing tractors in year 1, retains a tractor for himself, sells the rest of the tractors in year 1, buys food in both years, and drives the tractor to self-provide part of the food required in year 2. Market structure P consists of the division of the M individuals between configurations (xy/y) and (y/x). In this case, professional farmers are the same as in market structure C, but individuals choosing configuration (xy/y) produce tractors in year 1 and shift to the production of food in year 2. Compared to market structure C, this market structure involves no business cycles and unemployment, but job shifting costs are incurred and economies of specialized learning by doing cannot be fully exploited in configuration (xy/y). Market structure P is depicted in figure 18.4.
18.4.2 The dynamic corner equilibrium in autarky A dynamic corner equilibrium in the two years when autarky prevails is defined by the solution to an individual’s total discounted utility-maximizing labor decision for that configuration. In configuration A, the quantities traded of all goods are 0 and yt > 0, x1 = 1, x2 = 0. Inserting these values into equations (18.1) to (18.4), and substituting from (18.2) to (18.4) into (18.1), gives the decision problem for configuration A as: Max: U = ln y1 + δ ln y2 l it , xt , yt
s.t.
y1 = x 1α (Ly1 − c)a, x1 = (Lx1 − c) = 1, b
α 1
(production function of y at t = 1) x2 = 0
y2 = x (Ly2 − c) Ly1 = ly1, lx1 + ly1 = 2,
Lx1 = lx1,
(production function of x at t = 1) (production function of y at t = 2)
a
Ly2 = ly1 + ly2
ly2 = 2
(18.5a)
(definition of human capital) (endowment constraints)
The solution of (18.5a) is lx1 = 1 + c, ly1 = 1 − c, y1 = (1 − c)a, y2 = (3 − 2c)a, so that: U(A) = ln(1 − c)a + δ ln(3 − 2c)a
(18.5b)
where U(A) is the per capita total discounted real income when an individual chooses configuration A. Note that due to the absence of trade, no transaction costs are incurred in this configuration, but experience cannot be effectively accumulated because of job shifting costs. Hence, U(A) tends to 0 if c is sufficiently large to be close to 1. There is no business cycle and unemployment in this market structure, but accumulation of human capital is very slow since each individual must change jobs in each year. The per capita consumption of food in year 2, y2 = (3 − 2c)a, is higher than that in year 1, y1 = (1 − c)a. In particular, as the decision horizon T increases from 2 to a very large number, accumulation of human capital cannot exceed the experience of two years since each individual must change jobs between producing tractors and food every other year. The total discounted per capita real income for T year in autarky is UT (A) = 2[ln(1 − c) + δ ln(3 − 2c)]S where S ≡ 1 + δ2 + δ4 + . . . + δT = (1 − δT+2)/(1 − δ2). The limit of S as T tends to infinity is 1/(1 − δ2). From the formula, we can see that UT (A) converges to a constant as T tends to infinity. In other words, there is no long-run continuous accumulation of professional human capital because of frequent shifts between jobs in autarky. Later we will see that structure C
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 527
can speed up accumulation of human capital through continuous accumulation of professional human capital, so that total discounted per capita real income tends to infinity as T goes to infinity.
18.4.3 Market structure C Structure C consists of configurations (x/y) and (y/x). There are two steps in solving for the dynamic corner equilibrium of a market structure with trade: first, for each type of configuration in the market structure the utility-maximizing labor allocation and demands and supplies for each good (and hence the total discounted indirect utility of an individual who chooses that configuration) are derived; and second, given the demands and supplies of an individual in each configuration, the market clearing conditions and utility equalization conditions are used to solve for the set of dynamic corner equilibrium-relative prices and numbers of individuals choosing each configuration. Configuration (y/x): In this configuration yt, y ts > 0, x 1d = 1, lyt = 2, and xt = x ts = lxt = x 2d = 0. Hence the decision problem for this configuration is: Max: Uy = ln y1 + δ ln y2 yts , yt
s.t.
y1 + y1s = (x 1d )α (Ly1 − c)a,
(production function of y at t = 1)
x = 1,
(integer condition for tractors)
y2 + y2s = (x1d )αL ay2
(production function of y at t = 2)
d 1
Ly1 = ly1 = 2, ly2 = 2,
Ly2 = Ly1 + ly2 = 4 (endowment constraints)
p y + py2 y = p x s y1 1
s 2
(18.6a)
d x1 1
(budget constraint)
where pit is the price of good i in year t. We assume that food in year 2 is the numeraire, that is, py2 = 1. The solution to (18.6a) is Uy = (1 + δ)ln[py1(2 − c)a + 4a − px1] − ln py1 − (1 + δ)ln(1 + δ) + δ ln r y2s = [4a − δpy1 (2 − c)a + δpx1]/(1 + δ), x = 1, d 1
y = (px1 − y )/py1, s 1
s 2
y2 = 4a − y2s
y1 = (2 − c) − y a
(18.6b)
s 1
where Uy is the total discounted indirect utility function, x1d and yts are the demand and supply functions for configuration (y/x). Note that a professional farmer’s decision involves borrowing money (the income in year 1, py1 y 1s , must be smaller than the expenditure in year 1, px1x1d, in order to satisfy the budget constraint). Configuration (x/y): By a similar process, for configuration (x/y) Ux = (1 + δ)[ln k + ln(2 − c)b + ln px1 − ln(1 + δ)] − ln py1 + δ ln δ y d2 = δpx1(2 − c)b/(1 + δ),
x1s = (2 − c)b,
yd1 = (px1x1s − y d2)/py1
(18.7)
where Ux is the total discounted indirect utility function, x1s and y td are the supply and demand functions for configuration (x/y). Note that a tractor specialist’s decision involves savings. The income in year 1, px1 x1s, must be larger than the expenditure in year 1, py1 y 1d, in order to satisfy the budget constraint. It is interesting to see that this market structure cannot operate in the absence of fiat money or a credit system, since professional farmers choosing configuration
528 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
(y/x) sell and do not buy, and professional producers of tractors buy and do not sell in year 2, while tractors cannot be saved and used to pay for food in year 2 by professional producers of tractors. That is, commodity money cannot facilitate trade across years in this structure. Utility maximization by individuals and the assumption of free choice of profession configuration have the implication that the total discounted utility of individuals is equalized across configurations. That is, Uy = Ux
(18.8)
where Ui is a function of relative prices of goods in different years. Let Mi represent the number (measure) of individuals selling good i. Multiplying Mi by individual demands and supplies gives total market demands and supplies. The market clearing conditions for food and tractors in the two years are Mx x1s = My x1d,
Mx y1d = My y1s ,
Mx y 2d = My y2s
(18.9)
where Mx x1s is the total market supply of and My x1d is the total market demand for tractors in year 1, Mx y td is the market demand for and My yts is the market supply of food in year t. Note that due to Walras’d law one of the three market clearing conditions in (18.9) is not independent of the others. The equilibrium-relative number of individuals choosing each configuration Mxy ≡ Mx/My and the equilibrium-relative prices px1 and py1 are determined by three independent equations in (18.8) and (18.9). Hence, the dynamic corner equilibrium in market structure C is given by px1 = 4a (1 + δ)/δ[1 + k(2 − c) b ],
py1 = 4a/δ(2 − c)a,
Mxy = (2 − c)−b
U(C) = aδ ln 4 + [b(1 + δ) + a]ln(2 − c) − ln[1 + k(2 − c)b] + (1 + δ)ln k
(18.10a)
where U(C) is the total discounted per capita real income for the dynamic corner equilibrium in market structure C. If the decision horizon is T > 2 years, then there are T/2 business cycles in market structure C. Each cycle is a duplication of the dynamic corner equilibrium given in (18.10a), except that the initial condition Li0 = 0 is replaced with a level of human capital accumulated in producing good i at the end of the last cycle. Since no job shift occurs in this market structure, the dynamic corner equilibrium in year T is px1 = (2T )a(1 + δ)/δ [1 + kT b ], py1 = (2T ) a/δT a,
Mxy = T −b
(18.10b)
UT (C) = aδ ln(2T ) + [b(1 + δ) + a]ln(T − c) − ln[1 + k(T − c) ] + (1 + δ)ln k. b
It is easy to see that the per capita real income in year T does not involve any job shifting cost c and that UT (C) tends to infinity as T goes to infinity. But the per capita total discounted real income in autarky will converge to a limited constant as I tends to infinity, since learning by doing is interrupted by job shifting in each year for autarky. A comparison between U(C) in (18.10) and U(A) given in (18.5b) indicates that U(A) > U(C) if k is sufficiently close to 0 and if c is sufficiently small, since U(C) tends to negative infinity as k converges to 0 but U(A) is independent of k. Also, U(C) > U(A) if c is smaller than 1 but sufficiently close to 1 and k is sufficiently large, since U(A) tends to negative infinity but U(C) is positive as c tends to 1 when k is sufficiently large. This deduction yields
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 529
Lemma 18.1: The total discounted utility is greater in market structure C than in autarky if c and k are sufficiently close to 1; the total discounted utility is greater in autarky than in market structure C if k and c are sufficiently close to 0; and the total discounted utility tends to infinity for market structure C and converges to a constant in autarky as the decision horizon T tends to infinity. This result is intuitive. Autarky is more efficient if transaction efficiency is too low and if job shifting costs are not too large, because autarky does not involve transaction costs but involves job shifting costs, while the division of labor in market structure C involves transaction costs but not job shifting costs.
18.4.4 Market structure P By a two-step procedure analogous to that used to solve for the dynamic corner equilibrium in market structure C, it is possible to solve for the dynamic corner equilibrium in market structure P. Structure P consists of the division of M individuals between configurations (y/x) and (xy/y). The corner solution for configuration (y/x) is the same as in market structure C. The corner solution for configuration (xy/y) is: Ux = (1 + δ)ln{(2 − c)a − ln(1 + δ) + kpx1[(2 − c)b − 1]} − ln py1 + δ ln δ x1 = 1, x1s = (2 − c)b − 1,
y d2 = {dkpx1 [(2 − c)b − 1] − (2 − c)a}/k(1 + d),
(18.11)
y = (p x − y )/py1 d 1
s x1 1
d 2
where px1 and py1 are the respective prices of tractors and food in year 1 in terms of the price of food in year 2. The utility equalization condition Ux = Uy and the two independent market clearing conditions yield the dynamic corner equilibrium-relative prices px1 and py1 and the relative number of individuals choosing the two configurations. Although the algebraic form of the dynamic corner equilibrium solution for relative prices, relative number of individuals choosing different configurations, and total discounted utility is very complicated, it is easy to see the effects of the transaction efficiency coefficient k, the job shifting cost coefficient c, and the number of cycles T/2, on per capita real income. Since producers of tractors must shift jobs every other year, they will forget their experience and have to pay entry costs each year. Thus, (18.11) will be the same for each cycle of production and consumption of tractors irrespective of how long the decision horizon is. This implies that the advantage of structure C over structure P is increasingly significant as the decision horizon increases. The indirect utility function for a professional farmer in structure P is the same as in structure C, given in (18.6b). The utility equalization condition implies that the total discounted utility must be 0 for all configurations if it is 0 for any one configuration. Hence, the total discounted utility in structure P must become negative as c tends to 2 because Ux in (18.11) tends to negative infinity as c converges to 2 for any positive and finite relative prices of traded goods. The market clearing condition will adjust relative prices such that the utility equalization condition is established. Hence, if c is sufficiently large to be close to 2, the decision horizon is sufficiently long, and the discount factor is sufficiently close to 1, then the total discounted utility in structure C will be higher than in structure P because the former tends to be very large and the latter tends to 0 under these conditions. However, if c is sufficiently smaller than 2 and the decision horizon is not long or the discount factor is sufficiently small, then Ux in (18.11) may be positive but U(C) may be 0 if k is sufficiently close to 0. It is not difficult to see that Uy in (18.6b) is independent of k and Ux in (18.11) may be positive even if k = 0, but U(C) in (18.10) tends to negative infinity as k converges to 0. Moreover, U(A) in (18.5b) tends to negative infinity but Ux in
530 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
(18.11) and Uy in (18.6b) may be positive as c converges to 1 when c ∈(0, 1). This deduction leads us to Lemma 18.2: Total discounted utility is greater in structure P than in structures A and C if c is sufficiently close to 1 and k is sufficiently close to 0; total discounted utility is greater in structure C than in structure P if k is sufficiently close to 1, the decision horizon is sufficiently long, the discount rate is sufficiently small, and c is sufficiently close to 2. Structure P, like structure C, cannot operate in the absence of money substitute or a credit system, because in year 2 professional farmers sell and do not buy and individuals choosing (xy/y) buy and do not sell. Following the procedure used to prove the Yao theorem in chapter 4, we can establish that theorem for the dynamic general equilibrium model in this chapter. Hence, only the Pareto optimum dynamic corner equilibrium that generates the highest total discounted utility is the dynamic general equilibrium. Therefore, we can identify the dynamic general equilibrium by comparing the total discounted utility levels between different market structures. The comparison, together with lemmas 18.1 and 18.2, yields Proposition 18.1: If transaction efficiency is sufficiently low and job shifting costs are not too high, autarky is the dynamic general equilibrium, and therefore productivity is low, and trade, business cycles, and unemployment do not occur; if transaction efficiency and job shifting costs are sufficiently high, the decision horizon is sufficiently long, and the discount rate is sufficiently small, then the complete division of labor with business cycles and unemployment is the dynamic general equilibrium; if transaction efficiency and job shifting costs are at some intermediate levels, the decision horizon is not long or the discount rate is large, then the dynamic general equilibrium is the partial division of labor without business cycles and unemployment. Before examining the implications of proposition 18.1, some discussion is required on the question of the existence of equilibrium. From (18.10) to (18.13), we can see that no dynamic corner equilibrium exists for structure C if k is sufficiently close to 0; no dynamic corner equilibrium exists for autarky if c is sufficiently close to 1; and no dynamic corner equilibrium exists for structure P if c is sufficiently close to 2, even if the decision horizon is very long. With these qualifications in mind, the following discussion of the implications of proposition 18.1 is pertinent only if the conditions for the existence of the relevant dynamic corner equilibrium are met. Suppose the discount rate is sufficiently small, the decision horizon is sufficiently long, and job shifting costs are not too low. Then according to proposition 18.1, as transaction efficiency is improved the dynamic general equilibrium will evolve from autarky, which involves no business cycle or unemployment, to structure C which involves business cycles and unemployment. This implies that our model has endogenized not only the business cycle and unemployment, but also the emergence of the business cycle and unemployment from the evolution of division of labor. This proposition is consistent with the casual observation that business cycles and unemployment occur only in an economy with high levels of division of labor, specialization, productivity, and trade dependence. Contrary to the market failure argument, proposition 18.1 implies that the greater the foresight of individuals, the more likely is the occurrence of efficient business cycles with unemployment in a decentralized market. It seems to us that the productivity benefits of business cycles and unemployment are the reasons for the prevalence of persistent business cycles that involve unemployment. It is easy to see that autarky and structure P fully employ physical labor but underemploy human capital, while structure C fully exploits human capital but generates cyclical unemployment of physical labor. This difference between the market structure with business cycles and
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 531
unemployment and those involving no business cycles and unemployment highlights the intuition behind proposition 18.1. Intuitively, if the human capital that is exploited by structure C but not exploited by structures A and P is greater than the physical labor that is employed by structures A and P but not fully employed by structure C, then C is more efficient than other structures and will be the dynamic general equilibrium.
18.4.5 Welfare and policy implications of the model Following the approach used to prove the first welfare theorem in chapter 3, it is not difficult to prove that the dynamic general equilibrium in the Walrasian regime is Pareto optimal. Hence, Pareto improving government policies do not exist. At best, a successful government policy that transfers income from individuals employed to individuals unemployed can play a role equivalent to that of savings in structure C if C is the dynamic general equilibrium in a free market. But such government intervention will certainly generate the distortions associated with bureaucracy. Also, it will paralyze the market mechanism that facilitates the full exploitation of economies of specialized learning by doing through savings. If individuals expect that the government will save for them via income transfers and unemployment welfare, they may have no incentive to save themselves. However, if individuals are myopic and their decision horizon is one year instead of two, then it is trivial to show that a Pareto improving government income transfer scheme may exist. Indeed, if job shifting costs are sufficiently high, for instance, and it is infeasible for a farmer to self-provide a tractor due to prohibitively high shifting costs between farming and tractor manufacturing, then autarky is infeasible. Suppose that individuals’ decision horizon is one year instead of two years, then professional tractor manufacturers will not save any money earned in year 1 for their living in year 2, so that either their total discounted utility over two years tends to negative infinity due to zero consumption in year 2, or they have to change jobs in year 2 and thereby economies of specialized learning by doing cannot be fully exploited. For this case, a Pareto improving income transfer policy exists if the government is less myopic than private businessmen (which is very unlikely). But such an income transfer scheme may institutionalize myopic behavior such that a mature credit market never emerges. Hence, even if short-run benefits may be generated by a government income transfer scheme, its long-run costs are likely to outweigh the benefits.1 Casual observation of a capitalist economy indicates the prevalence of structure C; while casual observation of a Soviet-style socialist economy indicates the prevalence of structure P, which does not involve business cycles and unemployment but may be less effective in accumulating human capital than structure C. Hence, one might conjecture that if a socialist government can control the numbers of different specialists and is tempted to rectify the “market failure” that generates business cycles and unemployment, a noncyclical pattern of division of labor without unemployment is more likely to be chosen, despite the low productivity of such an economic organization. In this sense, the prevalence of noncyclical dynamics in, and the associated low productivity of, socialist economies are evidence of government failure.
18.5 GENERAL PRICE LEVEL, BUSINESS CYCLES, AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Suppose that transaction efficiency, job shifting costs, the decision horizon, and the discount factor are sufficiently large; then structure C is the general equilibrium. Since the price of tractors in year 2, px2, is irrelevant (tractors are not traded in year 2), the price levels in different
532 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
years can be compared through the comparison of price levels of food across years. From expression (18.10), it can be seen that the price of food in year t + 1 relative to that in year t is pyt+1 /pyt = δ(2T/4T )a = δ/2a < 1 py2 /py1 = δ[(2 − c)/4] < 1 a
where
t = 2T − 1 and T > 1
(18.12)
where T/2 is the number of businesses. (18.12) implies that the price of the same good is higher in the first year than in the second year of each cycle. The supply of fiat money determines the nominal prices of goods. However, since real variables are determined by the relative prices of goods in different years in this model, nominal prices have no effect on the real variables. Suppose the general equilibrium is structure C and the money supply in year 1 is m0. In order to get around the problem of wealth distribution, we assume that the government, which supplies fiat money, is the middleman who pays fiat money for goods sold by individuals and resells goods to individual buyers. The government first pays m0 for tractors sold by tractor specialists in year 1, so that m0 = Mx px1x1s. Then tractor specialists pay m1 back to the government to buy food where m1 = Mx py1 y1d < m0 and m0 − m1 = s1 is the tractor specialists’ savings in the form of fiat money. Then the government pays m1 to farmers for food whose value is My py1 y1s = m1 = My px1x1d, and this amount of food is delivered from farmers to tractor specialists through the government. Farmers pay m1 back to the government and demand a loan from the government to buy tractors whose value is My x1d = m0. The value of the loan is m0 − m1 and the loan is in the form of tractors. At the end of year 1, tractor specialists hold fiat money m0 − m1, as savings; farmers hold loan m0 − m1; and the government holds fiat money m1 as money stock. In year 2, tractor specialists buy food from and pay m0 − m1 = Mx py2 y 2d to the government and the farmers repay their loan to the government using food whose value is m0 − m1 = My py2 y2s. Hence, the value of food in terms of fiat money m0 − m1 is delivered from the farmers to the tractor specialists through the government. At the end of year 2 all fiat money m0 has been returned to the government, so that the circulation of money has been completed. Suppose that the government increases the money supply by Δm at the end of year 2. The increased money supply will determine the nominal prices of all goods in the second business cycle, but will have no effect on any real variables for the following reason. In this model there is no trade across cycles despite the fact that trade may occur across the years in the same business cycle. Also, all real variables are determined by the relative prices within each cycle and nominal prices have no effects on the real quantities of goods. Hence, an increase in the money supply may change the cyclical pattern of the general price level and generate an inflation of nominal prices, but will have no effects on the real business cycle. This result is consistent with the monetary policy irrelevance argument (Sargent and Wallace, 1975), but the reasons are different. As in Sargent and Wallace’s model, our model shows that systematic monetary policy has no effect on real variables, because the money supply affects only nominal prices and has no effect on real variables. However, if the government not only uses money as a medium of exchange in the market, but also allocates money for income transfers via a welfare scheme, or increases money supply in the middle of a cycle, then unexpected monetary policy may matter. Hence an extended model allowing for a function of monetary policy in income redistribution may be consistent with Lucas’s theory (1972, 1973, 1976) that expected monetary policy has no effects but unexpected monetary policy has effects on real variables. Our theory implies that monetary policies may be neutral even if long-term contracts are present. By contrast, long-term contracts may cause unemployment and generate active monetary policy implications in the theory of labor contracts and sticky wages (see Gray, 1976, Fischer, 1977, and Taylor, 1980) and in the theory of monopolistic competition and sticky prices (for example, Mankiw, 1985, and Parkin, 1986).
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 533
In exercise 11, below, it is shown that if unemployment is caused by the integer problem, a Nash bargaining process, which can be done either in a decentralized way or through collective bargaining, may generate a Pareto improving outcome with a lower unemployment than in a Walrasian regime. It can also be shown that if long-run unemployment is caused by a vicious circle based on the effects of learning by doing and changes in structure of division of labor, some government actions for the retraining and re-education of those unemployed may generate Pareto improving outcomes too. However, a better way to analyze the unemployment caused by the vicious circle is to analyze why the market cannot sort this out if there is a Pareto improving possibility. Is this because of government regulation or entry barriers which prevent private entrepreneurs from using the opportunity, through the institution of the firm and other structures of transactions and ownership; or because the outcome in the market is already an efficient trade-off between conflicting interests? It is interesting to note that this model can accommodate the Phillips curve, the monetary policy irrelevance argument, and the inflation–stagnation phenomenon. Suppose that the general equilibrium is structure C, then (18.12) implies that a lower nominal price level is associated with a higher unemployment rate if the money supply does not increase as fast as aggregate real transaction volume. The price of good y is higher in the first year than in the second year, while unemployment is positive in the second year and is 0 in the first year of each cycle. However, if the money supply increases faster than aggregate real transaction volume, then unemployment may be associated with inflation in the second year from the second cycle on. But in our model both the Phillips curve phenomenon associated with a moderately increasing money supply, and the inflation–stagnation phenomenon associated with a rapidly increasing money supply, are compatible with the monetary policy irrelevance argument. Aggregate output displays a similar cyclical pattern if structure C is the general equilibrium. The aggregate output level in the first year of each cycle in terms of food in the second year of each cycle is Y1 = My py1( y1 + y1s ) + Mx px1x1s = 4aM[1 + (2 − c)b(k + 1 + ρ)]/ρ[1 + (2 − c)b][1 + k(2 − c)b] Yt = My pyt( yt + yts ) + Mx pxt x ts = (4T)aM[1 + (2T)b(k + 1 + ρ)]/ρ[1 + (2T)b ][1 + k(2T)b] where
(18.13a)
t = 2T − 1 and T > 1
where T/2 is the numbers of business cycles, Yt is the aggregate real output level in terms of food in year t + 1, M is the population size, pit is given in (18.10), x 1s given in (18.7), y1 and y1s given in (18.6b). yt, y ts, and x ts can be obtained by replacing the initial level of human capital Li0 = 0 in y1, y 1s , and x 1s with its level in the end of year t − 1: Y2 = My py2 ( y2 + y2s ) = 4aM(2 − c)b/[1 + (2 − c)b ] s ) Yt+1 = My pyt+1 ( yt+1 + yt+1 a b = (4T ) M(2T ) [1 + (2T )b]
(18.13b) where
t = 2T − 1 and T > 1
where py2 = pyt+1 = 1 because food in the second year of each cycle is the numeraire, y2 and y2s s are given in (18.6b). yt+1 and y t+1 can be obtained by replacing the initial level of human capital s Li0 = 0 in y2 and y 2 with its level in the end of year t − 1. A comparison between (18.13a) and (18.13b) yields Yt > Yt+1∀t = 2T − 1
and
T = 1, 2, . . .
(18.14)
534 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
(18.14) implies that the real aggregate output level is higher in the first year than in the second year of each cycle. It is straightforward that there is an upward trend of Yt despite business cycles, because of the positive effects of specialized learning by doing, which is not interrupted in structure C, on productivity and the real output level. The unemployment rate in the second year of each cycle is R = Mx/M = 1/[1 + (2 − c)b ] for the first business cycle R = 1/[1 + (2T )b ] for other business cycles.
(18.15)
Here, the unemployment rate decreases with the degree of economies of specialization in producing tractors, b, and with the number of business cycles, T/2. However, if there are many producer goods and there is continual evolution of the division of labor in roundabout productive activities as transaction efficiency is improved, then unemployment may increase with the number of business cycles. You are asked in exercise 3 (below) to use a model with food, tractors, and machine tools used to produce tractors, to show that the efficient unemployment rate will increase as a longer chain of roundabout productive activities is involved in the division of labor. In that model, capital goods such as machine tools, along with physical labor, can be unemployed, whereas only physical labor can be unemployed in the model in this chapter. Also, the amplitude and period of the business cycle will increase as a longer chain of roundabout productive activities is involved in the division of labor. Further, it is not difficult to see that an increase in the durability of goods may magnify business cycles and increase the equilibrium unemployment rate in times of recession.
18.6 THE EMERGENCE OF FIRMS AND FIAT MONEY FROM THE DIVISION OF LABOR As we indicated in the preceding section, structures C and P cannot operate in the absence of fiat money and a credit system. For instance, for structure C, professional farmers sell food but do not buy any goods in year 2, while professional producers of tractors buy food but do not sell any goods in year 2. Professional producers of tractors must save some of their purchasing power generated in year 1 for living in year 2. The savings cannot be goods since structure C does not involve any savings of goods, so that commodity money does not work. Hence, the savings of purchasing power can only be fiat money or some kind of credit. This implies that if fiat money and a credit system do not exist, structures C and P cannot be the general equilibrium even if they are Pareto superior to autarky. Hence, the emergence of fiat money or a credit system will improve productivity and individuals’ welfare if the conditions are satisfied for structures C or P to be the general equilibrium (i.e. if transaction efficiency, economies of specialized learning by doing, and job shifting costs are sufficiently large). If the division of labor emerges in a dynamic equilibrium, then there are two institutional mechanisms through which the division of labor could be organized. In the preceding section, one mechanism that organizes the division of labor via the markets for consumer and intermediate goods has been investigated. Suppose that trade in labor is allowed, so that there are three more feasible market structures, along with the institution of the firm, which replace the market for x with the market for labor used to produce x. Following the approach developed in chapter 8, it can be shown that if transaction efficiency is lower for an intermediate good than for the labor employed to produce that intermediate good, then the emergence of the division of labor is associated with the emergence of the institution of the firm.
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 535
A criticism of the model in this chapter relates to the question: will the result in this chapter change if overlapping generation is allowed? Suppose that a new generation (called the second generation) with the same population size as the first generation emerges in year 2. Then, when the first generation of specialist producers of tractors cannot sell tractors to the first generation of farmers, they can sell tractors to the second generation of farmers, so that unemployment is avoided and business cycles are smoothed out by overlapping generations. It can be shown that this criticism is not right from the point view of dynamic general equilibrium. The second generation of individuals must be divided between specialized tractor manufacturing and professional farming, since the demand for tractors from the second generation in year 2 will be greater than the quantity supplied by the first generation tractor specialists if the second generation completely specializes in farming. In year 3, the demand for tractors from the first generation of farmers can be met by supplies of the first generation of tractor specialists, so that the second generation of tractor specialists will be unemployed in year 3 before the tractors that are bought by the second generation of farmers in year 2 have depreciated. Hence, the overlapping generation consideration can to some degree smooth the fluctuations of output, but cannot completely eliminate business cycles and cyclical unemployment. As shown below in exercises 3 and 14, in particular, as the period of depreciation increases from 2 years to 4 years, or as the number of links in a roundabout production chain increases from 2 to 3 or 100, it becomes more difficult to smooth business cycles through overlapping generation considerations. A longer period of depreciation implies that more generations are needed to smooth business cycles to the same degree. But the number of generations that can live at the same time is very limited. If, in the model in this chapter, machine tools are needed to produce tractors, then it is much more difficult to smooth business cycles through overlapping generation considerations. The amplitude and period of each business cycle will be changed too. Suppose transaction efficiency, job shifting costs, and economies of specialized learning by doing are all high, so that we have a structure with complete division of labor where population is divided between specialized farming, specialized manufacturing of tractors, and specialized manufacturing of machine tools. Assume that machine tools can be used for two years too. In year 1, machine tool specialists sell these to tractor specialists and buy food from farmers. Tractor specialists buy machine tools, sell tractors, and buy food. In year 2, specialists in tractors and machine tools are unemployed, farmers drive tractors that they bought in year 1 to produce food, while machine tools are unemployed. In year 3 tractors produced in year 1 have been depreciated and new demand for tractors occurs. But machine tools produced in year 1 are still in use since they were not employed in year 2. Hence, in year 3, machine tool specialists are still unemployed, though tractor specialists find jobs and machine tools are employed in year 3. In year 4, specialists in tractors and machine tools are unemployed, though tractors produced in year 3 are employed. In year 5, specialists in tractors and machine tools find jobs and all labor is fully employed again. We can call years 1, 5, 9, 13 boom years, and years 4, 8, 12 recession years. Output levels and unemployment rates in years 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 are between those in boom years and those in recession years. This example illustrates that as division of labor develops in an increasingly longer roundabout production chain, business cycles and cyclical unemployment will be more difficult to avoid. Using Smithian models we can show that the following are procyclical factors: the network size of division of labor, the length of the roundabout production chain that is involved in the division of labor, the durability of goods, the income share of durable goods, job shifting costs, transaction efficiency, and the degree of economies of specialized learning by doing. Increases in the magnitudes of these factors will make business cycles and cyclical unemployment more difficult to avoid. The countercyclical factors are: the number of generations that live at the same time; the emergence of new goods, which reduces the period of depreciation of the old goods; a decrease in the number of links in the roundabout production chain; a decrease in
536 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
the level of division of labor; a decrease in the durability of goods; decreases in transaction efficiency and fixed learning or entry costs in a sector; and a decrease in the effect of learning by doing. A realistic dynamic general equilibrium model that can be used for practical application must consider all of these factors. We can see that if the procyclical factors dominate countercyclical factors, a regime of business cycles and cyclical unemployment is more efficient than a noncyclical pattern of economic growth. Also, we can see that the green movement’s advocacy of abandonment of the use of nondurable paper dishes and other environmentally nonfriendly instant goods entails the cost of more cyclical unemployment and instability in the economy. This kind of analysis can show that a government policy to impose a high license fee or other entry costs on a professional sector will promote business cycles and cyclical unemployment. However, when doing this kind of analysis, we should not forget that under a laissez-faire regime, business cycles and cyclical unemployment are the consequence of interactions between self-interested decisions, which efficiently trade-off the interests of some individuals against the interests of the others, regardless of whether the business cycles can or cannot be smoothed out, and regardless of individuals’ attitudes for or against cyclical unemployment. This is similar to a decision to use a freeway system, which we have mentioned previously. Such a decision efficiently trades-off the benefit from using the freeway against a higher risk of being killed in traffic accidents, despite our strong feelings about casualties. This chapter has developed a dynamic general equilibrium model that has simultaneously endogenized the emergence of the business cycle, unemployment, fiat money, and firms and productivity progress as different aspects of the evolution of division of labor. The efficient business cycles and unemployment in the dynamic general equilibrium generate productivity implications relating to full exploitation of economies of specialized learning by doing at the cost of unemployment of physical labor. In this sense, business cycles and related unemployment may be evidence of a market success rather than a market failure. Another aspect of economic development has been investigated in this chapter. We have shown that a decentralized market will sort out an efficient pattern of business cycles and unemployment by trading off economies of specialized learning by doing against the unemployment which is necessary for avoiding job shifting costs. Inappropriate government intervention in the market may paralyze the functioning of this invisible hand. However, the market cannot function effectively in the absence of a reliable credit system and fiat money, which need to be enforced by government institutions.
Key Terms and Review • Aggregate demand and absolute price levels • Macroeconomic and microeconomic phenomena and related analyses of inframarginal and marginal comparative statics (dynamics) • Endogenous long-run regular efficient business cycles and cyclical unemployment • Exogenous unemployment caused by the integer problem of division of labor • Exogenous unemployment caused by changes in the structure of division of labor • Endogenous and efficient risk of mass unemployment • The difference between endogenous regular business cycles and output fluctuation caused by exogenous stochastic processes or shocks • The relationship between endogenous efficient business cycles and unemployment, evolution of division of labor in roundabout production, and endogenous long-run economic growth
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 537
• The trade-off between accumulation of human capital and full employment of physical labor • The relationship between business cycles, unemployment, transaction efficiency, economies of specialized learning by doing, job shifting costs, and division of labor in producing durable goods • The function of the invisible hand in searching for the efficient trade-off between accumulation of human capital and full employment of labor • The possible consequences of government policies to affect the pattern of business cycles and unemployment through manipulating monetary and fiscal policies
Further Reading Macroeconomics and the relationship between business cycles and durable goods: Keynes (1936), Samuelson (1947), Stiglitz (1993), Barro (1991, 1997), Akerlof and Yellen (1985), Starrett (1973), Gabisch and Lorenz (1989), Mankiw (1985); The Smithian model of business cycles: Yang and Y.-K. Ng (1993, ch. 18), Du (2000); Shock-dependent business cycle models: Schumpeter (1939), Hicks (1950); Models of endogenous unemployment caused by market failure: Weitzman (1982), Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984); Models of labor shift: Lilien (1982), Black (1987), Abraham and Katz (1986), Murphy and Topel (1987); Real business cycle models: Kydland and Prescott (1982), Long and Plosser (1983), Prescott (1986), King and Plosser (1984, 1986); Monetary policy: Lucas (1972, 1973, 1976), Sargent and Wallace (1975); Efficiency wage and endogenous unemployment models: Yellen (1984), Stiglitz (1986), Shapiro and Stiglitz (1984); Macroeconomic models of endogenous business cycles: Vogt (1969) and Goodwin (1951); Monopolistic competition and sticky wage models: Mankiw (1985), Parkin (1986), Ball, Mankiw, and Romer (1988), Rotemberg (1987), Taylor (1980), Fischer (1977), Gray (1976), Wallace (1980); Models of the failure of financial market: Stiglitz (1992); Segerstrom, Anant, and Dinopoulos (1990); Empirical evidence for the positive effects of business cycles on economic growth: Canton (1997), Kormendi and Meguire (1985), Grier and Tullock (1989), Ramey and Ramey (1995); Neoclassical models to explain the positive correlation between growth and business cycles: Black (1979), Caballero and Hammour (1994), Deaton (1991), Dellas (1991), Shleifer (1986), Skinner (1988), Basu (1996), Aghion and Saint-Paul (1991), Aghion and Howitt (1998); Empirical evidence of a positive correlation between specialization and company performance: Berger and Ofek (1995), Bhagat, Shleifer, and Vishny (1990), Comment and Jarrell (1995), Fauver, Houston, and Naranjo (1998), Kaplan and Weisbach (1992), Lang and Stulz (1994), Servaes (1996).
QUESTIONS 1 Real business cycle models (Kydland and Prescott, 1982, Long and Plosser, 1983, King and Plosser, 1984) explain output fluctuation by an exogenously given stochastic process. This mechanism is like the fluctuation of agricultural outputs between good years and bad years before the Industrial Revolution. Analyze the difference between irregular fluctuation and regular business cycles. 2 Many macroeconomic models explain unemployment and recession by exogenous shocks to an economy. Why can’t this kind of model generate endogenous and persistent regular business cycles and cyclical unemployment? 3 Most macroeconomic models that explain business cycles and unemployment attribute the cause of the two phenomena to market failure. Why could this view be wrong? Why can persistent business cycles and cyclical unemployment be the consequence of market success?
538 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
4 Analyze the difference between reform cycles in previous or current Soviet-style economies, and business cycles in a free market economy. “As soon as central planning control is relaxed, chaos follows, as soon as chaos occurs, reforms are reversed and central planning comes back, so that the economic development drive is killed, which causes the next round of reforms.” 5 In several newly industrialized economies, such as South Korea and Taiwan, business cycles are blurred out during the take-off stage of economic development. Why could business cycles be smoothed to some degree in the take-off stage of evolution in division of labor? 6 Many economists believe that the market cannot efficiently coordinate self-interested behavior if individuals cannot take account of the macroeconomic consequences of their decisions. They hold that in the presence of network effect, multiple equilibria (similar to multiple corner equilibria in the Smithian models), and coordination failure caused by prisoners’ dilemma or externality problems, individuals’ self-interested decisions do not take account of the macroecononmic consequences. Marx, for one, believed that business cycles are evidence of market failure. Use phenomena that are similar to the following example to show that self-interested decisions do account for their macroeconomic consequences through the market price mechanism. In a free market economy, individuals who work in those sectors that are sensitive to business cycles (for instance, the sector producing durable automobiles) have a greater risk of unemployment in recession than those working in sectors producing nondurables. Hence, the market wage in the former sectors is higher than in the latter, such that the higher pay is enough to compensate for the higher risk of unemployment. Thus, individuals voluntarily choose a job with a high risk of unemployment. 7 Many textbooks indicate that in the presence of network effect, a person’s purchasing decisions will affect the extent of the market for others’ produce. If each individual wants to save money and thereby does not buy much, then the entire economy will be in recession because of coordination failure. Use Smithian models to show that the very function of the market is to fully utilize the network effect of division of labor. Show that we do not need coordination failure caused by network effect to explain business cycles and cyclical unemployment. 8 In a Soviet-style economy, business cycles and cyclical unemployment were eliminated by central planning. So why don’t Russians like that system? 9 Why can an improvement in transaction efficiency promote business cycles and cyclical unemployment? 10 The durability of goods, the number of links in the roundabout production chain involved in the division of labor, and the level of division of labor are procyclical factors, while use of instant goods, the number of generations that live at the same time, ex ante differences between individuals, and the invention of new machines are countercyclical factors. Suppose there is a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium with all of these procyclical and countercyclical factors. Discuss the possible dynamics and comparative dynamics and their implications in such a model. 11 Analyze the connection between the tight job market for a professor’s position in universities in the 1980s and 1990s, the durability of Ph.D. graduates, and the mass production of Ph.D. graduates after the the Second World War. 12 Many aspects of business cycles cannot be investigated using the simple model in example 18.4. For instance, recession may strengthen the discipline of enterprises, weaken monopoly powers, and promote innovation in organization and technology.
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 539
13
14 15
Discuss the general equilibrium implications of the introduction of this effect into the Smithian model of the business cycle. Berger and Ofek (1995), Bhagat, Shleifer, and Vishny (1990), Comment and Jarrell (1995), Fauver, Houston, and Naranjo (1998), Kaplan and Weisbach (1992), Lang and Stulz (1994), and Servaes (1996) provide empirical evidence for a negative correlation between diversification of a company and its value and performance. Analyze the trade-off between benefits of specialization and of diversification, and the implications of the trade-off for economic development and business cycles. Find empirical evidence for the theory of business cycles in this chapter. (Hint: you might, for instance, compare the relationship between economic performance and the indexes of business cycles in the Soviet Union and the USA.) Show that the unemployment rate is positive in structure C even if Say’s law holds. Explain why it is so.
EXERCISES
1 A economist uses the bar graphs in the following figure to illustrate the rationale of business cycles and cyclical unemployment (in the graphs, the horizontal axis represents years and the vertical axis represents quantity of a durable good, such as refrigerators). Suppose the period of depreciation is 5 years and total demand is 5 (thousand) at t = 0. Panel (a) shows two possible patterns of production capacity. The first is to set up a capacity of 5 units per year as shown by the higher dashed line. Hence, purchase demand equals supply in year 1. But in years 2, 3, 4, 5, there is no purchase demand, though consumption demand is a positive constant. Hence, all production capacity is unemployed until year 6, when all refrigerators produced in year 1 are fully depreciated. The second pattern of production capacity is 1 unit each year as shown by the lower dashed line. Thus, supply is short of demand by 4 units in year 1, by 3 units in year 2, by 2 units in year 3, and by 1 unit in year 4. The market is cleared in year 5.
Xt
Xt
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
1
2
3
4 (a)
5
6
t
0
1
2
3
4 (b)
5
6
t
540 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
2 3
4
5
OF
D EVELOPMENT
This illustrates the trade-off between unemployment and shortage in producing durables because of nonsynchronous purchase demand and consumption demand for durables. Panel (b) is a pattern of production capacity intermediate between the two extreme cases in panel (a). A capacity of 2 units per year is established in year 0. Hence, supply is short of demand by 3 units in year 1, by 2 units in year 2. Demand is short of supply by 1 unit in year 3 and by 2 units in years 4 and 5. Analyze why this is not a general equilibrium analysis which must endogenize demand as a function of prices. Compare this kind of analysis to the dynamic general equilibrium analysis in this chapter. Then discuss the explanatory power of Smithian dynamic general equilibrium models. Suppose that the production functions in example 18.4 are the Leontief functions y dt = Min{X dt , Lyt − cyt}. Solve for the dynamic general equilibrium and its inframarginal comparative dynamics. Assume that another intermediate good z is needed to produce intermediate good x in the model in example 18.4, so that the production function for x is x tp = Min{zt + kzdt , Lxt − cxt}. The production of z is z tp ≡ zt + z ts xtd = Max{0, Lzt − czt}. Solve for the dynamic general equilibrium and inframarginal comparative dynamics. Analyze the implications of the number of links in a roundabout production chain that are involved in the division of labor for business cycles and unemployment. A conventional model to explain the fluctuation of output is the so-called cobweb model. Assume that an ad hoc demand function for good x at time t is x td = a − bpt. The quantity supplied at t is determined by the price at t − 1, that is x ts = αa + βpt−1. The time lag between supply and price is the driving force of fluctuation. Use the market clearing condition at t to solve for the dynamics of the economy. Find the static equilibrium price level (steady state) and identify the respective parameter interval within which the market price monotonically converges to the static equilibrium, fluctuates around the static equilibrium level as it converges toward it, and fluctuates away from the steady state. (Hint: the static equilibrium price level is (α − a)/(b − β) and the dynamics are given by pt = (β/b)pt−1 + (α − a)/b or Δpt = (β/b)Δpt−1 = (β/b)tΔp0.) Consider the Smithian model in example 4.2. We now introduce the time dimension into the model and assume that time is discrete. There is one period time lag between changes of relative number of professional occupations (x/y) and (y/x) in response to the difference in utility between the two occupations. Hence, Mx(t) − Mx(t − 1) = β[ux(t − 1) − uy(t − 1)], where t denotes the time period and β is the sensitivity coefficient of changes in the number of specialist producers of x in response to the difference in utility between two occupation configurations. Mi(t) is the number of specialist producers of good i in period t. The indirect utility function ui for a specialist producer of good i is given in table 4.3. Since Mx(t) + My(t) = M, where population size M is a given parameter, changes in Mx(t) is proportional to changes in My(t) but in the opposite direction. For simplicity, we assume that M = 1. Further, there is one period time lag between changes of the relative price of good y to good x in response to changes in excess demand for good y. Hence, p(t + 1) − p(t) = α [Mx(t)y d(t) − My(t)y s(t)], where My(t) = 1 − Mx(t) and y d(t) and y s(t) are given in table 4.3. α is the sensitivity coefficient of changes of relative price in response to excess demand for good y. The initial state of the system is given by Mx(0) = M0, p(0) = p0, and p(1) = p1. Solve for the difference equation for the feedback mechanism. Then simulate it on the computer. Analyze the trade-off between fast convergence to the static
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 541
6
7
8
9
10
equilibrium which can be provided by sensitive feedback and instability of the feedback process caused by very sensitive feedback (the answer can be found in example 19.1 in chapter 19). Assume that it takes four years to finish a graduate degree and each student’s decision in choosing one of two professions is dependent on the relative pay in the two professions in the student’s freshman year. Each graduate can work for 20 years after she finds a job. Develop a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium model based on individuals’ dynamic optimum decisions with a time lag between price and supply. If individuals cannot only choose between two occupations, but also choose between self-education and professional university education and between complete self-sufficiency and the division of labor between the two occupations, what are the implications of the endogenization of specialization for fluctuation of excess demand? The Shapiro–Stiglitz (1984) efficiency wage model: Suppose that a worker’s utility function is u = w − e where w is wage income and e is the effort level in production. Effort level can be high (e = α) or low (e = 0). The representative firm’s production function is y = ALa where a ∈(0, 1) and L is the amount of labor employed. If a worker is unemployed, she receives unemployment benefit w0 from the government. The firm can detect employee shirking at a probability q, but it cannot always observe or verify the effort level of the employee. That is, there is moral hazard. The labor supply is L0. Find the firm’s demand function for labor and the wage rate at which the employee’s expected utility for nonshirking (e = α) is higher than that for shirking (e = 0). What is the unemployment level under the efficiency wage rate? What are the respective effects of the changes in productivity parameters A, a, in the high effort level parameter α, in the detection efficiency parameter q, and in the unemployment benefit parameter w0 on the unemployment rate? Suppose that in the preceding exercise the firm can allocate labor to monitoring employees, so that the detection level q = Min{1, 1/(L0 − Lm)} where L0 is total labor supply and Lm is the amount of labor allocated to monitoring. Solve for the equilibrium level of the unemployment rate and analyze if its equilibrium level is higher or lower than the Pareto optimum level. Discuss the shortcomings of this partial equilibrium analysis of endogenous unemployment. Extend the model to describe a general equilibrium mechanism that simultaneously endogenizes individuals’ levels of specialization and unemployment rate in society. As in Weitzman’s model (1982), investment in physical capital is not specified in example 18.4, although savings are allocated for investment which is necessary for running the efficient pattern of the division of labor and for speeding up accumulation of human capital. As shown in chapter 16, if we assume that tractors and machine tools take time to produce, but each individual must consume the final goods at each point in time, then professional producers of tractors and machine tools cannot survive in the absence of savings and investment. Introduce this investment problem into the model in example 18.4 to investigate the effects of government investment on business cycles and unemployment. Consider a Smithian dynamic general equilibrium model with the features of the models in examples 16.1 and 18.4. Analyze the interactions between investment, business cycles, division of labor in roundabout production, and transaction efficiency. Use your results to predict the effect of the growth and business cycles of Kennedy’s and Reagan’s policies to reduce tax. Can tax reduction simultaneously promote investment, long-run growth, and business cycles?
542 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
11
12
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Consider the Smithian model in example 4.1 and the Nash bargaining model in example 9.1. Suppose the number of finite ex ante identical consumer-producers is 3. Show that the Nash bargaining equilibrium may avoid unemployment within a certain parameter subspace. Use this result to explain why bargaining is an institution to reduce unemployment caused by the integer problem. Discuss the trade-off between information cost caused by Nash bargaining and unemployment caused by the Walrasian equilibrium. Analyze the welfare loss caused by the strike that is used as a threat point in the Nash bargaining, in connection with the trade-off between economies of division of labor and coordination reliability investigated in Part VII. What are the equilibrium implications of the trade-offs among economies of division of labor, coordination reliability of the network of division of labor, the role of Nash bargaining in reducing unemployment, and the welfare loss caused by the threat of striking in Nash bargaining? Du, 2000: Consider one more market structure in example 18.4. In this structure, farmers are divided between two groups. The first group produces food and the second is unemployed and receives a loan from the first group in period 1. Hence, the first group demands tractors in periods 1, 3, 5, . . . and the second group demands tractors in period 2, 4, 6, . . . This dis-synchronization of demand for durable goods can avoid business cycles from period 2 on at the cost of unemployment of farmers in period 1. Also, this requires giving uncollateralized credit to the unemployed. In this structure some individuals choose configuration (y1|x) (an individual remains unemployed in period 1, but starts buying tractors and producing and selling food from period 2 on). Designate (y2|x) as the configuration in which an individual buys tractors and specializes in producing and selling food from period 1 on, and gives a loan of food to feed (y1|x) in period 1. Configuration (x|y) means individuals specialize in producing tractors and buy food from people in (y1|x) and (y2|x). From period 3 on, every two periods constitute a cycle. For simplicity, consider the first two periods as an independent subsystem and solve for its corner equilibrium. Then proceed to the third and fourth periods and solve them as a two-period subsystem, which also leads to a corner equilibrium solution of the cycle to be repeated. Finally, take the discounted sum of intertemporal corner equilibrium total utility for all the subsystems as a proxy for the equilibrium total utility level of the whole intertemporal system. The decision problem of (y1|x) is: Max Uy1/x = ln(ky 1d − c′) + δ ln y 2d ; s.t. y2 + y 2s = (x 2d)α(Ly2 − c)a, x 2d = 1, py1 y 1d + px2x 2d = py2 y 2s , Ly2 = 2, where c′ is the transaction cost that is specific to this structure. Assume py2 = 1. Here, for simplicity, it is assumed that (y1|x) borrows in period 1 and repays the loan in period 2 as soon as she obtains revenue from selling food. This simplifying assumption confines the effects of uncollateralized credit within the first two periods. (y2|x) extends credit to (y1|x). The decision problem of (y2|x) is given by Max Uy2/x = ln( y 1d − c′) + β ln y2d; s.t. y1 + y 1s = (xdd )α (Ly1 − c)a, x d1 = 1, y2 + y 2s = (x1d)α(Ly2)a, py1 y 1s + px2x 2s = px1x 1d, Ly1 = 2, Ly2 = 4. The decision problem of (x|y) remains the same as that in structure C: Max Ux = ln(ky 1d ) + δ ln(ky 2d ), s.t. x1s = (Lx1 − c)a, Lx2 = 2, py1 y1d + py2 y 2d = px1x1s. Specify the market clearing conditions for tractors and food, the utility equalization conditions for the three configurations, and solve for the corner equilibrium for the first two periods of this market structure. From period 3 on, every two periods constitute a cycle that is to be repeated. The decision problem for (y1|x) is given by Max Uy1/x = δ2 ln y3d + δ3 ln y 4d, s.t. y3 + y3s = (x 2d )α(Ly3)a, y4 + y 4s = (x 4d )α(Ly4)a, py3 y 3d + py4 y 4d = px4 x 4d, Ly3 = 4, Ly4 = 6, x 4d = 1. Similarly, the decision problem for (y2|x) is: Max Uy2/x = δ2 ln y3d +
C HAPTER 18: B USINESS C YCLES , U NEMPLOYMENT , L ONG - RUN G ROWTH 543
13 14
15
δ3 ln y4d; s.t. y3 + y3s = (x3d)α(Ly3)a, y4 + y4s = (x3d )α(Ly4)a, py3 y 3s + py4 y4s = px3 x3d, Ly3 = 6, Ly4 = 8, x 3d = 1. Let py4 = 1. Specify the market clearing conditions and utility equalization conditions and solve for the corner equilibrium for this first cycle. Show the following propositions: (1) If the transaction efficiency (k) is sufficiently high, the discount factor (δ) is sufficiently large, the transactions cost c′ is sufficiently low, then py1 > py2. The interest rate that individuals in (y1|x) pay is py1 − py2. (2) For the first two periods, if the transaction efficiency k is sufficiently close to 0, the corner equilibrium in this structure is not an equilibrium. The total utility of the first two periods is decreasing in the UC-specific transactions cost c′. (3) When k is sufficiently close to 0, the corner equilibrium for the nth repeated cycle of this structure would not be a dynamic equilibrium. When k is sufficiently close to 1, but the discount factor is sufficiently close to 0, then it is still not an equilibrium. When k is sufficiently large, and the discount factor is not too small, then the total utility of the nth cycle of this market structure is higher than that of all structures in example 18.4. (4) If k is sufficiently low and the job shifting cost is not too high, autarky is the equilibrium. If c′ is sufficiently large, k and 1/c are not too low, the discount factor is sufficiently large, and the decision horizon is sufficiently long, then C is equilibrium. If c′ is sufficiently small, k and 1/c are not too small, the discount factor is sufficiently large, and the decision horizon is sufficiently long, then the structure with unemployment in the first period but full employment and complete division of labor in all subsequent periods is the general equilibrium. Use the results in the preceding exercise to analyze the implications for economic development of macroeconomic policies that affect credit market conditions. Suppose that the number of years for completing depreciation of a machine increases from 2 to 4 in example 18.4. Use the extended model to show that as the depreciation period increases, business cycles are more difficult to smooth out by considering overlapping generations. Calculate the per capita real incomes of two configuration sequences in structure C. Show that per capita real income is not equalized in each period, despite equalization of total discounted utilities between occupation configurations. Analyze the effects of eliminating such inequality of income distribution. Recent empirical work (Deininger and Squire, 1996) shows that inequality of income distribution fluctuates over time. Use the model in example 18.4 to explore the growth implications of such fluctuation.
Note 1 It is difficult to draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment in our model. In a sense, unemployment in this model can be viewed as voluntary, since dynamics with unemployment and business cycles are the outcome of all individuals’ optimal decisions. However, such unemployment can also be viewed as involuntary, since individuals who are unemployed are willing to work if it is possible. They cannot work during recession times because of a trade-off between full exploitation of human capital and full employment of physical labor. Maybe “involuntary” is the wrong word for this general equilibrium phenomenon. In general equilibrium, each individual is unhappy with the consequence of interactions between self-interested decisions since she always wants more (she has nonsatiated preferences), but must accept the equilibrium as it is. It is not easy to tell if she accepts the equilibrium voluntarily or involuntarily if the nonsatiated desires are considered.
544 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC TRANSITION
19
19.1 UNDERSTANDING ECONOMIC TRANSITION There are two major approaches to studying economic transition. One of them, surveyed by Dewatripont and Roland (1996), McMillan (1996), Blanchard (1997), Qian (1999), Maskin and Xu (1999), and Roland (2000), uses formal models of endogenous transaction costs (see chapter 9 above) to analyze economic transition. This approach explicitly spells out the assumptions and predictions and has all the advantages of the formal models discussed in chapter 1 of this text. Its shortcoming is that most of the formal models are partial equilibrium models that cannot describe the complex interplay between endogenous transaction costs and the network size of division of labor. As discussed before, the network effect of division of labor is by nature a notion of general equilibrium. Also, the formal models are too simple to capture the complexity of institutional changes. The core of transition is a large-scale shift of constitutional rules (Sachs and Pistor, 1997). Economic transition (i.e., price liberalization and privatization) is only part of the transition. In a recent debate about relative merits of gradual and shock therapy approaches to the transition, the gradualist view was overwhelmingly dominant (see Roland, 2000 and Sachs and Woo, 1999). This is partly due to the lack of constitutional thinking among economists. Some economists who are in favor of gradualism easily jump to conclusions by looking only at the short-term economic effects of different approaches to transition. To understand why this is not appropriate, we may raise the question: If the transition of constitutional rules in France in the nineteenth century had been gradual, would the transition have been more successful and welfare-improving? There are three difficulties in answering this question. First, the long-term effects on economic performance of changes in constitutional rules are not always consistent with their short-term effects. It is not easy to distinguish one from another. For instance, the formation of the constitutional order in France started in the French Revolution and lasted for about a century. The short-term effect of the Revolution on the economy was disastrous (Beik, 1970). However, the Napoleonic Code, and many other institutions and policies that emerged from the long transition process from the Old Regime to the new constitutional order, might have had positive long-term effects on economic development in France. This transition, together with the rivalry between the UK, France, other European continental countries, and the US, generated the leap-frog of western continental Europe’s economic development over the UK in the second half of the nineteenth century (Crafts, 1997). Also, the short-term economic effect of the American War of Independence and American Civil War was very negative.1 But most
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 545
historians would not deny the significantly positive long-term economic effects of the two transitions of constitutional rules. The transition from an old regime to the new constitutional order may have significant shortterm negative effects on economic development for at least two reasons. First, the transition must face the well-known dilemma of powerful and legitimate state violence being essential for protecting all individuals’ rights (Barzel, 1997). According to Buchanan (1989), property rights emerge from the power of police to enforce them. But such powerful state violence usually tends to violate rather than protect individuals’ rights. Second, it takes a long time to build up players’ confidence in game rules. When changes in game rules occur during the transition, the lack of credibility of the new rules can create social disorder and have adverse effects on economic development. Hence, the short-term economic effects of the changes of constitutional rules on economic development are more likely to be negative. The second difficulty in answering the above question relates to the trade-off between the smooth buyout provided by gradualism and state opportunism, and corruption institutionalized by the dual track approach that is associated with gradualism (Roland, 2000, p. 43, and Cheung, 1996). The transition to a fair, transparent, and stable constitutional rule is incompatible with the dual track approach, which features arbitrary and discretionary government power and unfair, unstable, uncertain, and nontransparent game rules. The constitutional order requires the credible commitment of government to the game rules, while the dual track approach is characterized by noncredibility of the government’s commitment to the fair rules. Also, the dual track approach institutionalizes arrangements wherein government officials are the rule-maker, the rule enforcer, the referee, and the player at the same time. This is incompatible with the constitutional principle that they must be separated (see sections 19.4 and 19.5). It is not easy to identify the efficient balance of the trade-off, which might be different for different countries. If economic development is a process in which many countries conduct social experiments with various institutions over a long period of time in order to find the institutions that promote economic development, then experiments in some countries will fail. In successful experiments, economic transition is associated with gradual evolution of institutions. But in unsuccessful experiments, the inefficient institutions, old game rules, and related tradition often are discontinued and new game rules and a new tradition must be created and consolidated. This transition needs a big bang to establish a credible commitment by the major players to giving up old game rules. The third difficulty in answering the question raised above involves the comparison of total discounted welfare between different generations of individuals. The French Revolution intensified the rivalry between French continental culture and British common law tradition. This might increase the generic diversity of institutional experiments and create more opportunities for welfare improvement in human society. Certainly, if such benefits exist, they go to the younger generations in many countries at the cost of the older generations in France. Similarly, the US’s War of Independence increased the genetic diversity of institutions and cultures within the Anglo-Saxon tradition, thereby increasing the welfare of young generations at the expense of the old ones. But we economists have no consensus about how to efficiently tradeoff one generation’s welfare against another’s. Finally, a transition of constitutional rules usually involves many stages. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to analyze the complete effects of a single stage of transition. For instance, the French Revolution had a very negative immediate impact on France’s economic development. It did, however, clear the way for Napoleon’s big-bang transition to the new constitutional rules based on the Napoleonic Codes and equality of all men before the law, which had positive effects on France’s economic development. Mao’s experiments with administrative decentralization in the absence of markets and private property rights in the 1960s and early 1970s were disastrous for China’s economic development. But they generated a big shock to central
546 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
planning in China and cleared the way for Deng’s regional decentralization and other marketoriented reforms. According to Mokyr (1990), the rivalry between Britain and France was an important driving force of the big-bang transition of French institutions during and after the French Revolution. According to Yang (1994), the rivalry between Chinese and Russian communists was an important driving force of Mao’s big shock to the central planning system in 1960s and 1970s China. Hence, it is more important to investigate the driving mechanism than to investigate the short-term economic effects of one of the many stages of transition of constitutional rules. Japan’s Meiji Restoration and big-bang constitutional transition after the the Second World War are two successful cases of shock therapy, while China’s Reformation Movement in the late nineteenth century was unsuccessful. But we need to investigate under what conditions a big-bang reform is likely to succeed.2 Recently, many models of the commitment game (see example 9.16 in chapter 9 and exercise 1 in this chapter) have been used to show why, in the short run, the dual track approach can work in China in the absence of a credible commitment to constitutional order (Qian, 1999). But it is much more important to use the commitment game models to formalize North and Weingast’s (1989) ideas about why credible commitment to a constitutional order is essential for long-term economic development. This may need evolutionary game models with information problems to explain the endogenous evolution of game rules associated with institutional changes and constitutional transition. But so far no such models are available. The existing evolutionary game models can only explain the evolution of strategies, but not that of game rules. We cannot even predict the emergence of the simple game rule that penalizes theft via criminal laws, the judiciary system, and the police. Perhaps evolutionary game models that formalize state economics, developed by Barzel (1997), and constitutional economics, developed by Buchanan (1989), can finally provide some tools of the trade for the economics of transition. But before that, formal models of economic transition might play a quite limited role in policy-making. They are too simple and too specific to be close to real, complex, large-scale institutional changes. Hence, another approach to the economics of transition that involves no formal models has so far been very influential in policy-making. This line of research includes the meticulous documentation of changes of institutions and policies and their economic consequences, represented by Lardy (1998), and the descriptive analysis of policy and history, represented by North (1997), North and Weingast (1989), Qian and Weingast (1997), Sachs (1993), and Sachs and Woo (1999). In this chapter, we shall combine the two approaches to study transition economics. We will use inframarginal analysis of the network of division of labor to investigate economic transition. When formal models are too simple to capture the complexity of institutional evolution, we will combine this inframarginal analysis with insights from constitutional economics, the new school of economic history, and the economics of state to address problems in economic transition. Sections 19.2 and 19.3 discuss how to use the Smithian framework developed in the previous chapters to investigate the features of the Soviet-style socialist system and the driving mechanism for economic transition. Sections 19.4 and 19.5 examine the relationship between market-oriented reforms and the transition of constitutional rules. Section 19.6 uses formal models to analyze transition phenomena, such as large-scale output fall and financial crises.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN READING THIS CHAPTER n n
What are the characteristics of a Soviet-style economic system? How could the Soviet-style economic system generate big-push industrialization in the absence of private ownership of firms and of the market? Why did this system finally fail?
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 547 n n n n n
What are the differences between Soviet-style socialism, Lange’s market socialism, Mao’s socialism with administrative decentralization, and Deng’s socialist market system? What are the driving mechanisms for economic transition? What is the relationship between economic transition and constitutional transition? What causes large-scale output fall in some transitional economies? What are the short-term and long-term benefits and costs of the dual track approach to transition?
19.2 THE SOCIALIST SYSTEM AND EVOLUTION IN DIVISION OF LABOR In order to understand economic transition, we have to first address the following questions: What are the characteristics of the Soviet-style economic system? Why has the Soviet-style socialist system finally been rejected by most countries that adopted it? Why could such a system survive, spread, and even achieve short-run impressive growth performance before it was finally rejected? In this section we shall address these three questions. We then draw a distinction between the Soviet-style socialist system, Mao’s socialist system, and Deng’s socialist market system. The distinction can then be used to explain the differences in transition pattern between China, Russia, and eastern Europe. The debate between Lange, von Mises, and Hayek helps with the second question. Von Mises (1922) and Hayek (1944a) believed that the Soviet-style economic system would fail to work since it could not obtain necessary information in the absence of the market. They argued that the calculation cost for working out an internally consistent plan was too high to be feasible. Lange and Taylor (1964) used the neoclassical general equilibrium model to argue that market socialism can solve the problem of the prohibitively high calculation cost of the economic plan. Under market socialism, markets for consumption goods are allowed, but all firms and production means are owned by the state. The central planner commands the managers of all state firms to maximize profit for given prices and report the profit maximizing quantities to him. Then he adjusts market prices according to excess demand until the markets for consumption goods are cleared. They believed that market socialism could allocate resources more efficiently than a capitalist system. Hayek (1988) and Friedman (1962) disagree. According to them, the central planner has no incentive to adjust prices to clear the market, and the managers of state firms have no incentive to maximize profit in the absence of private ownership of firms. Instead, the central planner has every reason to keep excess demand positive, which can generate planning power and a great deal of tangible and intangible benefit for him. According to Kornai (1980, 1992), managers will not maximize profit and will not respond to changes of prices if the budget constraint is soft. The managers have every reason to understate production capacity and overstate input requirement, so that, in the absence of private ownership of firms and factors, prices cannot convey real information. Hence, disequilibrium becomes chronic and resource allocation is distorted. In the 1980s several Chinese economists have developed theories describing the Soviet-style economic system. One of them is referred to as the theory of absence of ownership. Several papers by Hua Sheng, Zhang Xuejuen, and Lo Xiaopen (1988), Yi Gang (1988), Ping Xinqiao (1988), and Men Qinguo (1988) almost simultaneously proposed a theory of the absence of ownership. This theory states that the state ownership system is used to purposely divide different components of ownership of the same property between separate institutions. According to the definition of ownership in the economics of property rights, it consists of two components: exclusive rights to disposal of property and exclusive rights to collecting (positive or negative) earnings from property (see Furubotn and Pejovich, 1974). In a socialist economy, rights to disposal of property are divided among the planning committee, the price bureau,
548 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
the labor bureau, the government industrial departments, and managers of enterprises. The planning committee has a say on long-run investment and related resource allocation; the price bureau has a say on pricing; the labor bureau has a say on the assignment of personnel; the government industrial departments have a say on intermediate-term investments and the allocation of crucial goods and input factors; the managers have a say on daily managerial decisions. Rights to collecting revenue or enduring losses, another component of ownership, are divided between the finance ministry and the industrial ministries. Hence, no single individual or institution has complete ownership of a single piece of state-owned property. The Chinese call this “a system without a real boss,” or “a system with an absence of ownership.” It was argued that any decentralization and liberalization reform of such a system in the absence of any substantive change in property rights structure will create more problems than it solves. One of these articles (Men Qiuguo, 1988) points to the fact that such a division of different components of ownership between separate institutions is a necessary sin if there are no private property rights in place. Such an institutional arrangement mimics a control system in modern corporations. It is a sort of check-and-balance mechanism. This system, along with substantial privileges for the top officials, provides an effective control system, as well as incentives to manage the system. Zhang (1986, 1999) proposed several important propositions to highlight essential role of privatization in economic reforms. The most important of them are several impossibility claims with regard to the state ownership system of firms: “it is impossible to have entrepreneurship; it is impossible to separate firms from the state; it is impossible to constrain managers’ behavior via bankruptcy; it is impossible to efficiently match managers with firms under the state ownership system.” He claims that the bureau of state assets is a second government which is unable to efficiently manage state assets if the original government cannot do it. Cheung (1974) and Shleifer and Vishny (1992, 1993) develop two theories of price control which are quite relevant to the theory of the Soviet-style economic system. According to Cheung’s theory, price controls can be used to create rents which are the difference between the official price and the market equilibrium price. Competition for the rents will create a possible social disorder that cannot stop until the rents have been dissipated. The threat to social order calls for a hierarchical social structure, which distributes rents according to individuals’ ranking. This hierarchy is used by the privileged class to pursue their interests at the cost of society. The theory could mean that shortage is created deliberately (perhaps in the subconscious of officials) to justify a hierarchical social order. Shleifer and Vishny’s theory of pervasive shortages under socialism implies that shortage is a way for government officials to extract monopoly rents, which is better than a direct monopoly price because it can be used to cover up monopoly profit, thereby reducing public resentment. The theories can be used to invalidate Lange’s theory of market socialism. According to Cheung, Shleifer, and Vishny’s theories, if the government’s purpose is to make use of the shortage to justify its monopoly power in a hierarchical social structure, how can we expect it to adjust prices according to excess demand? The debate generates the conclusion that market socialism cannot work.3 Hungary’s experiment with market socialism verifies this conclusion (see Kornai, 1986). However, this conclusion has not addressed our third question. The Soviet Union did not adopt market socialism in the 1930s and 1950s. But not only did its central planning system survive, it was also diffused to many countries after the Second World War. It had achieved average growth rates of 8 percent in 1933–40 and of 9.4 percent in 1948–58, as impressive as China’s growth rates in the reform era.4 Why could von Mises and Hayek not predict the short-run impressive growth performance of the Soviet-style economic system, despite their correct prediction of the long-run failure of this system? Kornai’s theory of socialism and von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Cheung, and
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 549
Shleifer’s analysis of socialism have not addressed the question. The answer to it relates to the ongoing debate about shock therapy and gradualism. Sachs (1996), Sachs and Woo (1994), and Yang (1994) provide an answer which is based on the development theories generated by Smithian models of division of labor covered in this text. Their answer is as follows. As shown in the Smithian models in the previous chapters, economic development is a process with evolution in division of labor. In particular, chapter 15 shows that in a world of bounded rationality, the evolution of division of labor is determined by the interplay between organizational information acquired by society via experiments with various patterns of division of labor and individuals’ dynamic decisions on the experimental patterns. The trade-offs between the information gains generated by social experiments and experiment costs, and between economies of division of labor and transaction costs, imply that more patterns of division of labor will be experimented with and more organization information will be acquired via the market, the higher the experiment and trading efficiency. Since society can only gradually learn about the efficient pattern of division of labor, simple patterns of division of labor are experimented with before the complex ones when individuals are short of organizational information. This implies that economic development involves a gradual evolutionary process from a simple pattern of division of labor to an increasingly complex one. As shown in chapter 15, however, latecomers to economic development can mimic the efficient pattern of division of labor by jumping over many intermediate levels of division of labor if developed countries have already found the efficient pattern by gradual social experiments. The capitalist institutions in developed countries were conducive to a great variety of experiments with division of labor. The free organization information created by capitalist developed countries creates an opportunity for big-push industrialization for latecomers. It is possible that big-push industrialization can be carried out by a Soviet-style socialist system that has none of the institutional infrastructure that is essential for discovering the efficient pattern of industrialization. The possibility of big-push industrialization via the imitation of the industrial pattern created by capitalist institutions is the rationale for relatively successful industrialization in the Soviet-style socialist countries in the 1930s and 1950s. It is by ignoring this possibility that Hayek and von Mises failed to predict the survival, spread, and impressive growth performance of the Soviet-style economic system in the middle of the twentieth century. To address the first question, we briefly outline the characteristics of the Soviet-style socialist system as follows. 1) By keeping the relative price of agricultural to industrial goods low and controlling all firms, this system used state ownership of all firms and central planning to achieve a high profit margin in the state industrial sector. The high profit of state firms was allocated to mimic high saving and investment rates and a growth rate of the heavy industrial sector that is higher than in the light industrial sector. This pattern of industrial development was created by the capitalist industrialization process. In terms of the Smithian model in chapter 12, the higher growth rates of the heavy industrial sector are generated by the increases in production roundaboutness and in the income share of the sector producing producer goods, which are aspects of the evolution in division of labor. 2) State ownership of firms and a central planning system were used to organize comprehensive industrial investment programs, which simultaneously created many very specialized industrial firms when the markets for a great variety of industrial goods were absent. This kind of comprehensive state investment program generated a big jump of the network size of division of labor, which implies a jump of a variety of highly specialized industrial sectors. In the Soviet Union in the 1930s, this kind of comprehensive state industrial investment plan was worked out by hiring many experts from capitalist developed countries (Zaleski, 1980). In
550 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
China in the 1950s this was achieved with the assistance of experts from the Soviet Union and east Europe. The comprehensive state investment programs quite effectively utilized free organization information about the efficient pattern of division of labor and industrial linkage network effects of division of labor. A specific case of such programs is China’s program of 694 large projects and 156 Soviet Union-aided key projects in the 1950s, which successfully created a large industrial network of division of labor among many highly specialized firms within a short period of time, when there was no market for those highly specialized producer goods (Zhou, 1984). For instance, a firm specializing in producing artificial diamonds used in the machine tools industry was established in Zhengzhou as one of the 156 key projects, with assistance from East Germany, when demand for machine tools was not enough to support a large specialized firm making artificial diamonds.5 3) The central planning authorities quite systematically mimic industrial standardization, mass production, production lines, the mechanism of checks and balances between managers, treasurers, and accountants within a capitalist corporation, Taylorian scientific management, and other organizational patterns and management approaches developed by capitalist firms. A mechanism of checks and balances between industrial ministries, the ministry of finance, state banks, the planning committee, the pricing bureau, the bureau of material distribution, and other institutions was established by dividing rights to disposal and appropriation of the same properties among the institutions. This checks-and-balances mechanism established quite an effective control mechanism for the whole economy via the central planning authorities. Top government and party officials collectively claim the residual of the operation of the planning system, so that they have the incentive to run this system to maximize the residual. According to Lenin, the Soviet central planner should organize the whole economy as a large corporation. But at the top of the apparatus there were no effective checks and balances. The monopoly of the government and party apparatus in founding firms and in all sectors is in sharp contrast to the constitutional order created in the UK in 1688 with free association (including automatic free registration of private firms) and an independent judiciary. That system establishes checks and balances on the top of the political arena. Hence, the Soviet-style socialist system creates great room for institutionalized state opportunism. 4) The central planning authorities used a set of material balance tables and an iterative procedure to match demand with supply of goods in the absence of markets for intermediate factors. The system can approximate the result generated by Leontief ’s input–output method reasonably well.6 However, the Leontief input–output method cannot take into account the substitution between different inputs. It is incapable of sorting out the final demand for consumption goods and of providing an effective incentive mechanism for players to reveal private information. According to Roland (2000, ch. 1), the equilibrium achieved via a dynamic iterative process of central planning is inefficient.7 5) However, the imitation of all successful patterns of industrialization and internal patterns of capitalist firms was realized by destroying the capitalist institutional infrastructure that generated the successful patterns of industrialization and organization in the capitalist developed economies. This was the first centralized social experiment with economic institutions. The precondition for a centralized social experiment is to establish monopoly power in the sector that designs system arrangements. This was realized through violent revolution, violent infringements upon private property rights, and “red terror” in the numerous purging campaigns.8 The lack of fair competition in the sector that designs institutional arrangements implies that the institutional arrangements that are chosen cannot be efficient. Also, the Soviet-style socialist economic system is the first system that was purposely designed by a government rather than emerging from spontaneous evolution and from interactions of players through fair competition and the voluntary trade of property rights. According to Hayek, efficient institutional arrangements can emerge only as a result of such fair competition and voluntary trade.
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 551
As Sachs (1996) suggests, the strategy of imitating the industrialization pattern of the capitalist developed economies, in the absence of a capitalist institutional infrastructure, can generate short-run impressive growth performance. However, as the potential for imitation is exhausted or as the network of division of labor becomes increasingly complex, the long-run cost of this strategy will outweigh its short-run benefit, since this system does not have an institutional infrastructure that can create its own capacity for economic development and institutional innovations. More generally, when the latecomer to economic development tries to catch up to the developed country, it usually follows a reverse engineering of institutional development. It first tries to mimic the industrial pattern, then the economic institutions, such as the organizational structure of private firms, then the legal system, such as corporation laws, then the political system, such as representative democracy. It may finally adopt some constitutional rules, such as checks and balances on power, and certain ideological and behavioral norms from developed countries. According to North (1994) and North and Weingast (1989), the original process of economic development in the UK was the other way around. Ideology and moral codes determined the prevailing constitutional order, which determined the political and legal systems, which then generated a certain economic performance. In a geopolitical environment without an overarching political power in the international political arena, the economic performance difference between countries will generate pressure for changes in ideology and constitutional rules. North believes that changes in ideology and moral codes are much slower than changes in economic structure. This, together with the fact that the latecomer has more opportunities for mimicking new technologies, implies that many latecomers are tempted to substitute technical imitation for institutional imitation. This generates short-term benefit at high long-term cost by delaying difficult as well as important constitutional transitions. Some economists refer to this as “curse to the latecomer.” It should be noted that Mao’s socialist system is substantially different from the Soviet-style socialist system. Rivalry between Chinese and Russian communists creates a sort of check-andbalance in the international political arena that involves the design of institutional arrangements. Hence, Mao’s political instinct, which was sensitive to the rivalry, led him to create the administrative decentralization proposed in his 1956 speech “On Ten Important Relationships” (Mao, 1977a). That rivalry was the grand background from which the differences between the reforms in China and Russia emerged. During the Great Leap Forward in 1958–61 and the Cultural Revolution in 1966–70, and since the Cultural Revolution, an effective central planning system has not existed in China. Five-year plans and annual plans were virtually only theoretical. The success of the first five-year plan in China in the 1950s misled Mao to conclude that the success was due to the merit of the socialist system. He did not understand that that success was based on Russians’ imitation of the capitalist economy. Hence, Mao tried to invent his own communist institutions, such as the commune and mass eating halls. He advocated administrative decentralization against central planning; self-sufficiency of each firm, each county, and each province against specialization and division of labor; a mass line against professionalism; small-scale, selfsufficient communes and brigade firms with indigenous technology against large-size state firms with advanced technology; and so on (see Mao, 1977b). This on the one hand slowed down the evolution of division of labor in China and kept rural China a traditional autarchic society. On the other hand, it created a vacuum in coordination mechanisms in Mao’s China: neither central planning nor the market could coordinate the division of labor developed in the first five-year plan. This vacuum was filled by quasi-private and collective firms during the Cultural Revolution, by commune and brigade firms, referred to as township and village enterprises (TVEs) after 1984, and by a decentralized bilateral and multilateral bargaining system in the 1970s. Procurement fairs that implement decentralized bargains between state firms were
552 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
developed in the Mao era. Bartering was very common in the fairs and sometimes commodities in short supply were used as commodity money.9 As the 1996 World Development Report on the transition economies indicates, “Despite the industrialization efforts of the 1950s and 1960s, China was very poor and largely rural at the start of its reforms. Agriculture employed 71 percent of the work force and was heavily taxed to support industry. Social safety nets extended only to the state sector – about 20 percent of the population. Poor infrastructure and an emphasis on local self-sufficiency led to low regional specialization and large numbers of small and medium-sized firms. The economy was far less centrally planned and administered than the Soviet economy. Local governments had greater power and developed considerable management capacity, preparing them for a more decentralized economy. Chinese industry also received subsidies, but cross-subsidization was less pervasive [than in the Soviet Union].” “Because the agricultural sector had been so heavily repressed, freeing it up had immediate payoffs. . . . China thus started transition largely as a peasant agrarian economy and with far greater scope for reallocating labor than Russia.” In the former Soviet Union, more than 85 percent of the workforce was in non-agricultural state enterprises, compared with around 18 percent of the workforce in China (Sachs and Woo, 1999, table 6). Perhaps 99 percent of the labor force of the former Soviet Union (including the 14 percent of the labor force in state and collective farms) were entitled to an “iron rice bowl” under the Soviet system as of 1985 (see Cook, 1993, for extensive documentation of worker protections in the Soviet Union). Very high proportions of workers in the eastern European economies enjoyed similar guarantees. Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992) have shown that rural China was quite an autarchic society until 1978. The degree of commercialization was 0.3 before 1978, although the first five-year plan developed a high level of division of labor in urban China by mimicking the Soviet Union’s industrialization. This means that rural China could develop a high level of division of labor either via commercialization or via central planning. It is easy to develop a commercialized market system from a low level of division of labor. But it is extremely difficult to develop private property rights and related markets in an economy with a high level of division of labor which was developed through central planning. Reforms were easy in rural China because of a low level of division of labor. In contrast, reforms in urban China were more difficult because of a much higher level of division of labor established there via central planning (see Byrd, 1983, 1988, Byrd and Tidrick, 1987, Perkins, 1988, and Walder, 1989). However, it was much easier in China as a whole than in Russia because the central planning system was paralyzed during the Cultural Revolution. Also, Mao’s industrial system was much more disintegrated and locally self-sufficient than the Soviet-style socialist system. If an economy has developed a high level of division of labor quite successfully through centralized big-push industrialization, then the centralized planning system which is not good for long-term economic growth is embodied in the high level of division of labor which contributes to long-term economic growth. Since the sophisticated input and output interdependence generated by a large network size of division of labor is coordinated by the central planning system, it is extremely difficult to separate the dismantling process of the central planning from the malfunctioning of the coordination of a large network of division of labor. There is an inertia to use central planning to coordinate the high level of division of labor if reforms take place gradually. A big push or shock therapy may be necessary to cut off the central planning coordination mechanism from the high level of division of labor. In the process, paralysis of the input–output network might be inevitable because of the high risk of coordination failure in a large, highly interdependent network of division of labor. Put another way, a well-developed central planning system can be dismantled only through shock therapy, since the system itself does not have the institutional infrastructure that is necessary for discovering the efficient institutional arrangements over the transitional period from the Soviet-style socialist system back to a capitalist system.
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 553
China experienced the shock process during 1958–61 and 1966–70, when the central planning system was paralyzed by Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and during 1971–6, when Mao’s policy of administrative decentralization prevailed. His administrative decentralization divided the ownership of state firms among the central, provincial, and county governments and communes. In contrast, in the Soviet Union, there was a uniform ownership of all state firms. Deng’s regional decentralization consolidated Mao’s administrative decentralization by institutionalizing the fiscal relationship between the central and provincial governments. Government revenue from tax and state firm profit was divided between the central and provincial governments according a certain division rule. In the early stage of Deng’s regional decentralization, a fixed amount of provincial government revenue was delivered to the central government. In the later stage, a fixed proportion of the tax revenue was delivered to the central government. A Chinese-style fiscal federalism emerged from the evolution, which provided a driving force for China’s reforms in the 1990s. This fiscal federalism separates tax categories and a collection institution of local governments from that of the central government, with help from the World Bank (Qian and Roland, 1998 and Qian and Weingast, 1997). Deng’s fiscal federalism is in striking contrast with the much more centralized fiscal relationship between the federal government and local governments in Russia (Zhuravskaya, 1998 and Qian, 1999). This partly explains the difference in reform performance between China and Russia. But the contributions of Deng’s regional decentralization and fiscal federalism to economic development should not be overstated. First, it fragments the market and promotes monopoly power of local state enterprises (Zhou, 1999, He, 1997, p. 206). In other words, Deng’s regional decentralization inherits the bad characteristics of Mao’s administrative decentralization, thereby retarding the formation of the integrated national market. Lardy (1998a, p. 204) uses the automobile sector to illustrate this point. Second, China’s fiscal federalism is far away from the fiscal federalism in the US. A residential registration system, collective rural land ownership, and prohibition of land trade greatly restrict the free mobility of labor and human capital. Despite recent reforms to this system, which allow migrants who have no permanent residence in large cities to obtain annually renewable temporary residency, the migrant’s position in China’s large cities is not as good as that of immigrants with green cards in the US. Migrants in China must pay much higher school fees for their children and a much higher price for housing than local permanent residents. In Beijing and other large cities, firms hiring migrants with no local permanent residency are heavily fined by the government.10 Finally, China has a very centralized appointment system for leading provincial government officers. The central government regularly rotates the officers between provinces to make sure that they are absolutely loyal to the central government when local interests are in conflict with that of the central government. Hence, when Deng purposely kept a weak central government for political reasons after 1989, the fiscal federalism was more like that of the US. But when Premier Zhu moved to increase the power of the central government in the post-Deng era, the fiscal system became more distant from the fiscal federalism in the US. China still had great scope for the strategy of big-push industrialization and imitation when it entered the reform era. The high income share of the traditional autarchic sector in China implies that it still has room to mimic the efficient pattern of division of labor in the capitalist developed economy in the absence of private property rights and a market. But the potential benefit from this strategy had been already exhausted in the Soviet Union when it started its reform program. China’s impressive development performance is not only due to its potential for mimicking the old capitalist industrialization pattern. A great variety of social experiments in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and other east Asian countries provides room for a new mimicking strategy. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other newly industrialized capitalist economies provided free information on a new pattern of industrialization of labor-intensive exports.
554 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
This pattern exploits a significant differential in per capita real income between developed and less-developed economies to export labor-intensive manufactured goods in exchange for capital-intensive equipment. Ethnic Chinese businessmen from Taiwan and Hong Kong bring to China human capital, entrepreneurial expertise, institutional knowledge, and capital, all essential for the imitation of the new capitalist industrialization pattern. The Chinese government also learned from Taiwan and Hong Kong’s experience. For instance, the special economic zone is certainly a direct imitation of the export processing zones and the free trade zones in Taiwan and other capitalist countries. The zones significantly reduce transaction costs caused by tariff and other barriers to trade. The private rights of foreign direct investors are much better protected in the zones than in the rest of the host country. According to the theory of capital and division of labor in chapter 16 and the theory of indirect pricing in chapter 8, this implies that foreign entrepreneurs have a strong incentive to indirectly sell their entrepreneurial know-how to the host country via the institution of the firm. However, the imitation is constrained by communist ideology. For instance, the Taiwanese government plays a non-interventionist role in renting land to private firms in Taiwan’s industrial parks, while the Chinese government has more than 50 percent of ownership and control rights in most firms located in China’s export processing parks. Deng’s reform era shares two fundamental elements of Stalinist and Maoist socialism: the party’s monopoly on political power and the dominance of state owned firms. According to Lardy’s documentation (1998), the state sector expands in terms of level of output and employment, employment share, and level and share of financial resources that it receives during the reform era. In the largest special zone, Shengzhen, state-owned firms dominate the economy. The institutional characteristics imply institutionalized state opportunism and corruption. Economic development is still a hostage of the vested interests of the privileged class. The most important characteristic of China’s market-oriented reforms is the absence of a constitutional order and the rule of law. This implies institutionalized state opportunism, self-dealing among the ruling class, and rampant corruption. We will analyze the features of market-oriented reforms in the absence of a constitutional order in section 19.5. In summary, China’s impressive growth performance in the 1980s and 1990s can be attributed mainly to its low initial level of development (i.e., the nature of its recovery from disastrous Maoism) and to the new opportunity for mimicking the export-oriented industrialization pattern. Deng’s socialist market economy emerged and evolves from a mix of Mao’s administrative decentralization and state-owned firms, and the imitation of Taiwan’s and Hong Kong’s new development patterns. In this sense, Deng’s socialist market system is different from Lange’s market socialism, from Stalin’s socialism, which mimics the old capitalist industrialization pattern under central planning and the uniform state ownership of firms, and from Mao’s socialism, which does not copy any capitalist experience. It is possible that after the potential for mimickry has been exhausted, China’s new pattern of socialism may fail to work, as happened to Soviet-style socialism after the successful imitation of old capitalist industrialization in the 1930s and 1950s. Misunderstanding the initial conditions and driving forces of China’s and Russia’s reforms generates many misleading comparisons between them. The first is an overstatement of the development performance of China by some China experts. As pointed out by Sachs and Woo (1999), China’s broad growth performance is not better than the performance of other east Asian economies. Virtually every market economy in east Asia has grown very rapidly in the past thirty years, based on a strategy of rapid export growth of laborintensive manufactures. During 1986–94, China averaged an annual per capita growth of around 5.6 to 6.8 percent in PPP-adjusted GDP. Other east Asian countries also showed equivalent or even higher rates of annual per capita growth in PPP-adjusted GDP over the longer period of 1965–90, including: Hong Kong, 5.8; Korea, 7.4; Singapore, 7.4; Taiwan, 6.3; Indonesia, 4.7;
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 555
Malaysia, 4.5; and Thailand, 4.6. In addition, the difference in per capita real income between China and newly industrialized countries, such as Taiwan, is still increasing. China’s official statistics overstate real growth rates too. Lardy (1998) shows that official data overstate the growth rate by at least 1–2 percent. According to some Chinese scholars, such as Luo Shao (Economic Highlights, May 15, 1999, p. 1), the official data overstate growth rates by 2–3 percent. Lardy (1998) provides evidence that the Chinese government deliberately hides information about the bad loans of state banks and the financial status of state firms. China’s development performance is greatly inferior to what the official data indicate. Wolf (1998, p. 17) shows that even if China’s growth rates are much higher than those of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the US, and Germany, the difference in per capita real income between China and these countries will still increase before 2015 because of the very low absolute level of per capita real income in 1979 China. We should pay more attention to the absolute difference in per capita income level and its change than to the difference in growth rates. Some economists argue that China’s short-run impressive growth performance indicates that privatization of state-owned firms is not necessary for a successful transition. This is equivalent to the false statement that the Soviet Union’s short-run impressive growth performance in the 1930s would ensure the long-run success of the Soviet socialist system. Other economists (Qian, 1999) consider China’s fiscal federalism to be the major explanation for impressive growth performance. This isn’t very convincing, since post-communist eastern Europe as a whole is much closer to a fiscal federalism than is China’s communist centralized government system. The variety of institutional experiments in eastern Europe is certainly much greater than in different provinces in China. If fiscal federalism is the most important determinant of the difference in transition performance, then it is eastern Europe, rather than China, that should have a better transition performance. Economic transition is part of the transition in constitutional rules. The speed and the time path of the transition are determined by its driving mechanism. The next section will focus on the driving mechanisms for constitutional transition.
19.3 DRIVING MECHANISMS FOR TRANSITION As discussed in chapter 1, many historians agree with the view that a great driving force for experiments with various institutions, and diffusion and imitation of and transition to successful institutions, in western Europe is a geopolitical structure where no single overarching political power exists. This implies that the sizes of major countries are close, so that there is no very large country that can dominate others. As discussed in chapters 2 and 3, a geographical position that is favorable for transportation and communication is conducive to the emergence of more liberal governments. Intensive competition between many governments in small countries is conducive to the emergence of more capable governments. This can explain why large inland countries, such as Russia and China, are slower than other countries to adopt competitive institutions. This also explains why small island countries, such as Britain, Japan, and Taiwan, are more able to quickly adopt competitive institutions. The renaissance in western Europe had profound and complex effects in consolidating its decentralized political structure. On the ideological level, mankind and the meaning of life itself were put at the center of renewed philosophic speculation. On the economic level, the rise of competing city-states in Renaissance Italy spurred the role of international trade, with the attendant market institutions of banking, contract law, shipping law, and secured transactions. Political speculation, crowned by Machiavelli’s The Prince, explored ways for the Prince to strengthen the state in competition with other states, including the role of the state in fostering economic prosperity.
556 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Throughout European history, innovations in economic and political life have started in one region and then spread to others on the basis of their perceived or demonstrated advantages, or through conquest, colonization, or imperial rule. It was considerably more difficult for new European ideas and institutions to spread into Russia’s and China’s vast continental expanses. Institutional innovations carry less well into continental, largely self-contained societies, such as China, India, and Russia, than they do into small, open societies that are dependent for their very survival on international trade, international alliances, and the timely adoption of “best practices” from abroad. Perhaps “small is beautiful” in economic reform, if the small entity isn’t simply gobbled up by a larger power. In any event, it is probably no accident that Russia, China, and India have had the most difficult time of all the traditional societies in the world in adopting the new political and economic institutions from abroad, even when those institutions have an overwhelming track record of effectiveness.11 Sachs and Woo (1999) and Roland (2000) have provided evidence that small transition economies have greater state capacity in managing transition. They gain institutional knowledge faster and can manage rapid transition better than large sized transition countries (Sachs and Woo, 1999, p. 14). A quite successful eastern European-style “big bang” in Vietnam in 1989 might be partly attributed to the small size of that country. The postsocialist countries in eastern Europe and the current transitional economies in Asia provide a sufficiently great genetic diversity of countries and cultures for a great variety of institutional experiments with transition from the socialist system to the capitalist one, with which human society has no previous experience. Simultaneous experiments with various patterns and speeds of transition in many countries may provide the opportunity to quickly acquire institutional knowledge about transition. Many economists may argue that particular historical and cultural traditions of different developing countries may lead to different institutional transition paths. Asking all countries to follow the same transitional path might be criticized as an outdated imperialist attitude and a self-centered view of the Western cultural tradition. The development experience in many countries seems to reject this criticism. Some countries, such as the Soviet Union and 1949–79 China, tried to mimic capitalist industrialization without the capitalist legal system and property right structure, and failed. Other countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea, tried to mimic the capitalist legal system and property right structure without a democratic political system before the end of the 1980s. They realized that this does not work and finally initiated the transition to a constitutional democracy at the end of the 1980s. Japan mimicked all the capitalist legal, political, and economic institutions from Britain and Germany, but kept the Emperor’s substantive power. It had very successful economic development in the absence of real constitutional checks and balances on the Emperor’s power. Then it entered the Second World War, attacking China and other countries and bringing disaster to the Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian peoples. Even after the big-bang constitutional transition under American military occupation, Japan still kept some “Asian behavior norms,” regarding the relationship between government and private business, which created the trouble in its financial crisis in the 1990s. All this experience suggests that there is a universal institutional core that is essential for long-term successful economic development. Hence, transition is a harmonization process of the institutions in ex-socialist countries with global capitalist institutions, rather than a process to create institutional innovations that are substantially different from the capitalist institutions (Sachs and Woo, 1999). Roland (2000, pp. 125–37, 315–24) documents a great variety of institutional experiments with rapid privatization in eastern Europe and Russia. In what follows, we briefly outline the documentation. A pattern of giveaway to outsiders, with dispersed ownership, mutual funds, and banks’ involvement, was proposed and blocked by insiders in state firms for four years in Poland.
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 557
A similar program was accepted in the Czech Republic. Roland explains the difference by the different initial conditions in the two countries. “Czechoslovakia had no past record of economic reforms, and thus no worker councils. State control over firms had not weakened, and the more or less initially balanced macroeconomic situation shows that the soft budget constraint problem was less massively prevalent than in Poland.” Designers of the Russian mass privatization program have learned a lesson from the Polish failure, and have chosen a pattern of giveaway to insiders (managers and workers of state firms) in Russia. The two patterns enhance ex ante acceptability by reducing incumbent managers’ resistance. The Czech privatization program has also gained ex post political support, as the population receives stakes in its success through the voucher program. Taiwan and East Germany adopted a top-to-bottom sales of state firms to outsiders (Lau and Song, 1992 and Roland, 2000). This policy does not have the feature of the “decoupling” of transfer of ownership and provision of outside funds. Also, Taiwan adopted a sequence of putting privatization after all major liberalization reforms. Transition there was associated more with the development of new private firms than privatization of the existing state-owned firms. The method of top-down sales in the two countries has, in general, proved to be very slow and cumbersome. Poland and Hungary adopted a privatization pattern of bottom-up gradual sales to outsiders. This does not mean that enterprises are put up for sale in a gradual way. The most frequent form of privatization has been the bottom-up approach, whereby one of several potential buyers, insiders or outsiders, signals his interest in purchasing a firm. Sales to domestic buyers mostly take the form of a sale against noncash bids, such as leasing, partial purchases, installment payments, purchase against future payments associated with debt contracts, etc. These experiments suggest that privatization to outsiders is, in principle, better than privatization to insiders for achieving efficient matching between firms and managers, and replacing incompetent managers. However, this will not be true if privatization results in dispersed outside ownership. This is due to the well-known free-rider problem associated with dispersed ownership, wherein small shareholders do not have enough incentives to bear the costs of collective action, but benefit from its results. Dispersed ownership thus leads to insufficient monitoring of incumbent managers. However, this efficient pattern of privatization may invite resistance from the insiders, which implies low ex ante political acceptability.
19.4 MARKET-ORIENTED REFORMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RULES There are two patterns of transition. One is adopted by eastern Europe and Russia, in which market-oriented reforms are just a small part of the transition of constitutional rules. The other is adopted by China and Vietnam, in which market-oriented reforms are implemented under communist game rules (i.e., a communist monopoly of political power). We consider first in this section the former pattern of transition. Recently, some economists, such as Qian (1999), have argued that China’s successful gradual and dual track approach to transition poses a challenge to the conventional wisdom that the transition to constitutional order is essential for economic reforms. Lardy (1998) and Sachs and Woo (1999) disagree. They hold that it is too early to claim that China’s reforms will be successful. It seems to us that generic diversity of institutional experiments in many countries is great enough to hold the conviction of the conventional wisdom. China’s experience cannot provide much information that would alter the conviction. For instance, Europe and the US have much more institutional knowledge about fiscal federalism than China’s fiscal federalism
558 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
can provide. Europe and the US have much more institutional knowledge about the cooperatively owned firm than China’s experiments with local government-owned and collectively owned firms can provide, because of a much greater genetic diversity of institutional experiments in Europe and the US under the free enterprise system than in the communist China. Hence, eastern Europe and Russia were determined to make a transition to the Western style of constitutional order as soon as they regained freedom. But the transition to constitutional order is a long and painful process. We will take Russia as an example of the pattern of simultaneous constitutional and economic transition. Then in the next section we will consider China as an example of market-oriented reforms in the absence of constitutional order. Example 19.1: Russia’s constitutional transition. As Sachs and Pistor (1997, pp. 3–5) indicate, the tradition to the rule of law has been absent in Russia. In the first stage of the transition from January 1992 to October 1993, reforms were implemented under the old communist regime. During this period, economic reforms were launched consisting of three major pillars: price and trade liberalization, stabilization, and privatization. From the very beginning, all of these measures remained incomplete, and indeed some of them failed during this period. The record of stunted reforms is linked to the absence of constitutional order in several ways. First, the government often lacked the political and constitutional means to implement reforms, especially in the face of entrenched opposition from the communist-era Supreme Soviet. Equally important, the government lacked constitutional restraints on its own behavior, so that many opportunities for reform were squandered by official abuse and corruption. The failure of stabilization, for example, can be traced proximately to the behavior of the Russian Central Bank, which issued massive and inflationary credits to the economy. The explosion of credits mainly followed the appointment of Mr. Viktor Gerashchenko, the Communistera head of Soviet Gosbank, as chairman of the Central Bank in June 1992. During 1992 and 1993, the Russian Central Bank transferred a very large proportion of national income (perhaps as much as 40 percent of GDP in 1992, and 20 percent of GDP in 1993) to key pressure groups, political favorites of the Government and the Bank, and various cronies of leading officials, with the transfers being financed by the inflation tax imposed on society at large. The Bank’s books were unauditable, with large flows of untraceable money. The common denominator of all these distortions to the reform process was the absence of rule of law in government decision-making and executive authority. Procedures were ad hoc, nontransparent, and often corrupt. Civil society was too weak to offer important countervailing pressures, so that abuses went largely unchecked. Decision-making was not guided by general legal norms evenly applied, but was rather individualized to particular enterprises and pressure groups. The first phase of reforms saw the eruption of political power struggles that brought the country to the edge of a civil war. The second phase, which started in October 1993 and went until the present, saw the consolidation of political and economic power by those who had gained the most during the first phase. This consolidation was accompanied by governance of more orderly rules, if not always by formal law. The state Duma operated under the new rules, and elections were held as scheduled in December 1995. In addition, presidential elections were held on schedule at the end of Yeltsin’s five-year term. At the same time, many deep constitutional problems remained. Struggles over executive power continued in a new though less dramatic guise, between the government and various parts of the presidential apparatus. After 1992, the presidential apparatus grew to enormous proportions outside constitutional constraints or public oversight. Whether the rule of law has taken hold in Russia is a difficult question to answer. Countries that respect the rule of law usually share the following features: they “divide the powers of government among separate branches; entrench civil liberties (notably, due process of law and
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 559
equal protection of law) behind constitutional walls; and provide for the orderly transfer of political power through fair elections” (Sachs and Pistor, 1997). The subjection of the sovereign to predetermined legal constraints affects public and private law development in a given country. Where this is the case, arbitrary state interference is minimized, and state action – as a regulator, tax administrator, or contract enforcer – becomes impartial and predictable. It takes time to reform the judicial system, to train and/or to replace its personnel, and to replace existing laws with new ones. Nevertheless, it is important to assess whether the commitment to the rule of law, as opposed to personal fiat, however well intentioned, is apparent. Indicators for such a commitment include the division of powers, civil liberties, an independent judiciary, and the orderly transfer of power. Before 1991, hardly any of these features were established in Russia. As of 1996, a number of important achievements have come about. A new Constitution is in place which, despite some doubts about the validity of the procedure by which it was adopted, has apparently found widespread legitimacy. Two parliamentary elections have been held under this Constitution. Most importantly, perhaps, presidential elections have been held and the unsuccessful contender accepted them. These achievements are significant, indeed remarkable, but we should also note that Russia has not yet experienced an orderly transfer of political power, so that the hardest test of the new constitutional order has not yet been seen. The new constitution acknowledges the separation of powers, but a closer examination reveals the limits of these nominal commitments. In particular, the division of power between the legislature and the executive is blurred. This is most visible in the legislative powers allocated to the President. The President may rule by decree, and his decrees are binding as law. It is worth noting that most provisions of the Constitution would not hold water if legally contested. The liberal idea that civil rights are natural-law rights and shall be used as a defense against the state seems alien to the Russian Constitution. In its language, the state grants these rights to its subjects. But what the state grants, it may also take away again. In addition, the Constitution lacks the crucial procedural safeguards to ensure the effectuation of civil liberties, including equal protection of the law. “Special” laws designed for a particular person or entity, as opposed to general laws addressed to an anonymous or only generally defined target group, have been rampant in Russia. They provide the legal basis for tax exemptions, special privatization rules, and allocation of rights to those with the best access to the President’s decree power. As a result, the state retains ample scope for arbitrariness, which not only creates uncertainty, but also provides a breeding ground for corruption. Gray and Hendley (1997) set out three basic conditions for law-based private transacting, which are good laws, sound supportive institutions, and market-based incentives that create a demand for law and legal institutions. Drawing from a comparison with commercial law development in Hungary, they suggest that the development of effective judicial and administrative support institutions is the most difficult task to accomplish, not only in Russia, but also in other transition economies. However, Russia still falls short of providing the first conditions for law-based transactions: good laws that reduce transaction costs and enable private actors to mobilize their own rights. Pistor (1997) discusses the implications of the lack of a comprehensive corporate law at the outset of privatization for the development of property rights and corporate governance postprivatization. She traces the nature and quality of legal rules issued in postsocialist Russia, not only to Russia’s legal tradition, but also to policy choices made by reformers during the course of economic reform. She argues that comprehensive legal reform was delayed in favor of speedy economic reforms based on ad hoc decision-making and decrees with detrimental consequences for the development of property rights and governance structures. As indicated by Sachs and Pistor (1997), the roots of Russian exceptionalism in the rule of law and in the lack of economic freedom, in comparison with the rest of Europe, are deep. The
560 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
exceptionalism far predates the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and indeed was already dramatic in the mid-nineteenth century, when Alexander II launched his attempts at the Great Reforms (described by Owen, 1997). The exceptionalism can be traced back several centuries, plausibly to the start of the Muscovite state. Following the emergence of Moscovy from more than two centuries of Mongol domination (1240–1480), law has played a conspicuously less important role than in western Europe. The great formative stages of western European law – the application of Roman Law by medieval Europe; the struggle of the Princes and the Papacy over political authority and legitimacy; the Renaissance and the Enlightenment – touched Russia only indirectly. Perhaps equally important, after the sixteenth century, the Russian Orthodox Church was subsumed in state power. The Tsar was both the head of state and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. This dual role eliminated one of western Europe’s key bulwarks against the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler. Medieval Europe’s prolonged struggle between Church and State over sovereign authority, natural law, and political legitimacy played a fundamental role in fostering law-bound state power and bolstering standards of political morality; in Russia, by contrast, the struggle ended in a dominant state and a politically subservient Church. The trade-off between the benefit of constitutionalism and the demand for flexible and great executive power (Hellman, 1997), which was the focus of the debate among Russian economists and policy-makers, is similar to the trade-off between the reduction of resistance from the vested interests and institutionalization of state opportunism of the dual track approach in China. Shleifer (1994, 1998) has made an argument in support of Russia’s shock therapy. According to him, corruption, which is associated with evolutionary approach to reforms, is a way to buy out the monopoly power of the privileged class. However, he goes on, corruption is not an effective method of reform for two reasons. First, the implicit contracts based on corruption are not easy to enforce because the entitlement for selling government officials’ control rights is not legally well defined. Second, tolerance of corruption will generate incentives for creating more government officials’ control rights. Hence, the most efficient way to initiate reforms is to remove government officials’ control rights through the kind of privatization reform seen in eastern Europe and Russia. But as Sachs and Pistor (1997) suggest, the success of liberalization and privatization reforms is dependent on the transition to constitutional order. Hellman (1997, p. 58) provides empirical evidence for a positive correlation between growth performance and the passage of constitutions in east and central Europe. The result is not convincing, since the transition of constitutional rules is a very complicated and long process. Compared to short-term negative effects of the transition of constitutional rules in the American Independence War and Civil War on economic growth, the current difficulties in Russia’s transition are not unusual and cannot be attributed to the shock therapy approach. But because of the lack of any tradition of rule of the law in Russia, Russia’s transition might be more difficult than were American and French transitions in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. It took one century for France to make a transition from the Old Regime to the new constitutional order. Russia is a large and mainly inland country, with a history that is more unfavorable to the transition. It is likely that Russia’s transition from communism to the new constitutional order is as difficult as was France’s transition in the nineteenth century. Many scholars attribute Russia’s poor transition performance to weak enforcement of laws. However, as Pistor (1997) points out, the weak enforcement is due to bad laws and state opportunism. A comparison between eighteenth-century Britain and France by North (1981, pp. 147, 158–70) and Mokyr (1993, p. 56) also suggests that a great state taxation and law enforcement capacity in Britain was due to fair constitutional order, and weak state capacity for taxation and law enforcement in France’s old regime were due to state opportunism and to the absence of fair constitutional rules. The Chinese case provides further support for this view. Since the Chinese communist party’s monopoly on political power institutionalizes state opportunism
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 561
that uses (often bad) laws to pursue the interests of the party apparatus at the expenses of society at large, this “rule by laws,” distinguished from the rule of law, makes law enforcement in China very weak. Many court rulings cannot be enforced in the 1990s (He, 1997).
19.5 MARKET-ORIENTED REFORMS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER China’s dual track approach is representative of the market-oriented reforms in the absence of constitutional order. China’s Constitution (http://www.quis.net/chinalaw) is similar to other socialist constitutions in giving the Communist Party a monopoly on political power and in rejecting the notions of division and of checks and balances of power. One of the differences between China’s Constitution and that of the Soviet Union is that in its preamble, the ideology of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism are taken as the source of the legitimacy of the power structure in China. Although Western legal scholars consider the preamble as having no legal implication, its notions on the source of power are similar to the old notion of the origin of power being Divine, rather than as arising from contracts and the consensus of the ruled. Western constitutionalists, such as Pilon (1998), would pay particular attention to three features of the Chinese Constitution. First, it is programmatic. It sets up a specific agenda for building socialism. Hence, it is more like the bylaws of China Incorporated. Second, in the Chinese Constitution, there are no genuine provisions for popular ratification. It gives no indication how citizens join along in or consent to so far-reaching a program. It thus raises fundamental questions about its own legitimacy. Finally, all citizens’ rights are given by the state and party apparatus, but the monopoly on power of the state and party apparatus is given seems rather “Divine” – it is granted by the ideologies of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism, which need no justification. Hence, Pilon (1998, p. 355) calls the Chinese Constitution “a program for unlimited government.”12 So far, no influential movement to reject the Constitution has developed in China. The sense of crisis among Chinese people is not strong enough. This, together with the large size of China, implies that pressure for the transition to constitutional order is too small for it to be a serious possibility. Hence, China’s market-oriented reforms can be conducted within a mere “bird cage” of communist game rules. It is not surprising that reforms are hijacked by the vested interests of the party apparatus. The arrangements whereby the rule-maker, the referee, the rule enforcer, and the player are all part of the same party apparatus institutionalize state opportunism, which pursues the party’s interests even if social welfare is sacrificed. This is illustrated by the government’s control of (predation of ) the entry of private firms into the important sectors. There is a list of sectors in which domestic private firms are not allowed to operate, including banking, post and telecommunications, railroads, airlines, insurance, the space industry, petroleum chemistry, steel and iron, publishing, wholesale business, news, and others. In addition to the thirty sectors, private firms are restricted from operating in another dozen sectors, including automobile manufacturing, electronic appliances, and travel agencies (Huang, 1993, p. 88). A stiff licensing system for international trade, wholesale and retail distribution networks, publishing, and many other businesses eliminates many lucrative opportunities for private business, generating trade conflict with the US and other developed countries. In particular, all government institutions which have power to issue licenses have vested interests in the sector where licensees operate. For instance, international trade licenses are issued by the Trade Ministry, which is the largest owner of trade companies in China. The licenses for the wholesale and retail distribution networks are issued by the local government committee which owns local state distribution networks. Of course, the principle in issuing a license is to promote the monopoly interest of government institutions.
562 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Mueller (1998) documents the adverse effects of a state monopoly in the telecommunications sector on economic development. The monopoly implies that the regulation-maker of this sector, the major player, and the referee who enforces the regulation are the same state organization. State opportunism is then institutionalized and retards economic development. Also, China has a very stiff government approval system for the founding firms. There is neither free association nor automatic registration of a company except in Hainan Province (Mao, 1999, Pei, 1998). Also, there are arbitrary and often very high registration capital requirements for founding firms. This, together with the residential registration system and the state monopoly in the housing and banking sectors, provides many effective control methods that can be used to pursue state opportunism. As Pilon (1998) points out, all the self-dealing is, of course, supported by the fundamental game rules in China’s Constitution. State predation of private firms started in political campaigns in the early 1950s. According to Bai, et al. (1999), it has continued in the reform era. One persistent cause is the ideological discrimination against private businesses amid power struggles and ideological debates within the government. As Bai et al. document, another form of state predation in the reform era was simply revenue grabbing. Governments of different levels tended to impose various kinds of taxes and fees in order to grab as much of the observable revenue from their business jurisdiction as possible. A 1988 study of private firms in Liaoning Province found that taxes and subcharges alone would take away 63 percent of the observed enterprise profits. When the scores of different fees were also taken into account, the tax burden was even higher. Such a burden made it hard for private firms to survive, unless they evaded taxes and fees by hiding their transactions and revenue (China Economic Almanac, 1989, p. 107). Ten years later, a 1998 study of private firms in the Anhui Province reported that gross profits for many products was about 10 percent of total revenue, whereas total taxes and fees added up to more than 10 percent. There were more than 50 types of fees imposed on a private business, and some types of these fees are prohibited by the government’s own publicized regulations and rules. This study reached the conclusion that “owners who do not want to close down their businesses had no choice but to evade taxes” by hiding revenue ( Jilin Daily, May 30, 1998). Peasants in the rural areas were major victims of excessive taxes and fees. Throughout the reform period, the government made countless promises to reduce extortive levies and the discretionary tax on peasants, but extortive levies and discretionary taxation continued to be widespread. In some places, 61 different types of fees were charged (Ding, Yan, and Yang eds., 1995). China started to mimic Western-style laws in the 1990s. But under the communist constitutional rules, the laws, such as the Corporation Law passed in 1994, and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law passed in 1993, cannot be implemented. The incompatibility between Corporation Law and the communist constitutional rules is noted by Yang (1998), and that between the state monopoly in the telecommunications sector and the Anti-unfair Competition Law is noted by Mueller (1998, p. 200). It might be concluded that imitation of many Westernstyle laws will not work within the communist constitutional rules. The constitutional constraint implies that China’s reforms can only follow the dual track approach. This approach generates long-term costs that likely outweigh its short-term benefit of buying out the vested interests of the privileged class. We will use several examples to illustrate this point.13 Example 19.2: China’s rural reform and land system. The first example is China’s rural reforms and land system (see Yang, Wang, Wills, 1992, Sachs and Woo, 1999, p. 30, and Wu, 1998). In China’s rural reforms, use rights to land that is collectively owned by villagers were given to farmers in the end of the 1970s. The sale of land was strictly prohibited in the 1980s, though transfer of use rights has been permitted under tight regulations since 1984 (Yang, Wang, Wills, 1992, p. 18). Village cadres control reallocation of land according to changes in village population. The data suggest that the impressive agricultural growth in the early years of agriculture reform
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 563
was a one-shot improvement in productivity that followed the liberalization of the agricultural sector and the introduction of the household responsibility system for land tenure. A simple extrapolation exercise indicates that the big achievement of the 1978 agriculture sector was to return rice and wheat yields to their underlying trends suppressed by the stringent collectivist agriculture practices of the 1958–77 era. (Collectivization speeded up in 1956 and culminated in the disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1958.)14 Growth of the agricultural sector slows down after 1985 due to three factors. The first factor was farmers’ uncertainty about future land use rights. Despite the 1984 government decision that farmers could get leases up to 15 years long, Prosterman, Hanstad, and Li (1996) found in their fieldwork the following fact. “Local officials have not implemented this policy to any significant degree . . . [In] many villages, representatives from the collective take back all the land in the village every three to six years and reallocate the plots to adjust for changes in household size. The result is that farmers have refrained from making the many small long-term improvements (e.g. digging wells and small feeder drains, applying more organic fertilizer) in the land that would have increased grain yield.”15 Johnson (1994) pointed out that some of the government’s policy responses to the post-1985 slowdown increased farmers’ concerns about land security, and hence reduced farmers’ work efforts and investments in the land. For example, the government announced in late 1990 that some farming operations, like plowing, fertilizing and harvesting, would be recollectivized in order to reap economies of scale from mechanization. The second important factor for agriculture stagnation is that the state monopoly on the procurement and distribution network of grain has been strengthened since 1994 (Lin, 1998, p. 68). The monopolized distribution system causes an appallingly large scale of corruption and waste. When the state decided to clamp down on inflation in late 1993, grain procurement quotas were re-introduced and price controls were put on 27 agricultural commodities. Worse yet, whenever credit was tightened to fight inflation (1985, 1989 and 1992), the government would pay for part of its grain procurement with coupons (IOUs) instead of cash (Sachs and Woo, 1999). This also explains the flagging growth in grain production. A third factor contributing to the post-1985 slowdown in agricultural productivity growth has been the large reductions in investment in agricultural infrastructure (e.g. irrigation works) in the years after 1979. The level of real investment in agricultural infrastructure in 1994, for example, was only 58 percent of the 1979 level. It appears, however, that in many rural areas the decline of state investment in agricultural infrastructure was accompanied by a reduction in state efforts to develop human resources. This can be explained by the absence of a land market and related contracts. Even in the absence of state investment, the agricultural infrastructure can be developed by land related contracts. But within the institutional constraint, project contracts based on land entitlement are not feasible. Also, in the absence of land trade, local governments cannot raise revenue on property tax and sales tax of land. The local government must use the profit of township and village enterprises, expropriated tax, and discretionary fees to raise enough revenue to keep the interest of local officers and to find local public projects. But this institutionalizes corruption and other opportunism by local officers. According to Wu’s documentation (1998), this dual track approach to land ownership generates a dilemma between the efficient commercial use of land and social justice. Many local officers in coastal provinces divide village owned land into two parts: land that can be leased to foreign or private companies for commercial use and land used by villagers for household farming. Under the “dual land system,” village officers gain control rights to commercial land and grab rents from it. In exchanges, villagers claim priority rights to employment in the firms leasing land. But the difference between the rents and employment income is huge. Hence, the whole process is that the local officers steal rents from villagers who collectively own land. Since this stealing is so unjust, many farmer protests have taken place. The central government
564 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
was forced to prohibit the practice of the dual land system. This prohibition retards local industrialization and eliminates many socially beneficial business opportunities. In summary, the institutional constraint imposed by the communist Constitution generates a dilemma between justice and efficiency. The dual track approach developed under marketoriented reforms in the absence of constitutional order institutionalizes corruption and opportunistic behavior by government officers and creates more obstacles to constitutional transition. Yang, Wang, and Wills (1992) estimate the degree of transferability of rural land in China and the potential gains of privatization of land ownership. According to their econometric model of the relationship among per capita real income, the degree of commercialization (level of division of labor), and efficiency indices of specifying and enforcing property rights, Chinese peasants’ per capita real income would increase by 30 percent if free land trade were allowed in 1987. This again verifies Sachs and Woo’s claim that despite the dual track approach, China’s agricultural sector has had quite an impressive development performance. But if the dual track approach were replaced by a transition to complete private ownership of land as in pre1949 China, China’s economic performance would be even better and the current agricultural stagnation would not occur. Example 19.3: China’s township-village enterprise. The second example of the dual track approach is China’s township-village enterprise (TVE). As Sachs and Woo (1999) indicate, there are two common usages of the term TVE that can be potentially confusing: the official usage in statistical collection and the academic usage in discussion of ownership-type. The official statistical meaning has broadened over time. Prior to 1984, TVE referred to township-owned or villageowned, and from 1984 onward, TVE statistics also include joint-owned (by several persons or families) and individual-owned (by one person or family hiring less than seven employees). The present official statistical usage gives the impression of TVEs being overwhelmingly private in nature, because 87 percent of TVEs in 1994 were individual-owned. Individual-owned TVEs produced less than 27 percent of TVE output, and less than 19 percent of industrial TVE output.16 However, most academic discussions on the ownership structure of TVEs implicitly use a narrower definition that covers only the enterprises that are registered formally (and increasingly falsely, in our opinion) as township-owned and village-owned. This implicitly narrow definition explains why Naughton (1994a) and Walder (1995) categorically described TVEs as “local government-owned.” Unless otherwise noted, we will adhere to this narrow definition of TVEs as public-owned in the following analysis on the “ownership nature of TVEs.” The TVE is hardly innovative, since such local government or collectively owned firms were experimented with in many countries, such as Japan and Qing Dynasty China, in the end of the nineteenth century. But under a constitutional order that protects private rights of firms, such firms and collectively owned firms are not competitive in most cases. The TVEs operate entirely outside of the state plan, and with rather hard budget constraints (receiving few subsidies from the state budget of the central and provincial governments, and only rarely from local government). Without question, local governments have viewed the TVEs as an important potential source of revenues for local budgets (Oi, 1992). In the early 1980s, the central government introduced the explicit tax contract, a system of fiscal contracts where the central government negotiated a revenue quota with each province. This fiscal contract arrangement is replicated at each level of government down to the township level. This revision in fiscal relations makes the local governments the residual claimants of income generated by any firms established by them at the local level. “As a result, local governments use every method possible, including many which straddle the boundaries of legality, to promote rural industry, at the same time milking it to supplement their government budgets” (Zweig, 1991).
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 565
Some economists view TVEs as an important and highly successful institutional innovation, melding market incentives with public ownership. Others, by contrast, view them as a partially successful half-way house on the way to real private ownership. While the former emphasize the special fit of the TVEs with China’s undeveloped economic conditions, the latter emphasize the serious institutional constraint and problems ahead unless China moves now to real privatization of the TVEs (Sachs and Woo, 1999). The foundation for collective-owned rural industrial enterprises was laid during the decadelong Cultural Revolution, when the official emphasis on self-reliance and the breakdown of the national distribution system caused the rural communes to expand their non-agricultural activities. These commune-brigade enterprises were relabeled as TVEs when the commune system began to dissolve in 1979. The concern for rural underemployment and local development has led to steady liberalization of the rules governing the formation of TVEs; and since 1984, the terms of approval and supervision of TVEs have varied greatly across regions. Sachs and Woo (1999) classify TVEs into three types which have significantly different structures of governance and property rights. Given the varieties of TVEs, the vagueness about their ownership and control, and their evolving nature, it is therefore natural that different authors have emphasized different “basic” characteristics of the TVEs, often without acknowledging their great diversity over time and space. For example, Nee (1996) regards TVEs as informal joint ventures between the state and the private sector, often with “extensive informal privatization of collective-owned assets and firms,” whereas Walder (1995) views TVEs as “under a form of public ownership no different from the large urban state sector.” Peng (1992) emphasizes the “semi-private” nature of TVEs to explain their operational autonomy, while Oi (1995) accents a state-centered view in which TVEs are the production units in “a large multi-level corporation” managed by the county–township–village hierarchy.17 The terminological haze has thickened in the 1990s with the additional easing of restrictions on the registration of firms as TVEs, making the co-existence of true TVEs and red-capped private enterprises a common phenomenon in many places, as stressed by Ronnas (1993). The TVE system in the reform era inherits many advantages as well as disadvantages of Mao’s commune and brigade firms. It distorts the geographical location of firms, retards efficient urbanization, relocates resources from large state firms with advanced technology to local firms with inferior technology, and creates a Chinese style dualism: the coexistence of flexible TVEs with inferior technology and rigid, large state firms with superior technology.18 This dualism implies a dilemma between the exploitation of technology and location efficiency and the exploitation of X efficiency. Hence, impressive growth of the TVEs has its cost too. Under a free enterprise system, many TVEs might be replaced by large private firms located in the urban areas, which are more competitive than large state firms in urban areas. Hence, from this view, a very high growth rate of TVEs might be inefficient. Alwyn Young (1999; cited in Roland, 2000) provides empirical evidence for the distortions generated by TVEs and related regional decentralization. TVE shares all the common flaws of the enterprise system under local government control. It generates unfair game rules since the rule-maker, the referee, and the player are the same local government. It institutionalizes state opportunism and corruption. Hence, game rules are not stable, transparent, and credible. The adverse effects of the TVE on economic development have not received enough attention, while many China specialists have paid a great deal of attention to its advantage compared to the Soviet-style system of state firms under the complete control of the central government. The TVEs have a harder budget constraint than do state firms owned by higher levels of government. They as a whole are more competitive than state owned firms. According to Wu’s excellent field work (1998), the TVE, together with the half-way house approach to reforms of the land ownership system and with the residential registration system, generates a very peculiar Chinese style feudal system. In this system, local
566 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
government officers’ local territory jurisdiction power, judiciary and enforcement power, control rights to land, official position in the party apparatus, rights to founding firms, rights to raising money, and control rights to the TVE are not separable, just like in a feudal system in Europe in the Middle Ages. The case of Daqiuzhuang illustrates the characteristics of the feudal system (He, 1997). Party head Yu Zuomin in Daqiuzhuang village blocked the state police’s enforcement of the court order in a murder case. Yu is the leading government officer, party head as well as the president of all TVEs of this village. He controls the local paramilitary force and has de facto judicial power. Many media reports also indicate that local government officers use the TVE as a vehicle for predation. They force village folk to contribute funds for setting up a TVE and to take on all the risk of the venture. Revenue from the venture is then grabbed by the officers (He, 1997). Under the Chinese-style feudal system, people are ranked as different groups with different rights. The local party officers are first-class citizens who have all rights and privileges to pursue their vested interests at the cost of others. The second class of citizens are village folks who have local residency. They can get good jobs in the TVEs and claim part of the welfare fund of the village. The third class of citizens are migrants who do the dirtiest jobs in the TVEs and cannot receive any part of the welfare benefits. This is similar to a feudal system, for the following two reasons. First, local residents will lose their claims to land ownership which is not tradable if they migrate to another location permanently (Ye, 1999). An individual’s social and economic position is determined by her political and residential stature rather than by her income and her constitutional rights. The Chinese style communist-feudal system, together with low labor mobility caused by the residential registration system and the state housing system in cities, explains why local government and collectively owned firms boom in rural China, while they are not as competitive as capitalist firms in the capitalist economies, where individuals have personal freedom and can freely trade labor, capital, land, and other properties. The feudal system and low labor mobility imply that community members expect to remain in the same place indefinitely and the common interests of residents in the same local community are quite stable. Hence, they have more incentive to contribute to the TVEs than they would in a free market system. This new feudal system not only distorts the matching between managers and firms, the geographical location pattern of firms and resource allocation, and retards urbanization, it also generates social injustice that may cause social unrest. The TVE ownership structure is highly unusual by international standards. In most east Asian countries with rural industry, such as Indonesia and Thailand, ownership of small enterprises is private, often within a family. By contrast, TVE ownership is collective, at least officially. Some scholars have argued that collective ownership reflects deep Chinese cultural patterns (Weitzman and Xu 1994). However, this “cooperative culture” hypothesis would appear to be called into question by the dominance of small private enterprises in rural Taiwan, as well as by the prevalence of small, Chinese-owned private firms throughout east Asia. If there is any cultural affinity regarding small business, it would seem to be for private, family-owned businesses rather than collectively owned businesses. Other scholars have said that collective ownership is an effective way to raise capital funds for rural enterprise and to reduce the principal-agent problem by shortening the supervision distance (Oi, 1995, and Walder, 1995). They use these reasons to interpret the TVE ownership structure as a good adaptation to market failures caused by China’s underdeveloped markets for factors of production. According to Naughton (1994a), “Banks are ill-equipped in the early stages of transition to process small-scale lending applications and assess risks. Local government ownership in China played a crucial role in financial intermediation. Local governments could better assess the risks of start-up businesses under their control . . . and serve as guarantors of loans to individual TVEs.”
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 567
Some economists have even interpreted the TVE record as definitive proof against the conventional wisdom that private ownership is the natural ownership form of small-scale enterprises, and argued that what mattered for efficiency is not ownership but competition in product and factor markets (Nolan 1993). Sachs and Woo (1999) are skeptical of this functionalistic explanation of TVE ownership form, especially of its emphasis on the state’s superiority in financial intermediation. Taiwan’s small and medium private enterprises exhibited dynamic growth in the 1960 –1985 period even though they were heavily discriminated against by the wholly state-owned banking system. The informal financial markets (curb markets) appeared “spontaneously” to cater to their needs (Shea and Yang, 1994). The power of market forces (when tolerated by the local authorities) to induce financial institutional innovations was also recently seen in Wenzhou city in Zhejiang Province when economic liberalization began in 1979. Liu (1992) reported that “Ninety-five per cent of the total capital needed by the local private sector has been supplied by ‘underground’ private financial organizations, such as money clubs, specialized financial households and money shops . . .”19 An adequate general theory for TVE ownership structure should be based on two main considerations. First, private ownership was heavily regulated and discriminated against in many areas until recently. While individual ownership was given constitutional protection in 1978, private ownership, which is considered different from individual-ownership in China was given constitutional protection only in 1987. Therefore, (registered) collective ownership of rural industry arose as the primary response to the profitable niches created by central planning because of the severe disadvantages faced by enterprises registered as privately owned. Zhang (1993), using “noncollective TVEs” to refer to partnerships and individual and private enterprises, reported that “in virtually all aspects relating to local governments, the noncollective TVEs tend to be unfavorably treated . . . [compared to] their collective counterparts. Areas in which local governments appear to have discriminated against noncollective TVEs include access to bank credits, to larger production premises, to government allocation of inputs and energy, to government assistance in solving technical problems and for initiating joint ventures and so forth. In the field of taxation and profit distribution, there is evidence that noncollective TVEs run a greater risk of being excessively levied, and that local governments tend to treat the noncollective TVEs more arbitrarily than they do the collective ones.” In short, the “market failures” identified by some China experts are not caused by inefficiencies intrinsic to a private market economy (like externalities and public goods). These so-called market failures are actually created by ideologically motivated constraints imposed by the state. Specifically, the banks have extended more loans to TVEs than to private enterprises because of state directives, and not because of the TVEs being intrinsically more efficient or because of the local banks’ recognition that the local governments were better assessors of risks than they themselves (Chang and Wang, 1994). There is general assent that the TVEs face stronger market incentives (including harder budget constraints) than do the state owned enterprises (SOEs). As shown in Sachs and Woo (1999), two of the three types of TVEs, the Jiangsu and Zhejiang types are fairly similar in essence to the red-capped private enterprises. The local officials have the private incentive to maximize the profits of TVEs because “the careers and salaries of officials at the county, township and village levels are directly affected by the performance and growth of their rural enterprises” (Oi, 1995), and because neither local residents nor workers have access to legal, formal channels to exercise their ownership rights. In short, informal privatization by local officials has reduced the principal-agent problem and rendered the TVEs more efficient than the SOEs. This private-incentive (informal privatization) hypothesis would explain why Peng (1992) found that the wage determination process was the same for rural public enterprises and rural private enterprises.
568 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
If this interpretation of “informal privatization” is valid, then continued TVE efficiency is possible only if the group cohesion of local officials does not degenerate into individual efforts at asset-stripping. We see the key to the group cohesion in Jiangsu and Shandong in the 1980s to be the heavy discrimination against private enterprises in these regions. The resulting lack of economic space in these regions to hide looted assets diminished the incentive for individual officials to rob the TVEs they oversaw. Without the strong legal discrimination against private property, asset-stripping would have occurred more freely, and the inefficiency normally observed with informal privatization would have become more prevalent. Recently, government officials admit that the Jiangsu mode of TVE is a failure and privatization of TVEs is necessary. If this view is correct, the crucial implication is that gradual growth in the relative size of the private sector and in labor mobility will eventually undermine the group cohesion among local officials against individual asset-stripping (by providing secured hiding places for looted property), and thereby damage TVE performance. With the further reduction in discrimination against private ownership since early 1992, intended to ameliorate the rural unemployment caused by the 1989–91 austerity policies, many TVEs have been taking off their “red hats” – albeit with difficulties in many cases: As China heads toward a market economy, an increasing number of private companies are no longer feeling the need as register as “red cap” or collectively owned ventures because the difference in preferential treatment between private and public units has been narrowed. But there is a problem. The collective units are now arguing that private firms could not have developed without their help. As the so-called “owners” of the companies, the party apparatus usually asks for high compensation for the “divorce” or asks the companies to merge with state firms. (“Private Firms Jump to Take ‘Red Caps’ Off,” China Daily, Nov. 4, 1994.) Example 19.4: China’s state firm reform and price liberalization. The third example of the dual track approach is China’s state firm reforms and price liberalization (Sachs and Woo, 1999, p. 17). By 1983, a de facto contract responsibility system (CRS) of the SOE had emerged. An SOE would sign an individually negotiated contract with its supervising agency specifying the annual amount of revenue (tax-cum-profit) to be turned over to the state, thereby supposedly giving the firm the incentive to maximize its financial surplus. However, SOEs remained subject to a soft budget constraint, being absolved of the responsibility of paying the contracted amount if the financial outcome was poor. Managers and workers colluded to rip state assets in the format of bonus and employee benefits in kinds. As a result, the state found the decline in revenue expressed as a percent of GDP to be much larger than anticipated. In 1983, the state began to replace the CRS with an income tax. This income tax system was short-lived, however, because it not only failed to arrest the decline in revenue-GDP ratio, but state firms tried to bargain with the government over tax terms and to claim that the government determined prices, rather than their management taking responsibility for low profit. By 1986, SOEs were reverting to an expanded CRS. Under this system, many managers set up collective firms to transfer valuable assets to them and leave all bad debt to the state firms contracted. Also, many contractors cannot honor their contracts (see Qiye Jingji, Enterprise Economy, 1995, no. 7, p. 45). This is not surprising, since according to the economics of property rights (Alchian and Demsetz, 1972), nobody has the incentive to find good contractors and to efficiently enforce contracts if nobody claims the residual rights of the state firms. The CRS was again replaced by an income tax in January 1994. As shown in chapter 8, claims to private rights to a firm are essential for indirectly pricing entrepreneurial services which involve prohibitively high direct pricing costs. Hence, privatization of the SOE is essential for successful reforms. Whether China’s experience of state firm reform confirms this depends on empirical evidence. According to Bai, Li, and Wang (1999), TFP improvements (if any) have not increased economic welfare in China, and this is why the Chinese general public and Chinese leaders
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 569
have continued to see SOE reform as a failure. BLW pointed out that TFP growth is a good index of welfare improvement only in the context of profit-maximizing and market-oriented firms. However, for SOEs, these conditions are not satisfied. In fact, this is the very reason for SOE reform. One of the important nonprofit objectives of the managers is their excessive pursuit of output. In BLW’s judgment, Kornai’s (1992) observation that “SOE managers are embedded in a bureaucratic hierarchy, in which the size of the firm, or output level, is a proxy for status” still applies to China. Furthermore, in China where the soft budget constraint is real, it is to the managers’ advantage to make their SOEs “too big to be allowed to fail.” When both output and profits were included in the objective function of SOE managers, BLW found that “a higher productivity as measured by the TFP growth may actually lead to lower profitability and therefore, in many cases, lower economic efficiency.” You are asked to substantiate this claim in exercise 4. The image of some Chinese SOEs producing undesired goods, but with greater efficiency, finds some support in the aggregate data on inventories. Inventory investment in China averaged 7 percent of GDP in the 1980–93 period, compared to an average of 2 to 3 percent for the OECD countries. Only some eastern European countries prior to 1990 had such high inventory investment rates. These high inventory levels suggest considerable production that is simply not marketable. In particular, the unsold inventory is counted as output of SOEs in China. Hence, estimates of TFP based on the output data are clearly overstated. Lardy (1998a, p. 206) also documents the correlation between a mountain of unsold inventories and increasing numbers of bad loans to SOEs. Even if one believes that SOE managers in China are mainly maximizing profits, technical innovations comprise only one method of maximizing an SOE’s profits. It may be financially even more rewarding for an SOE manager in China to spend time developing good relations with the state bureaucracy than increasing production efficiency. Until the 1990s, the large and medium-sized SOEs had to fulfill their production quota at below-market prices, and they received subsidized inputs in return. If the amount of subsidized inputs was high, the quota system would generate a positive rent to the enterprise. Li (1994) estimated that an SOE that made positive market profits on its above-quota production in the 1986–8 period received a rent that was 2.7 times that of its market profit. Bureaucratic haggling was vastly more profitable than competing in the market. Li’s rent estimate may be the lower bound, because it did not include the rent that an SOE received from tax bargaining, a practice so pervasive that an SOE paid an effective income tax rate of 33 percent instead of the legal rate of 55 percent then in force. Economists have a consensus about the financial performance of SOEs. There has been a steady increase in SOE losses since additional decision-making powers were given to SOE managers in the mid-1980s. The situation stabilized in the 1990–1 period when the state attempted to recover some of the decision-making power devolved to the SOEs. In 1992, decentralizing efforts accelerated at the initiative of local leaders after Deng Xiaoping called for faster economic reforms in order to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union. The unexpected result was that faster economic growth was accompanied by larger SOE losses. About two-thirds of the Chinese SOEs ran losses in 1992 when output growth in that year was 13 percent. These enterprise losses cannot be blamed on price controls, because price controls covered only a small proportion of SOEs in 1992. State enterprise losses have continued to accelerate since then. In the first quarter of 1996, the entire SOE sector slid into the red for the first time since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. It reported a net deficit of 3.4 billion yuan.20 Some economists emphasize the “spontaneous appropriation” of firm profits by managers and workers as the most important cause for the general decline in SOE profits. With the end of the central plan and the devolution of financial decision-making power to the SOEs, the key source of information to the industrial bureaus regarding the SOEs were reports submitted by
570 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
the SOEs themselves. This reduction in the monitoring ability of the state in a situation of continued soft budget constraints meant that there was little incentive for state-enterprise managers to resist wage demands, because their future promotion to larger SOEs was determined in part by the increases in workers’ welfare during their tenure.21 One of the earliest attributions of the erosion of SOE profits to the decentralizing reforms was a 1986 report by the China Economic System Reform Research Institute, which pointed out the emerging tendency of SOEs to over-consume and over-invest through various bookkeeping subterfuges.22 Woo, Hai, Jin, and Fan (1994), Woo (1994), and Fan and Woo (1996) used various samples and national data to show that the sum of direct income (wages and bonuses) and indirect income (e.g. subsidies and in-kind distribution) increased more than labor productivity growth. Minami and Hondai (1995) found that since 1988, the labor share of output in the machine industry started rising with the acceleration of decentralized reforms in 1985 and exceeded the estimated output elasticity. Bouin (forthcoming) calculated that the marginal product labor of industrial SOEs increased by 5 percent in 1989–93, while the product wage of industrial SOE workers rose by 7 percent. Meng and Perkins (1996) studied the determinants of wage and labor demand in 149 industrial SOEs and 139 nonstate firms in Guangzhou, Xiamen, Shenzhen, and Shanghai (four coastal economies that are marked by more intense market competition) in the 1980–92 period. They found that the SOEs under decentralization reforms were maximizing income per employee (by dipping into profits) like labor-managed firms, while nonstate firms were maximizing profits like capitalist firms. Naughton (1994b) was skeptical of the excessive compensation explanation, because “the SOE wage bill, including all monetary subsidies, has remained approximately unchanged at about 5 percent of GNP since 1978.” There are two difficulties with this point of view. The first is that the correct test for the excessive compensation hypothesis is to normalize the SOE wage bill by value-added in the SOE sector and not by economy-wide GNP. The second difficulty is that direct cash income is only a part of the total package of labor compensation, and that the main categories of direct cash compensation have been under strict state regulation in order to control inflation and embezzlement. The wage and bonus regulations have forced the SOEs to increase workers’ income through indirect means like better housing, improved transportation, new recreational facilities, benefits in kind, and study tours.23 The financial weakness of SOEs has destabilized the macroeconomy by increasing money creation through three channels. The first channel is the monetization of the growing state budget deficits caused by the declining financial contribution from the SOE sector. SOEs paid income taxes that amounted to 19.1 percent of GDP in 1978, 6.6 percent in 1985 and 1.7 percent in 1993; and they remitted gross profits of 19.1 percent, 0.5 percent and 0.1 percent respectively (World Bank Development Report, 1995, table 7.3; and 1996, table 23). The second channel for money creation is the financing of mounting SOE losses by bank loans. The third channel is the disbursement of investment loans to the SOEs to make up for their shortage of internal funds to finance capacity expansion and technical upgrading. Some economists claim that SOEs take care of social welfare for the government, and new nonstate firms have younger employees and have little burden of pension payments and other welfare benefits. Hence, a deteriorated financial performance of SOEs is understandable as the size of the private sector relative to the state sector increases. Lardy (1998a, pp. 53–7) documents the fact that the SOEs have been expanding in terms of levels of output and employment and in terms of employment share and finance share, although its output share decreases and financial performance deteriorates. In particular, most of the loans made by the monopolized state bank system go to the SOEs, and other inputs into the SOEs have been increasing. As he shows, the financial performance of state firms has deteriorated despite increasing competition and continuous market liberalization in the past two decades. The rise in liabilities relative to assets of state-owned firms, reaching an average
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 571
of 85 percent in 1995, is perhaps the most conclusive evidence. According to Lardy (1998a, p. 119), China’s four major state banks as a group have a negative net worth and thus are insolvent. This potential financial crisis is mainly caused by the deteriorating financial performance of the SOE. He indicates that the combination of a rising savings rate and significant seignorage have provided the central government with financial resources that it has used to temporarily paper over deeply rooted structural problems. Contrary to Bai et al. (1999), this view implies that anonymous banking in China, which encourages an unusually high saving rate, is a source of a potential financial crisis rather than a driving force of China’s growth.24 It is notable that the original demands of the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrators were for reduction of inflation and corruption. We therefore think that the oft-given justifications for the absence of privatization in China on the grounds of preserving social stability may be overlooking the social tensions being created by the asset-stripping, corruption, and macroeconomic instability caused by the unreformed ownership structure of the SOEs. (Of course, corruptly managed privatization, as in the case of natural resources in Russia, can also lead to profound inequities and social instability.) He (1997, pp. 71–240) documents the large scale of corruption caused by the dual track approach to the land market, state firm reforms, and price reforms. According to her, the large scale of corruption has been so pervasive that immorality and opportunism have spread into every aspects of society. According to many Chinese whom we contacted, resentment against social injustice caused by this large-scale corruption may cause a popular rebellion against the regime. But this serious potential consequence of the dual track approach has not received its deserved attention from economists outside of China. Reports since 1995 indicate that full-scale sales of small and medium SOEs have occurred all over China. The best known example is Zhucheng city in Shandong province, which started privatizing SOEs in 1992 when two-thirds of its SOEs were losing money or just breaking even.25 Almost ninety percent of county-supervised SOEs in Zhucheng have already been privatized. The acceleration in the SOEs’ conversion to joint-stock companies reflects the leadership’s opinion that partial privatization through public offerings in the stock markets and through joint ventures with foreign companies would be an improvement over the contract responsibility system. However, the corporatization of state firms in the absence of formal privatization created large scale of corruption. The relationship between the dual track approach and corruption is best illustrated by He’s documentation of two types of spontaneous privatization in China. He (1997, pp. 101–38) documents the partial privatization of state firms via joint stock companies in China in the 1987–93 period.26 Under game rules wherein the rule-maker, the referee, and the player are the same government agent, this spontaneous privatization involves large-scale of corruption. She identifies four types of corruption in this government insider-controlled process. The first mode of corruption is to directly allocate shares of state-owned joint stock companies to government officers who have the approval power for setting up and regulating such companies, and who have the power to allocate land, bank loans, and other important resources (He, p. 55). In the second mode, private companies are set up in Hong Kong or overseas as partners or subsidiaries of the state joint stock company. Then, via various dealings between the two firms with peculiar terms (for instance, selling at a low price and buying at high prices), state assets are transferred from the latter to the former (He, pp. 60, 69). In the third mode, private shareholders bribe the government representatives in such joint stock companies to transfer the government shares free of charge to the former via various restructuring schemes of ownership (He, pp. 57–60). In the fourth mode, the government representative in the joint venture between the state firm and a foreign company purposely understates the value of the state asset, then gets paid by the foreign partner under the table. Finally, many real private joint stock companies have emerged during this period. But the owners of the companies must pay a very high bribe to get them registered and keep them going (i.e., getting land and other essential inputs and all kind of
572 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
official approvals and permissions to avoid government expropriation and restriction of private business). A very strong patronage relationship between government officers and private firms is essential for the survival of private firms in China.27 He (1997) and other Chinese scholars hold that partial privatization of state firms via joint stock ownership is a failure. Performance of most new joint stock companies has not improved. The principle of “one share one vote” in China’s Company Law is not implemented in partial privatization even after 1994 where China’s Company Law was passed. Shares owned by the government have more voting rights. Insider trading and corruption are rampant. Many cases of spontaneous privatization of this kind of state holding companies, documented in He (1997), involve capital flight to overseas.28 This pattern of companies becomes a vehicle for insiders stealing state-owned assets. He (1997, pp. 71–100), also documents many cases of spontaneous privatization of use rights of land under the dual track approach to state ownership of land and trade of land use rights. According to her, this is a large-scale corruption process in which government officers who have approval power for procuring land sell their approval documents for money. Most of the money used to purchase land was from state banks. Hence, in the large scale of China’s enclosurement in the period 1988–94, many state bank officers who have approval rights to loans and their supervisors were involved in corruption. Again, the dual track approach creates the market for use rights of land on the one hand, and institutionalizes corruption and state opportunism on the other. In the 1995 ranking by Transparency International of the seriousness of corruption within 41 countries, China ranked second in the extent of corruption (Sachs and Woo, 1999). Continuing corruption and misuse of state assets will further undermine public support for the existing political institutions. The adverse effect of the dual track approach may well outweigh its positive effect on raising constituencies for the reforms via buying out the vested interests. In addition, the dual track approach generates very unequal income distribution, which is associated with inefficiency. Discrimination against rural residents institutionalized by the residential registration system creates anti-efficiency unequal income distribution between the urban and rural areas. Discrimination against inland regions institutionalized by trade privileges granted to a restricted set of coastal regions creates anti-efficiency unequal income distribution between coastal and inland regions. The growing income gap between coastal and inland provinces, documented in Jian, Sachs, and Warner (1996), and an increasing Gini coefficient not only restrict the extent of the market and retard evolution of division of labor, but also generate popular and strong resentment against the regime, which has caused a lot of protests and might cause large-scale rebellions.29 It seems to us that China’s experience with the dual track approach does not provide much new information that institutional experiments in the rest of the world did not already provide. It just verifies again that successful economic development needs not only markets, but also constitutional order and the rule of law to protect individuals’ rights and provide effective checks and balances of government power. Appropriate moral codes, behavior norms, and breaking the political monopoly of the ruling party are essential for the formation of the constitutional order.
19.6 TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN RELIABILITY AND THE POSITIVE NETWORK EFFECTS OF DIVISION OF LABOR, AND BETWEEN INCENTIVE PROVISION AND STABILITY Output fall during transition in eastern Europe and Russia is a phenomenon that many economists did not expect. Roland (2000, p. 202) reports the surprising scale of such output
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 573
fall. Poland’s growth rates of real GDP were −11.6 and −7.6 in 1990 and 1991. Hungary’s were −3.5, −11.9, −3.0, and −0.9 in 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively. The Czech Republic’s corresponding figures were −0.4, −14.2, −6.4, −0.9, respectively. Russia’s growth rates of real GDP were −13, −19, −12, −15 in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. In this section, we use the models developed in chapter 10 and a cobweb model similar to the one of Aghion, Bacchetta, and Banerjee (1998) to explain the output fall phenomenon. The Lio model in example 10.5 shows that complete insurance can increase reliability of the network of division of labor, thereby increasing the equilibrium level of division of labor and related aggregate productivity. Prior to the reforms, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries established a large network of division of labor by mimicking the capitalist industrialization pattern. Each state in the socialist block specializing in a sector supplied to all of other states and bought goods from each of other specialized sectors in other states. For instance, the Ukraine specialized in producing grain, Czechoslovakia specialized in producing locomotives and other engines, and East Germany specialized in producing machine tools. This large network of division of labor would have very low reliability in the absence of insurance. Hence, an implicit complete insurance system was developed in the socialist countries. There was complete employment insurance, pension insurance, medical insurance, trade insurance, and so on. Each state firm was insured for all goods it produced in the sense that the central planner would buy all of them. Although this complete insurance generated a great deal of moral hazard, it provided reasonably high reliability of the large network of division of labor. As the Soviet Union broke down, the complete trade insurance between the ex-socialist countries disappeared. The reliability of the large network of division of labor established by the central planning system in the 1950s of course decreased exponentially in the new reform era before the market for insurance was developed. As Roland (2000) suggests, the major reason for output fall is the breaking of trade connection between ex-socialist countries. From the model in example 10.2, we have learned that there is a trade-off between deepening the relationship with the incumbent trade partner and broadening potential trade connections. Under a socialist system, the transaction cost coefficient for broadening potential relationships is extremely great because of the rigid hierarchical structure of the central planning system. Hence, there is not much room for trading off a large number of potential partners against a deep incumbent relationship in order to increase the reliability of the network of division of labor. As the break-up of the Soviet Union and the socialist block cut the incumbent trade connection between many highly specialized firms, the entire network of division of labor of course failed to work. According to our theory in this text, it would be very surprising if there were no consequent mass output fall. The model in example 10.6 shows that there is a trade-off between incentive provision, which can be increased by incompleteness of insurance, and reliability gains of the network of division of labor, which can be increased by insurance. This trade-off implies that focusing on incentive provision and ignoring the positive contribution of the implicit insurance to the network reliability of division of labor may not achieve the efficient balance of the trade-off. The development of various insurance markets is essential for the success of privatization reforms. The recent Russian financial crisis was correlated with high international capital mobility. Aghion, Bacchetta, and Banerjee (1998) develop a cobweb model to explain why great capital mobility in a developed international financial market may decrease market stability. Their story runs as follows. If there is a time lag between economic performance and financial signals, there will be a trade-off between incentive provision, which can be increased by sensitivity of feedback between signals and players’ actions, and stability of the feedback process, which will be decreased by increasing the sensitivity. A feedback system that is not sensitive to signals (as in a socialist system) would fail to provide enough incentive for economic development. But
574 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
a too-sensitive feedback process will generate nonconvergent fluctuation, an explosion, or a chaotic process. In the model of Aghion et al., the degree of feedback sensitivity is represented by a feedback sensitivity coefficient in a difference equation that relates signals to players’ actions via a time lag between the two variables. High capital mobility in a developed international financial market is associated with a large value of the coefficient. This high mobility implies that any trivial positive signal can attract capital from all countries in the world, and thereby create a huge inflow of capital within a very short period of time. Any trivial negative signal can have a huge opposite effect, which can generate a panic flight of capital (explosion or chaos in the nonlinear difference equation). This trade-off between incentive provision and stability implies that it is not efficient to have an extremely high-powered incentive. Russia liberalized its capital account prior to privatization reforms; this significantly increased the sensitivity of the feedback mechanism. Privatization reforms further increased the sensitivity, which is good for providing incentives, but not good for stability. Of course, corruption and money laundering were the source of negative signals. Without the moral hazard caused by opportunism, sensitive feedback itself may not make trouble, just like what happens to the highly developed financial market in Taiwan and in western Europe. But moral hazard itself is not enough to explain Russia’s and South Korea’s financial crises, since moral hazard in China, which was not greatly affected by the Asian financial crisis, is even greater than in Russia and South Korea. Some economists explain the financial crises in Russia and Asia using the conventional models of moral hazard – but these cannot explain why the crises occurred when liberalization and privatization were implemented. Lio’s models in examples 10.5 and 10.6 and the model of Aghion et al. show that the trade-offs between reliability, transaction costs, and economies of division of labor and between incentive provision, sharing risk, and stability can explain the crises better. In the rest of this section, we use a cobweb model to illustrate the story behind the model of Aghion et al. Example 19.5: A cobweb model with the trade-off between sensitive incentive and stability. Consider the Smithian model in example 4.2. An individual’s decision problem based on the CES utility function is: Max: u = [(x c)ρ + (x c ) ρ ]1/ρ s.t.
(utility function)
s
x ≡ x + kx
y ≡ y + ky
x + kx = l
a x
y + ky = l
s
s
s
s
lx + ly = 1
a y
(definition of quantities to consume) (production function) (endowment constraint)
px x + py y = px x + py y s
s
s
d
d
(budget constraint)
where x, xs, xd, y, ys, yd, lx, ly are decision variables, px , py are price parameters. The optimum decisions in the various configurations are summarized in table 4.4, which is duplicated here in table 19.1. We now introduce the time dimension into the model and assume that time is discrete. There is a one-period time lag between changes of the relative number of individuals choosing professional occupations (x/y) and (y/x) in response to the difference in utility between the two occupations. Hence, Mx(t) − Mx(t − 1) = β[ux(t − 1) − uy(t − 1)]
(19.1)
where t denotes the time period and β is the sensitivity coefficient of changes in the number of specialist producers of x in response to the difference in utility between two occupation
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 575 Table 19.1 Corner solutions in four configurations Configuration
Quantities self-Provided
supply functions
demand functions
indirect utility function u(p)
A1
x=1
0
0
1
A2
x = y = 0.5
a
0 ρ/(1−ρ) −1
(x/y)
x = [1 + (k/p)
(y/x)
y = [1 + (kp)ρ/(1−ρ)] −1
]
x = [1 + (p/k) s
2(1 − ρa)/ρ
0 ρ/(1−ρ) −1
]
y s = [1 + (kp)−ρ/(1−ρ)] −1
y = x /p
[1 + (k/p)ρ/(1−ρ) ](1−ρ)/ρ
x d = py s
[1 + (kp)ρ/(1−ρ)](1−ρ)/ρ
d
s
where p ≡ py /px and ρ ∈(0, 1).
configurations. Mi (t) is the number of specialist producers of good i in period t. The indirect utility function ui for a specialist producer of good i is given in the above table. Since Mx(t) + My(t) = M where population size M is a given parameter, changes in Mx(t) are proportional to changes in My(t) in the opposite direction. For simplicity, we assume that M = 1. Further, there is a one-period time lag between changes of relative price of good y to good x in response to changes in excess demand for good y. Hence, p(t + 1) − p(t) = α[Mx(t)yd(t) − My(t)ys(t)]
(19.2)
where My(t) = 1 − Mx(t) and yd(t) and ys(t) are given in table 19.1. α is the sensitivity coefficient of changes of relative price in response to excess demand for good y. (19.1) and (19.2) constitute a second-order nonlinear system of difference equations in p and Mx. Assume that the initial state of the system is given by Mx(0) = M0, p(0) = p0, and p(1) = p1. Then, the dynamics and comparative dynamics of this system can be given by simulations on the computer. Figure 19.1(a) gives the results of the simulations for α = 0.6, β = 0.2, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.6, M0 = 0, p0 = 0.2, and p1 = 0.21. In panel (b), α is increased to 1.61 and other parameters are unchanged. In panel (c), α is increased to 1.62 and other parameters are unchanged. In panel (d), all parameter values are the same as in panel (a) except that β increases from 0.2 to 0.3. In panel (e), all parameter values are the same as in panel (a) except that k increases from 0.6 to 0.601. A comparison of the time paths of relative price p and the numbers of x-specialists, denoted by M in panels (a) and (b), shows that as the feedback sensitivity parameter α increases from 0.6 to 1.61, the convergence of the feedback process to the static equilibrium (steady state, p = 1 and Mx = 0.5) becomes faster. Panel (c) shows that as the sensitive coefficient α reaches the threshold level, 1.62, the number of specialist producers of x becomes negative after several rounds of feedback. A comparison between panels (b) and (d) shows a similar result of an increase of value of sensitivity parameter of β from 0.2 to 0.3 with unchanged α = 0.61. A negative number of specialists in an occupation is not feasible. Hence, this implies a breakdown of the division of labor and all individuals have to choose autarky, even if the static equilibrium is the division of labor (utility in the structure with the division of labor is higher than in autarky). This panic rush of individuals from the occupation configuration producing x to that producing y as Mx tends to 0 looks like the panic rush of investors from one country to the other in a highly integrated world market with a very high level of international division of labor. A comparison between panels (b) and (e) shows that an increase in the trading efficiency coefficient k has the same effect as an increase in feedback sensitivity parameters. Also, as k reaches a threshold, the system will overshoot and never reach the steady state. The results are very intuitive. If the system starts from a non-equilibrium state, then an occupation generates more utility than the other, so that individuals will shift from the latter to
576 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
p 2 1.5 p* = 1 0.5 0
M 1 M* = 0.5 0
t 0
20
40
t 0
60
20
40
60
(a) α = 0.6, β = 0.2, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.6 p 4
M 1
3
M* = 0.5
2 p* = 1 0
10
20
t
0
t
0
0
30
20
40
(b) α = 1.61, β = 0.2, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.6 p 4 3 2 p* = 1 t
0 0
M 1 0.8 0.6 M* = 0.4 0.2 0
t 0
10
10
M 1.5
p 6 5 4 3 2 p* = 1 0
1 M* = 0.5 0
(c) α = 1.62, β = 0.6, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.6
−0.5
t 0
5
t 0
5
(d) α = 1.61, β = 0.3, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.6 M 1
p 4
0.8
2
0.6 M* = 0.5 0.4
p* = 1
0.2
3
t
0 0
5
10
t
0 0
10
(e) α = 1.61, β = 0.2, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.601
Figure 19.1 The trade-off between sensitive incentive and stability of the feedback mechanism
the former. This will adjust aggregate demand and supply of a traded good, and thereby excess demand for this good. The relative price will change in response to the change in excess demand. The indirect utility functions in different occupations will change in response to this change in relative price. This will again cause changes in the relative number of specialists in
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 577
the two occupations if the steady state is yet to be achieved. In this feedback process, the more sensitive the feedback, the faster the convergence of fluctuations toward the steady state. But if the feedback is too sensitive, the system may overshoot, so that the steady state can never be reached. A larger trading efficiency coefficient has an effect similar to that of a larger feedback sensitivity coefficient. It can speed up the convergence of the feedback before a threshold is reached. A very high trading efficiency may generate overshoot that paralyzes the feedback mechanism. This model can be used to explain fluctuations of excess demand for professionals, such as lawyers and accountants, with a time lag between education and professional work. Also, it can explain the financial crisis caused by liberalization reforms that increase sensitivity coefficients or trading efficiency by raising the mobility of capital, goods, and labor. Liberalization and privatization reforms will increase feedback sensitivity coefficients α and β, or increase the trading efficiency coefficient k. This will make the convergence of the economic system toward equilibrium faster, but will also increase the risk of overshot that reduces the realized level of division of labor and related trade. In exercise 5, you are asked to do more simulations to show that for the same feedback sensitivity coefficient and trading efficiency, the larger the initial difference between value of price and its static equilibrium level, the more likely the feedback system may break down by overshot. This explains why Taiwan was not greatly affected by the Asian financial crisis. Taiwan implemented liberalization and privatization reform of its financial sector before liberalizing its capital account. This ensured a low moral hazard caused by state monopoly of the financial sector. This implies that the initial difference between market price and its static equilibrium level was not great when feedback sensitivity was raised by liberalization reforms. China had very high moral hazard; but since it had a very small feedback sensitivity coefficient due to the government’s tight control of the capital account, it was not greatly affected by the Asian financial crisis either. In contrast, South Korea liberalized its capital account before great moral hazard in its government controlled financial system was significantly reduced. Hence, the initial difference between market price and its static equilibrium level, which relate to moral hazard, and the feedback sensitivity and trading efficiency coefficients, which relate to the openness of the financial market, are two major determinants of the trade-off between incentive provision and stability. Hence, the different cases of Taiwan, China, and South Korea can all be explained by the cobweb model. The story suggests that the sequence of liberalization and privatization reforms makes a difference. In the literature of engineering, the degree to which the feedback system achieves the efficient balance of the trade-off between feedback sensitivity and stability is referred to as feedback quality. The major task in macroeconomic policy-making is to raise feedback quality.
Key Terms and Review • Characteristics of the Soviet-style economic system • Why the Soviet-style economic system could generate big-push industrialization in the absence of private ownership of firms; why this system finally failed • Differences between Soviet-style socialism, Mao’s socialism with administrative decentralization, and Deng’s socialist market system • Driving mechanisms for economic transition • The relationship between economic transition and constitutional transition • Large scale of output fall in some transition economies, and its causes • Short-term and long-term benefits and costs of the dual track approach to transition
578 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
Further Reading Surveys of formal models of economic transition: Dewatripont and Roland (1996), McMillan (1996), Blanchard (1997), Qian (1999), Maskin and Xu (1999), Roland (2000); Gradualism versus shock therapy: Sachs (1993), Sachs and Woo (1999), Qian (1999), Naughton (1995), Lardy (1998); Privatization: Shleifer (1998), Boycko, Shleifer, and Vishny (1995, 1996), Roland (2000). Theories of the socialist system: Kornai (1980, 1991, 1992), Lange and Taylor (1964), von Mises (1922), Hayek (1940, 1988); Yang (1944). China’s spontaneous privatization via joint stock companies, land enclosurement, a dual land system, and corruption: He (1997), Wu (1998), Kirby (1995); China’s residential registration system: Cheng (1991); The dual track approach: Byrd (1991), Jin and Qian (1998), Li (1996, 1997), and Sachs and Woo (1999).
QUESTIONS 1 Use the models in chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7 to analyze why state control power of the numbers of specialists in various occupations in a Soviet-style socialist system generates organization inefficiencies, which imply that the aggregate productivity is lower than the PPF. Why may such distortions have more adverse effects on economic development than do distorted relative quantities of goods consumed and produced? 2 Lardy (1998, pp. 195–6) documents the effect of the dual track approach to China’s real estate sector. The Chinese government monopolizes the capital supply to the building sector, and state building companies dominate the housing production. Meanwhile, the government encourages the development of the real estate market. Hence, many state building companies obtain loans from the state banks to construct a lot of buildings. Because of the state monopoly in the banking and building sectors, the market prices and rents are too high for ordinary residents to buy, while vacancy rates are as high as 70 percent and many residents are short of housing. Analyze the connection between this phenomenon and the free loans that state building companies receive from the state banks. What kind of reforms can solve this problem? What lesson we can learn from this dual track approach to the real estate market? 3 Analyze whether the Chinese government’s dual track approach to reforms is appropriate in connection to the dual structure of the book market. The Chinese government monopolizes the publication business and owns the largest nationwide book distribution networks. Private firms have been allowed to operate printing and book distribution businesses since the 1980s. The government publishing houses and distribution networks lose money from publishing many books even if demand for those books is great. This is because the state distribution networks have no incentive to promote those books, despite their monopoly power over the distribution networks. They can make money only through selling publication licenses for books to private businesses. According to government regulations, this sale is illegal. Private businesses have a high-power incentive to promote good books. But the government publication and distribution agents use their monopoly power and their control of licenses for book titles and for setting up distribution networks to restrict the development of their private competitors. 4 Some economists claim that competition generated by liberalization under the dual track system is enough to make the SOEs efficient. Use the cases of dual track
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 579
5
6
7
8
reforms and evidence provided in this chapter to analyze this claim in connection with the theories in chapters 8 and 9. Use the utility equalization condition in the models in chapters 4, 6, and 7 to analyze the following statement. The difference between China and Taiwan in the 1970s to 1990s is similar to that between Britain and France in the eighteenth century. In the French Old Regime, the unequal position of the privileged class, ordinary people, and discriminative tax codes generated social injustice, which weakened the government’s taxation power and increased income inequality. This social inequality restricted the extent of the market and retarded economic development in eighteenth-century France. China’s unequal income distribution, caused by an unjust social order and the related dual track approach, restricts the extent of the market and evolution in division of labor too. He (1997, pp. 74–99) documents China’s enclosurement of land in 1987–93. This partial privatization is a typical example of the dual track approach. Chinese government agents who have the power to procure land set up many government companies trying to acquire land from themselves. The companies then resell the use rights of land at market prices. Also, the government agents directly allocate land at very low prices to those who pay a bribe or who have special connections to them. In 1992, 80 percent of the commercialized land was sold in this way. In Shengzhen, only 5 percent of the land to be sold to the market was auctioned during 1987–92. Many departments of local governments used their influence to get bank loans to invest in buying or acquiring land. Money involved in corruption in this process was more than $1.5 billion per year during the enclosurement (He, p. 86); most of the money used to buy land was from state banks. (Even for many overseas Chinese investors, money was from state banks via bribes.) Hence, large-scale corruption occurred in the financing process of land commercialization (He, p. 82). Analyze the effects of China’s dual track approach on the real estate sector, documented by He. State monopoly of the building sector, compounded with the emergence of the real estate market, generates the ratio of 12 of house prices to per capita income in China. This ratio is 2.8 in the US (He, 1997, p. 88). Meanwhile, the vacancy rate of finished buildings is as high as 70 percent and ordinary Chinese people, in particular, new migrants to cities from rural areas, are terribly short of housing (He, p. 88). The profit rate of the state building sector is as high as 30 percent, which does not include interest payments of bad loans from state banks (He, p. 93). What is the relationship between the soft budget constraint of the state building companies and the coexistence of shortage and high vacancy rates. The soft budget constraint implies that the state building companies can get low interest loans and do not have to repay the interest when finished buildings cannot be sold or rented out. Since the Chinese government gets involved in the real estate sector as the rulemaker, the referee, and the player, corruption in the sector is rampant and construction quality is incredibly low. It is unlikely that an honest private business could survive in this sector. Use this case of a dual track approach that maintains the dominance of state owned firms, while partially liberalizing the market, to analyze why privatization is essential for successful reforms even if the initial cost of privatization in terms of poor short-term performance of the firms privatized is quite high.
580 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
9 A private restaurant in the Great China Hotel sells its services at unreasonably high prices and with a low service quality. An economist uses this case to claim that privatization does not necessarily generate efficiency in the absence of competition. But another economist disagrees. He argues that the state ownership of the Great China Hotel is the reason why it does not auction rights to running the restaurant to the most efficient private restaurant. State ownership implies that nobody really claims the residual rights of the Great China Hotel. Hence, the manager’s decision to give the rights to some private agent who has a special connection to him would not be checked by claimants of private residual rights. Many cases in other developing countries show that the coexistence of government control of entry into a sector and of private firms in the sector can generate great distortions. Use the model in chapter 8 to analyze these two views. 10 The Chinese government maintains its monopoly on the banking sector in the reform era. Foreign banks are allowed to engage in foreign exchange business, but not in banking services in terms of local currency (although recently this restriction has been relaxed). Domestic private firms are prohibited from operating banking businesses, while state banks allocate most of their loans to state firms and many potential private entrepreneurs are short of capital for founding new businesses. The first private joint stock bank, Minsheng Bank, is under the government’s tight control. The president of the bank is appointed by the government and is not subject to private shareholders’ voting power. Also, the government regularly suppresses local private banking cooperatives. But the emergence of the market for real estate and for other businesses creates a great demand for bank services; although the monopolized state bank system has no incentive to provide these services. For instance, personal checking accounts and personal credit cards are not available from the state banks (Lardy, 1998a). Housing mortgages were not available until recently, as the state bank has no incentive to promote sale of mortgage services. It refuses to take the use right of land and factories acquired by foreign companies as collateral against short loans. Can you make some policy suggestions to the Chinese government to solve these problems? 11 According to He (1997, p. 50), institutionalized corruption generated up to $1.4 billion in rent in 1988. Seventy percent went to Chinese officers, who control the land and finance, and to their superiors. This generated a demonstration effect to the entire population, so that bribes, rent-seeking via corruption, and ignoring any professional or common moral codes have become common practice in China. Analyze the impact of this on China’s further reform and development. 12 Apply what you have learned from this chapter to analyze the trade-off between the constituencies that can be gained via the dual track approach from privileged government officials, and the constituencies of ordinary people that may be victimized by corruption and other institutionalized state opportunism caused by it. 13 Use the models in examples 10.2 and 15.1 to explain why China’s reforms have not generated output fall in the 1990s, in connection with the following fact. After Mao’s big shock to China’s central planning system during the Cultural Revolution, the absence of a coordination mechanism under either central planning or the market generated many decentralized bargaining mechanisms between firms in the early 1970s. Also, many nonstate firms emerged and developed to fill the vacuum caused by the paralysis of state firms during the turmoil.
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 581
14
15 16
17
18
19 20
Some economists argue that the performance of state-owned firms has been improved by China’s market-oriented reforms, so that privatization is not needed. Che (1999) uses the commitment game model to show that under certain conditions, local government-owned firms may outperform private firms because the local government need not impose a predatory tax on firms owned by it. Other economists argue that even if government-owned firms outperform private firms (in Wenzhou City and Guangdong Province, private firms outperform local government-owned and other state firms), the better performance of state-owned firms can be used to promote the institutional arrangement under which the player, the referee, the game rule-maker, and the rule enforcer are the same government organization. This is detrimental for long-term economic development. Comment on this debate. Compare the partial privatization in China documented by He (1997) with the shock therapy privatization in the Czech Republic documented in Roland (2000), and discuss the relative advantages of the two approaches to privatization reform. Some economists use the principal–agent model to analyze China’s contract system of state firms in which the contractor runs a state firm and pays a lease fee to the government. Other economists criticize this analysis by pointing out that the government officer is not a real principal. Many contractors cannot honor contractual terms. They refuse to pay a lease fee, rents, or interest on bank loans. Some contractors divide the state firm into two parts. One part is converted to collective firms and runs lucrative businesses. The other part remains owned by the government and is responsible for debt. Comment on the two views. Sachs and Woo (1994) document a very low income share of the service sector in the Soviet-style economy. A substantial part of the service sector is devoted to the implementation of transactions and transportation, and to the enforcement of property rights, such as services provided by the banks, lawyers, and airlines. According to the theory in chapter 10, a low income share of the service sector in the Sovietstyle system implies that exogenous transaction cost in this type of economy is relatively low. Little resources are allocated to hiring lawyers and other agents for specifying and enforcing property rights. But vague specification and enforcement of property rights generates enormous endogenous transaction costs (i.e., distorted incentive, distorted resource allocation, and distorted patterns of division of labor). Use the Smithian models of property rights in chapter 10 to analyze the characteristics of the Soviet-style system. Assume that China’s size is close to that of Taiwan or Japan. Analyze the effect of the decreased size of China on its transition speed to capitalist institutions. You may relate your analysis to the following facts. China’s per capita real income is now less than one-tenth that of Taiwan. In eighteenth-century Europe, per capita real income in the French Ancien Regime was only one-third lower than that in Britain, and the French people refused to tolerate it any longer (Mokyr, 1990, 1993). They initiated the French Revolution, which led to Napoleon’s big-bang reforms of the legal and economic systems. One could argue that this happened in response to rivalry pressure between Britain and France. Analyze the impact of the tradition of free migration across European countries on institutional competition and on the imitation speed of competitive institutions in Europe. Many economists attribute Russia’s poor transition performance to weak enforcement of laws (Roland, 2000). Analyze the reasons for the weak law enforcement.
582 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
OF
D EVELOPMENT
EXERCISES 1 Qian, 1994: Consider the Dewatripont and Maskin model in example 9.16. Assume that in period 2 the inputs needed for poor projects can also be purchased by consumers, and that these inputs are given in quantity x0 with inelastic supply, without soft budget constraints, and thus no refinancing. If consumers’ inverse demand function is v(x), they will pay a market clearing price v(x0). When poor projects are refinanced, consumption can be crowded out by the demand for inputs for the projects. Keep the assumption in example 9.16 that one unit of input is needed per poor project. Calculate the market clearing price and compare it to the equilibrium price with the hard budget constraint. Identify the condition that the poor project will be refinanced. 2 According to Qian’s model of the soft budget constraint, the asymmetry between consumers’ hard budget constraint and state firms’ soft budget constraint implies that price liberalization may increase distortions in the absence of privatization. Price liberalization will encourage the state firms to produce more useless producer goods, so that a worsening shortage of consumption goods may reduce consumers’ welfare. The Smith–Young model in chapter 4 can explain the negative effects of price liberalization in a different way. According to that model, the government’s power to manipulate the numbers of specialists in different occupations is more consequential than its power to manipulate prices. Hence, price liberalization in the absence of free entry into different professional occupations may increase rather than decrease distortions. Compare these two different ways to analyze the effects of price liberalization. 3 Che and Qian, 1998: Consider the Qian model in exercise 1. We now introduce national public goods and consider ownership of firms under insecure property rights. There are three players in the model: the national government, the local government, and a manager. The original Che and Qian model has only local public goods. Let the second period revenue R2 be a function of gh(A, B), where g is the local government effort, A is local government expenditure, and B is national government expenditure. Suppose that the local and national governments choose their expenditures simultaneously. How do the results of the original model change in the context of one locality? How do the changes depend on A and B being complements or substitutes? What additional insight can one obtain? 4 Chang and Wang, 1994: Let the horizontal axis be a firm’s output level q and the vertical axis the firm’s profit π(q). In this diagram, (a) draw a smooth curve showing π(q) as q’s function under the assumptions that π > 0 in (0, q 0), π = 0 at q = 0 and q 0, and π < 0 at q > q 0. Call this curve PPF. (b) Draw the objective function of a firm with π as its only argument. Note that this is equivalent to saying that the firm pursues only profit. (c) Find the equilibrium q and π in the diagram. (d) Explain which curve shifts, and how it shifts, when the firm becomes more productive, i.e., any given output can now be produced at a lower cost. Find the new equilibrium q and π after the productivity improvement. How do the new equilibrium q and π compare with those before? (e) Draw the objective function of a firm with two arguments, π and q. (f ) Suppose that productivity becomes higher, as in (d). Find the new equilibrium q and π. How does the new q compare with that before? Will π necessarily increase? Why or why not? (g) Conduct a welfare analysis in the context of (f ).
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 583
5 Suppose that in the cobweb model in example 19.5, the initial prices are p0 = 0.1 and p1 = 0.21. The values of other parameters are α = 1.61, β = 0.2, ρ = 0.6, k = 0.6, M0 = 0. Show that the feedback mechanism is unstable; it never converges to the static equilibrium. Use this to explain the financial crises in Russia and South Korea. 6 Aghion et al. (1998) show that a value of a feedback sensitivity coefficient that is neither too large nor too small will generate nonconvergent fluctuation in a cobweb model. Do more simulations of the model in example 19.5 to find if there is a parameter subspace within which this phenomenon occurs. 7 Qian and Roland, 1998: Consider the Qian and Roland model of federalism and the soft budget constraints. The model features a central government, N local governments, nonstate enterprises (under hard budget constraints), and state enterprises (which are potentially subject to soft budget constraints). Derive and compare the first-order conditions for the allocation of foreign capital and infrastructure investment (Ki, Ii) (i = 1, . . . , N ) under fiscal centralization and fiscal decentralization respectively. Show that under fiscal decentralization, for any given (I1, . . . , IN), Ki’s are determined by the N equations fk(K1, I1) = f k (K2, I2) = . . . = fk(KN, IN) and ∑ Ki = K. Furthermore, show that if fKK (K, I) < 0 and fKI (K, I ) > 0, then dKi/dIi > 0 for I1 = I2 = . . . = IN. From this comparison, what insight can one get into the role of allocative distortion? 8 Consider the Chu model (1997; see exercise 13 in ch. 7). Assume the government monopolizes supply of infrastructure that affects transaction efficiency R. It maximizes utility of a producer in this sector by manipulating the relative number of specialists in this and other sectors, subject to the constraint that utility of each producer of x or y is not smaller than a constant u0, which is the point at which people will rebel. Use this model to analyze the adverse effects of the ruling party’s political monopoly on development.
Notes 1 The negative short-term economic effect of the American Independence War is documented in Nettels (1962, p. 50), Nussbaum (1925), Taylower (1932), Philips (1929, pp. 115–19), Deane and Cole (1967, p. 48). The negative short-term economic effect of the American Civil War is documented in Woodward (1951, pp. 120– 40). 2 The debate between gradualism and shock therapy has a long history dating back to the debate between Edmund Burke (1790) and French revolutionaries. Olson (1982) was a recent supporter of big-bang institutional transition. He argued that a stable constitutional order institutionalizes rent-seeking and a big bang can break institutionalized rent-seeking. Hayek (1945, 1960) is a recent supporter of Burke’s view of spontaneous order and gradual evolution of institutions. It might be fair to say that the coexistence of British gradualism and the French big bang is better than any one of them alone. 3 Recent criticisms and defenses of market socialism can be found in Bardhan and Roemer (1993). 4 See Mitchell (1998, pp. 912, 919) for the growth rates in terms of constant prices in the Russia during the two periods. This was a surprise to von Mises and Hayek. Because of this impressive performance, many economists did not sense the impending fall of the Soviet economic system when the disintegration of the Soviet Union was about to occur (see Skousen, 1997). 5 Such state investment programs are quite consistent with the theory of big-push industrialization discussed in chapters 5. Documentation of Soviet mimicry of capitalist industrial patterns and bigpush industrialization can be found in Zaleski (1980). Lenin (1939) outlined his understanding of the
584 P ART V: M ACROECONOMICS
6 7
8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19
20 21
22 23
OF
D EVELOPMENT
features of capitalist industrialization. The documentation of China’s big-push industrialization can be found in Fang (1984). For the operation of the material balance process in a Soviet-style economic system, World Bank (1984) provides detailed documentation. The early literature of the socialist economy focuses on feature (4) of the socialist system and has paid too little attention to features (2), (3), and (5). In fact, the comprehensive state investment program is much more important than the balance of daily production plans. Kornai’s theory of the soft budget constraint focuses on feature (5). Riskin (1987) and World Bank (1984) document the process to establish a Soviet-style socialist system. Qian (forthcoming) documents Mao’s two administrative decentralizations in 1958–60 and in 1969–75. Also, the features of the evolution of institutional arrangements from Mao’s China to the reform era can be identified by putting information from the following sources together: Bruun (1993), Granick (1990), Liu (1992), Nee and Sijin (1993), Oi (1986), Perkings (1977), Riskin (1971, 1987), Schurmann (1968), Solinger (1992), Vogel (1989), Walder (1986, 1992), Wank (1993), Wong (1985, 1986a,b). For a meticulous documentation of the evolution of China’s residential registration system, see Cheng (1991). An updated version of this thesis, which covers recent changes of the system, is available from Cheng. According to him, urban residents have more vote rights than rural residents in China. Pipe (1999) attributes the rise of parliamentarianism in Britain and its decline in Spain and France in the Middle Ages to the small size of Britain relative to Spain and France. For a history of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and its recent amendments, see Pilon (1997), Yang (1994), and Qian (1999). See Roland (2000, pp. 15, 198) for the cost of the dual track approach. Specifically, the 1982–91 yield levels for rice and wheat lie on the straight lines extrapolated from the 1952 yield levels using the yield growth rates of the 1952–7 period. To us, this finding of widespread uncertainty about future land use rights explains the longtime puzzle as to why rural land markets in China have been surprisingly inactive despite the legality of lease transfers. For another case-study, see “No Rights Mean No Incentive for China’s Farmers,” New York Times, Dec. 15, 1996. Data are from the 1992 TVE Yearbook. Li (1999) documents a case of spontaneous privatization of a TVE via the transformation to public holding companies in Shunde county of Guangdong province. According to him, a long spontaneous privatization process since the end of the 1980s has already transformed most TVEs in this county to joint stock companies. By the end of the 1990s, private firms became dominant players in this county, though corruption, predation, and other state opportunisms are rampant. According to Oi, the county government was corporate headquarters, the township governments were regional headquarters, and the villages were companies. China’s degree of urbanization is much lower than in capitalist economies with similar per capita real income (He, 1997, p. 275). Despite the great contributions of local private banks to economic development, the government still follows the regulation that prohibits private banking business and closes many local private banks (Lardy, 1998a, pp. 53–7). “Record Loss Suffered by State Sector,” South China Morning Post International Weekly, June 29, 1996. This SOE tendency to over-reward workers received official acknowledgment in 1984 when the government introduced a progressive bonus tax to control the generous dispensation of bonuses that began in 1979. An annual bonus of up to 4 months’ basic wages was exempted from the bonus tax; but a fifth month bonus would require the SOE to pay a 100 percent bonus tax; a sixth month bonus would be subject to a 200 percent bonus tax, a seventh month bonus would be subject to a 300 per-cent bonus tax, and so forth. This report has been published in English as Reynolds (1987). These indirect transfers are listed under either production costs or investment expenditure financed from depreciation funds. The ingenuity in disguising extra compensation can be quite impressive. Chen (1994) reported that “in some enterprises, [workers’] shares, with promised interest rates
C HAPTER 19: E CONOMIC T RANSITION 585
24
25 26 27 28
29
higher than bank deposit rates in addition to fixed dividend payment, are simply a device to raise the level of wages and bonuses which have been regulated by the government to control inflation.” While anonymous banking can protect private property against state predation on the one hand, it also protects money laundering and associated corruption. Because of institutionalized state opportunism, the Chinese government’s tax collection capacity is rapidly weakening as the private sector develops. Hence, Bai et al. (1999) regard anonymous banking, combined with control of interest rates, as an effective way for government to indirectly tax residents. But this again generates a dilemma between efficiency and injustice caused by tolerance of corruption. “China City Turns Into a Prototype for Privatization,” Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1995. See also “Heilongjiang Puts 200 Firms on the Block,” China Daily, June 7, 1996. There were 3,800 joint stock companies in China in October, 1993 (He, 1997, p. 53). Chen and Zhou (1996) document many cases of large private companies that emerged in this period, and of state predation of private firms. According to Xing (1999), the enormous value of errors and missing items in China’s international income balance reflect the huge size of capital flight. This item was $9.8, $17.8, $15.6, and $16.9 billion in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 respectively. China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.2 in 1978 to 0.433 in 1994 (He, 1997, p. 257). According to her, the official Gini coefficient in 1994 understated inequality because of the hidden illegal income of the rich. She cites one non-official estimate of the Gini coefficient as 0.59 in 1995. In contrast, Taiwan’s Gini coefficient decreased from 0.53 in the 1950s to 0.33 in the 1970s during the take-off stage of economic development (Fei, Ranis, and Kuo, 1979).
586 R EFERENCES
REFERENCES
Abdel-Rahman, H. M. (1990), “Agglomeration Economies, Types and Sizes of Cities,” Journal of Urban Economics, 27, 25–45. Abraham, K. and Katz, L. (1986), “Cyclical Unemployment: Sectoral Shifts or Aggregate Disturbances?,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 507–22. Adelman, I. (1961), Theories of Economic Growth and Development, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Adelman, I. and Morris, C. (1967), Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Aghion, P., Bacchetta, P., and Banerjee, A. (1998), “Capital Markets and the Instability of Open Economies,” Working paper, presented at the Harvard University and MIT Growth and Development Seminar. Aghion, P., Bolton, P., and Jullien, B. (1991), “Optimal Learning by Experimentation,” Review of Economic Studies, 58, 621–54. Aghion, P., Caroli, E., and Garcia-Pena Losa, C. (1999), “Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1615–60. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992), “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction,” Econometrica, 60, 323–51. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1998), Endogenous Growth Theory, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Aghion, P. and Saint-Paul, G. (1991), “On the Virtue of Bad Times: An Analysis of the Interaction between Economic Fluctuations and Productivity Growth,” CEPR Discussion Paper, no. 578. Aghion, P. and Tirole, Jean (1997), “Formal and Real Authority in Organizations,” Journal of Political Economy, 105(1) (Feb.), 1–29. Aiginger, K. and Tichy, G. (1991), “Small Firms and the Merger Mania,” Small Business Economics, 3, no. 2 (1991), 83–102. Akerlof, G. (1970), “The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, 488–500. Akerlof, G. and Yellen, J. (1985), “A Near-Rational Model of the Business Cycle, with Wage and Price Inertia,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Suppl., 100, 823–38. Alchian, A. (1977), “Why Money?” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 9, 131–40. Alchian, A. and Demsetz, H. (1972), “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization,” American Economic Review, 62, 777–95. Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D. (1994), “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 465–90. Alizadeh, Parvin (1984), “Trade, Industrialization, and the Visible Hand,” Journal of Development Studies, 21, 22–46. Anonymous (1701), Consideration on the East-India Trade, in J. R. McCulloch, ed., A Select Collection of Early English Tracts on Commerce, London, 1856, reissued, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1954.
R EFERENCES
587
Arndt, H. (1989), Economic Development: The History of an Idea, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Arnott, R. (1979), “Optimal City Size in a Spatial Economy,” Journal of Urban Economics, 6, 65–89. Arrow, K. J. (1962), “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–73. Arrow, K. J. (1979), “The Division of Labor in the Economy, the Polity, and Society,” in G. O’Driscoll, Jr., ed., Adam Smith and Modern Political Economy, Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press. Arrow, K. J. (1985), “The Economics of Agency,” in J. Pratt and R. Zeckhauser (eds.), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, pp. 37–51. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Arrow, K. J., Enthoven, A., Hurwicz, L., and Uzawa, H., eds. (1958), Studies in Linear and Nonlinear Programming, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Arrow, K. J., Ng, Y.-K., and Yang, X., eds. (1998), Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Arthur, W. Brian (1994), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor, the University Michigan Press. Azariadis, C. (1975), “Implicit Contracts and Underemployment Equilibrium,” Journal of Political Economy, 83, 1183–1202. Babbage, C. (1832), On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, 4th enlarged edn. of 1835, reissued in 1977, New York, M. Kelly. Bac, M. (1996), “Corruption and Supervision Costs in Hierarchies,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 22, 99–118. Bacha, Edmar L. (1978), “An Interpretation of Unequal Exchange from Prebisch–Singer to Emmanuel,” Journal of Development Economics. Baechler, Jean (1976), The Origins of Capitalism, trans. Barr Cooper, Oxford, Blackwell. Baechler, Jean, Hall, John A., and Mann, Michael, eds. (1997), Europe and the Rise of Capitalism, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. Bag, P. K. (1997), “Controlling Corruption in Hierarchies,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 25, 322– 44. Bai, Chong-En, Li, David D., Qian, Yingyi, and Wang, Yijiang (1999), “Anonymous Banking and Financial Repression: How Does China’s Reform Limit the Government’s Predation without Reducing Its Revenue?” Mimeo, Stanford University. Baily, M. (1974), “Wages and Employment Under Uncertain Demand,” Review of Economic Studies, 41, 37–50. Balassa, B. (1980), The Process of Industrial Development and Alternative Development Strategies, Princeton University, International Finance Section, Essays in International Finance, no. 141. Balassa, B. (1986), “The Employment Effects of Trade in Manufactured Products between Developed and Developing Countries,” Journal of Policy Modeling, 8, 371–90. Balasubramanyam, V. N. and Lall, S., eds. (1991), Current Issues in Development Economics, London, Macmillan. Baldwin, R. (1969), “The Case Against Infant-industry Tariff Protection,” Journal of Polical Economy, 77, 295–305. Baldwin, R. E. and Venables, Anthony J. (1995), “Regional Economic Integration,” in Grossman, Gene M. and Rogoff, Kenneth, eds., Handbook of International Economics, vol. 3. Amsterdam, New York and Oxford, Elsevier, North-Holland. Ball, L., Mankiw, N., and Romer, D. (1988), “The New Keynesian Economics and the Output–Inflation Tradeoff,” Brookings Papers of Economic Activities, 1, 1–65. Banerjee, Abhijit V. (1992), “A Simple Model of Herd Behavior,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 797–817. Banerjee, A. and Besley, A. (1990), “Moral Hazard, Limited Liability and Taxation: A Principal–Agent Model,” Oxford Economic Papers, 42, 46–60. Banerjee, A. and Newman, A. (1993), “Occupational Choice and the Process of Development,” Journal of Political Economy, 101, 274–98. Baran, P. (1957), La economia politica del crecimiento, Mexico, F.C.E., 1969. Bardhan, P. (1970), Economic Growth, Development and Foreign Trade, New York, Wiley. Bardhan, P., ed. (1989), The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
588 R EFERENCES Bardhan, P. and Roemer, J., eds. (1993), Market Socialism, the Current Debate, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Barro, R. (1991), “Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of Countries,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 407– 44. Barro, R. (1997), Determinants of Economic Growth, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Barro, R. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1991), “Convergence Across States and Regions,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activities, 1, 159–82. Barro, R. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992), “Convergence,” Journal of Political Economy, 100, 223–51. Barro, R. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995), Economic Growth, New York, McGraw-Hill. Barzel, Y. (1982), “Measurement Cost and the Organization of Markets,” Journal of Law and Economics, 25, 27–48. Barzel, Y. (1985), “Transaction Costs: Are They Just Costs?” Journal of Institutional & Theoretical Economics, 141, 4–16. Barzel, Y. (1989), Economic Analysis of Property Rights, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Barzel, Y. (1997), “Property Rights and the Evolution of the State,” mimeo, and “Third-party Enforcement and the State,” mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Washington. Barzel, Yoram and Yu, Ben T. (1984), “The Effect of the Utilization Rate on the Division of Labor,” Economic Inquiry, 22, 18–27. Basu, S. (1996), “Procyclical Productivity: Increasing Returns or Cyclical Utilization,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 719–50. Bauer, P. and Yamey, B. (1957), The Economics of Underdeveloped Countries, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Baumgardner, J. R. (1988a), “The Division of Labor, Local Markets, and Worker Organization,” Journal of Political Economy, 96, 509–27. Baumgardner, J. R. (1988b), “Physicians’ Services and the Division of Labor across Local Markets,” Journal of Political Economy, 96, 948–82. Baumol, W. J. (1996), “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show,” American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072–85. Baxer, M. and King, R. G. (1995), “Measuring Business Cycles: Approximate Band-Pass Filters for Economic Time Series,” NBER working paper no. 5022. Bazovsky, Igor (1961), Reliability Theory and Practice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall. Beasley, W. G. (1995), The Rise of Modern Japan, New York, St. Martin’s Press. Becker, G. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, New York, Columbia University Press. Becker, G. (1965), “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” Economic Journal, 75, 497–517. Becker, G. (1981), A Treatise on the Family, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Becker, G. and Lewis, H. G. (1973), “On the Interaction between the Quantity and Quality of Children,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 279–88. Becker, G. and Murphy, K. (1992), “The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 1137–60. Beckmann, M. (1968), Dynamic Programming of Economic Decisions, New York, Springer-Verlag. Behrman, J. and Srinivasan, T. N. (1995), “Introduction to Part 9,” vol. IIIB, in Behrman and Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, New York, Elsevier. Beik, Paul H., ed. (1970), The French Revolution, New York, Harper & Row. Benhabib, J. and Jovanovic, B. (1991), “Externalities and Growth Accounting,” American Economic Review, 81, 82–113. Ben-Akiva, M., de Palma, A., and Thisse, J. (1989), “Spatial Competition with Differentiated Products,” Regional Science & Urban Economic, 19, 5–19. Berger, P. and Ofek, Eli (1995), “Diversification’s Effect on Firm Value,” Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 39–65. Berle, A. and Means, G. (1932), The Modern Corporation and Private Property, London, Macmillan. Bernard, A. and Jones, C. I. (1996), “Technology and Convergence,” Economic Journal, 106, 1037–44. Besley, T. (1995), “Savings, Credit and Insurance,” in J. Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, vol. III, New York, Elsevier Science, 2125–206.
R EFERENCES
589
Besley, T., Coate, S., and Loury, G. (1993), “The Economics of Rotating Savings and Credit Associations,” American Economic Review, 83, 792–810. Bhagat, Sanjay, Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert (1990), “Hostile Takeovers in the 1980s: The Return to Corporate Specialization,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, Special Issue, 1–72. Bhagwati, J. (1969), “Optimal Policies and Immiserizing Growth,” American Economic Review, 59, 967–70. Bhagwati, J. (1984), “The State of Development Theory,” American Economic Review, 74, 1–10. Bhagwati, J. and Dehejia, V. (1994), “Freer Trade and Wages of the Unskilled: Is Marx Striking Again?” in Trade and Wages: Leveling Wages Down?, eds. J. Bhagwati and M. Kosters, Washington, American Enterprise Institute. Bhaskar, V. (1995), “Noisy Communication and the Evolution of Cooperation,” University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Bhattacharyya, S. and Lafontaine, F. (1995), “Double Sided Moral Hazard and the Nature of Share Contracts,” RAND Journal of Economics, 26, pp. 761–81. Binmore, K., Osborne, M., and Rubinstein, A. (1992), Noncooperative Models of Bargaining, New York, Elsevier Science. Black, F. (1979), “Business Cycles in General Equilibrium,” MIT Working Paper. Black, F. (1987), Business Cycles and Equilibrium, New York, Blackwell. Black, F. (1995), Exploring General Equilibrium, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Blanchard, O. (1997), Economics of Post-Communism Transition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Blanchard, O. and Kremer, M. (1997), “Disorganization,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1091–1126. Blomstrom, M. and Wolff, E. (1997), “Growth in a Dual Economy,” World Development, 25, 1627–37. Bliss, C. (1989), “Trade and Development,” in Chenery and Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, vol. II, New York, Elsevier, p. 1188. Blitch, C. P. (1983), “Allyn Young on Increasing Returns,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5 (Spring), 359–72. Blitch, C. P. (1995), Allyn Young: The Peripatetic Economist, London, Macmillan. Blume, A., Kim, Y.-G., and Sobel, J. (1993), “Evolutionary Stability in Games of Communication,” Games & Economic Behavior, 5, 547–75. Bolton, P. and Dewatripont, M. (1994), “The Firm as a Communication Network,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 809–39. Bolton, P. and Dewatripont, M. (1995), “The Time and Budget Constraints of the Firm,” European Economic Review, 39, 691–9. Bolton, P. and Scharfstein, David (1998), “Corporate Finance, the Theory of the Firm, and Organization,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 95–114. Borjas, G., Freeman, R., and Katz, L. (1992), “How Much Do Immigration and Trade Affect Labor Market Outcomes?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–67. Borland, J. and Yang, X. (1992a), “Specialization and Money as a Medium for Exchange,” Seminar Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Borland, J. and Yang, X. (1992b), “Specialization and a New Approach to Economic Organization and Growth,” American Economic Review, 82, 386–91. Borland, J. and Yang, X. (1995), “Specialization, Product Development, Evolution of the Institution of the Firm, and Economic Growth,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5, 19–42. Borland, J. and Eichberger, Jürgen (1998), “Organizational Form outside the Principal–agent Paradigm,” Bulletin of Economic Research, 50, 201–27. Boserup, Ester (1975), “The Impact of Population Growth on Agricultural Output,” Quarterly Journal of Ecnomics, 89(2), 257–70. Bouin, Olivier (forthcoming), “Financial Discipline and State Enterprise Reform in China in the 1990s,” in Olivier Bouin, Fabrizio Coricelli, and Francoise Lemoine, eds., Different Paths to a Market Economy: China and European Economies in Transition, Paris, OECD. Bowen, Harry P., Leamer, Edward E., and Sveikauskas, Leo (1987), “Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory,” American Economic Review, 77(5), 791–809. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, Robert (1995) Privatizing Russia, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (1996), “A Theory of Privatization,” Economic Journal, 106, 309–19.
590 R EFERENCES Braudel, Fernand (1972), The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, New York, Harper & Row. Braudel, Fernand (1981–4), Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, London, Collins. Braudel, Fernand (1984), Civilization and Capitalism, The 18th Century, trans. revised by Sian Reynolds, London, Collins. Braverman, A. and Stiglitz, J. (1982), “Sharecropping and the Interlinking of the Agrarian Markets,” American Economic Review, 72, 695–715. Brian, Arthur W. (1994), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor, the University Michigan Press. Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., and Evans, J. M. (1975), “Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships Over Time” (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 37, 149–92. Brunner, K. and Meltzer, A. (1971), “The Use of Money: Money in the Theory of an Exchange Economy,” American Economic Review, 61, 784–805. Bruton, Henry (1998), “A Reconsideration of Import Substitution,” Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 903–36. Bruun, O. (1993), Business and Bureaucracy in a Chinese City, Chinese Research Monographs no. 43. Berkeley, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California. Buchanan, J. M. (1975), The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Buchanan, J. M. (1989), Explorations into Constitutional Economics, College Station, Texas A&M University Press. Buchanan, J. M. (1991), Constitutional Economics, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. Buchanan, J. M. (1994), “The Return to Increasing Returns,” in Buchanan, J. and Yoon, Y., eds., The Return to Increasing Returns, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. Buchanan, J. M. and Stubblebine, W. Craig (1962), “Externality,” Economica, 29, 371–84. Buchanan, J. M. and Tullock, Gordon (1965), The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Burke, Edmund (1790), Reflections on the French Revolution, eds. W. Alison Phillips and Catherine Beatrice Phillips, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1912. Burtless, Gary (1995), “International Trade and the Rise in Earnings Inequality,” Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 800–16. Byrd, W. (1983), “Enterprise-Level Reforms in Chinese State-Owned Industry,” American Economic Review, 73, pp. 329–32. Byrd, W. (1988), “The Impact of the Two-Tier Plan Market System in Chinese Industry,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 11, no. 3, Sept., pp. 295–308. Reprinted in Reynolds, Bruce L., Chinese Economic Reform: How Far, How Fast?, London, Academic Press. Byrd, W. (1991), The Market Mechanism and Economic Reforms in China, New York, M. E. Sharpe. Caballero, R. J. and Hammour, M. L. (1994), “The Cleansing Effect of Recessions,” American Economic Review, 84, no. 5, 1350–68. Calvo, G. and Wellisz, S. (1978), “Supervision, Loss of Control and the Optimal Size of the Firm,” Journal of Political Economy, 86, 943–52. Calvo, G. and Wellisz, S. (1979), “Hierarchy, Ability and Income Distribution,” Journal of Political Economy, 87, 991–1010. Canton, Erik (1997), Economic Growth and Business Cycles, Center for Economic Research, Tilburg University, Amsterdam, Thesis Publishers. Capie, Forrest H. (1983), “Tariff Protection and Economic Performance in the Nineteenth Century,” reprinted in Forrest Capie, ed., Protection in the World Economy, Brookfield, Vermont, Edward Elgar Publishing Co., 1992. Carter, M. (1995), “Information and the Division of Labour: Implications for the Firm’s Choice of Organisation,” Economic Journal, 105, 385–97. Case, Anne and Deaton, Angus (1998), “Large Cash Transfers to the Elderly in South Africa,” Economic Journal, 108, 1330–61. Case, Anne and Deaton, Angus (1999a), “School Inputs and Educational Outcomes in South Africa,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1047–84.
R EFERENCES
591
Case, Anne and Deaton, Angus (1999b), “Household Resource Allocation in Stepfamilies: Darwin Reflects on the Plight of Cinderella,” American Economic Review, 89, 234–8. Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (1996–2000), Penn World Table, http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu. Chandler, A., Jr. (1990), Scale and Scope the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press. Chang, C. and Wang, Y. (1994), “The Nature of the Township Enterprises,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 19, pp. 434–52. Chang, G. and Wen, G. (1998), “Food Availability Versus Consumption Efficiency: Causes of the Chinese Famine,” China Economic Review, 9, 157–66. Che, Jiahua (1999), “From the Grabbing Hand to the Helping Hand,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame. Che, Jiahua and Qian, Yingyi (1998), “Insecure Property Rights and Government Ownership of Firms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 467–96. Chen, Aimin (1994), “Chinese Industrial Structure in Transition: The Emergence of Stock-offering Firms,” Comparative Economic Studies, 36, no. 4, Winter, 1–19. Chen, B.-L., Lin, J., and Yang, X. (1999), “Empirical Evidence for the Endogenous Growth Generated by Evolution in Division of Labor,” Development Discussion Paper, no. 671, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, Mass. Chen, Yinan and Zhou, Zhiren, eds. (1996), Chuangye Zhifu Bushi Mong (It is not a Dream to Make a Fortune from Entrepreneurship), Hainan International News Center. Chenery, H. (1979), Structural Change and Development Policy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Chenery, H., Robinson, S., and Syrquin, M., eds. (1986), Industrialization and Growth: A Comparative Studies, New York, Oxford University Press. Cheng, T. (1991), “The Present and Future of China’s Residential Registration System,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, North-East University. Cheng, W. (1998), “Specialization and the Emergence and the Value of Money,” in K. Arrow, Y.-K. Ng, and X. Yang, eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Cheng, W. (1999), “Division of Labor, Money, and Economic Progress,” Review of Development Economics, 3, 354–67. Cheng, W., with Sachs, J. and Yang, X. (2000), “A General Equilibrium Re-appraisal of the Stolper– Samuelson Theorem,” Journal of Economics, 72, 1–18. Cheng, W., Liu, M., and Yang, X. (2000), “A Ricardian Model with Exogenous and Endogenous Comparative Advantages,” Economic Record, 76, 172–82. Cheng, W., Sachs, J., and Yang, X. (1999), “An Inframarginal Analysis of the Heckscher–Ohlin Model with Transaction Costs and Technological Comparative Advantage,” Harvard Center for International Development Working Paper no. 9; forthcoming in Economic Theory. Cheng, W., Sachs, J., and Yang, X. (2000), “An Inframarginal Analysis of the Ricardian Model,” Review of International Economics, 8, 208–20. Cheung, S. (1968), “Private Property Rights and Sharecropping,” Journal of Political Economy Chicago, 76, 1117–22. Cheung, S. (1969), The Theory of Share Tenancy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Cheung, S. (1970), “The Structure of A Contract and the Theory of a Non-exclusive Resource,” Journal of Law and Economics, 13, 49–70. Cheung, S. (1974), “A Theory of Price Control,” Journal of Law and Economics, 17, 53–71. Cheung, S. (1983), “The Contractual Nature of the Firm,” Journal of Law & Economics, 26, 1–21. Cheung, S. (1989), “Privatization vs. Special Interests: The Experience of China’s Economic Reforms,” Cato Journal, 8, 585–96. Cheung, S. (1996), “A Simplistic General Equilibrium Theory of Corruption,” Contemporaty Economic Policy, 14, 1–5. Chiang, A. (1984), Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics, London, McGraw-Hill. Cho, D. and Graham, S. (1996), “The Other Side of Conditional Convergence,” Economics Letters, 50, 285–90. Chu, C. (1997), “Productivity, Investment in Infrastructure, and Population Size: Formalizing the Theory of Ester Boserup,” Review of Development Economics, 1, 294–304.
592 R EFERENCES Chu, C. and Tsai, Y. (1998), “Productivity, Investment in Infrastructure, and Population Size: Formalizing the Theory of Ester Boserup,” in K. Arrow, Y.-K. Ng, and X. Yang, eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Chu, C. and Wang, C. (1998), “Economy of Specialization and Diseconomies of Externality,” Journal of Public Economics, 69, 249–61. CIA (1996), The World Factbook, Washington, DC, Central Intelligence Agency. CIA (1997), The World Factbook, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html. Ciccone, A. and Matsuyama, K. (1996), “Start-up Costs and Pecuniary Externalities as Barriers to Economic Development,” Journal of Development Economics, 49, 33–59. Cline, William (1997), Trade and Income Distribution, Washington DC, Institute for International Economics. Clower, R. (1967), “A Reconsideration of the Microfoundations of Monetary Theory,” Western Economic Journal, 6, 1–8. Coase, R. (1937), “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, 4, 386– 405. Coase, R. (1946), “The Marginal Cost Controversy,” Economica, 13, 169–82. Coase, R. (1960), “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44. Coase, R. (1991), “The Nature of the Firm: Origin, Meaning, Influence,” in Williamson. O. and Winter, S., eds., The Nature of the Firm, New York, Oxford University Press. Colwell, P. and Munneke, H. (1997), “The Structure of Urban Land Prices,” Journal of Urban Economics, 41, 321–36. Comment, Robert, and Jarrell, Gregg (1995), “Corporate Focus and Stock Returns,” Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 67–87. Conlisk, John (1996), “Why Bounded Rationality?” The Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 669–700. Conybeare, John A. C. (1987), Trade Wars: The Theory and Practice of International Commercial Rivalry, New York, Columbia University Press. Cook, Linda, (1993), The Soviet Social Contract and Why It Failed: Welfare Policy and Workers’ Politics from Brezhnev to Yeltsin, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Cooper, R. and Ross, T. W. (1985), “Produce Warranties and Double Moral Hazard,” RAND Journal of Economics, 16, 103–13. Cooter, R. (1989), “The Coase Theorem,” The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, eds. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman, London, Macmillan Press, vol. 1, 457–60. Crafts, N. (1996), “The First Industrial Revolution: A Guided Tour for Growth Economists” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 197–201. Crafts, N. (1997), “Endogenous Growth: Lessons for and from Economic History,” in D. Kreps and K. Wallis, eds., Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, vol. II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Crosby, Alfred W. (1986), Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900 –1900, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Curtin, Philip D. (1989), Death by Migration: Europe’s Encounter with the Tropical World in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cypher, James and Dietz, James (1998), “Static and Dynamic Comparative Advantage: A Multi-period Analysis with Declining Terms of Trade,” Journal of Economic Issues, 32, 305–14. Dasgupta, Partha (1995), “The Population Problem: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1879–1902. Deane, Phyllis and Cole, William (1967), British Economic Growth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Deardorff, Alan and Stern, Robert, eds. (1994), The Stolper–Samuelson Theorem, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Deaton, A. (1990), “Saving in Developing Countries: Theory and Evidence,” World Bank Economic Review (Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, 1989), 61–96. Deaton, A. (1991), “Saving and Liquidity Constraints,” Econometrica, 59, 1221–48. Deaton, A. and Paxson, C. (1998a), “Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food,” Journal of Political Economy, 106, 897–930. Deaton, A. and Paxson, C. (1998b) “Aging and Inequality in Income and Health,” American Economic Review, 88, 248–53. Debreu, G. (1959), Theory of Value, New Haven, Yale University Press.
R EFERENCES
593
Debreu, G. (1974), “Excess Demand Functions,” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1, 15–21. Debreu, G. (1991), “The Mathematization of Economic Theory,” American Economic Review, 81, 1–7. Deininger, K. and Squire, L. (1996), “A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality,” World Bank Economic Review, 10, 565–91. Dellas H. (1991), “Stabilization Policy and Long Term Growth: Are They Related?” mimeo, University of Maryland. Delong, B. (1988), “Productivity Growth, Convergence and Welfare: Comments,” American Economic Review, 78, 1138–54. Demsetz, H. (1967), “Toward A Theory of Property Rights,” American Economic Review, 57, 347–59. Demsetz, H. (1988), Ownership, Control, and the Firm, Oxford, Blackwell. Demsetz, H. and Lehn, K. (1985), “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences,” Journal of Political Economy, 93, 1155–77. Dewatripont, M. (1988), “Commitment through Renegotiation Proof Contracts with Third Parties,” Review of Economic Studies, 55, 377–89. Dewatripont, M. and Maskin, E. (1995), “Contractual Contingencies and Renegotiation,” Rand Journal of Economics, 26, 704–19. Dewatripont, M. and Maskin, E. (1995), “Credit and Efficiency in Centralized and Decentralized Economies,” Review of Economic Studies, 62, 541–56. Dewatripont, M. and Roland, G. (1995), “The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty,” American Economic Review, 85, 1207–23. Dewatripont, M. and Roland, G. (1996), “Transition as a Process of Large Scale Institutional Change,” in David Kreps and Kenneth Wallis, eds., Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Diamond, Charles and Simon, Curtis (1990), “Industrial Specialization and the Returns to Labor,” Journal of Labor Economics, 8, 175–201. Diamond, D. W. and Dybvig, P. (1983), “Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity,” Journal of Political Economy, 91, 401–19. Diderot, Denis (1713), Diderot Encyclopedia: The Complete Illustrations, New York, Abrams, 1978. Din, M. (1996), “International Capital Mobility and Development Policy in a Dual Economy,” Review of International Economics, 4, 185–201. Ding, Guoxiang, Yan, Qingzeng, and Yang, Xun, eds. (1995), Zhongguo Nongchun Gaige Jishi (A Bibliographical Record of Events in China’s Rural Reform), Shanxi Economic Publishing House. Dixit, A. (1968), “The Optimal Development in the Labour Surplus Economy,” Review of Economic Studies, 35, 23–34. Dixit, A. (1969), “Marketable Surplus and Dualistic Development,” Journal of Economic Theory, Aug. Dixit, A. (1987), “Trade and Insurance with Moral Hazard,” Journal of International Economics, 23, 201–20. Dixit, A. (1989), “Trade and Insurance with Imperfectly Observed Outcomes,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 195–203. Dixit, A and Nalebuff, B. (1991), Thinking Strategically, New York, W. W. Norton & Co. Dixit, A. and Norman, V. (1980), Theory of International Trade, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dixit, A. and Stiglitz, J. (1977), “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity,” American Economic Review, 67, 297–308. Dodzin, Sergei and Vamvakidis, A. (1999), “Trade and Industrialization in Developing Agricultural Economies,” International Monetary Fund Working Paper, IMF, Washington, DC. Domar, E. (1947), “Expansion and Employment,” American Economic Review, 37, 34–55. Dornbusch, Fisher S. and Samuelson, Paul (1977), “Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods,” American Economics Review, 67(5), 823–39. Dowrick, S. and Nguyen, D. T. (1989), “OECD Comparative Economic Growth 1950–85: Catch-up and Convergence,” American Economic Review, 79, 1010–30. Du, J. (2000), “Endogenous, Efficient Long-run Cyclical Unemployment, Endogenous Long-run Growth, and Division of Labor,” Review of Development Economics, forthcoming. Dudley, Sarkar P. (1986), “The Terms of Trade Experience of Britain Since the 19th Century,” Journal of Development Studies.
594 R EFERENCES Easterlin, R. (1981), “Why Isn’t the Whole World Developed?” Journal of Economic History, March, 1–17. Easton, Stephen and Michael, Walker (1997), “Income, Growth, and Economic Freedom,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 87, 328–32. Eckholm, E. (1975), The Other Energy Crisis, Firewood, Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute; Economic Literature, 33, 800–16. Eichberger, B. (1994), Game Theory for Economists, New York, Academic Press. Eichengreen, B. and Flandreau, M. (1994), “The Geography of the Gold Standard,” Discussion Paper 1050, London, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Oct. Ekelund, Robert and Tollison, Robert (1981), Merchantilism as an Rent-seeking Society, College Station, Texas A&M University Press. Elvin, Mark (1973), The Pattern of the Chinese Past, London, Eyre Methuen. Emmanuel, A. (1972), Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. Eswaran, M. and Kotwal, A. (1985), “A Theory of Contractual Structure in Agriculture,” American Economic Review, 75, 352–67. Ethier, W. (1979), “Internationally Decreasing Costs and World Trade,” Journal of International Economics, 9, 1–24. Ethier, W. (1982), “National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade,” American Economic Review, 72, 389– 405. Ethier, W. (1988), Modern International Economics, 2nd edn., New York, W. W. Norton & Co. Evans, David (1987), “The Long Run Determinants of North–South Terms of Trade and Some Recent Empirical Evidence,” World Development, 15(5), 657–71. Fairbank, John King (1992), China: A New History, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press. Fama, E. and Jensen, M. (1983), “Separation of Ownership and Control,” Journal of Law & Economics, 26, 301–27. Fan, Gang and Woo, Wing Thye (1996), “State Enterprise Reform as a Source of Macroeconomic Instability,” Asian Economic Journal, Nov. Fang, Weizhong, ed. (1984), Jinji Dashi Ji (Major Economic Events in the People’s Republic of China, 1949– 1980), Beijing, Chinese Social Science Press. Fang, Xinghai and Zhu, Tian (1999), “Institutional Imperfection and Transition Strategies,” Economic Systems, 23, 331–48. Farrell, J. and Garth, S. (1985), “Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation,” Rand Journal of Economics, 16, 70–83. Farrell, J. and Maskin, E. (1989), “Renegotiation in Repeated Games,” Games and Economic Behaviour, 1, 327–60. Fauver, Larry, Houston, Joel, and Naranjo, Andy (1998), “Capital Market Development, Legal Systems and Value of Corporate Diversification: A Cross-Country Analysis,” Working Paper, University of Florida. Fei, J. and Ranis, G. (1964), Development of the Labor Surplus Economy, New York, Richard Irwin, Inc. Fei, J., Ranis, G., and Kuo, S. (1979), Growth with Equity: The Taiwan Case, New York, Oxford University Press. Fischer, S. (1977), “Long-Term Contracts, Rational Expectations, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule,” Journal of Political Economy, Feb., 85(1), 191–205. Fleming, Marcus (1955), “External Economies and the Doctrine of Balanced Growth,” Economic Journal, 65, 241–56. Frank, A. (1995), The Development of Underdevelopment, Aldershot, UK, Elgar. Frank, C. (1977), Foreign Trade and Domestic Aid, Washington, DC, Brookings Institute. Friedman, M. (1957), A Theory of the Consumption Function, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Frye, Timothy and Shleifer, Andrei (1997), “The Invisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 87, 354–8. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1983), “Sequential Bargaining with Incomplete Information,” Review of Economic Studies, 50, 221–47. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1991), Game Theory, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Fujita, K., Krugman, P., and Venables, A. (1999), The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
R EFERENCES
595
Fujita, M. (1988), “A Monopolistic Competition Model of Spatial Agglomeration: Differentiated Product Approach,” Regional Science & Urban Economics, 25, 505–28. Fujita, M. (1989), Urban Economic Theory: Land Use and City Size, New York, Cambridge University Press. Fujita, M. and Krugman, P. (1994), “On the Evolution of Hierarchical Urban Systems,” mimeo, Department of Regional Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Fujita, M. and Krugman, P. (1995), “When is the Economy Monocentric: von Thünen and Chamberlin Unified,” Regional Science & Urban Economics, 25, 505–28. Fujita, M. and Thissem, J.-F. (1996), “Economies of Agglomeration,” Journal of Japanese and International Economies, 10, 339–78. Fujita, M. and Mori, T. (1997), “Structural Stability and Evolution of Urban Systems,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 27, 399–442. Furubotn, E. and Pejovich, S., eds. (1974), The Economics of Property Rights, Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Publishing Company. Gabisch, G. and Lorenz, H. (1989), Business Cycle Theory: A Survey of Methods and Concepts, Berlin, Springer-Verlag. Gale, D. (1986), “Bargaining and Competition. Part I: Characterization and Part II: Existence,” Econometrica, 54, 807–18. Gallup, J. L. (1998), “Agricultural Productivity and Geography,” Working Paper, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, Mass. Gallup, J. L. and Sachs, J. (1998), “Geography and Economic Development,” in Boris Pleskovic and Joseph E. Stiglitz, eds., World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1998, Washington, DC, The World Bank, 127–78; reprinted in International Regional Science Review, 22(2), 179–232. Galor, O. (1996), “Convergence? Inferences from Theoretical Models,” Economic Journal, 106, 1056–69. Galor, O. and Zeira, J. (1993), “Income Distribution and Macroeconomics,” Review of Economic Studies, 87, 205–10. Gans, Joshua (1998), “Industrialization Policy and the ‘Big Push,’ ” in K. Arrow et al., eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Ghatak, S. (1995), Introduction to Development Economics, London, Routledge. Gibbons, R. (1992), Game Theory for Applied Economics, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Gibbons, Robert (1998), “Incentives in Organization,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 115–32. Gillis, M., Perkins, D., Roemer, M., and Snodgrass, D. R. (1993), Economics of Development, London/ New York, Norton. Gomory, Ralph E. (1994), “A Ricardo Model with Economies of Scale,” Journal of Economic Theory, 62, 394–419. Goodwin, R. (1951), “The Non-linear Accelerator and the Persistence to Markets Having Production Lags,” Econometrica, 19, 1–17. Gorden, W. (1980), Institutional Economics, Austin, University of Texas Press. Gordon, B. (1975), Economic Analysis before Adam Smith, London, Macmillan. Gordon, D. (1974), “A Neo-classical Theory of Keynesian Unemployment,” Economic Inquiry, 12, 431–59. Granick, D. (1990), Chinese State Enterprises: A Regional Property Rights Analysis, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Gray, Cheryl and Hendley, Kathryn (1997), “Developing Commercial Law in Transition Economies: Examples from Hungary and Russia,” in J. Sachs and K. Pistor, eds., The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Gray, J. (1976), “Wage Indexation: A Macroeconomic Approach,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 2, 221–35. Green, E. (1987), “Lending and the Smoothing of Uninsurable Income,” in E. Prescott and N. Wallace, eds., Contractual Arrangements for Intertemporal Trade, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Greenaway, D. (1992), “New Trade Theories and Developing Countries,” in V. Balasubramanyam and S. Lall, eds., Current Issues in Development Economics, London, Macmillan, 159–69. Greenwood, J. and Jovanovic, B. (1990), “Financial Development, Growth, and the Distribution of Income,” Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1076–1107. Grier, K. B. and Tullock, G. (1989), “An Empirical Analysis of Cross-National Economic Growth, 1951–80,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 24, 259–76.
596 R EFERENCES Groenewegen, P. (1977), The Economics of A. R. J. Turgot, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff. Groenewegen, P. (1987), “Division of Labor,” in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman, eds., The New Palgrave A Dictionary of Economics, London, Macmillan, 901–7. Grossman, G. (1998), “Imperfect Labor Contracts and International Trade,” mimeo, Department of Economics, Princeton University. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1989), “Product Development and International Trade,” Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1261–83. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1990), “Comparative Advantage and Long-Run Growth,” American Economic Review, 80, 796–815. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1994), “Protection For Sale,” American Economic Review, 84, 833–50. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1995a), “The Politics of Free-Trade Agreements,” American Economic Review, 85(4), 667–690. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1995b), “Trade Wars and Trade Talks,” Journal of Political Economy, 1995, 103(4), 675–708. Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1995c), “Technology and Trade,” in G. Grossman and K. Rogeff, eds., Handbook of International Economics, vol. 3, New York, Elsevier. Grossman, G. and Levinsohn, J. (1989), “Import Competition and the Stock Market Return to Capital,” American Economic Review, 79, 1065–87. Grossman, G. and Richardson, D. J. (1986), “Strategic Trade Policy: A Survey of the Issues and Early Analysis,” in Robert E. Baldwin and J. David Richardson, eds., International Trade and Finance, 3rd edn., Boston, Little, Brown, 95–113. Grossman, S. (1989), The Informational Role of Prices, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Grossman, S. and Hart, O. (1986), “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 691–719. Grout, P. (1984), “Investment and Wages in the absence of Binding Contracts: A Nash Bargaining Approach,” Econmetrica, 52, 449–60. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., and Block, W. (1996), Economic Freedom of the World: 1975–1995. Vancouver, BC, Fraser Institute. Gwartney, J. and Lawson, R. (1997), Economic Freedom of the World: 1997 Annual Report. Vancouver, BC, Fraser Institute. Hadley, G. (1964), Nonlinear and Dynamic Programming, Reading, Addison-Wesley. Hagen, E. (1958), “An Economic Justification of Protectionism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72(4), 496–514. Hagen, E. (1980), The Economics of Development, Homewood, Ill., Irwin. Hahn, F. (1971) “Equilibrium with Transaction Costs,” Econometrica, 39, 417–39. Hall, John (1987), “State and Societies: The Miracle in Comparative Perspective,” in Baechler, Hall and Mann, eds., Europe and the Rise of Capitalism, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. Harris, Joseph (1757), An Essay Upon Money and Coins, London, G. Hawkins. Harrod, R. (1939), “An Essay in Dynamic Theory,” Economic Journal, 49, 14. Hart, O. (1991), “Incomplete Contract and the Theory of the Firm,” in O. Williamson and S. Winter, eds., The Nature of the Firm, New York, Oxford University Press. Hart, O. (1995), Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Hart, O. and Holmstrom, B. (1987), “The Theory of Contracts,” in T. Bewley, ed., Advances in Economic Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hart, O. and Moore, B. (1990), “Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm,” Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1119–58. Hart, O. and Moore, B. (1999), “Foundations of Incomplete Contracts,” Review of Economic Studies, 66, 115–38. Hartwell, R. (1965), “The Causes of Industrial Revolution: An Essay in Methodology,” Economic History Review, 18. Hayek, F. (1940), “Socialist Calculation III: The Competitive ‘Solution,’ ” Economica, 7, 125–49. Hayek, F. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Hayek, F. (1945), “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, 35, 519–30. Hayek, F. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
R EFERENCES
597
Hayek, F. (1988), The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. He, Qinglian (1997), Primary Capital Accumulation in Contemporary China, Hong Kong, Mirror Book. Headrick, D. (1981), The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, New York, Oxford University Press. Heckscher, E. (1919), “The Effect of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income,” reprinted in AEA Readings in the Theory of International Trade, Philadelphia, Blackiston, 1949. Hegel, G. W. F. (1821), Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962. Heisenberg, Werner (1971), Physics and Beyond; Encounters and Conversations, trans. Arnold Pomerans, New York, Harper & Row. Hellman, Joel (1997), “Constitutions and Economic Reforms in the Post-Communist Transitions,” in Sachs and Pistor, eds., The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Helpman, E. (1980), “International Trade in the Presence of Product Differentiation, Economies of Scale and Monopolistic Competition,” Journal of International Economics, 11, 305–40. Helpman, E. (1987), “Imperfect Competition and International Trade: Evidence from Fourteen Industrial Countries,” Journal of the Japanese and International Economics, 1, 62–81. Helpman, E. (1992), “Endogenous Macroeconomic Growth,” European Economic Review, 36, 237–67. Helpman, E. and Krugman, P. (1985), Market Structure and Foreign Trade, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Helpman, E. and Laffont, J.-J. (1975), “On Moral Hazard in General Equilibrium Theory,” Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 8–23. Henderson, J. V. (1974), “The Sizes and Types of Cities,” American Economic Review, 64, 640–57. Henderson, J. V. (1996), “Ways to Think about Urban Concentration: Neoclassical Urban Systems versus the New Economic Geography,” International Regional Science Review, 19(1–2), 31–6. Herberg, H., Kemp, M., and Tawada, M. (1982), “Further Implications of Variable Returns to Scale in General Equilibrium Theory,” International Economic Review, 9, 261–72. Hicks, J. R. (1950), A Contribution to the Theory of the Trade Cycle, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hicks, J. R. (1960), “Thoughts on the Theory of Capital,” Oxford Economic Papers, 12 ( June), 123–32. Hicks, J. R. (1969), A Theory of Economic History, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Hirschman, A. (1958), The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven, Yale University Press. Hirschman, A. (1968), “The Political Economy of Import Substituting Industrialization,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, reprinted in Haggard, S., ed., The International Political Economy and the Developing Countries, vol. 1, Aldershot, UK, Elgar, 1995. Hoffman, Philip and Norberg, Kathryn, eds. (1994), Fiscal Crises, Liberty, and Representative Government, 1450–1789, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Holborn, Hajo (1982), A History of Modern Germany, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Holmstrom, B. and Milgrom, Paul (1991), “Multitask Principal–Agent Analysis: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 24–51. Holmstrom, B. and Milgrom, P. (1994), “The Firm as an Incentive System,” American Economic Review, 84, 972–91. Holmstrom, B. and Roberts, John (1998), “The Boundaries of the Firm Revisited,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 73–94. Houthakker, M. (1956), “Economics and Biology: Specialization and Speciation,” Kyklos, 9, 181–9. Hua, Sheng, Zhang, Xuejuen, and Lo, Xiaopen (1988), “Ten Years in China’s Reform: Looking Back, Reflection, and Prospect,” Economic Research, nos. 9, 11, 12, Beijing. Huang, Ray (1991), Tzu Pen Chu I Yu Nien I Shih Chi (Capitalism), Taipei, Lien ching chu pan shih yeh kung ssu. Huang, Z. (1993), “Current Development of the Private Firms in the Mainland China,” Economic Outlook, 8(32), 87–91. Hughes, Jonathan (1970), Industrialization and Economic History, New York, McGraw-Hill. Hume, David (1748), Essays Moreal and Political, ed. Eugene Rotwein, London, Nelson, 1955. Hummels, David and Levinsohn, James (1995), “Monopolitic Competition and International Trade: Reconsidering the Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 799–836. Hurwicz, L. (1973), “The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation,” American Economic Review, 63, 1–30.
598 R EFERENCES Info Press (1999), The Franchise Annual. St. Catherines Ont., Info Press. International Franchise Association (1997), Franchise Opportunities Guide, Washington, DC, International Franchise Association. Jacobs, Jane (1969), The Economy of Cities, New York, Random House. Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–60. Jevons, W. (1893), Money and Mechanism of Exchange, New York, D. Appleton. Jian, Tianlun, Sachs, Jeffrey, and Warner, Andrew (1996), “Trends in Regional Inequality in China,” China Economic Review, 7(1), Spring, 1–21. Jin, Hehui, Qian, Yingyi, and Weingast, Barry (1999), “Regional Decentralization and Fiscal Incentives: Federalism, Chinese Style,” mimeo, Department of Economics, Stanford University. Jin, Hehui and Qian, Yingyi (1998), “Public vs. Private Ownership of Firms: Evidence from Rural China,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), Aug., 773–808. Johnson, D. Gale (1994), “Does China Have a Grain Problem?” China Economic Review, 5(1), 1–14. Johnson, Harry G. (1954), “Optimum Tariff and Retaliation,” Review of Economic Studies, 21(2), 142–53. Jones, C. I. (1995a), “Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 695–725. Jones, C. I. (1995b), “R&D-based Models of Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 103, 759–784. Jones, C. I. (1998), Introduction to Economic Growth, New York, W. W. Norton & Co. Jones, Eric L. (1981), The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Jones, R. (1965), “The Structure of Simple General Equilibrium Models,” Journal of Political Economy, 73, 557–72. Jones, R. (1976), “The Origin and Development of Media of Exchange,” Journal of Political Economy, 84, 757–75. Josephson, Matthew (1959), Edison: A Biography, New York, McGraw-Hill. Judd, K. (1985), “On the Performance of Patents,” Econometrica, 53, 579–85. Kaldor, N. (1957), “A Model of Economic Growth,” Economic Journal, 67, 591–624. Kaldor, N. (1967), Strategic Factors in Economic Development, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Kamarck, Andrew M. (1976), The Tropics and Econoimc Development: A Provocative Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press (for the World Bank). Kamien, M. and Schwartz, N. (1981), Dynamic Optimization: The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control in Economics and Management, New York, North-Holland. Kanemoto, Y. (1980), Theory of Urban Externalities, Amsterdam, North-Holland. Kang, Youwei (1980), Zouxiang Shijie Chuengshu, Changsha, Hunan People’s Press. Kaplan, S. and Weisbach, Michael (1992), “The Success of Acquisitions, Evidence from Divestitures,” Journal of Finance, 47, 107–38. Karman, A. (1981), Competitive Equilibria in Spatial Economics, Cambridge, Oelgeshloger. Karoly, L. and Klerman, J. (1994), “Using Regional Data to Reexamine the Contribution of Demographic and Sectoral Changes to Increasing US Wage Inequality,” in The Changing Distribution of Income in an Open US Economy, eds. J. Bergstrand et al., Amsterdam, North-Holland. Katz, L. and Murphy, K. (1992), “Changes in Relative Wages, 1963–1987: Supply and Demand Factors,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 35–78. Katz, M. and Shapiro, C. (1985), “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,” American Economic Review, 75, 424–40. Katz, M. and Shapiro, C. (1986), “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 822–41. Kelley, A. and Williamson, J. (1984), What Drives Third World City Growth, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Kelly, Morgan (1997), “The Dynamics of Smithian Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 939–64. Kemp, Murray (1991), “Variable Returns to Scale, Non-uniqueness of Equilibrium and the Gains from International Trade,” Review of Economic Studies, 58, 807–16.
R EFERENCES
599
Kendrick, D. A. (1978), The Planning of Industrial Investment Programs, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Keren, M. and Levhari, D. (1982), “The Internal Organization of the Firm and the Shape of Average Costs,” Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 474–86. Keynes, J. M. (1933), “National Self-Sufficiency,” in The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, vol. 21, London, Macmillan, 1982. Keynes, J. M. (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London, Macmillan. Keynes, J. M. (1971), The Economic Consequences of the Peace, in The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, vol. 2, London, Macmillan. Khandker, A. and Rashid, S. (1995), “Wage Subsidy and Full Employment in a Dual Economy with Open Unemployment and Surplus Labor,” Journal of Development Economics, 48, 205–23. Kihlstrom, Richard and Laffont, Jean-Jacques (1979), “A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk Aversion,” Journal of Political Economy, 87, 719. Kim, S. (1989), “Labor Specialization and the Extent of the Market,” Journal of Political Economy, 97, 692–705. Kim, Y.-G. and Sobel, J. (1995), “An Evolutionary Approach to Pre-Play Communication,” Econometrica, 63, 1181–93. Kindleberger, Charles P. (1973), The World in Depression – 1929–1939, Berkeley, University of California Press. King, R. and Levine, R. (1994), “Capital Fundamentalism, Economic Development, and Economic Growth,” Carnegie–Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 40, 259–92. King, R. and Plosser, C. (1984), “Money, Credit, and Prices in a Real Business Cycle,” American Economic Review, 74, 363–80. King, R. and Plosser, C. (1986), “Money as the Mechanism of Exchange,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 17, 93–115. King, Stephan P. (1995), “Search with Free-riders,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 26, 253–71. Kirby, William (1995), “China Unincorporated: Company Law and Business Enterprise in Twentieth Century China,” Journal of Asian Studies, 54. Kirzner, Israel (1997), “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach,” Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85. Kiyotaki, N. and Wright, R. (1989), “On Money as a Medium of Exchange,” Journal of Political Economy, 97, 927–54. Kiyotaki, N. and Wright, R. (1993), “A Search-Theoretic Approach to Monetary Economics,” American Economic Review 83, 63–77. Knight, F. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Chicago, Hart, Shaffner and Marx. Knight, F. (1925), “Decreasing Cost and Comparative Cost: A Rejoinder,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 39, 332–3. Kohli, Ulrich and Werner, Augustin (1998), “Accounting for South Korean GDP Growth: IndexNumber and Econometric Estimates,” Pacific Economic Review, 3, 133–52. Koopman, T. R. (1957), Three Essays in the State of Economic Science, New York, McGraw-Hill. Kormendi, R. C. and Meguire, P. G. (1985), “Macroeconomic Determinants of Growth: Cross-Country Evidence,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 16, 141–63. Kornai, J. (1980), Economics of Shortage, Amsterdam, North-Holland. Kornai, J. (1986), “The Hungarian Reform Process: Visions, Hopes, and Reality,” Journal of Economic Literature, 24, Dec., 1687–1737. Kornai, J. (1991), The Road to a Free Economy, New York, Norton. Kornai, J. (1992), The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Kravis, Irving and Lipsey, Robert (1981), “Prices and Terms of Trade for Developed Country Exports of Manufactured Goods,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 774. Kremer, M. (1993), “Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million bc to 1990,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 681–716. Kremer, M. (1993), “The O-ring Theory of Economic Development,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 551–75.
600 R EFERENCES Kreps, D. (1990), “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory,” in J. Alt and K. Shepsle, eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kreps, D. (1990), A Course in Microeconomic Theory, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Kreps, D. and Wilson, R. (1982), “Sequential Equilibria,” Econometrica, 50, 863–94. Krueger, A. (1974), “The Political Economy of Rent-seeking Society,” American Economic Review, 64, 291–303. Krueger, A. (1984), “Trade Policies in Developing Countries,” in Handbook of International Economics, eds. R. Jones and P. Kenen, New York, Elsevier. Krueger, A. (1986), “Aid in the Development Process,” World Bank Research Observer, Jan., 62–63. Krueger, A. (1995), “Policy Lessons from Development Experience since the Second World War,” in J. Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 3, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 2498–550. Krueger, A. (1997), “Trade Policy and Economic Development: How We Learn,” American Economic Review, 87, 1–22. Krugman, P. (1979), “Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade,” Journal of International Economics, 9, 469–79. Krugman, P. (1980), “Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade,” American Economic Review, 70, 950–9. Krugman, P. (1981), “Intra-industry Specialization and the Gains from Trade,” Journal of Political Economy, 89, 959–73. Krugman, P. (1991), “Economics of Geography,” Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–502. Krugman, P. (1992), “Toward a Counter-Counter Revolution in Development Theory,” World Bank Observer, Supplement, 15.61. Krugman, P. (1994), “Complex Landscapes in Economic Geography,” a paper presented at the meeting of the American Economic Association. Krugman, P. (1994a), “Europe Jobless, America Penniless?” Foreign Policy, 95, 19–34. Krugman, P. (1994b), “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,” Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 28–44. Krugman, P. (1994c), “Stolper–Samuelson and the Victory of Formal Economics,” in Alan Dear-dorff and Robert Stern, eds., The Stolper–Samuelson Theorem, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. Krugman, P. (1995), “Growing World Trade: Causes and Consequences,” Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, 1, 327–62. Krugman, P. (1995), Development, Geography, and Economic Theory, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Krugman, P. and Lawrence, R. (1994), “Trade, Jobs and Wages,” Scientific American, 270, 44–9. Krugman, P. and Venables, A. J. (1995), “Globalization and the Inequality of Nations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 857–80. Krugman, P. and Venables, A. J. (1996), “Integration, Specialization, and Adjustment,” European Economic Review, 40, 959–67. Kubo, Y. (1985), “A Cross-country Comparison of Interindustry Linkages and the Role of Imported Intermediate Inputs,” World Development, 13, 1287–98. Kurz, M. (1974), “Arrow–Debreu Equilibrium of an Exchange Economy with Transaction Costs,” Econometrica, 42, 45–54. Kuznetz, S. (1955), “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” American Economic Review, March. Kuznetz, S. (1966), Modern Economic Growth, New Haven, Yale University Press. Kydland, F. and Prescott, E. (1982), “Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations,” Econometrica, 50, 1345–70. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (forthcoming), “The Quality of Government,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization. Laffont, J. and Tirole, J. (1986), “Using Cost Observation to Regulate Firms,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 614–41. Landes, David (1998), The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, New York, W. W. Norton. Lang, Larry and Stulz, Rene (1994), “Tobin’s Q , Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance,” Journal of Political Economics, 102, 1248–80. Lange, O. and Taylor, F. (1964), On the Economic Theory of Socialism, New York, McGraw-Hill. Lange, O. (1970), Introduction to Economic Cybernetics, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
R EFERENCES
601
Lardy, Nicholas (1998a), China’s Unfinished Economic Revolution, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution. Lardy, Nicholas (1998b), “China’s Unfinished Economic Experiment,” in James Dorn, ed., China in the New Millennium: Market Reforms and Social Development, Washington, DC, CATO Institute. Laslett, Peter (1988), “The European Family and Early Industrialization,” in Baechler, Hall and Mann, eds., Europe and the Rise of Capitalism, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. Lau, L. and Song, D.-H. (1992), “Growth versus Privatization: An Alternative Strategy to Reduce the Public Enterprise Sector: The Experience Taiwan and South Korea,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Stanford University. Leamer, Edward E. (1984), Sources of International Comparative Advantage: Theory and Evidence, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Lee, Douglas (1957), Climate and Economic Development in the Tropics, New York, Harper for the Council on Foreign Relations. Legros, Patrick and Newman, Andrew (1996), “Wealth Effects, Distribution, and the Theory of Organization,” Journal of Economic Theory, 70, 312–41. Leland, H. (1968), “Saving and Uncertainty: The Precautionary Demand for Saving,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 465–73. Lenin, V. (1939), Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, New York, International Publishers. Leontief, Wassily W. (1956), “Domestic Production and Foreign Trade: The American Capital Position Re-examined,” in Readings in International Economics, eds. Richard E. Caves and Harry G. Johnson, Homewood, Ill., Irwin, 1968. Lerner, A. P. (1952), “Factor Prices and International Trade,” Economica, 19(1), 1–15. Lewis, T. and Sappington, D. (1991), “Technological Change and the Boundaries of the Firm,” American Economic Review, 81, 887–900. Lewis, W. Arthur (1952), “World Production, Prices and Trade, 1870–1960,” in The International Political Economy and the Developing Countries, vol. 1, ed. S. Haggard, London, Elgar, 1995. Lewis, W. Arthur (1954), “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour,” in Development Economics, vol. 1, ed. Deepak Lal, London, Elgar, 1992. Lewis, W. Arthur (1955), The Theory of Economic Growth, London, Allen and Unwin. Lewis, W. Arthur (1984), “The State of Development Theory,” American Economic Review, 74, 1–10. Lewis, W. Arthur (1988), “The Roots of Development Theory,” Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 27–38. Li, David (1994), “The Behavior of Chinese State Enterprises under the Dual Influence of the Government and the Market,” University of Michigan, manuscript. Li, David (1996), “A Theory of Ambiguous Property Rights in Transition Economies: The Case of the Chinese Non-State Sector,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 23, 1–19. Li, Hongyi and Zou, Heng-fu (1998), “Income Inequality is not Harmful for Growth: Theory and Evidence,” Review of Development Economics, 2, 318–34. Li, Junhui (1999), “Shunde de Zhuangzhi (The Transformation of the Ownership System in Shunde County),” Economic Highlights, 36, 3. Li, Ke (2001), “Increasing Returns, Violation and Enforcement of the Property Rights System, Impersonal Networking Decisions and Bundling Pricing: General Equilibrium Analyses of the Division of Labour,” Ph.D. dissertation, Monash University, Australia. Li, Wei (1997), “The Impact of Economic Reform on the Performance of Chinese State Enterprises, 1980–1989,” Journal of Political Economy, 105(5), 1081–1106. Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, Stephen E. (1994), “Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 133–50. Lilien, D. (1982), “Sectoral Shifts and Cyclical Unemployment,” Journal of Political Economy, 90, 777–93. Lin, J. Y. (1998), “The Current State of China’s Economic Reforms,” in James Dorn, ed., China in the New Millennium: Market Reforms and Social Development, Washington, DC, CATO Institute. Lin, J. Y. and Yang, D. (1998), “On the Causes of China’s Agricultural Crisis and the Great Leap Famine,” China Economic Review, 9, 125–40. Lio, M. (1996), Three Assays on Increasing Returns and Specialization: A Contribution to New Classical Microeconomic Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, the National Taiwan University.
602 R EFERENCES Lio, M. (1998), “Uncertainty, Insurance, and Division of Labor,” Review of Development Economics, 2, 76–86. Lippman, Steven A. and McCall, John J. (1979), “The Economics of Job Search – A Survey,” Economic Inquiry, 14, 155–89. Lipton, Michael (1977), Why Poor People Stay Poor, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Little, I. and Mirrless, J. (1980), Manual of Industrial Project Analysis in Developing Countries, Paris, OECD. Liu, Meng-Chun (1999), “Two Approaches to International Trade, Development and Import Protection,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Liu, Pak-Wai and Yang, Xiaokai (2000), “The Theory of Irrelevance of the Size of the Firm,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42, 145–65. Liu, Yia-Ling (1992), “Reform From Below: The Private Economy and Local Politics in the Rural Industrialization of Wenzhou,” China Quarterly, 130, 293–316. Livingstone, I. (1983), “The Development of Development Economics,” ODI Review, 2. Locay, L. (1990), “Economic Development and the Division of Production between Households and Markets,” Journal of Political Economy, 98, 965–82. Long, J., Jr. and Plosser, C. (1983), “Real Business Cycles,” Journal of Political Economy, 91, 39–69. Loveman, G. and Sengenberger, W. (1991), “The Re-emergence of Small-Scale Production: An International Comparison,” Small Business Economics, 3(1), 1–38. Lucas, R., Jr. (1972), “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money,” Journal of Economic Theory, 4, 103–24. Lucas, R., Jr. (1973), “International Evidence on Output–Inflation Tradeoffs,” American Economic Review, 63, 326–34. Lucas, R., Jr. (1976), “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Suppl. Series, 1, 19–46, 62. Lucas, R., Jr. (1980), “Equilibrium in a Pure Currency Economy,” in J. Karenken and N. Wallace, eds., Models of Monetary Economics, Minneapolis, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Lucas, R., Jr. (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42. Lucas, R., Jr. (1993), “Making a Miracle,” Econometrica, 61, 251–72. Luo, Xiaopeng (1994), “Gaige yu Zhongguo Dalude Denji Chanquan (Reforms and Property Rights based on Ranking in Mainland China),” Modern China Studies, 41, 31–45. MacFarlane, Alan (1988), “The Cradle of Capitalism: The Case of England,” in Baechler, Hall, and Mann, eds., Europe and the Rise of Capitalism, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. MacLeod, W. and Malcomson, J. (1988), “Reputation and Hierarchy in Dynamic Models of Employment,” Journal of Political Economy, 96, 832–81. Maddison, Angus (1995), Monitoring the World Economy: 1820–1992, Paris, OECD. Mailath, George J. (1998), “Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory,” Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 1347–74. Mankiw, N. G. (1985), “Small Menu Costs and Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 100(2), 529–38. Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., and Weil, D. N. (1992), “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth,” Quartely Journal of Economics, 107, 407–37. Manne, H., ed. (1975), The Economics of Legal Relationships, St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing Company. Mantel, R. (1974), “On the Characterization of Aggregate Excess Demand,” Journal of Economic Theory, 7, 348–53. Mao, Zedong (1977a), Selected Works of Mao Zedong, vol. 5, Beijing, People’s Press. Mao, Tse-tung (1977b), A Critique of Soviet Economics, trans. Moss Roberts, annotated by Richard Levy, with an intro. by James Peck, New York, Monthly Review Press. Mao, Yushi (1999), “Zhengfu Ruhe Bangzu Qiye He Bangzu Jiuye (How Can the Government Assist Firms and Employment)?” Economic Highlights, 37, 1. Marcouiller, D. and Young, L. (1995), “The Black Hole of Graft: the Predatory State and the Informal Economy,” American Economic Review, 85, 630–46. Marshall, Alfred (1890), Principles of Economics, 8th edn., New York, Macmillan, 1948.
R EFERENCES
603
Marx, Karl (1867), Capital, a Critique of Political Economy, vols. I–III, New York, International Publishers, 1967. Mas-Collell, A., Whinston, M., and Green, J. (1995), Microeconomic Theory, New York, Oxford University Press. Maskin, Eric (forthcoming), “Recent Theoretical Work on the Soft Budget Constraint,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings. Maskin, Eric and Tirole, Jean (1999a), “Unforeseen Contingencies, Property Rights, and Incomplete Contracts,” Review of Economic Studies, 66, 83–114. Maskin, Eric and Tirole, Jean (1999b), “Two Remarks on the Property Rights Literature,” Review of Economic Studies, 66, 139–50. Maskin, Eric and Xu, Chenggang (1999), “Soft Budget Constraint Theories: From Centralization to the Market,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University. Matsui, A. (1991), “Cheap-Talk and Cooperation in Society,” Journal of Economic Theory, 54, 245–58. Matsuyama, K. (1991), “Increasing Returns, Industrialization and Indeterminancy of Equilibria,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 651–67. Mauss, Marcel (1925), The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, New York, W.W. Norton, 1990. Maxwell, Henry (1721), Reasons Offered for Erecting a Bank in Ireland, 2nd edn., Dublin. Mayer, Wolfgang (1981), “Theoretical Considerations on Negotiated Tariff Adjustments,” Oxford Economic Papers, 33, 135–53. Mayer, Wolfgang (1984), “Endogenous Tariff Formation,” American Economic Review, 74, 970–85. McGuirk, A. M. and Mundlak, Y. (1992). “The Transition of Punjab Agriculture: A Choice of Technique Approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, Feb., 132–43. McKenzie, L. W. (1955), “Equality of Factor Prices in World Trade,” Econometrica, 23(3), 239–57. McMillan, J. (1996), “Markets in Transition,” in David Kreps and Kenneth Wallis (eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. McMillan, J., Whalley, J., and Zhu, L. (1989), “The Impact of China’s Economic Reforms on Agricultural Productivity Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 97, 781–807. McNeill, W. (1963), The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. McNeil, W. (1974), The Shape of European History, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Meek, R. and Skinner, A. (1973), “The Development of Adam Smith’s Ideas on the Division of Labor,” Economic Journal, 83, 1094–1116. Meier, G. (1994), “ ‘The Progressive State’ in Classical Economics,” in From Classical Economics to Development Economics, New York, St. Martin’s Press. Meier, G. (1994), From Classical Economics to Development Economics. New York, St. Martin’s Press. Meier, G. (1995), Leading Issues in Economic Development, New York, Oxford University Press. Meier, G. and Seers, Dudley, eds. (1984), Pioneers in Development, New York, Oxford University Press. Men Qinguo (1988), “On the Ownership Structure of Modern Corporation,” Young Economists Forum, 4, Tianjin. Meng, Xin and Perkins, France (1996), “The Destination of China’s Enterprise Reform: A Case Study from a Labor Market Perspective,” Australian National University, Aug. Menger, Carl (1871), Principles of Economics, trans. James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz, New York, New York University Press. Michio, Nagai and Urrutia, Miguel, eds. (1985), Meiji Ishin: Restoration and Revolution, Tokyo, United Nations University. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1982), “Limit Pricing and Entry under Incomplete Information,” Econometrica, 40, 433–59. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1990), “Bargaining, Influence Costs, and the Organization of Economic Activity,” in J. Alt and K. Shepsle, eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 57–89. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992), Economics, Organization and Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
604 R EFERENCES Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1994), “The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy and Organization,” American Economic Review, 80, 511–28. Mill, John Stuart (1848), Principles of Political Economy, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1970. Mills, E. (1967), “An Aggregative Model of Resource Allocation in a Metropolitan Area,” American Economic Review, 57, 197–210. Mills, E. and Hamilton, B. (1984), Urban Economics, Glenview, Ill., Scott, Foresman and Co. Minami, Ryoshin and Hondai, Susumu (1995), “An Evaluation of the Enterprise Reform in China: Income Share of Labor and Profitability in the Machine Industry,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 36(2), Dec., 125–43. Mitchell, B. R. (1998), International Historical Statistics: Europe, 1750–1993, London, Macmillan Reference; New York, Stockton Press. Modigliani, Franco (1989), The Collected Papers of Franco Modigliani, vol. 5, Saving, Deficits, Inflation, and Financial Theory, ed. Simon Johnson, Cambridge, Mass. and London, MIT Press. Mokyr, Joel (1990), The Lever of Richs: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, New York, Oxford University Press. Mokyr, Joel (1993), “The New Economic History and the Industrial Revolution,” in J. Mokyr, ed., The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective, Boulder and Oxford, Westview Press. Monteverde, K. and Teece, D. J. (1982), “Supplier Switching Costs and Vertical Integration in the Automobile Industry,” Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 206–13. Morgan, Peter and Manning, Richard (1985), “Optimal Search,” Econometrica, 53, 923–44. Morgan, T. (1970), “Trends in Terms of Trade, and Their Repercussion on Primary Products.” Morris, C. and Adelman, I. (1988), Comparative Patterns of Economic Development, 1850–1914, Johns Hopkins Studies in Development Series, Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press. Mueller, M. (1998), “China’s Telecommunications Sector and the WTO: Can China Conform to the Telecom Regulatory Principles?” in James Dorn, ed., China in the New Millennium: Market Reforms and Social Development, Washington, DC, CATO Institute. Murakami, Naoki, Liu, Deqiang, and Otsuka, K. (1996), “Market Reform, Division of Labor, and Increasing Advantage of Small-scale Enterprises: The Case of the Machine Tool Industry in China,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 23, 256–77. Murphy, K., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (1989a), “Industrialization and the Big Push,” Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1003–26. Murphy, K., Schleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (1989b), “Income Distribution, Market Size, and Industrialization,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 537–64. Murphy, K., Schleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (1991), “The Allocation of Talent: Implications for Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 503–30. Murphy, K., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. (1992), “The Transition to a Market Economy: Pitfalls of Partial Reform,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Aug., 889–906. Murphy, K. and Topel, R. (1987), “The Evolution of Unemployment in the United States, 1968–1985,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2, 11–58. Murphy, K. and Welch, F. (1991), “The Role of International Trade in Wage Differentials,” in Workers and Their Wages: Changing Patterns in the United States, ed. M. Kosters, Washington, DC, American Enterprise Institute. Murray, Christopher J. L. and Lopez, Alan D., eds. (1996), The Global Burden of Disease, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Myrdal, Gunnar (1956), Development and Underdevelopment, National Bank of Egypt Fiftieth Anniversary Commemoration Lectures, Cairo, 47–51. Myrdal, G. (1957), Economic Theory and the Underdeveloped Regions, London, Duckworth. Naisbitt, John (1990), Megatrends 2000: The New Directions for the 1990s, New York, Morrow. Nash, J. F. (1950), “The Bargaining Problem,” Econometrica, 18, 115–62. Nath, S. K. (1962), “The Theory of Balanced Growth,” Oxford Economic Papers, 14(2), 138–53. National Research Council (1986), Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions, Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences Press. Naughton, Barry (1994a), “Chinese Institutional Innovation and Privatization from Below,” American Economic Review, 84(2), May, 266–70.
R EFERENCES
605
Naughton, Barry (1994b), “What is Distinctive about China’s Economic Transition? State Enterprise Reform and Overall System Transformation,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 18(3), June, 470–90. Naughton, Barry (1995), Growing Out of the Plan, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Nee, V. and Sijin, S. (1993), “Local Corporatism and Informal Privatization in China’s Market Transition,” Working Paper on Transitions from State Socialism no. 93–2, Einaudi Center for International Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Nee, V. (1996), “Changing Mechanisms of Stratification in China,” American Journal of Sociology, 101(4), Jan., 908–49. Nelson, R. (1956), “A Theory of the Low Level of Equilibrium Trap in Under-developed Economies,” American Economic Review, 46, 894–908. Nelson, R. (1995), “Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change,” Journal of Economics Literature, 33, 48–90. Nettels, Curtis (1962), The Emergence of a National Economy, 1775–1815, New York. Ng, S. (1995), Economic Openness and Growth, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Ng, Y.-K. (1986), Meseconomics, a Micro–Macro Analysis, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf. Ng, Y.-K. (1992), “Business Confidence and Depression Prevention: A Mesoeconomic Perspective,” American Economic Review, 82, 365–71. Ng, Y.-K. and Yang, X. (1997), “Specialization, Information, and Growth: A Sequential Equilibrium Analysis,” Review of Development Economics, 1, 257–74. Ng, Y.-K. and Yang, X. (2000), “Effects of Externality-Corrective Taxation on the Extent of the Market and Network Size of Division of Labor,” Seminar Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Nolan, Peter (1993), State and Market in the Chinese Economy: Essays on Controversial Issues, London, Macmillan. North, D. (1958), “Ocean Freight Rates and Economic Development,” Journal of Economic History, 18, 537–55. North, D. (1981a), Structure and Change in Economic History, ch. 12, New York, Norton. North, D. (1981b), “The Industrial Revolution Reconsidered,” in North, 1981a. North, D. (1986), “Measuring the Transaction Sector in the American Economy,” in S. Eugerman and R. Gallman, eds., Long Term Trends in the American Economy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. North, D. (1987), “Institutions, Transaction Costs and Economic Growth,” Economic Inquiry, 25, 419–28. North, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, New York, Cambridge University Press. North, D. (1994), “Economic Performance through Time,” American Economic Review, 84, 359–68. North, D. and Thomas, R. (1970), “An Economic Theory of the Growth of the West World,” The Economic Review, 23, 1–17. North, D. and Weingast, Barry (1989), “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England,” Journal of Economic History, 49, 803–32. Nurkse, R. (1953), Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries, New York, Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, Frederick (1925), “American Tobacco and French Politics, 1783–1789,” Political Science Quarterly, 40, 501–3. Oh, S. (1989), “A Theory of a Generally Acceptable Medium of Exchange and Barter,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 23, 101–19. Ohlin, B. (1933), Interregional and International Trade, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Oi, Jean (1986), “Commercializing China’s Rural Cadres,” Problems of Communism, 35, 1–15. Oi, Jean (1992), “Fiscal Reform and the Economic Foundations of Local State Corporatism in China,” World Politics, 45(1), Oct. Oi, Jean (1995), “The Role of the Local Government in China’s Transitional Economy,” China Quarterly, 144, 1132–49. Olson, Mancur (1982), The Rise and Decline: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, New Haven, Yale University Press.
606 R EFERENCES Olson, Mancur (1996), “Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why Some Nations are Rich and others Poor,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2). O’Rourke, K. and Williamson, J. (1994), “Late Nineteenth Century Anglo-American Factor–Price Convergence: Were Heckscher and Ohlin Right?” Journal of Economic History, 54, 892–916. Osborne, M. and Rubinstein, A. (1990), Bargaining and Markets, Boston, Academic Press. Ostroy, J. (1973), “The Informational Efficiency of Monetary Exchange,” American Economic Review, 63, 597–610. Ostroy, J. and Starr, R. (1990), “The Transactions Role of Money,” in B. Friedman and F. Hahn, eds., Handbook of Monetary Economics, vol. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland. Owen, T. (1997), “Autocracy and the Rule of Law in Russian Economic History,” in J. Sachs and K. Pistor, eds., The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Page, Scott E. (1999), “On the Emergence of Cities,” Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 184–208. Palma, Babriel (1978), “Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment?” World Development, 6, 899–902. Panagariya, Arvind (1983), “Variable Returns to Scale and the Heckscher–Ohlin and Factor–Price Equalization Theorems,” World Economics, 119, 259–80. Parkin, M. (1986), “The Output–inflation Tradeoff when Prices are Costly to Change,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 200–24. Patten, R. H. and Rosengard, J. K. (1991), Progress with Profits: The Development of Rural Banking in Indonesia, San Francisco, ICS Press. Paxson, C. (1999), “Parental Resources and Child Abuse and Neglect,” American Economic Review, 89, 239–44. Pei, M. (1998), “The Growth of Civil Society in China,” in James Dorn, ed., China in the New Millennium: Market Reforms and Social Development, Washington, DC, CATO Institute. Peng, Yusheng, (1992), “Wage Determination in Rural and Urban China: A Comparison of Public and Private Industrial Sectors,” American Sociological Review, 57(2), April, 198–213. Perkins, D., ed. (1977), Rural Small-Scale Industry in China, Berkeley, University of California Press. Perkins, D. (1988), “Reforming China’s Economic System,” Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 601–45. Perkins, Frances, Zheng, Yuxing, and Cao, Yong (1993), “The Impact of Economic Reform on Productivity Growth in Chinese Industry: A Case of Xiamen Special Economic Zone,” Asian Economic Journal, 7(2), 107–46. Petty, William (1671), Political Arithmetics, in C. H. Hull, ed., Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, reissued, New York, Augustus M. Kelly, 1963. Petty, William (1683), Another Essay on Political Arithmetics, in C. H. Hull, ed., Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, reissued, New York, Augustus M. Kelly, 1963. Philips, Ulrich (1929), Life and Labor in the Old South, Boston, Little, Brown, and Co. Pigou, A. C. (1940), War Finance and Inflation, in Neal, Larry, ed., The Elgar Reference Collection, International Library of Macroeconomic and Financial History Series, vol. 12, Aldershot, UK, Elgar. Pilon, Roger (1998), “A Constitution of Liberty for China,” China in The New Millennium: Market Reforms and Social Development, Washington, DC, CATO Institute. Pincus, Jonathan J. (1975), “Pressure Groups and the Pattern of Tariffs,” Journal of Political Economy, 83, 757–78. Pipe, R. (1999), Property and Freedom, New York, Alfred Knopf. Pistor, K. (1997), “Company Law and Corporate Governance in Russia,” in J. Sachs and K. Pistor, eds., The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Plato (380 bc) (1955), The Republic, trans. H. D. P. Lee, Harmondsworth, Penguin Classics. Prebisch, R. (1988), “Dependence, Interdependence and Development,” Cepal Review, 34, 197–205. Prendergast, C. (forthcoming), “The Provision of Incentives in Firms,” Journal of Economic Literature. Prescott, E. (1986), “Theory Ahead of Business Cycle Measurement,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 10, 9–22. Prestowitz, Clyde V., Jr, et al. (1994), “The Fight over Competitiveness,” Foreign Affairs, 73(4), 186–97. Pritchett, L. (1997), “Divergence, Big Time,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(3). Prosterman, Roy, Hanstad, Tim, and Li, Ping (1996), “Can China Feed Itself?” Scientific American, Nov., 90–6.
R EFERENCES
607
Puga, Diego and Venables, Anthony (1998), “Agglomeration and Economic Development: Import Substitution vs. Trade Liberasation,” Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper no. 377, London, London School of Economics. Qian, Y. (1994a), “Incentives and Loss of Control in an Optimal Hierarchy,” Review of Economic Studies, 61(3), 527–44. Qian, Y. (1994b), “A Theory of Shortage in Socialist Economies based on the ‘Soft Budget Constraint,’ ” American Economic Review, 84, 145–56. Qian, Yingyi (1999), “The Institutional Foundations of China’s Market Transition,” Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, Washington, DC. Qian, Y. (forthcoming), “The Process of China’s Market Transition (1978–98), The Evolutionary, Historical, and Comparative Perspectives,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. Qian, Y. and Roland, Gerard (1998), “Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint,” American Economic Review, 88(5), Dec., 1143–62. Qian, Y., Roland, Gerard, and Xu, Chenggang (1999), “Coordinating Changes in M-form and U-form Organizations,” mimeo, Stanford University. Qian, Y. and Weingast, Barry R. (1997), “Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), Fall, 83–92. Quah, D. (1993), “Galton’s Fallacy and Tests of The Convergence Hypothesis,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 95(4), 427–43. Quah, D. (1996), “Twin Peaks: Growth and Convergence in Models of Distribution Dynamics,” Economic Journal, 100, 1045–55. Quigley, John M. (1998), “Urban Diversity and Eonomic Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(2), 127–38. Rabushka, A. (1987), The New China: Comparative Economic Development in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Radelet, Steven and Sachs, Jeffrey (1998a), “The Onset of the East Asian Financial Crisis,” Paper presented at the National Bureau of Economic Research Currency Crisis Conference. Radelet, Steven and Sachs, Jeffrey (1998b), “Shipping Costs, Manufactured Exports, and Economic Growth,” mimeo, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge, Mass. Radner, R. (1992), “Hierarchy: The Economics of Managing,” Journal of Economic Literature, 30, 1382–1415. Radner, R. (1993), “The Organization of Decentralized Information Processing,” Econometrica, 61, 1109–46. Rae, J. (1834), Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy, reissued, New York, Augustus M. Kelly, 1964. Ram, Rati (1997), “Level of Economic Development and Income Inequality: Evidence from the Postwar Developed World,” Southern Economic Journal, 64, 576–83. Ramey, G. and Ramey, V. (1995), “Cross-Country Evidence on the Link between Volatility and Growth,” American Economic Review, 85, 1138–51. Ramsey (1928), “A Mathematical Theory of Saving,” Economic Journal, 38, 543–59. Ranis, G. (1988), “Analytics of Development: Dualism,” in Handbook of Development Economics, ed. H. Chenery and T. Srinivasan, vol. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 74–92. Rashid, Salim (1986), “Adam Smith and the Division of Labor: A Historical View,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 33, 292–7. Rawski, Thomas (1986), “Overview: Industry and Transport,” in US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, China’s Economy Looks Toward the Year 2000: Volume 1. The Four Modernizations, May, Washington DC. Ray, Debraj (1998), Development Economics, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Rebelo, S. (1991), “Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 99, 500–21. Reingnum, Jennifer F. (1982), “Strategic Search Theory,” International Economics Review, 23, 1–17. Reynolds, Bruce (ed.) (1987), Reform in China: Challenges and Choices, New York, M. E. Sharpe. Reynolds, L. (1985), Economic Growth in the Third World, 1850–1980, New Haven, Yale University Press. Ricardo, D. (1817), The Principle of Political Economy and Taxation, London, Gaernsey Press, 1973.
608 R EFERENCES Riezman, Raymond (1982), “Tariff Retaliation from a Strategic Viewpoint,” Southern Economic Journal, 48, 583–93. Riskin, C. (1971), “Small Industry and the Chinese Model of Development,” China Quarterly, 46, 245–73. Riskin, C. (1987), China’s Political Economy: The Quest for Development Since 1949, Studies of the East Asian Institute of Columbia University, New York, Oxford University Press, 1987. Robbins, L. (1968), The Theory of Economic Development in the History of Economic Thought, London, Macmillan, New York, St. Martin’s Press. Roland, G. (2000), Politics, Markets and Firms: Transition and Economics, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Romano, R. E. (1994), “Double Moral Hazard and Resale Price Maintenance,” RAND Journal of Economics, 25, 455–66. Romer, P. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–37. Romer, P. (1987), “Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 77, 56–72. Romer, P. (1990), “Endogenous Technological Change,” Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102. Romer, P. (1993), “The Origins of Endogenous Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3–22. Ronnas, Per (1993), “Township Enterprises in Sichuan and Zhejiang: Establishment and Capital Generation,” National Workshop on Rural Industrialization in Post-Reform China, Beijing, China, Oct. Rosen, S. (1978), “Substitution and the Division of Labor,” Economica, 45, 235–50. Rosen, S. (1983), “Specialization and Human Capital,” Journal of Labor Economics, 1, 43–9. Rosenberg, N. and Birdzell, L. E. (1986), How the West Grew Rich: Economic Transformation of the Industrial World, New York, Basic Books. Rosenstein-Rodan, P. (1943), Problems of industrialization in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Economic Journal, June–Sept. Rostow, W. W. (1960), The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rotemberg, Julio, (1987), “The New Keynesian Micro Foundations,” in Stanley Fischer, ed. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1987, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Rubinstein, A. (1982), “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,” Econometrica, 50, 97–108. Rubinstein, A. (1985), “A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information,” Econometrica, 53, 1151–72. Rybczynski, T. M. (1955), “Factor Endowments and Relative Commodity Prices,” Economica, 22, 336–41. Sachs, J. (1986), “Managing the LDC Debt Crisis,” Brookings Paper, 397–443. Sachs, J. (1987), “US Commercial Banks and the Developing Country Debt Crisis,” with H. Huizinga, Brookings Papers on Economic Activitv, no. 2. Sachs, J. (1988), Review Essay: ‘Recent Studies of the Latin American Debt Crisis,’ ” Latin American Research Review, 23(3), 170–9. Sachs, J. (1989), “Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies,” with N. Roubini, ed., European Economic Review, 33(5), 903–38. Sachs, J. (1992), “Privatization in Russia: Some Lessons from Eastern Europe,” American Economic Review, 82, 43–8. Sachs, J. (1993), “An Update on Reform in Eastern Europe and Russia,” China Economic Review, 4(2). Sachs, J. (1994), “Understanding ‘Shock Therapy,’ ” Social Market Foundation Occasional Paper no. 7, London. Sachs, J. (1995), “The Age of Global Capitalism,” Foreign Policy, 98, Spring. Sachs, J. (1996a), “Globalization and the US Labor Market,” The American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, May. Sachs, J. (1996b), “The Tankers Are Turning – Sachs on Competitiveness,” World Link, Sept./Oct. Sachs, J. (1996c), “On the Tigers Trail, – Sachs on Competitiveness,” World Link, Nov./Dec. Sachs, J. (1996d), “Notes on the Life Cycle of State-led Industrilization,” Japan and the World Economy, 8, 153–74. Sachs, J. (1997), “Globalization is the Driving Force for Growth in the US,” The Rising Tide: The Leading Minds of Business and Economics Chart a Course Toward Higher Growth and Prosperity, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
R EFERENCES
609
Sachs, J. (1998), Lecture Notes for Capitalist Economic Development, Department of Economics, Harvard University. Sachs, J. and Pistor, K. (1997), “Introduction: Progress, Pitfalls, Scenarios, and Lost Opportunities,” in J. Sachs and K. Pistor, eds., The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Sachs, J. and Shartz, H. (1994), “Trade and Jobs in US Manufactures,” Brookings Papers on Activity, 1, 1–84. Sachs, J. and Shartz, H. (1997), The Rule of Law and Economic Reform in Russia, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press. Sachs, J. and Warner, A. (1995a), “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1. Sachs, J. and Warner, A. (1995b), Natural Resources and Economic Growth, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University mimeo ( Jan.). Sachs, J. and Warner, A. (1997), “Fundamental Sources of Long-Run Growth,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 87, 184–8. Sachs, J. and Woo, W. T. (1994), “Structural Factors in the Economic Reforms of China, Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union,” Economic Policy, 18, April. Sachs, J. and Woo, W. T. (1996), “China’s Transition Experience,” Transition: The Newsletter About Reforming Economies, 73–4, March–April, The World Bank Transition Economics Division. Sachs, J. and Woo, W. T. (1999), “Understanding China’s Economic Performance,” Journal of Policy Reforms, forthcoming. Sachs, J., Woo, W., and Parker, S. (1997), Economies in Transition: Comparing Asia and Europe, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Sachs, J. and Yang, X. (1999), “Gradual Spread of Market-Led Industrialization,” Harvard Center for International Development Working Paper no. 11; reprinted as “Market-Led Industrialization and Globalization,” Journal of Globalization, 17 (2002), 223–42. Sachs, J., Yang, X., and Zhang, D. (2001a), “Trade Pattern and Economic Development when Endogenous and Exogenous Comparative Advantages Coexist,” China Economic Review, 11, 189–209; also Harvard Center for International Development Working Paper no. 3. Sachs, J., Yang, X., and Zhang, D. (2001b), “Patterns of Trade and Economic Development in the Model of Monopolistic Competition,” Review of Development Economics, 6 (2002), 1–25; also Harvard Center for International Development Working Paper no. 14. Sah, R. and Stiglitz, J. (1988), “Committees, Hierarchies and Polyarchies,” The Economic Journal, 98, 451–70. Sah, R. (1991), “Fallibility in Human Organizations and Political Systems,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 67–88. Sah, R. and Stiglitz, J. (1984), “The Economics of Price Scissors,” American Economic Review, 74, 125–38. Sah, R. and Stiglitz, J. (1986), “The Architecture of Economic Systems,” American Economic Review, 76, 716–27. Sah, Raj and Stiglitz, J. (1991), “The Quality of Managers in Centralized versus Decentralized Organizations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 289–95. Sala-i-Martin, X. (1996), “The Classical Approach to Convergence Analysis,” Economic Journal, 106, 1019–36. Samuelson, P. A. (1939), “Interactions Between the Multiplier Analysis and the Principle of Acceleration,” Review of Economic Statistics, 21, 75–8. Samuelson, P. A. (1948), “International Trade and the Equalisation of Factor Prices,” Economic Journal, 58(230), 163–84. Samuelson, P. A. (1953), “Prices of Factors and Goods in General Equilibrium,” Review of Economic Studies, 21(1), 1–20. Sapsford, D. (1985), “The Statistical Debate on the Net Barter Terms of Trade Between Primary Commodities and Manufactures,” Economic Journal, 95, 781–8. Sargent, T. and Wallace, N. (1975), “ ‘Rational Expectations,’ the Optimal Monetary Instrument, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule,” Journal of Political of Economy, 83, 241–54.
610 R EFERENCES Schultz, T. W., ed. (1974), Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Schultz, T. W. (1993), Origins of Increasing Returns, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, New York, Oxford University Press. Schumpeter, J. (1939), Business Cycles, New York, McGraw-Hill. Schurmann, H. (1968), Ideology and Organization in Communist China, Berkeley, University of California Press. Schweizer, U. (1986), “General Equilibrium in Space,” in J. J. Gabszewicz et al. eds., Location Theory, London, Harwood. Scitovsky, T. (1954), “Two Concepts of External Economies,” Journal of Political Economy, 62, 143–51. Scott, A. J. (1988), Metropolis: From the Division of Labor to Urban Form, Berkeley, University of California Press. Segal, I. (1999), “A Theory of Incomplete Contracts,” Review of Economic Studies, 66, 57–82. Segerstrom, P. (1998), “Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects,” American Economic Review, 88, 1290 –1310. Segerstrom, P., Anant, T., and Dinopoulos, E. (1990), “A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle,” American Economic Review, 80, 1077–91. Seierstad, A. and Sydsater, K. (1987), Optimal Control Theory with Economic Applications, Amsterdam, North-Holland. Selten, R. (1975), “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games,” International Journal of Game Theory, 3–4, 25–55. Sen, A. K. (1977), “Starvation and Exchange Entitlements: A General Approach and Its Application to the Great Bengal Famine,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2, 33–59. Sen, A. K. (1981) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Sen, A. K. (1983), “Development: Which Way Now?” Economic Journal, 93, 742–62. Sen, A. K. (1988), “The Concept of Development,” Handbook of Development Economics, ch. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland. Sen, Partha (1998), “Terms of Trade and Welfare for a Developing Economy with an Imperfectly Competitive Sector,” Review of Development Economics, 2, 87–93. Servaes, Henri (1996), “The Value of Diversification During the Conglomerate,” Journal of Finance, 51, 1201–25. Shapiro, C. and Stiglitz, J. (1984), “Equilibrium Umnemployment as a Worker Discipline Device,” American Economic Review, 74, 433–44. Shea, Jia-Dong and Yang, Ya-Hwei (1994), “Taiwan’s Financial System and the Allocation of Investment Funds,” in Joel Aberbach, David Dollar, and Kenneth Sokoloff, eds., The Role of State in Taiwan’s Development, Armonk, NY, M. E. Sharpe, 193–230. Sheahan, J. (1958), “International Specialization and the Concept of Balanced Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 52, 183–97. Shi, H. (1994), “Implications of Imperfect Competition and Specialization on Business Cycles and Economic Structure,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Shi, H. and Yang, X. (1995), “A New Theory of Industrialization,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 20, 171–89. Shi, H. and Yang, X. (1998), “Centralised Hierarchy within a Firm vs. Decentralised Hierarchy in the Market,” in K. Arrow, Y.-K. Ng, and X. Yang, eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Shleifer, A. (1986), “Implementation Cycles,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1163–90. Shleifer, A. (1994), “Establishing Property Rights,” Paper presented at World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, Washington, DC. Shleifer, A. (1998), “State versus Private Ownership,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 133–50. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1992), “Pervasive Shortages Under Socialism,” RAND Journal of Economics, 23, 237–46. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1993), “The Politics of Market Socialism,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University. Shooman, Martin (1968), Probabilistic Reliability: An Engineering Approach, New York, McGraw-Hill.
R EFERENCES
611
Simon, Curtis and Nardinelli, Clark (1996), “The Talk of the Town: Human Capital, Information, and the Growth of English Cities, 1861–1961,” Explorations of Economic History, 33, 384–413. Singer, H. W. (1984), “Industrialization: Where Do We Stand? Where Are We Going?,” Industry & Development, 0(12), 79–87. Singh, Nirvikar (1989), “Theories of Sharecropping,” in Pranab Bardhan, ed., The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Skaperdas, S. (1992), “Cooperation, Conflict, and Power in the Absence of Property Rights,” American Economic Reiview, 82, 720–39. Skinner, J. (1988), “Risky Income, Life Cycle Consumption, and Precautionary Savings,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 237–55. Skousen, Mark (1997), “The Perseverance of Paul Samuelson’s Economics,” Journal Economic Perspective, 11, 137–53 Smith, Adam (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, reprint, ed. E. Cannan, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1976. Smith, Sheila and Toye, John (1979), “Three Stories About Trade and Poor Economies,” Journal of Development Studies. Smythe, D. (1994), “Book Review: Specialization and Economic Organization: A New Classical Microeconomic Framework,” Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 691–2. Solinger, D. (1992), “Urban Entrepreneurs and the State: The Merger of State and Society,” in State and Society in China: The Consequences of Reform, ed. A. Rosenbaum, Boulder, Westview Press. Solow, R. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94. Sonnenschein, H. (1973), “Do Walras’ Identity and Continuity Characterize the Class of Community Excess Demand Functions?” Journal of Economic Theory, 6, 345–54. Spence, M. A. (1976), “Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition,” Review of Economic Studies, 43, 217–36. Spraos, John (1983), Inequalizing Trade: a study of traditional north/south specialisation in the context of terms of trade concepts, New York, Oxford University Press. Srinivasan, T. N. (1964), “Optimum Savings in a Two-Sector Model of Growth,” Econometrica, 32, 358–74. Stahl, I. (1972), Bargaining Theory, Stockholm, Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics. Starrett, D. (1973), “Inefficiency and the Demand for Money in a Sequence Economy,” Review of Economic Studies, 40, 289–303. Stern, N. (1989), “Survey of Development,” Economic Journal, 99, 597–685. Stigler, G. (1951), “The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market,” Journal of Political Economy, 59, 185–93. Stigler, George J. (1961), “The Economics of Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–25. Stigler, George (1976), “The Successes and Failures of Professor Smith,” Journal of Political Economy, 84, 1199–1213. Stiglitz, J. (1974), “Incentives and Risk-sharing in Sharecropping,” Review of Economic Studies, 41, 219–55. Stiglitz, J. (1986), “The New Development Economic,” World Development, 14, 257–65. Stiglitz, J. (1988), “Economic Organization, Information and Development,” in H. Chenery and T. N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, Amsterdam, North-Holland, vol. I. Stiglitz, J. (1989), “Rational Peasants, Efficient Institutions, and a Theory of Rural Organization: Methodological Remarks for Development Economics,” in P. Bardhan, ed., The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Stiglitz, J. (1992), “Capital Markets and Economic Fluctuations in Capitalist Economies,” European Economic Review, 36, 269–306. Stiglitz, Joseph (1998), “Sound Finance and Sustainable Development in Asia,” Keynote Address to the Asia Development Forum, The World Bank Group. Stiglitz, Joseph and Weiss, A. (1986), “Credit Rationing and Collateral,” in J. Edwards and C. Mayer, eds., Recent Development in Corporate Finance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
612 R EFERENCES Stokey, N. (1991), “Human Capital, Product Quality, and Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 587–616. Stolper, Wolfgang and Samuelson, Paul (1941), “Protection and Real Wages,” Review of Economic Studies, 9, 58–73. Streetern, P. (1956), “Unbalanced Growth,” Oxford Economic Papers, 6, 167–90. Summer, L. (1992), “The Challenges of Development,” Finance & Development, March, 6–8. Summers, A. and Heston, A. (1988), “Penn World Tables Mark 5: 1950–1988,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 340–67. Sun, G. (1999), Increasing Returns, Roundabout Production and Urbanization: A General Equilibrium Analysis of the Division of Labor. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Sun, G. (2000), “The Size of the Firm and Social Division of Labour,” Australian Economic Papers, 39, 263–77. Sun, G. and Lio, M. (1996), “A General Equilibrium Model Endogenizing the Level of Division of Labor and Variety of Producer Goods,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Sun, G. and Yang, X. (1998), “Evolution in Division of Labor, Urbanization and Land Price Differentials between Urban and Rural Areas,” Harvard Institute for International Development Discussion Paper no. 639, HIID, Cambridge, Mass. Sun, G., Yang, X., and Yao, S. (1999), “The Theoretical Foundation of Economic Development Based on Networking Decisions in the Competitive Market,” Harvard Center for International Development Working Paper no. 17. Sutcliffe, R. (1964), “Balanced and Unbalanced Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79. Swan, T. W. (1956), “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation,” Economic Record, 32, 334–61. Tabuchi, Takatoshi (1998), “Urban Agglomeration and Dispersion: A Synthesis of Alonso and Krugman,” Journal of Urban Economics, 44, 333–51. Tamura, R. (1991), “Income Convergence in an Endogenous Growth Model,” Journal of Political Economy, 99, 522–40. Tamura, R. (1992), “Efficient Equilibrium Convergence: Heterogeneity and Growth,” Journal of Economic Theory, 58, 355–76. Taylor, J. (1980), “Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts,” Journal of Political Economy, 88, Feb., 1–23. Taylower, George (1932), “Wholesale Commodity Prices at Charleston, South Carolina, 1732–1792,” Journal of Economic and Business History, 4, 367. Temple, J. (1999), “The New Growth Evidence,” Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 112–56. Thirwall, A. P. (1984), “A General Model of Growth and Development of Kaldorian Lines,” in The Economics of Growth and Development: Selected Essays of A. P. Thirwall, Aldershot, UK, Elgar. Thirwall, A. P. (1994), Growth and Development:With Special Reference to Developing Economies, London, Macmillan. Thompson, Henry (1995), “Free Trade and Income Redistribution in Some Developing and Newly Industrialized Countries,” Open Economies Review, 6, 265–80. Thorp, R. ed. (1984), Latin America in the 1930s: The Role of the Periphery in World Crisis, New York, St. Martin’s Press. Tirole, J. (1986), “Hierarchies and Bureaucracies: On the Role of Collusion in Organizations,” Journal of Law and Economic Organization, 2, 181–214. Tirole, J. (1989), The Theory of Industrial Organization, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Tirole, Jean (1999), “Incomplete Contracts: Where Do We Stand?” Econometrica, 67, 741–81. Todaro, M. (1969), “A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment,” American Economic Review, 59(1), 138–48. Trefler, Daniel (1993), “International Factor Price Differences: Leontief was Right!” Journal of Political Economy, 10(6), 961–87. Trefler, Daniel (1995), “The Case of the Missing Trade and Other Mysteries,” American Economic Review, 85, 1029–46. Tucker, Josiah (1755), The Elements of Commerce and Theory of Taxes, London. Tucker, Josiah (1774), Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects, Gloucester, R. Taikes.
R EFERENCES
613
Turgot, A. R. J. (1751), “Lettre à Madame de Graffigny sur les lettres d’une Peruvienne,” in G. Schelle, ed., Oeuvres de Turgot et Documents le concernant, vol. I, Paris, F. Alcan, 1913. Turgot, A. R. J. (1766), Reflections on the Production and Distribution of Wealth, in P. D. Groenewegen, ed., The Economics of A. R. J. Turgot, The Hague, Nijjhoff, 1977. UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) (1950), The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems, New York, United Nations. US Department of Commerce (1972–1999), Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. US Department of Commerce (1975), Historical Statistics of the United States, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office. Uzawa, H. (1959), “Prices of the Factors of Production in International Trade,” Econometrica, 27(3), 448–68. Uzawa, H. (1965), “Optimum Technical Change in an Aggregative Model of Economic Growth,” Review of Economic Studies, 6, 18–31. Van Zandt, T. (1995), “Hierarchical Computation of the Resource Allocation Problem,” European Economic Review, 39, 700–8. Varian, Hal (1993), Microeconomic Analysis, New York, Norton. Vogel, E. (1989), One Step Ahead in China: Guangdong Under Reform, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Vogt, W. (1969), “Fluktuationen in einer washsenden Wirtschaft under klassischen Bedingungen,” in G. Bombach, ed., Wachstum, Einkommensverteilung und wirtschaftliches Gleichgewicht, Berlin, Duncker und Humblot. von Mises, L. (1922), Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Indianapolis, Liberty Classics, reprinted 1981. von Mises, Ludwig (1924), The Theory of Money and Credit, London, Jonathan Cape, 1934. von Thünen, J. H. (1826), Der Isolierte Staat in Bezierhung auf landwrirtschaft und Nationalekonomie – The Isolated State, trans. Carla M. Wartenberg, New York, Pergamon, 1966. Walder, A. (1986), “The Informal Dimension of Enterprise Financial Reforms,” in The Chinese Economy Toward the Year 2000, Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, Washington DC, US Government Printing Office. Walder, A. (1989), “Factory and Manager in an Era of Reform,” The China Quarterly, 118, June, 242–64. Walder, A. (1992), “Local Bargaining Relationships and Urban Industrial Finance,” in Bureaucracy, Politics, and Decision Making in Post Mao China, eds. K. Lieberthal and D. Lampton, Berkeley, University of California Press. Walder, Andrew (1995), “China’s Transitional Economy: Interpreting its Significance,” China Quarterly, 144, Dec., 963–79. Walker, Amasa (1874), Science of Wealth: A Manual of Political Economy, Boston, Little Brown; New York, Kraus Reprints, 1969. Wallace, N. (1980), “The Overlapping Generations Model of Fiat Money,” in J. Karenken and N. Wallace, eds., Models of Monetary Economics, Minneapolis, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Wank, D. (1993), From State Socialism to Community Capitalism: State Power, Social Structure, and Private Enterprise in a Chinese City, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Harvard University. Wartenberg, C. M. (1966), Von Thünen’s Isolated State, London, Pergamon. Weber, Max (1927), General Economic History, trans. Frank H. Knight, New York, Greenberg. Weber, Max (1961), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York, Routledge, Chapman & Hall. Weber, Max (1968), Economy and Society, An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, eds. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, trans. Ephraim Fischoff et al., New York, Bedminster Press. Webster, A., ed. (1990), Structural Change in the World Economy, London, Routledge. Weibull, Jorgen (1995), Evolutionary Game Theory, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Weitzman Martin L. (1979), “Optimal Search for the Best Alternative,” Econometrica, 47, 641–54. Weitzman, M. (1982), “Increasing Returns and the Foundations of Unemployment Theory,” The Economic Journal, 92, 787–804.
614 R EFERENCES Weitzman, M. (1994), “Monopolistic Competition with Endogenous Specialization,” Review of Economic Studies, 61, 45–56. Weitzman, M. (1998), “Recombinant Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 331–60. Weitzman, M. and Xu, Chenggang (1994), “Chinese Township Village Enterprises as Vaguely Defined Cooperatives,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 18, Sept., 121–45. Wen, M. (1997), “Infrastructure and Evolution in Division of Labor,” Review of Development Economics, 1, 191–206. Wen, M. (1997), Division of Labor in Economic Development, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Wen, M. (1998), “An Analytical Framework of Consumer-Producers, Economies of Specialisation and Transaction Costs,” in K. Arrow, Y.-K. Ng, and X. Yang, eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. West, E. G. (1964), “Adam Smith’s Two Views of the Division of Labor,” Economica, 3, 23–32. WHO. (1997a), “World Malaria Situation in 1994, Part I,” WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, 36, 269–74. Williamson, J. G. (1992), “The Evolution of Global Labor Markets in the First and Second World Since 1830: Background Evidence and Hypotheses,” SAE Working Paper 36, Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research (Feb.). Williamson, J. G. (1993), “Economic Convergence: Placing Post-famine Ireland in Comparative Perspective,” Discussion Paper no. 1654, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Institute of Economic Research (Sept.). Williamson, J. G. (1998), “Globalization, Labor Markets and Policy Backlash in the Past,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 51–72. Williamson, O. (1967), “Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size,” Journal of Political Economics, 75, 123–38. Williamson, O. (1985), Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, The Free Press. Wong, C. (1985), “Material Allocation and Decentralization: Impact of the Local Sector on Industrial Reform,” in The Political Economy of Reform in Post Mao China, eds. E. Perry and C. Wong, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Wong, C. (1986a), “The Economics of Shortage and Problems of Reform in Chinese Industry,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 10, 363–87. Wong, C. (1986b), “Ownership and Control in Chinese Industry: The Maoist Legacy and Prospects for the 1980s,” in The Chinese Economy Toward the Year 2000, Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, Washington DC, US Government Printing Office. Wong, K.-Y. and Yang, X. (1994), “An Extended Dixit–Stiglitz Model with the Tradeoff Between Economies of Scale and Transaction Costs,” Seminar Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Wong, K.-Y. and Yang, X. (1998), “An Extended Ethier Model with the Tradeoff Between Economies of Scale and Transaction Costs,” in K. Arrow, Y.-K. Ng, and X. Yang, eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Woo, Wing Thye, Hai, Wen, Jin, Yibiao, and Fan, Gang (1994), “How Successful Has the Chinese Enterprise Reform Been?” Journal of Comparative Economics, 18(3), June, 410–37. Woodward, C. (1951), Origins of the New South, 1877–1913. New York. World Bank (1992), Development Report 1992. Environment and Resource Problems, New York, Oxford University Press. World Bank (1997), Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World, New York, Oxford University Press. World Bank (1981–99), World Development Report, various issues, Washington DC, World Bank. Wu, Jieh-min (1998), Local Property Rights Regime in Socialist Reform: A Case Study of China’s Informal Privatization. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York. Xing, Yujing (1999), “Renminbi Ziben Xiangmo Keduihuan (Is Liberalization of Capital Account of China Urgent),” Economic Highlights, 38, 2. Yang, X. (1984), Jingji Kongzhilun Chubu (Introduction to Economic Cybernetics), Changsha, Hunan People’s Press. Yang, X. (1988), “A Microeconomic Approach to Modeling the Division of Labor Based on Increasing Returns to Specialization,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Princeton University.
R EFERENCES
615
Yang, X. (1991), “Development, Structure Change, and Urbanization,” Journal of Development Economics, 34, 199–222. Yang, X. (1994), “Endogenous vs. Exogenous Comparative Advantages and Economies of Specialization vs. Economies of Scale,” Journal of Economics, 60, 29–54. Yang, X. (1996), “A New Theory of Demand and the Emergence of International Trade from Domestic Trade,” Pacific Economic Review, 1, 215–17. Yang, X. (1998), Economics and China’s Economy, Beijing, Beijing Zhaocheng Press. Yang, X. (1999), “The Division of Labor, Investment, and Capital,” Metroeconomica, 50, 301–24. Yang, X. (2000a), Economics: New Classical Versus Neoclassical Frameworks, Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell. Yang, X. (2000b), “Incomplete Contingent Labor Contract, Asymmetric Residual Rights and Authority, and the Theory of the Firm,” Seminar Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Yang, X. and Borland, J. (1991a), “A Microeconomic Mechanism for Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 99, 460–82. Yang, X. and Borland, J. (1991b), “The Evolution of Trade and Economic Growth,” mimeo, University of Melbourne, Australia. Yang, X. and Borland, J. (1992), “Specialization and Money as a Medium of Exchange,” Department of Economics Seminar Paper no. 8/92, Monash University, Australia. Yang, X. and Heijdra, B. (1993), “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity: Comment,” American Economic Review, 83, 295–301. Yang, X. and Hogbin, G. (1990), “The Optimum Hierarchy,” China Economic Review, 2, 125–40. Yang, X. and Ng, Y.-K. (1993), Specialization and Economic Organization, a New Classical Microeconomic Framework, Amsterdam, North-Holland. Yang, X. and Ng, Y.-K. (1995), “Theory of the Firm and Structure of Residual Rights,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26, 107–28. Yang, X. and Ng, S. (1998), “Specialization and Division of Labor: A Survey,” in K. Arrow, Y.-K. Ng, and Xiaokai Yang, eds., Increasing Returns and Economic Analysis, London, Macmillan. Yang, X. and Rice, R. (1994), “An Equilibrium Model Endogenizing the Emergence of a Dual Structure between the Urban and Rural Sectors,” Journal of Urban Economics, 25, 346–68. Yang, X. and Shi, H. (1992), “Specialization and Product Diversity,” American Economic Review, 82, 392–8. Yang, X., Wang, J., and Wills, I. (1992), “Economic Growth, Commercialization, and Institutional Changes in Rural China, 1979–1987,” China Economic Review, 3, 1–37. Yang, X. and Wills, I. (1990), “A Model Formalizing the Theory of Property Rights,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 14, 177–98. Yang, X. and Yeh, Y. (2002), “An Equilibrium Model with Endogenous Principal–agent Relationship and Endogenous Specialization,” Australian Economic Papers, 41, 15–36. Yang, X. and Zhang, D. (1999), “International Trade and Income Distribution,” Harvard Center for International Development Working Paper no. 18. Yang, X. and Zhang, D. (2000), “Endogenous Structure of the Division of Labor, Endogenous Trade Policy Regime, and a Dual Structure in Economic Development,” Annals of Economics and Finance, 1, 203–21. Yang, X. and Zhao, Y. (1998), “Endogenous Transaction Costs and Evolution of Division of Labor,” Monash University, Department of Economics Working Paper. Ye, Xingqing (1999), “Another Detriment of Urbanization,” Economic Highlights, 365, Dec. 31, p. 1. Yellen, J. L. (1984), “Efficiency Wage Models of Unemployment,” American Economic Review, 74, 200–5. Yi, Gang (1988), “The Efficiency of the Market and the Delimiting of Property Rights,” China: Development and Reform, no. 12, Beijing. Young, Allyn (1928), “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” The Economic Journal, 38, 527– 42. Young, Alwyn (1991), “Learning by Doing and the Effects of International Trade,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 369–406. Young, Alwyn (1993), “Invention and Bounded Learning by Doing,” Journal of Political Economy, 101, 443–72. Young, Alwyn (1998), “Growth without Scale Effects,” Journal of Political Economy, 106, 41–63.
616 R EFERENCES Young, Leslie (1991), “Heckscher–Ohlin Trade Theory with Variable Returns to Scale,” Journal of International Economics,” 31, 183–90. Zaleski, E. (1980), Stalinist Planning for Economic Growth, 1933–1952, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. Zhang, D. (1999), “Inframarginal Analysis of Asymmetric Models with Increasing Returns,” Ph.D. dissertation, Wuhan University, Center for Advanced Economic Studies. Zhang, Gang (1993), “Government Intervention versus Marketisation in China’s Rural Industries: The Role of Local Governments,” National Workshop on Rural Industrialization in Post-Reform China, Beijing, China, Oct. Zhang, J. (1997), “Evolution in Division of Labor and Macroeconomic Policies,” Review of Development Economics, 1, 236–45. Zhang, Weiying (1999), The Theory of the Firm and China’s Enterprise Reforms (Qiye Lilun Yu Zhongguo Qiye Gaige), Peking University Press. Zhang, Yongsheng (2000), “Irrelevance of the Size of the Firm: Theory and Empirical Evidence,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Renmin University. Zhao, Y. (1999), “Information, Evolution of the Institution of the Firm, and the Optimal Decision Horizon,” Review of Development Economics, 3, 336–53. Zhou, Lin, Sun, Guangzhen, and Yang, Xiaokai (1998), “General Equilibria in Large Economies with Endogenous Structure of Division of Labor,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia. Zhou, Qiren (1999), “Ba Chuangye Huangdao Diyiwei Lai, Ba Jiuye Huangdao Dierwei Qu (Put Founding Firms before Finding Employment),” Economic Highlights, 37, 1. Zhou, Taihe, ed. (1984), Dangdai Zhongguo de Jingji Tizhi Gaige (Economic System Reforms in Contemporary China), Beijing, China Social Science Press. Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina (1998), “Incentives to Provide Local Public Goods: Fiscal Federalism, Russian Style,” mimeo, Harvard University. Zweig, David (1991), “Rural Industry: Constraining the Leading Growth Sector in China’s Economy,” Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, China’s Economic Dilemmas in the 1990s: The Problems of Reforms, Modernization, and Interdependence, April, Washington DC, Government Printing Office.
I NDE X 617
INDEX
Notes: page numbers in italics refer to information in the questions, exercises, or notes. Abbreviations used are: CES = constant elasticity of substitution; GDP = Gross Domestic Product; GHM model = Grossman–Hart–Moore model; GNP = Gross National Product; HO model = Heckscher–Ohlin model; KV model = Krugman–Venables model; MSV model = Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny model; PPF = production possibility frontier; SS theorem = Stolper–Samuelson theorem. absence of ownership theory 547–8 absolute advantage comparative compared 61 endogenous 11, 92, 102, 115 absolute convergence 409, 420, 440 absolute information asymmetry 465 absolute price of labor 202, 513 acquired comparative advantage 137 adaptive decision rule 460, 461 adverse selection 258, 281–3 agglomeration economies 342, 343, 349–50, 355–66 aggregate demand 513 unemployment 513–18 aggregate variables 513 agricultural sector China 562–4 development trap 181, 182 economies of specialization 390 Ethier model 139–44, 390 evolution of division of labor 208, 209 geographical factors 42, 43, 46 industrialization labor surplus model 371–2 modern crop varieties 393–4 Smithian model 371, 375–9, 381–3 Sun–Lio model 390 KV model 169–79, 181, 182–3 urbanization as driver for development 368 endogenized land prices 355–66 Fujita–Krugman model 341–2, 344 –6, 365 general equilibrium model 343, 349–50, 355–66 Yang–Rice model 342, 346–9, 365 AK model 401, 402–3, 408–9, 417
Alchian–Demsetz model, residual returns 246 allocation efficiency 74 market socialism 121, 547 and organization efficiency 120–1 and taxation 119–20 alternating-offer bargaining games 272–4, 283–7 Asian financial crisis behavior norms 556 insurance 306, 328, 330–1 Taiwan 577 authoritarian systems 10 bang-bang control 427, 431, 443 banking system 4 China 571, 580 Russia 558 bargaining costs, pricing process 450, 456 bargaining games see alternating-offer bargaining games; Nash bargaining game Barro regression 442 Barro–Sala-i-Martin model 410–16 Bayes equilibrium model 274 –5 perfect Bayes equilibrium 275–8 Bayes updating rule 276 Becker–Murphy model 216–17, 221 big-bang economic transition 546 big-push industrialization 139, 373, 433 Krugman’s ideas 151 MSV model 144 –7 Sachs–Yang model 149 social experiments 466–7 socialist systems 549, 552, 553 Borland–Yang money model 499, 500–1, 507, 509
618 I NDEX business cycles 519–23, 520, 525, 526–7, 528–9, 530–1 neoclassical models 518–19 and unemployment 517–19, 520–1, 522–3 corner equilibria 525–31 emergence of firms 534 –6 endogenous risk 514 general price levels 531–4 policy implications 531, 532, 533, 536 welfare implications 531 Yang model 523–5 calculus of variations (dynamic marginal analysis) 401, 403, 405–6, 427, 443, 444 capital and division of labor 476, 477, 488–95 mobility in transition economies 573–4 capital–labor ratios, growth models 410 capitalist economic development 1–10, 23–6 dual structures 185 economies of scale 151 endogenous transaction costs 255, 277–8, 288, 294, 297 centralized pricing mechanism 110, 111 centrally planned systems see socialist systems certain equivalent wealth (CEW) 259–60 balanced incentive contracts 337 moral hazard 263–4 CES utility function 116–18, 194, 210–14 R&D-based growth models 410–11 Cheng model of money 501–3, 507, 509 Cheung–Coase theory, firms 233, 242–3 Chinese socialist systems 551–5 market-oriented reforms 557–8, 561–2, 578–81 corruption 563–4, 571–2, 579, 580 land system 562–4, 572, 579 spontaneous privatization 571–2 state-owned enterprises 567, 568–71 township-village enterprises 564 –8 CIF/FOB margins 45 circular causation evolution of division of labor 442–3 industrialization 372–3 cities 2 development see urbanization positive externalities see economies of agglomeration classical development economics xxi–xxii, 1–10, 20–2 inframarginal analysis for formalizing 9, 13 return to 10–15 technological progress 3, 4 –5, 10–11, 20, 370–1 Coase theorem of the firm 233, 242–3, 291 coastal regions 45–6 capitalist development 54 division of labor 42–3, 51 economic policy choices 52–3 per capita GDP 37, 39, 40–1 per capita income growth 49–50, 51–2 per capita income levels 47 population density 39, 51, 53 Cobb–Douglas production function Ramsey model 404 –8 Solow model 402
cobweb model, incentive–stability trade-offs 574 –7 colonialism 4, 48 commercialization degree of empirical evidence 438, 439 Smithian model 206, 209, 213 production roundaboutness 373–4 Yang–Rice model 342, 346–9 commitment game Chinese reforms 581 endogenous transaction costs 291–2 commodity money 499, 507 business cycles 522, 528 communication technology 29, 30 communism see socialist systems comparative advantage 59 absolute advantage compared 61 acquired 137 endogenous see endogenous comparative advantage exogenous see exogenous comparative advantage comparative dynamics general equilibrium 59, 431–2, 435, 440 investment and saving model 490, 491–2, 493 Smithian macroeconomic analysis 513 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 463–4 comparative statics of decisions 108, 115, 117–18, 119, 201 comparative statics of general equilibrium 58, 59, 71, 72–3 Dixit–Stiglitz 136 dual structures 162–7, 172–6, 177–9, 181, 182–3 Ethier 142 HO 88–9 money 507, 508 resource allocation–division of labor 118, 119 structural change phenomena 204 –9 Yao 113–16, 122 competitiveness, trade policy 82 conditional convergence 409 configurations 109 business cycle model 525, 526, 527–8, 529 dual structures 160–1, 162–3 emergence of firms 235, 236, 237 endogenous comparative advantage CES utility function 117–18 division of labor 109, 111–12, 114 with exogenous 160–1, 162–3 resource allocation–division of labor 118, 119 Smithian models 104 –8, 109, 122, 160–1 taxation effects 120 exogenous comparative advantage with endogenous 160–1, 162–3 Ricardian model with 63–6, 69–70 general equilibrium defined 112 industrialization 377–9, 382, 387–8 investment and saving 483–7 market role in division of labor 109, 111–12, 114, 203 production roundaboutness 454, 455, 456 transition economies 575 urbanization 346–7
I NDE X 619 constant elasticity of substitution (CES) utility function 116–18, 194, 210–14, 410–11 constitutional rules 12–13, 29 economic transition 544 –6 Chinese reforms 561–72, 578–81 driving mechanisms 555–7 dual track approach 545, 546 see also Chinese reforms Russian reforms 557, 558–61 socialist systems 551, 557–61 consumption endogenous evolution of division of labor 422, 423, 424, 425, 435 endogenous growth 401 endogenous growth models AK 409 dynamic 402–3 R&D-based 410–11, 412, 414 –16 Ramsey 401, 403–4, 405–8 investment 476 consumption variety 14, 193–4 Dixit–Stiglitz model 132–8 endogenous growth models 402, 403, 410–16 industrialization 371, 375 investment and saving 489 management cost 211 movement with division of labor 194, 210–14 Smithian model 195–7, 371, 375 urbanization 341–2, 345, 349 contingent contracts 258, 261–2, 264, 265–70, 314 contract(s) Chinese state firms 568, 581 endogenous transaction costs 258 incomplete contract model 288–91, 295–6 learning by doing 425–6 neoclassical principal–agent models 261–4 Smithian model 265–70 trade-offs with exogenous 313–14, 317–18, 332–3 franchise networks 124 incomplete model of 243, 250, 288–91, 295–6 institution of the firm 243, 250, 264, 289–91, 295–6, 337 monetary policy 532 control rights, employers’ 229–30, 236 entrepreneurship 231–2 principal–agent model 262 control theory calculus of variations 444 endogenous growth models 427, 431, 435, 443, 444 convergence 409, 420, 440–2 coordination cost trade-offs 216–17, 221 coordination failure 271 first global capitalist system 6–7 mass unemployment 514 risk of see coordination reliability coordination reliability 303–4, 332–6 endogenous risk 307–10, 311–12 reducing risk 305 endogenization 310–19 ex-socialist countries 573
insurance 305–6, 320–4, 573 insurance and moral hazard 324 –31 risk sharing–incentive trade-off 305, 306, 324 –31 ex-communist countries 573–7 transaction cost trade-offs 304 –5, 310–19 copyright see intellectual property corner demand 106 corner demand functions 117 corner equilibria cyclical unemployment 525–31 definition 109 emergence of firm 235–8 endogenous variables 111 and general equilibrium 112 dual structures 162, 163–4 industrialization Smithian model 377–9 Sun–Lio model 388–9, 390 investment and saving 484, 485–8 market role in division of labor 109–16 money 505–7 Pareto optimum 112, 113 social experiments 449, 451–2, 453, 454 –5, 456, 464 specialization in trading activities 215 corner equilibrium solutions xxi, xxii, 9 control theory 444 efficient resource allocation 74 endogenous comparative advantage CES utility function 117 resource allocation–division of labor 118, 119 Smithian models 102–9, 115, 122 taxation effects 120 endogenous transaction costs Nash game 280 Smithian model 266–9 exogenous comparative advantage Nash game 78 Ricardian model 61, 67, 69–71, 74, 77, 78–9 KV model 170–1, 173–4 transition economies 575 corner indirect utility functions 117 corner structures, HO model 84, 88 corner supply 106, 117 corruption 563–4, 571–2, 579, 580 costate variables 444 cottage firms, MSV model 144 –7 Cournot oligopoly model, Nash game in 274 –5 creative destruction 72, 382, 518 credit associations, informal 481–2 credit markets, sequential equilibrium model 275–8 credit systems 498–9, 501, 507 business cycles 522, 528, 530, 534, 536 cultural factors 54 –5, 556 cyclical unemployment see unemployment, cyclical cyclical variability see business cycles decision–information relation see organizational information decisions see comparative statics of decisions; optimum decisions
620 I NDEX demand aggregate 513 unemployment 513–18 double coincidence with supply 498–9, 500–1 elasticity of, Dixit–Stiglitz model 135 individuals’ specialization decisions 201 law of reciprocal 106 market function 110 neoclassical law of 108, 117, 118 Smithian law of 108 demand functions 106 corner 117 Dixit–Stiglitz model 135 emergence of firm 238 market coordination 110, 111 depression 6–7, 514 destructive creation process 72, 382, 518 developed countries 29–31 development, problems of, definition 115–16 development strategies, KV model 182–3 development trap 181, 182–3 Dewatripont–Maskin model 291–2 disaggregate variables 513 discount factor Ramsey model 405 Rubinstein model 272, 273, 274 divergence 440–2 diversification degree of 207–8, 209 and specialization 220 diversification cone see interior structures division of labor xxi, xxii, 98–9 Becker–Murphy model 216–17, 221 business cycles 520, 522 corner equilibria 525–31 emergence of firms 534 –6 price levels 531–4 capital 476, 477, 488–95 capitalist economic development 1, 3, 6–7, 255 classical development economics 1, 3, 20, 21–2 endogenous absolute advantage 11 general equilibrium models 14 –15 inframarginal analysis 9, 13 scientific approach 17–18 Smithian model 11, 13, 100–9 Young theorem 11 see also endogenous comparative advantage consumption variety 194, 210–14 coordination cost trade-offs 216–17, 221 coordination reliability 303–4, 333–4 endogenous risk 307–10 reducing risk 305, 310–19 reducing risk with insurance 305–6, 320–31, 573 transaction cost trade-offs 305, 310–19 definitions 131 dilemma of Pareto optimality 465 Dixit–Stiglitz model 137 dual structures 157–8 Smithian model 159–61, 164 –9 economies of see economies of division of labor
economies of scale 218–19 emergence of firms 233–41, 242–3, 246–8, 534 –6 endogenous comparative advantage 13, 14, 98–100, 124 –7 allocation efficiency 120–1 CES utility function 116–18 equilibrium resource allocation 118–19 with exogenous 159–61, 164 –9 extent of 207 market coordination 107, 109–16 organization efficiency 120–1 Smithian models 13, 100–9, 121–2, 159–61 taxation effects 119–20 endogenous evolution of 421–3 dynamic equilibrium 427–36 endogenous comparative advantage 437, 438 endogenous growth theory 438–43 function of contracts 425–6 income share of transaction costs 437–8 individual’s dynamic decision 426–7 market extent 437, 438, 442 Smith–Young model 424 –5, 435, 436, 438–43, 444 trade dependence 437, 438 endogenous growth models 410, 416 endogenous trade theory 138, 193, 207, 209–10 endogenous transaction costs 255 moral hazard 265–70, 305, 306 Nash bargaining games 278–81, 282 subgame perfect equilibrium 283–7 Ethier model 143–4 evolution of concurrent information evolution 459–67 endogenous see division of labor, endogenous evolution of exogenous 114, 115, 205–9 investment and saving 490, 493 roundabout production chain 455 socialist system 547–55 exogenous comparative advantage 58, 59–60 analysis of decisions 68–74 with endogenous 159–61, 164 –9 HO model 83–90 Ricardian model 61–7, 68–74 trade policy 80, 82, 91–2 fixed learning costs 195–7 geographical patterns 352–3 geography 41–4, 45–6, 51, 52–3 income as development measure 75–6 individuals’ specialization 198–201, 206, 213 roundabout production 374 –5, 376–8, 380–1 industrialization 370–1, 391–6 high-development economics 373 roundabout production 373–85, 390 Smith–Young model 371, 373, 375–7 Sun–Lio model 386–90 institution of the firm 229–30 Coase theorem 243 emergence of firms 233–41, 246–8 entrepreneurship 232 firm size 249–50
I NDE X 621 insurance 305–6, 320–4, 325–31, 573 investment 476–7, 482–95 learning by doing 421–3 dynamic equilibrium 429, 435 endogenous comparative advantage 437 function of contracts 425–6 income share of transaction costs 437–8 market extent 437, 438 Smith–Young model 424 –5, 435, 436, 438–43, 444 trade dependence 437 unemployment 517 level of concurrent phenomena 204 –9 definition 70 market determination 201–4 money models 499–509 neoclassical development economics 9–10 network effects see network effects of division of labor occupation configuration 64 –5 organizational information 449, 450 concurrent evolution 459–67 information costs 453 Pareto optimality 452–3, 465 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453, 456–67 static Smithian equilibrium model 454 –5 professional middlemen 194 –5, 214 –16 property rights 302–3, 305 endogenous risk 307–10 insurance 325–31 transaction cost trade-offs 310–19 Smithian models 11, 13, 100–9 and Dixit–Stiglitz model 137–8 dual structures 159–61, 164 –9 economic transition 549 endogenous comparative advantage 13, 100–9, 121–2, 159–61 endogenous trade theory 138, 193, 207, 209–10 industrialization 370–1, 373, 374 –85 investment 476–7, 482–95 learning by doing 424 –5, 435, 436, 438–43, 444 property rights 303, 306, 307–19 social experiments see division of labor, organizational information state-planned development 9 structures see structure transition economies 547–55, 573–7 unemployment cyclical 518–19, 520, 525–36 mass 514 natural 515–17 urbanization 14, 341–3 empirical evidence 365–6, 367–8 endogenized land prices 343, 355–66 Fujita–Krugman model 341–2, 344 –6, 365 general equilibrium models 343, 349–66 Yang–Rice model 342, 346–9, 365 Dixit–Stiglitz (DS) model 132–8 monopoly power 135–6, 256 and neoclassical growth models 402 Smithian trade model compared 210
domestic trade, and international 193, 209–10 see also Dixit–Stiglitz model; Ricardian model dual structures 157–8, 184 –8 industrialization 371–2, 383 KV model 158, 169–79 development strategies 182–3 development trap 181, 182–3 HO model compared 179 industrialization–income–structure 181–2 SS theorem compared 180, 181 tariff effects 180–1 Smithian model 158, 159–69 urban–rural areas 341, 342, 346–9, 360 durable producer goods 518, 520–1, 522, 523–5 corner equilibria 525–31 emergence of firms 534 –6 price levels 531–4 dynamic corner equilibria business cycle model 525–31 investment and saving 484, 485–8 dynamic decisions–organizational information 450 information costs 453 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453, 456–67 dynamic game models 272 sequential equilibrium of credit market 275–8 subgame perfect equilibrium 272–4, 283–7 dynamic general equilibrium models 58, 59 economic growth 402–3 AK 402–3, 408–9, 417 R&D-based 403, 410–16, 417, 439 endogenous evolution of division of labor contracts 425–6 dynamic equilibrium 427–36 individual’s decision problem 426–7 Smith–Young 424 –5, 435, 436, 438–43, 444 saving and investment 476–8, 482–8, 489–92 social experiments 456–67 unemployment 519–34, 535–6 dynamic inframarginal analysis (bang-bang control) 427, 430–1, 443 dynamic marginal analysis (calculus of variations) 401, 403, 405–6, 427, 443, 444 dynamic organisms 462 dynamic programming growth models 443 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 457–60 e-commerce 31 economic growth business cycles 518, 519–22 China 554 –5, 569 models of see endogenous growth models; exogenous growth models nontopological properties 492–4 post-communist countries 560, 573 economic growth patterns, division of labor 432–5 economic history, new school 11, 12, 22–6 economic transition 544 –6 driving mechanisms 555–7
622 I NDEX economic transition (cont’d) ex-socialist countries financial crises 573–7 output falls 572–7 post-communist eastern Europe 556–7, 560, 573 Russia 557, 558–61, 573 socialist systems 547–55 Chinese reforms 561–72, 578–81 economies of agglomeration type I 342, 343 type II 343, 349–50, 355–66 economies of consumption variety 14 Dixit–Stiglitz 132–8 investment and saving 489 urbanization 341–2, 345, 349 economies of division of labor classical concept 131 coordination reliability 303–4, 307–10 ex-socialist countries 574 –7 insurance 320–4 dual structures 166 emergence of firm 236 endogenous comparative advantage 102, 197 endogenous growth models 439 evolution of division of labor 443 exogenous comparative endowment advantage 83, 88–9 exogenous comparative productivity advantage 13, 71–2 external economies of scale 131 first welfare theorem 114 fixed learning costs 197 learning by doing 421 Smithian models 193, 439, 454 urbanization 343, 355–66 economies of roundabout production 374 –5 economies of specialization 374 –5, 376–7, 380–1, 382, 390 Smithian–Coasian model of institution of the firm 234 type A 376 type B 376 type C 376, 385 economies of scale 131–2 division of labor 218–19 economies of scope 218 emergence of firm 236 endogenous growth models 403, 439 external 10, 131 with general equilibrium models 14, 132, 151 Dixit–Stiglitz 132–8 dual structures 158, 169–76, 181 Ethier 138–44 KV 169–76, 181 MSV 144 –7 Sachs–Yang 147–51 industrialization 372, 373 scale effects see scale effects urbanization 341–2, 344 –6, 350, 365 economies of scope 218, 220–1
economies of specialization consumption variety 194, 210–14 dual structures 167–9 emergence of firm 236 endogenous comparative advantage 101, 102, 114, 122 endogenous evolution of division of labor 423, 424, 425, 426, 435, 436 endogenous production roundaboutness 454, 455 industrialization 374 –5, 376–7, 380–1, 382, 386, 390 investment and saving 489, 490–1, 493 money models 500–1, 507 total factor productivity 234 unemployment 517, 524 –5 urbanization 342, 346–9 economies of specialized learning by doing 423 business cycles 521, 522, 524, 531, 535–6 investment 477–8, 482–3, 489 Smithian model 425, 435 economies of variety of goods see economies of consumption variety efficiency wage model 517–18, 541 efficient contract institution of the firm 264, 337 neoclassical principal–agent models 262, 264 efficient organizations (organisms) 74, 119–21, 203 efficient resource allocation 74, 119–21, 547 elasticity, income, trade policy 28 elasticity of demand, Dixit–Stiglitz model 135 elasticity of substitution, constant (CES) 116–18, 194, 210–14, 410–11 empirical analysis of economic development 16 business cycles 518 convergence 420, 440, 441–2 endogenous growth models 409–10, 420, 438–43 exogenous comparative advantage 60 moral hazard and insurance 330–1 scale effects 138, 151, 403, 409, 412–15, 476 transaction efficiency 151, 213 urbanization 365–6 employee–employer relations institution of the firm 229–30 agency issues 243–4 balanced incentives 337 emergence of firm 236–8, 246–8 entrepreneurship 231–3, 244–5 firm size 249–50 principal–agent models 243–4, 262, 337 endogenous absolute advantage 11, 92, 102, 115 endogenous comparative advantage 13–14, 92, 102, 115 allocation efficiency 120–1 definition 102 dual structures 157, 158, 159–69, 177–9 economies of division of labor 102, 197 endogenous evolution of division of labor 437, 438 evolution of division of labor 207 with exogenous comparative advantage 157, 158, 159–69, 177–9 extent of 207, 209, 213 fixed learning costs 197 market role in division of labor 107, 109–16
I NDE X 623 market socialism 121 model with CES utility function 116–18 organization efficiency 120–1 resource allocation–division of labor 118–19 Smithian models 13–14, 100–9 with exogenous comparative advantage 159–69 extent of 207, 209, 213 trade patterns in 121–2 taxation effects 119–20 vs. exogenous comparative 98–100 endogenous decision horizons, investment 494 –5 endogenous degree of externality 12 endogenous evolution of division of labor 421–3 dynamic equilibrium 427–36 endogenous comparative advantage 437, 438 endogenous growth theory 438–43 function of contracts 425–6 income share of transaction costs 437–8 individual’s dynamic decision 426–7 market extent 437, 438, 442 Smith–Young model 424 –5, 435, 436, 438–43, 444 trade dependence 437, 438 endogenous externality 12, 306, 317, 318–19 endogenous growth, definition 401 endogenous growth models 401, 402 AK 401, 402–3, 408–9, 417 business cycles 518 convergence 409, 420, 440–2 divergence 440–2 empirical evidence 409–10, 420, 438–43 R&D-based 403, 410–16, 417, 439 Ramsey model 403–8, 409 scale effects 403, 409, 412–13, 414 –15 Smithian and division of labor 432–6, 438–43, 444 Uzawa–Lucas 409, 418 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 451 endogenous specialization 68 Becker–Murphy model 216–17, 221 endogenous transaction costs 265–70, 278–9, 283–5, 287–8 first welfare theorem 74, 114 information asymmetry 208 insurance 305, 320–4 professional middlemen 194 –5, 214–16 Smithian models 193–4, 195–7, 210–14 industrialization 370–1, 375–85 investment 476–7 principal–agent 265–70 property rights 303, 307–10 urbanization 342, 346–9 variety of goods 193–4, 210–14 endogenous technical progress 194 endogenous trade theory 138, 193, 207, 209–10 endogenous transaction costs 14, 17, 62, 254 –7, 294 –8 caused by adverse selection 258, 281–3 caused by holding up 285–7 caused by moral hazard 257–60 insurance 305, 306, 324 –31 neoclassical principal–agent models 260–5 Smithian principal–agent models 265–70
Dewatripont–Maskin model 291–2 economic transition 544 empirical evidence 438–9 game models 256–7, 270 alternating-offer bargaining 272–4, 283–7 Bayes equilibrium 274 –5 commitment game 291–2 endogenous specialization 287–8 mixed strategies 272, 286 Nash bargaining 270–2, 278–83 sequential equilibrium 275–8 subgame perfect equilibrium 272–4, 283–7 GHM incomplete contract model 288–91, 295–6 learning by doing 425–6 noncredible commitment 291–2 R&D-based growth models 416 reputation mechanism 287–8 soft budget constraint 291–2 trade-off with exogenous insurance 324 –31 property rights 304 –5, 309–19, 332–3, 334 –5 Type A 277 Type B 277 types I–IV 329–30 endowment, exogenous differences 60, 83–90 entrepreneurship 14 endogenous comparative advantage 92 income as development measure 75 industrialization 384 –5 role of residual rights 231–3, 244–5, 246, 248 sequential equilibrium model 275–8 envelope theorem 204 –5 equilibrium models see dynamic general equilibrium models; general equilibrium models Ethier model and neoclassical growth models 402 and Sun–Lio model 389, 390 with transaction costs 138–44 Euler equation AK model 408–9 Barro–Sala-i-Martin model 411 and control theory 444 Ramsey model 406, 407 ex ante, meaning 59 ex ante production function 242 ex post, meaning 59 ex post production function 242 exogenous comparative advantage 11, 13, 59–60 dynamic growth models 443 with endogenous 157, 158, 159–69, 177–9 endowment 60, 83–90 technological see exogenous comparative technological advantage vs. endogenous 98–100 exogenous comparative endowment advantage 60 HO model 83–90 exogenous comparative technological advantage 60 decision analysis 67–74 equilibrium analysis 67–74 HO model 88–9
624 I NDEX exogenous comparative technological advantage (cont’d) labor surplus and industrialization 372 per capita GDP 74 per capita GNP 74 –6 trade policy 76–82 transaction costs 63–7, 72–4 exogenous evolution of division of labor 114, 115, 205–9 exogenous growth, definition 401 exogenous growth models 401–2 exogenous transaction costs 62, 254 trade-off with endogenous insurance 324 –31 property rights 304 –5, 310–19, 332–3, 334 –5 expected utility function 258 neoclassical principal–agent models 260, 261, 262 Smithian principal–agent model 267, 268 experimentation costs 450, 456–9 export-led industrialization 183, 185 export-oriented development strategies 76, 94 see also trade policy extent of market see market extent external economies of scale 131 neoclassical development economics 10 R&D-based growth models 415–16 urbanization 365 externalities of cities, positive see economies of agglomeration externality endogenous 306, 317, 318–19, 333 endogenous degree of 12 pecuniary 153, 372, 373 factor price equalization (FPE) theorem 89, 181 factory system of production 246–8 farming see agricultural sector feasible space of parameters 114 feedback mechanisms, transition economies 573–7 Fei–Renis model 57 feudal system, Chinese-style 566 fiat money 499, 507 business cycles 522, 528, 532, 534 –6 financial crises behavior norms 556 insurance 306, 328, 330–1 transition economies 573–7 firm(s) xxi–xxii Chinese market-oriented reforms 561–2, 564 –71, 578–81 emergence from division of labor 233–41, 242–3, 246–8, 534 –6 ex ante production function 242 ex post production function 242 institution of see institution of the firm post-communist eastern Europe 556–7 principal–agent model 243–4, 262, 337 size China 569 city size 365, 366 division of labor 249–50 equilibrium 233
scale effects 403 Sun–Lio and Ethier models 390 theories of 233, 243–5 first mover advantage 273–4 first welfare theorem 74, 114 fixed learning costs individuals’ specialization 198–201 industrialization 376, 380–1, 382 investment and saving 477, 482, 483, 491–2, 494 –5 Smithian trade model 195–7, 352–3 franchise networks 30–1, 124, 303 free association, right of 248–9, 371 free trade see trade policy Fujita–Krugman model, urbanization 341–2, 344 –6 game models economic transition 546 endogenous transaction costs 256–7, 270 alternating-offer bargaining 272–4, 283–7 Bayes equilibrium 274 –5 commitment game 291–2 endogenous specialization 287–8 mixed strategies 272, 286 Nash bargaining 270–2, 278–83 sequential equilibrium 275–8 subgame perfect equilibrium 272–4, 283–7 payoff functions 270 trade policy 78–80 game rules, economic transition 545, 546, 565–6, 571, 581 general equilibrium 69, 112 consumption variety 213 and corner equilibrium 112 emergence of firm 239–42 extent of market–division of labor 206–7 high-development economics 372–3 multiple, division of labor 203–4 general equilibrium models 7, 11, 13, 14 –15, 57–61 dual structures 157, 158 KV model 169–79 Smithian model 159–69 dynamic see dynamic general equilibrium models with economies of scale 14, 132, 151 Dixit–Stiglitz 132–8 dual structures 158, 169–76, 181 Ethier 138–44 KV model 169–76, 181 Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny 144 –7 Sachs–Yang 147–51 endogenous comparative advantage allocation efficiency 120–1 CES utility function 116–18 organization efficiency 120–1 resource allocation–division of labor 118–19 in Smithian models 112, 115–16, 159–69 taxation effects 119–20 Yao theorem 112, 113–16 endogenous transaction costs 257 moral hazard 265–70 moral hazard and insurance 324 –31 Nash bargaining 278–81
I NDE X 625 exogenous comparative advantage analysis of decisions 67–74 with endogenous 159–69, 177–9 HO model 83–90 Ricardian models 61–7, 77–82 SS theorem 89–90 geography and policy regimes 44 industrialization 372–3, 374 –85, 392 money 499, 500–9 neoclassical 372, 479–82, 547 saving 479–82 Smithian see Smithian models structural changes 193–4 concurrent phenomena 204 –9 network of division of labor 201–4 professional middlemen 194 –5, 214 –16 Smithian model 195–7, 352–3 urbanization 343, 349–66 generalized increasing returns 13, 72 geographical factors 37–41, 54 –5 development trap 181 division of labor 41–4, 45–6, 51, 52–3 urbanization 343, 346, 348, 349–66 dual structures 168, 181 economic policy choices 52–3 per capita income growth 48–52 per capita income levels 47–8 see also geopolitical structures geopolitical structures 2, 3, 54 economic transition 555–6 endogenous transaction costs 295 transportation efficiency 43–4 global capitalism 4 –10 gold standards 5 goods, variety see consumption variety government behavior business cycle implications 531, 532, 533, 536 impact on economic development 21–2, 23–6 endogenous transaction costs 255–6, 277–8, 288, 294, 312 exogenous transaction costs 312 market socialism 121, 548–9 property rights 302–3, 336 social experiments 466 see also constitutional rules; institutions; political structures; socialist systems; trade policy Great Depression 6–7, 514 gross domestic product (GDP) 74 geography 37–41, 47–51 institutional effects on 151 gross national product (GNP) 74 –6 Grossman–Hart–Moore (GHM) incomplete contract model 243, 250, 288–91, 295–6 growth business cycles 518, 519–22 China 554 –5, 569 models of see endogenous growth models; exogenous growth models nontopological properties 492–4 post-communist countries 560, 573
growth patterns, division of labor 432–5 growth trap, Smithian model 435 Hamiltonian function 427, 444 Harrod–Domar model 401–2 health factors 43, 46, 48, 50–1 Heckscher–Ohlin (HO) model 60, 83 inframarginal analysis 13, 83–90 KV model compared 179 high-development economics 11, 14 dual structures 158 industrialization 372–3 MSV model 132, 144 –7 holding up, transaction costs 285–7 Holmstrom–Milgrom principal–agent model 244 balanced incentive contracts 337 endogenous transaction costs 257, 263–4 horizontal external economies 153, 396 iceberg transaction costs 62 SS theorem 89–90 IMF, financial crises 306, 328 import substitution strategies 76, 93–4 KV model 182–3 see also trade policy imports, CIF/FOB margins 45 incentive compatibility condition 261 insurance and moral hazard 326–7 Smithian principal–agent model 268–9 incentive constraint 263 incentive provision–risk sharing trade-off 305, 306, 337 ex-socialist countries 573–7 insurance 324 –31 moral hazard 258, 261–4, 324 –31 income business cycles 521–2, 526–7, 528, 531 as development measure 74 –6 distribution in China 572 dual structures 168–9, 185 KV model 173, 174 –5, 176, 178–9, 181–2 urban–rural 342, 347–9 economies of scale Dixit–Stiglitz model 133, 136 Ethier model 142–3 KV model 173, 174 –5, 176 MSV model 145–6 Sachs–Yang model 147, 149, 150 emergence of firm 238 endogenous evolution of division of labor 432, 433–6, 437–8, 440–2 endogenous growth models 401 AK 409 convergence 440–2 R&D-based 410–11 Ramsey 408 scale effects 403, 409 endogenous transaction costs 255, 269 evolution of division of labor 423 geographical factors 37, 39, 47–52 industrialization 371, 379, 380–2, 389, 393
626 I NDEX income (cont’d) institutional effects on 151 inverted U-curve of inequality 169, 182 investment and saving 478–9, 488, 489–90, 492–4 money models 505–7 natural unemployment 516 Ricardian model 67, 68, 72–3 specialized trading activities 215, 216 state opportunism 255 tariff effects 180 utility equalization condition 107–8 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 456–8 income elasticity, trade policy 28 income transfer schemes 531 incomplete contract model 243, 250, 288–91, 295–6 indirect pricing theory 233, 241, 366 indirect utility function 106, 108 corner 117 dual structures 162–3 market role in division of labor 109, 111, 113 Smithian compared 202 Yao theorem 113 industrial linkages 139, 143, 147, 151, 153 backward 153 forward 153 pecuniary externality 372, 373 production roundaboutness 373–4 industrialization 3, 4 –5, 6–8, 370–5 balanced 373 big-push see big-push industrialization classical development economics 3, 4, 14, 20–1, 22, 25–6, 370 coordination reliability 304 –6, 312 development strategies 182–3 division of labor 370–1, 391–6 evolution of 208, 209, 386–90 high-development economics 373 in roundabout production 14, 371, 373–4, 375–85, 390 Sun–Lio model 386–90 economies of scale Ethier model 139–44 high-development economics 372 industrial linkages see industrial linkages MSV model 144 –7 Sachs–Yang model 147–51 endogenous comparative advantage 92 endogenous growth models, AK 409 export-led 183, 185 Fujita–Krugman urbanization model 344 –5 high-development economics 372–3 institution of the firm 371, 384 –5 institutions 139, 146, 147, 371, 384 –5, 392 KV model 169–79, 181–3 labor surplus model 371–2 neoclassical view 370 role of property rights 302 Smithian model 144, 370–1, 375–85 social experiments 466–7 state-planned 7–8, 27, 373, 549–54
Sun–Lio model 386–90 take-off phenomenon, AK model 409 transaction costs 139–44, 147 endogenous 255, 278, 295, 297, 304 –6, 312 exogenous 304 –6, 312 unbalanced 373 infant mortality 75 infectious diseases 46, 48, 50–1 inflation rate 480 inflation–stagnation phenomenon 533 information asymmetry absolute 465 endogenous transaction costs 256–7, 296 caused by adverse selection 281–3 game models 258, 274 –81 moral hazard model 257–70 evolution of degree of 208, 209 information–decision relation see organizational information information technology 29, 30 inframarginal analysis xxi–xxii, 9, 12, 13, 65–6 dynamic (bang-bang control) 427, 430–1, 443 HO model 13, 83–90 individuals’ specialization 200 nonexistent markets 122 organization efficiency 74 Ricardian model 13, 66–7, 68–74 Smithian models 102–9, 122, 454 –5 see also inframarginal comparative dynamics; inframarginal comparative statics inframarginal comparative dynamics investment and saving model 490, 491–2, 493 Smithian macroeconomic analysis 513 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 463–4 inframarginal comparative statics of decisions 108, 115, 117–18, 119, 201 of general equilibrium consumption variety 213 dual structures 158, 162–7, 170–1, 177–9, 180, 182 emergence of firms 240 endogenous transaction costs 269, 311 exogenous transaction costs 311 HO model 88–9 money models 507, 508 resource allocation–division of labor 118, 119 Ricardian model 71, 72–3 Smith–Young models with trade patterns 122 Smithian macroeconomic analysis 513 structural changes 204 –9 Yao theorem 113–16, 122 inframarginal decisions xxi, 9, 65 institution of the firm 14, 229–31, 246–50 business cycles 534 –6 Cheung–Coase theory 233, 242–3 contract 264 balanced incentives 337 incomplete model of 243, 250, 289–91, 295–6 entrepreneurship 231–3, 244–5 evolution of division of labor 233–41, 246–8 industrialization 371, 384 –5
I NDE X 627 principal–agent models 244, 262, 337 pyramidal hierarchies 245 Smithian–Coasian model 234 institutions 1–6, 8, 10, 11–12, 23–6 economic transition 545, 546 absence of ownership theory 547–8 Chinese reforms 561–72 cultural traditions 556 geopolitical structures 555–6 post-communist eastern Europe 556–7, 560 Russian reforms 558–61 socialist systems 547–8, 549, 550–1, 552, 553 economies of scale 151 emergence of firms 246–8, 248–9 empirical evidence 438–9 endogenous comparative advantage 92 endogenous transaction costs 255, 277–8, 288, 292, 294, 297–8 R&D-based growth models 416 trade-offs with exogenous 312, 317, 335 geographical factors 43–4, 48, 49–50, 52–3, 54 –5, 555 industrialization 139, 146, 147, 371, 384 –5, 392 investment 494, 495 mimicry of 466, 549, 550, 551, 553–4, 556 property rights see property rights social experiments 465, 466 take-off growth 440 see also institution of the firm; insurance insurance 7, 305–6, 319–20 Asian financial crisis 306, 328, 330–1 Lio model 320–31, 573 transition economies 573 integer problem, unemployment 514 –17, 533 integer programming, specialization 200–1 intellectual property 302, 371 endogenous transaction costs 255, 297–8, 332 trade-offs with exogenous 312, 318, 319 industrialization 384 –5, 392 R&D-based growth models 416 reputation mechanism 288 residual rights 232–3, 244, 248 interest rates Barro–Sala-i-Martin model 410, 411–12 discount factor 405 saving models 479–81 sudden decline 493–4 interior solutions xxii, 9 control theory 444 HO model 85 Smithian model 104, 105 interior structures HO model 84, 85–6 Rybczynski theorem 96 SS theorem 90 international competitiveness 82 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 306, 328 international trade, from domestic 193, 209–10 see also Dixit–Stiglitz model; Ricardian model Internet commerce 31
interpersonal dependence, degree of 207–8 interpersonal loans 475, 479–81, 490, 492 intertemporal trade, saving 479 invention costs R&D-based growth models 410–16 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 452 investment 475–6 decision horizons 494 –5 endogenous growth models AK 409 R&D-based 410–11, 416 Ramsey 401, 404 –8 scale effects 403, 409 Smithian 439 exogenous growth models 401–2 future productivity 494 –5 Smith–Young theory 476–8, 482–95 socialist systems 549–50 wage fund argument 476 investment fundamentalism 10–11, 20–1 invisible hand business cycles 520–1 exogenous comparative advantage 68–9, 73–4 industrialization 382–3 social experiments 466 urbanization 365 Jesen inequality 259 job shifting costs 520, 521, 522 emergence of firms 535–6 market structures 526–7, 528–9, 530 policy implications 531 Kiyotaki–Wright model of money 498–9 knowledge, organizational see organizational information Kreps’ sequential equilibrium 450–1, 460, 461, 464 –5 Krugman–Venables (KV) model 158, 169–79, 180–3 labor absolute price of 202, 513 division of see division of labor endogenous growth models 410 industrialization 371–2 Ethier model 139–44 labor contract 262 labor shift models, business cycles 522 labor surplus economies of scale 133–4, 139 industrialization 371–2 labor trade, and institution of the firm 229–30 Cheung–Coase theory 242–3 entrepreneurship 231–3 evolution of division of labor 235–8, 240–1 Lagrange function, control theory 444 laissez faire policy regimes see institutions; trade policy land prices empirical evidence 365–6 Fujita–Krugman model 342 general equilibrium model 343, 350, 355–66 land system, China 562–4, 579
628 I NDEX landlocked regions 45 division of labor 43, 51 economic policy choices 52–3 per capita GDP 37, 39–40, 41 per capita income growth 49–50, 51 per capita income levels 47 Lange’s market socialism 121, 467, 548–9 learning costs individuals’ specialization 198–201 industrialization 376, 380–1, 382 investment and saving 477, 482, 483, 491–2, 494 –5 Smithian trade model 195–7, 352–3 learning by doing 421–3 business cycles 520, 521, 522 emergence of firms 535–6 policy implications 531 Yang model 524 dynamic equilibrium 429, 435 endogenous comparative advantage 437 function of contracts 425–6 income share of transaction costs 437–8 investment 477, 482–3, 489, 492–3, 494 –5 market extent 437, 438 natural unemployment 517 Smith–Young model 424 –5, 435, 436, 438–43, 444 trade dependence 437 legal institutions 2, 3, 5, 25–6 China 560–1, 562 economies of scale 151 endogenous transaction costs 255, 294 intellectual property 297–8 reputation mechanism 288 trade-offs with exogenous 312, 317 entrepreneurship 233, 248–9 industrialization 371 investment 494, 495 neoclassical economic development 10 Russian reforms 558–60 see also property rights leisure time 29 liberalization, financial crises 574 –7 libraries, property rights 317–18 life expectancy, as development measure 75 Linder pattern of trade 137, 221 Lio insurance model 320–31, 573 literacy rate, as development measure 75 loans, interpersonal 475, 479–81, 490, 492 local equilibrium, KV model 172–6, 177 macroeconomic models, business cycles 522 macroeconomic phenomena 513–19 output of durables 522 malaria 46, 48, 50–1 marginal analysis xxi, xxii, 9–10, 65–6 allocation efficiency 74 dynamic (calculus of variations) 401, 403, 405–6, 427, 443, 444 endogenous comparative advantage 104 –5 individuals’ specialization 200
marginal comparative statics of decisions 108, 117, 118, 201 of general equilibrium 115 KV model 172–6, 178–9, 182 resource allocation–division of labor 119 Smithian microeconomic analysis 513 marginal cost pricing 73 marginal decisions xxi, 9, 65 market clearing conditions allocation efficiency 120 corner equilibrium 109 dynamic equilibrium 427–8, 429–30 market role in division of labor 107, 109, 110, 111 organization efficiency 120 R&D-based endogenous growth model 413 tax effects 120 Walras’ law 111 Walrasian auction mechanism 110 market demand function 110 market extent division of labor 206–7, 209, 219, 437, 438, 442 endogenous growth models 415 market failure China 567 coordination reliability 316–17 neoclassical development economics 12 market institutions 4 see also intellectual property market socialism 121, 467, 547, 548–9 market structures business cycle model 525–31, 534 dynamic equilibrium 428–9 investment and saving 483–5 money 503–9 market supply function 110 markets coordination reliability 316–17 individuals’ specialization 198–201 industrial linkages 139 industrialization 382–3 nonexistent 107, 122 population size 415, 417 role in division of labor 107, 109–16, 201–4 Smithian model of integration 208, 209, 213 urbanization 352–5, 363–4, 365 mathematics, role of 15–16, 17–18 maximization problem, nonconstrained 104 –5 maximum principle 427, 435, 444 metropolis–satellite relationships 93 microeconomic models growth 402–3, 404 saving 475 monetary policy, irrelevance 532, 533 money 498 Borland–Yang model 499, 500–1, 507, 509 Cheng model 501–3, 507, 509 commodity 499, 507 business cycles 522, 528
I NDE X 629 fiat 499, 507 business cycles 522, 528, 532, 534 –6 Kiyotaki–Wright model 498–9 structures and monetary regimes 503–9 money substitutes 499, 501, 507 business cycles 522, 530 monopolies China 561–2, 563 economies of scale Dixit–Stiglitz model 135–6, 256 MSV model 145 endogenous transaction costs 256, 297–8 KV model 172 moral hazard 7, 256–8 endogenous transaction costs 257–60 GHM incomplete contract model 288–91 insurance 305, 306, 324 –31 neoclassical principal–agent models 260–5 reputation mechanism 287–8 Smithian principal–agent model 265–70 trade-offs with exogenous 314 insurance 324 –31 transition economies 573, 574, 577 two-sided 288–91 unemployment 517, 541 mortality rates 75 multinational companies 233 Murphy–Shleifer–Vishny (MSV) model 131, 132, 144 –7, 272 Nash bargaining game endogenous transaction costs 270–2 Bayes equilibrium model 274 –5 caused by trade conflict 278–81 information asymmetry 281–3 mixed strategies 286 geographical factors 44, 52 trade policy 78, 79–80 Nash equilibrium 78–9 subgame perfect equilibrium 285–7 see also Nash bargaining game natural resources 43, 48 natural unemployment 514 –17, 533 neoclassical demand law 108, 117, 118 neoclassical development economics xxi–xxii, 8–12, 26–9 decision analysis 108–9 Dixit–Stiglitz model 136–7 technology 370 neoclassical general equilibrium models 372 market socialism 547 saving 479–82 neoclassical growth models 401 empirical evidence 409–10 endogenous 401, 402–3 AK 401, 402–3, 408–10, 417 Dixit–Stiglitz 402 R&D-based 403, 410–16, 417 Ramsey 401, 403–8, 409 exogenous 401–2
neoclassical optimum decisions 199, 201 neoclassical principal–agent models the firm 243–4, 262 moral hazard 260–5 neoclassical supply law 117 neoclassical trade theory problems 193 network effects of division of labor 6–7, 13, 58, 68 communication technology 29, 30 coordination reliability 303–4, 333–4 insurance 305–6, 324 –31, 573 reducing risk 305, 310–19 first welfare theorem 74, 114 geographical factors 43 HO model 13, 83–90 industrialization 375 information technology 29, 30 learning by doing 422, 439–40 market utilization of 109–16 resource allocation–division of labor 118–19 Ricardian model 13, 68–74 self-sufficient working time 29 Smithian models 138 economic growth 439, 442 property rights 303 urbanization 355–9 urbanization 343, 349–66 new development economics 11–12, 13, 14, 19 nonconstrained maximization problem 104 –5 non-exclusivity of goods 318, 319 nonnegativity constraint 102 non-opportunistic strategic behavior 255 nonrivalry of goods 318, 319 nonstrategic self-interested behavior 255 normative (welfare) analysis 17, 26–7, 75–6 occupation configurations 64 –5 destructive creation process 72, 382 division of labor structure compared 65 exogenous evolution of division of labor 114 industrialization 382 market coordination 111–12, 115 transition economies 575 ocean-navigable waterways 45–6 division of labor 42, 43 economic policy choices 52 per capita GDP 41 population density 39 opportunistic behavior 14, 255–6 learning by doing 425–6 by the state see state opportunism see also endogenous transaction costs optimum decisions endogenous comparative advantage 102–8, 117, 118, 119 endogenous transaction costs 267–8 individuals’ specialization 198–201 MSV model 144, 145 neoclassical 199, 201 Smithian 199–200, 201
630 I NDEX organization efficiency 74 allocation efficiency 120–1 level of division of labor 203 taxation effects 119–20 organizational information 449–53 information costs 453 Pareto optimality 452–3, 465 static Smithian equilibrium model 454 –5 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 450–67 organizational structures see structure ownership, theory of absence of 547–8 ownership structure of firms China 561–2, 564 –71, 578–81 Coase theorem 242–3, 291 GHM model 289–91, 295–6 post-communist eastern Europe 556–7 principal–agent issues 243–4 parameters, feasible space of 114 Pareto optimum 73 business cycle model 531, 533 dilemma of optimality 465 Nash bargaining 78, 79, 280–1 and PPF 119 R&D-based growth models 415–16 Ricardo economy 73–4, 78, 79 social experiments 452–3, 465 taxation effects 120 Pareto optimum corner equilibrium 112 Yao theorem 112, 113 Pareto optimum dynamic corner equilibrium 488 partial division of labor 60, 65, 82, 91–2 business cycles 526, 529–31 money models 507 partial equilibrium analysis 58 trade–development relationship 21–2 participation constraint 261 patents see intellectual property payoff functions, game models 270 pecuniary externality 153 industrialization 372, 373 per capita consumption endogenous growth 401 endogenous growth models AK 409 dynamic 402–3 R&D-based 412, 414, 415–16 Ramsey 401, 403–4, 405–8 per capita gross domestic product (GDP) 74 geography 37–41, 47–51 institutional effects on 151 inverted U-curve of inequality 169 per capita gross national product (GNP) 74 –6 per capita real income (utility) 111 as absolute price of labor 513 business cycles 521–2, 526–7, 528 as development measure 74 –5 dual structures KV model 173, 174 –5, 176, 178–9, 180, 181–2 urban–rural 342, 347–9
economies of scale Dixit–Stiglitz model 133, 136 Ethier model 142–3 KV model 173, 174 –5, 176 Sachs–Yang model 150 emergence of firm 238, 239–40 endogenous evolution of division of labor 432, 433–6, 437–8, 440–2 endogenous growth models 401, 403, 408, 409, 440–2 endogenous transaction costs 255, 269 geographical factors 37, 39, 47–52 industrialization 379, 380–1, 389 institutional effects on 151 inverted U-curve of inequality 169, 182 investment and saving 488, 489–90, 492–4 Pareto optimum corner equilibrium 112 per capita GNP compared 75–6 professional middlemen 215 Ricardian model 67, 68, 72–3 state opportunism 255 tariff effects 180 tax effects 120 unemployment 516, 521–2, 526–7, 528 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 456–8 Yao theorem 113 phase diagrams Ramsey model 406–7 Romer model 413–14 Phillips curve 533 political structures 2, 3–4, 6, 23–6 economic transition Chinese reforms 561–72 cultural traditions 556 geographical factors 555–6 post-communist eastern Europe 556–7, 560 Russian reforms 558–61 socialist systems 545–6, 547–55 economies of scale 151 endogenous comparative advantage 92 endogenous transaction costs 294, 295, 312, 317 exogenous transaction costs 312, 317 and geography 2, 3, 40, 43–4, 48, 54, 295, 555–6 industrialization 371 mimicry of 556 state-planned economic development 10 see also socialist systems population density geographical factors 39–41, 45, 48, 51, 53 urbanization Fujita–Krugman model 341, 342, 345 general equilibrium model 343, 364 Yang–Rice model 349 population growth rate, endogenous growth models 408, 409, 413, 414, 415 population size dual structures 173, 174, 175, 176, 178–9 economies of scale 138–9, 152 Dixit–Stiglitz model 137–8 Ethier model 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 KV model 173, 174, 175, 176
I NDE X 631 MSV model 145, 146–7 Sachs–Yang model 149–50 Smithian model 138 endogenous growth models 412, 414, 415, 417, 439–40 industrialization 390 investment 493 market size 415, 417 natural unemployment 515 Ricardian model 73 Smithian model 138, 213, 222 positive analysis of development 15–16, 17 positive externalities of cities see economies of agglomeration precautionary saving 478–9, 518 preindustrialization growth 433, 440 price(s) absolute, of labor 202, 513 business cycle model 531–4 centralized pricing mechanism 110 control theories 548 dual structures 170, 172, 177, 181, 185 economies of scale Dixit–Stiglitz model 135–6 Ethier model 139, 140, 142–3 KV model 170, 172, 181 MSV model 144, 145, 146, 147 Sachs–Yang model 147, 151 emergence of firm 238 endogenous comparative advantage 106–7, 108, 121 game models 270 general equilibrium 58 HO model 83, 84 –5, 86–7, 89 information–decision relation see price(s), social experiments liberalization in China 568–71 market role in division of labor 109–12 market socialism 121, 547, 548 model with CES utility function 116–17 professional middlemen 215–16 resource allocation–division of labor 118–19 social experiments 450 information costs 453 Pareto optimality 452–3, 465 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453, 456–67 static Smithian model 454 –5 socialist systems 547, 548 SS theorem 89, 90, 180 terms of trade 185 unemployment 531–4 Walrasian mechanism 450 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453, 456–67 in Smithian framework 111–12 Yao theorem 113 pricing, theory of indirect 233, 241, 366 principal–agent models the firm 244, 262, 337 insurance 320 moral hazard neoclassical 257, 260–5 Smithian 265–70
prisoners’ dilemma 271 privatization China 567–8, 571–2 post-communist countries 556–7, 560, 573, 574 –7 problem of development, definition 115–16 producer goods business cycles 518, 520–1, 522, 523–5 corner equilibria 525–31 emergence of firms 534 –6 price levels 531–4 industrialization 370–1, 392–3 Smithian model 374 –85 Sun–Lio model 386–90 Romer model 402 Barro–Sala-i-Martin version 410–16 production, roundabout see roundabout production production concentration, degree of 208, 209 production conditions 61 exogenous comparative advantage 59 geographical factors 43, 46, 48–52, 53 production functions Barro–Sala-i-Martin model 411, 413 ex ante and ex post compared 242 linear in Ramsey (AK) model 401, 402–3, 408–9 Ramsey model 404 –8 Smithian model with production roundaboutness 454 Solow model 402 production possibility frontier (PPF) 59 dual structures 166 economies of division of labor 71–2 endogenous transaction costs 287 Pareto optimum 119 productivity progress 207 professional middlemen 194 –5, 214 –16 profit Barro–Sala-i-Martin model 411–12 Chinese state firms 569–70 economies of scale Dixit–Stiglitz model 136 Ethier model 140, 141 KV model 172–3 MSV model 144 –7 Sachs–Yang model 147, 148, 149 GHM model 289, 290, 291 property rights absence of ownership theory 547–8 capitalist economic development 3, 4, 371 classical development economics 11–12, 13 coordination reliability 302–3, 304, 332–6 endogenous externality 306, 317, 318–19 endogenous risk 307–10 insurance and transaction costs 305, 324 –31 transaction cost trade-offs 304 –5, 310–19 economies of scale 151 endogenous transaction costs 255–6, 277–8, 288, 294, 297–8, 332 industrialization 384 –5, 392 mimicry of 556 R&D-based growth models 416
632 I NDEX property rights (cont’d) reputation mechanism 288 residual rights 232–3, 244–5, 248 protectionism see trade policy public goods 306 purchasing power parity (PPP) 76 pyramidal hierarchies, firms 245 R&D business cycles 518 endogenous growth models 403, 410–16, 417, 439 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 452 Ramsey model 401, 403–8 AK version 401, 402–3, 408–10, 417 reciprocal demand, law of 106 reputation mechanism 287–8 research and development see R&D residence, urban see urbanization residual returns 230 reputation mechanism 288 rights to see residual rights residual rights 230–1 emergence of firms 235, 236, 237–8, 239–41, 243 entrepreneurship 231–3, 244–5, 246–8, 248–9 function of asymmetric structure of 232 GHM model 289, 291–2 industrialization 371, 385 principal–agent model 262 R&D-based growth models 416 Ricardian model 59–60, 61 endogenous trade regime 77–80, 82 exogenous comparative technological advantage 63–7, 72–4 inframarginal analysis applied 13, 66–7 methods for setting up 61–2 Nash tariff game in 78–80, 271–2 network effects of division of labor 13, 68–74 per capita GNP 75–6 per capita real income 75–6 Smithian model compared 210 three countries trading 80–2 transaction costs 63–7, 72–4 risk aversion 259 degree of 259 insurance 319–24 risk sharing–incentive provision 305, 306, 337 ex-socialist countries 573–7 insurance 324 –31 moral hazard 258, 261–4, 324 –31 Romer model 402 Barro–Sala-i-Martin version 410–16 roscas 481–2 roundabout production business cycles 534, 535–6 endogenous evolution of division of labor 438 endogenous growth models 410 industrialization 373–5, 391–6 Smith–Young model 371, 373, 375–85 Sun–Lio model 390 institution of the firm 234
money models 499, 500–1, 507, 509 production roundaboutness 377, 381 saving and investment 477–8, 488–95 Smithian model with endogenous 454 –9 Rubinstein alternating-offer bargaining model 272–4 rural areas China 562–4 and urban 341–3 endogenized land prices 344, 355–66 Fujita–Krugman model 341–2, 344 –6, 365 general equilibrium model 343, 349–66 Yang–Rice model 342, 346–9, 365 Rybczynski (RY) theorem 96, 181 Sachs–Yang model 147–51 saddle-path stability 407, 408 saleability of commodities 509 saving 475–6 business cycles 522, 532 endogenous growth models AK 409 R&D-based 410–11 Ramsey 401, 404 –8 scale effects 403 Smithian 439–40 exogenous growth models 401–2 general equilibrium models 479–82 income differences 475, 478–9 informal credit association 481–2 interpersonal loans 475, 479–81, 490, 492 Leland’s model 478–9 precautionary 478–9, 518 productivity implications 475–6, 494 –5 see also saving fundamentalism rotating 481–2 Smith–Young theory 476–8, 482–95 saving fundamentalism 10–11, 20–1, 475–6 scale effects Dixit–Stiglitz model 137 endogenous growth models 403, 409, 412–13, 414 –15, 439–40 Sachs–Yang model 151 Smithian model 138, 439–40 type I 403, 409 Ethier model 143–4 population size 137 Romer model 412 Sachs–Yang model 151 type II 138, 151, 183, 403 type III 366, 390, 403 type IV 403, 409, 476 type V 403, 413 scientific approach, development economics 15–19 scope, economies of 218, 220–1 second-order condition, Smithian models 105–6, 212–13 self-saving 475 future productivity 494 –5 interpersonal loans 480, 492 Leland’s model 478–9 self-sufficiency, degree of 206, 209
I NDE X 633 Selten sequential equilibrium 450–1 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453 credit market 275–8 organization information evolution 456–9 and division of labor 459–67 sharecropping model 262–3 silver standards 5 Smith–Young models capital–labor ratios 410 endogenous comparative advantage 13–14, 121–2 endogenous evolution of division of labor 424 –5 contracts 425–6 control theory 444 dynamic equilibrium 427–36 empirical evidence 438–43 individual’s decision problem 426–7 industrialization 371, 373, 375–85 investment and saving 476–8, 482–95 R&D-based models 415 Smithian framework Ricardian model 62 Walrasian pricing mechanism in 111–12 Smithian law of demand 108 Smithian macroeconomic analysis of development 513 Smithian microeconomic analysis of resource allocation 513 Smithian models 1, 57 allocation efficiency 120–1 business cycles 519–36 capital–labor ratios 410 and Dixit–Stiglitz model 137–8 dual structures 158, 159–69 economic transition 549 endogenous comparative advantage 13–14, 100–9, 115–16 and exogenous 158, 159–69 trade patterns in 121–2 endogenous evolution of division of labor 424 –43, 444 endogenous production roundaboutness 454 –9 endogenous specialization 265–70 as endogenous trade theory 138, 193, 207, 209–10 endogenous transaction costs 265–70, 279–81, 310–19 exogenous transaction costs 310–19 free market entry 121 free pricing 121 industrialization 144, 370–1, 373, 374 –85 inframarginal comparative analysis 513 investment and saving 476–8, 482–95 marginal comparative analysis 513 money 499, 500–9 organization efficiency 120–1 principal–agent 265–70 property rights 303, 305, 306, 310–19 and R&D-based models 415 structural change 193, 195–7 with CES utility function 194, 210–14 concurrent phenomena 205–9 consumption variety 194, 210–14 emergence of international trade 209–10
industrialization 377–85 specialization in trading 195, 214 –16 urbanization 352–3 unemployment 513–14, 517–18 cyclical 517–19, 520–1, 523–34, 535–6 mass 514 natural 514 –17 urbanization 352–3, 355–9 Smithian optimum decisions 199–200, 201 Smithian utility function 202 Smithian–Coasian model, firms 234 social experiments, pricing mechanisms 450 information costs 453 Pareto optimality 452–3, 465 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453, 456–67 static Smithian model 454 –5 social increasing returns 13, 72 socialist systems 6–8, 10 business cycles 531 Chinese 551–5, 557–8, 561–72, 578–81 coordination reliability 303, 309–10, 334 –5 insurance 305–6, 331, 573 transaction cost trade-offs 316–17 economic mimicry 466–7, 549, 550, 551, 553–4, 556 economic transition 545–6, 547–55 Chinese reforms 561–72, 578–81 financial crises 572–7 post-communist eastern Europe 556–7, 560, 573 Russian reforms 557, 558–61 endogenous transaction costs 256 trade-offs with exogenous 316–17, 334 –5 and market socialism 121, 547, 548–9 per capita GDP 40, 48 property rights 303, 305–6, 309–10, 316–17, 331 residual rights 230–1, 233, 246, 249 social experiments 466–7 Soviet-style 547–51 society, knowledge see organizational information soft budget constraint China 568, 569, 570 endogenous transaction costs 291–2 Solow model 57, 402 specialization 10–11, 13, 98–9 business cycles 520–1, 522, 524 –5 corner equilibria 525–31 emergence of firms 534 –6 price levels 531–4 coordination reliability 303–4, 305, 334 endogenization 310–19 insurance 305–6, 320–4, 325–31, 573 diseconomies of 220–1 and diversification 220 economies of scale 137, 143–4 economies of scope 220–1 endogenous comparative advantage 98–100, 124 –7 allocation efficiency 120–1 with exogenous 159–61, 164 –9 market coordination 107, 109–16 market socialism 121 model with CES utility function 116–18
634 I NDEX specialization (cont’d ) endogenous trade theory 138, 193, 207, 209–10 endogenous transaction costs Nash bargaining games 278–81 principal–agent model 265–70 subgame perfect equilibrium 283–7 trade-offs with exogenous 310–19 exogenous comparative advantage 57–60 analysis of decisions 68–74 with endogenous 159–61, 164 –9 Ricardian model 61–7 factory production 246–8 first welfare theorem 74, 114 law of 106 law of optimum level of 200 learning see specialized learning by doing levels of, definition 70 network effects 68 property rights 302–3 endogenous risk 307–10 transaction cost trade-offs 310–19 specialized learning by doing 421, 422, 423 business cycles 520, 521, 522 emergence of firms 535–6 policy implications 531 Yang model 524 dynamic equilibrium 435 function of contracts 426 investment 477, 482–3, 489, 492–3, 494 –5 natural unemployment 517 Smithian model 424, 425, 435, 436, 438–43 spillover effects, growth models 416 stage games 287 state opportunism 22, 29 endogenous transaction costs 255–6, 277–8 socialist systems 550, 554, 560–1, 562, 563–4 state-planned economic development 9, 10, 20–1, 28 economic transition 545–6, 547–55 market failure 12 social experiments 466–7 state-planned industrialization 7–8, 27, 373, 549–54 static general equilibrium models 58, 59 steady growth rate 407 Stiglitz model of sharecropping 262–3 Stolper–Samuelson (SS) theorem 89–90, 180 strategic behavior 255 see also endogenous transaction costs structural changes causing unemployment 517 evolution of division of labor 442–3 industrialization 377–85, 387–90 Ricardian model 72 and trade 193–5, 218–22 concurrent phenomena 204 –9 consumption variety 194, 210–14 coordination costs 216–17 economies of specialization 216–17 individuals’ specialization 198–201, 206, 213 international trade from domestic 193, 209–10 market role in division of labor 201–4
professional middlemen 194 –5, 214 –16 Smithian model 193, 195–7, 352–3 see also urbanization structural diversification degree of 207–8, 209 and specialization 220 structure 109 Ethier model 139, 143 exogenous comparative advantage 65, 69–74, 75, 76, 78–9, 80–1 experimental sequence 458–9 HO model 83–4, 85–7, 88, 90 industrialization 377–85, 387–90 KV model 170–1, 172–6, 180 money 500, 503–9 residual rights 231–2 Smithian models business cycles 520–2, 525–31, 534 endogenous comparative advantage 122 investment and saving 483–5, 486–8, 489–90, 491–3 with production roundaboutness 454 –9 Walrasian sequential equilibrium 456–9, 460–5 subgame perfect equilibrium 272–4, 283–7 subjective discount rate 405 substitution, CES utility function 116–18, 194, 210–14, 410–11 subtropical economies infectious diseases 46, 50 per capita GDP 39, 40 per capita income growth 50 Sun–Lio industrialization model 386–90 super games 287 superadditivity 13, 72 supply aggregate 513 double coincidence with demand 498–9, 500–1 individuals’ specialization decisions 201 market function 110 neoclassical law 117 supply functions 106 corner 117 emergence of firm 238 market coordination 110, 111 take-off growth 409, 433, 440–1, 442 tariffs development strategies 182–3 exogenous comparative advantage 59–60, 76–7, 91–2 Ricardian model 78–80, 82 SS theorem 89–90, 180 geographical factors 44, 52 infant industry arguments 27 investment 494, 495 KV model 175, 179, 180–1, 182–3 Nash bargaining 78, 79–80 endogenous transaction costs 270–2 geographical factors 44, 52 partial equilibrium analysis 22 social experiments 466 strategies for 93– 4
I NDE X 635 tatonnement process 110, 112 taxation allocation efficiency 119–20 China 562, 564, 568, 569 organization efficiency 119–20 property rights 302–3 transaction risk 302–3, 336 technological comparative advantage 59 exogenous see exogenous comparative technological advantage technological fundamentalism 10–11, 20–1, 59 technological progress business cycles 518 classical development economics 3, 4 –5, 10–11, 20, 370–1 emergence of firms 246–7 endogenous comparative advantage 92 endogenous growth models 409, 414, 416, 439–40 general equilibrium 57, 59 see also exogenous comparative technological advantage industrialization 370–1, 384 –5, 391, 392–4 new school of economic history 22–3 organizational information 465 Young theorem 11 television programs, property rights 319 temperate zones agricultural productivity 46 capitalist development 54 division of labor 42–3 economic policy choices 53 infectious diseases 46, 50 per capita GDP 37, 39, 40, 41 per capita income growth 49–50, 51 terms of trade, deterioration in 60, 72–3, 166–7, 180–1, 185 thought experiments 15–16 Todaro model 58 total factor productivity (TFP) 234 totalitarian systems 10 township-village enterprises (TVEs) 564 –8 trade deterioration in terms of 60, 72–3 dual structures 166–7, 180–1, 185 in labor see labor trade Linder pattern of 137, 221 structural change 193–5, 218–22 concurrent phenomena 204 –9 consumption variety 194, 210–14 coordination costs 216–17 economies of specialization 216–17 individuals’ specialization 198–201, 206, 213 international trade from domestic 193, 209–10 market role in division of labor 201–4 professional middlemen 194 –5, 214 –16 Smithian model 193, 195–7, 352–3 see also urbanization trade conflict, Nash game 278–81 trade dependence 206, 437, 438
trade policy 4, 5, 76–7, 93–4 China 561–2 dual structures 175, 179, 180–1, 182–3 economies of scale Dixit–Stiglitz model 133–4, 136–8 Ethier model 139, 143 KV model 175 exogenous comparative advantage 59–60, 89–90, 91–2, 180 exogenous comparative technological advantage 77–82 geographical factors 44, 52 income elasticity 28 infant industry arguments 27 investment 494, 495 KV model 175, 179, 180–1, 182–3 Nash tariff bargaining game 78, 79–80 endogenous transaction costs 270–2, 278–81 geographical factors 44, 52 partial division of labor 91–2 partial equilibrium analysis 21–2 protectionist strategies 93–4 social experiments 466 trade structures dynamic equilibrium 428 endogenous comparative advantage 122 HO model 83–4, 85–7, 88, 90 KV model 170–1, 172–6, 180 SS theorem 180 trade theory, endogenous 138, 193, 207, 209–10 transaction costs and efficiencies 11–12, 13 business cycles 520, 521 emergence of firms 534, 535–6 market structures 529, 530 Cheung–Coase theory of firm 233, 242–3 defining 62 dual structures KV model 169, 170, 173, 174 –5, 176, 177–9, 181–3 Smithian model 165–7, 168, 169 economies of scale 132, 137–44 endogenous see endogenous transaction costs endogenous comparative advantage 121–2 endogenous evolution of division of labor 423, 438–9 contracts 425–6 dynamic equilibrium 429, 435 empirical evidence 438–9 income share 437–8 Smithian model 424, 435, 438–9 endogenous growth models 415, 439, 440 exogenous see exogenous transaction costs with exogenous comparative technological advantage 59 HO model 60, 83–90 Ricardian model 62, 63–7, 72–4, 77–82 first welfare theorem 74, 114 indirect pricing theory 233, 241, 366 industrialization 371, 393–4 labor surplus model 372 roundabout production 373–5, 380, 381–2, 384, 385, 390 Sun–Lio model 389–90
636 I NDEX transaction costs and efficiencies (cont’d ) institution of the firm 230 Coase theorem 242–3, 291 emergence of firm 239–42 entrepreneurship 231–2 institutional effects on 151 investment 477, 491, 493, 494, 495 market role in division of labor 114, 115 measures of development 75–6 money models 501, 502, 507, 509 Pareto optimum–PPF relation 119 population size 138 risks see transaction risk saving 477, 491, 493, 494, 495 urbanization 341 transaction risk 302–6, 332–6 endogenous externality 306, 317, 318–19 endogenous specialization 303, 307–10 insurance 320–31 transaction cost trade-offs 310–19 transition economics see economic transition transitional development 159–69 transitional dynamics, Ramsey model 404 –8, 409 transport 4 –5, 151 dual structures 185 endogenous transaction costs 265, 298 geography 42, 43–6, 48, 51, 53 tropics agricultural productivity 46 division of labor 42 economic policy choices 53 infectious diseases 46, 50 per capita GDP 37, 39, 40–1 per capita income growth 49–50, 51 per capita income levels 47, 48 underdevelopment dual structures 158 trade policy 60 underemployment dual structures 158, 164 –5, 168 see also labor surplus unemployment 513–14, 517–19 caused by integer problem 514 –17, 533 cyclical 514, 517–19, 520–1, 522–3 corner equilibria 525–31 emergence of firms 534 –6 general price levels 531–4 policy implications 531, 532, 533, 536 welfare implications 531 efficiency wage model 517–18, 541 mass, endogenous risk of 514 natural 514 –17 urbanization 14, 341–3, 367–8 economies of agglomeration 342, 343, 349–50, 355–66 empirical evidence 365–6, 367–8 endogenized land prices 343, 355–66 Fujita–Krugman model 341–2, 344 –6, 365 general equilibrium models 14, 343, 349–66 geographical conditions 45–6 partial equilibrium analysis 58
role of institutions 22, 24 scale effects 403 Yang–Rice model 342, 346–9, 365 utility see per capita real income utility equalization condition 107–8 and corner equilibrium 109 dynamic equilibrium 427, 428, 429–30 market role in division of labor 109–10 tax effects on efficiency 120 utility function CES 116–18, 194, 210–14, 410–11 expected 258, 260, 261, 262, 267, 268 indirect see indirect utility function risk aversion 259, 319 Smithian 202 Uzawa–Lucas model 409, 418 vertical external economies 153, 396 virtuous circles of development 153 wage rates Chinese enterprises 570 efficiency model 517–18, 541 partial equilibrium analysis 58 transaction cost trade-offs 305, 310–19 welfare analysis in terms of 76 Walras’ law 111 Walrasian auction mechanism 110, 111 Walrasian auctioneer 110 Walrasian equilibrium model 270 endogenous trade regime 78, 79, 80 endogenous transaction costs 279–81, 296 Walrasian pricing mechanism 111–12, 450 sequential equilibrium 450–2, 453 evolution in information 456–67 Pareto optimality 465 war 2, 5, 6 geographical conditions 54 per capita GDP 40 welfare, business cycle model 531 welfare (normative) analysis 17, 26–7, 75–6 welfare theorem 74, 114 Wen theorem 103–4 dynamic decision problem 426–7 investment and saving 483 X-inefficiencies 246 Yang model business cycles 523–5 urbanization 341 Yang–Heijdra (YH) formula 135 Yang–Ng model, indirect pricing 233, 241 Yang–Rice model, urbanization 342, 346–9, 365 Yang–Wills model, coordination 307–10, 311–12 Yang–Yeh model, transaction costs 265, 300–1 Yao theorem 112, 113–16, 122 dynamic general equilibrium 429 urbanization and division of labor 358–9 Young theorem 11 extent of market 206–7, 219, 437
