2011
DOI: 10.5566/ias.v30.p143-151
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fractals and Self-Similarity in Economics: The Case of a Stochastic Two-Sector Growth Model

Abstract: We study a stochastic, discrete-time, two-sector optimal growth model in which the production of the homogeneous consumption good uses a Cobb-Douglas technology, combining physical capital and an endogenously determined share of human capital. Education is intensive in human capital as in Lucas (1988), but the marginal returns of the share of human capital employed in education are decreasing, as suggested by Rebelo (1991). Assuming that the exogenous shocks are i.i.d. and affect both physical and human capita… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results highlighted in Proposition 1 are pretty standard in the literature (see Bethmann, 2007Bethmann, , 2013La Torre et al, 2011). It is also very well-known that the Uzawa-Lucas (1988) framework, because of the linearity in the production of (new) human capital, may generate sustained long-run growth.…”
Section: Absolutely Continuous Vs Singular Self-similar Measuresmentioning
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results highlighted in Proposition 1 are pretty standard in the literature (see Bethmann, 2007Bethmann, , 2013La Torre et al, 2011). It is also very well-known that the Uzawa-Lucas (1988) framework, because of the linearity in the production of (new) human capital, may generate sustained long-run growth.…”
Section: Absolutely Continuous Vs Singular Self-similar Measuresmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…In all examples we keep constant the discount factor, β = 0.96, and the random shocks' values on the final consumption good production, q 1 = 0.2 and q 2 = 0.6; moreover, we set b = 1/ (1 − u − v)+0.01, where u and v are defined in (20) and (21) respectively, so to have always sustained growth. The first three examples cover the general setting envisaged by Proposition 5 for which we keep constant the random shock value on knowledge production, r = 0.5, while the last three satisfy the restrictions of Corollary 2-so that α < φ must hold and the r value is constrained to be given by (44)-and thus the IFS (34) produces generalized Sierpinski gaskets as attractors.…”
Section: Examplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We contribute to this branch of literature by extending the analysis to a framework in which factor shares evolve randomly, in order to understand what this might imply for macroeconomic dynamics. For the sake of simplicity, we focus on the standard optimal growth model under uncertainty discussed in La Torre et al (2011) in which the social planner seeks to maximize the representative household's infinite discounted sum of instantaneous utility functions -which are assumed to be logarithmic -subject to the laws of motion of physical, k t , and human, h t , capital. At each time t, the planner chooses consumption, c t , and the share of human capital, u t , to allocate into production of the unique homogeneous consumption good which uses a Cobb-Douglas technology combining physical and human capital.…”
Section: Economic Growth and Stochastic Factor Sharesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We wish to contribute to this literature by extending the analysis of two-sector random growth models and their relation with fractal steady states in order to allow for the random shock to affect not only the productivity level of the sector-specific production functions (La Torre et al, 2011Torre et al, , 2015, but also their factor shares. To the best of our knowledge, the possibility of exogenous shocks on factor shares thus far have been considered only in the onesector growth model by Mirman and Zilcha (1975), which has recently been extended to the case of learning by Mirman et al (2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation