Parental nurturing and adverse effects of redistribution

Bandyopadhyay, Debasis; Tang, Xueli

doi:10.1007/s10887-011-9062-5

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore the capital markets are missing, in the spirit of Benabou (1996). Such individual entrepreneurship is not uncommon in the literature (see, for instance, Benabou, 2000, 2002, Angeletos and Calvet, 2005and Bandyopadhyay and Tang, 2011. However, the absence of any (inter-or intra-temporal) capital market could be quite extreme, which is the price to pay for analytical tractability of the model.…”

Section: Preference and Household Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Credit constraints, growth and inequality dynamics

Getachew

2016

Economic Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Preference and Household Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jones and Manuelli (1990), for instance, used a production function that asymptotically displays an Ak model. 5 See, for example, Loury (1981), Galor and Zeira (1993), Banerjee and Newman (1993), Aghion et al (1999), Matsuyama (2000), Benabou (2002), Giannini (2003), Getachew (2010), Bandyopadhyay andTang (2011) andShin (2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Credit constraints, growth and inequality dynamics

Getachew

2016

Economic Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The residual inequality is then mostly attributed to luck. Since then a considerable body of literature (e.g., Loury, 1981, Banerjee and Newman, 1993, Galore and Zeira, 1993, Benabou, 1996, Mulligan, 1997, Bandyopadhyay and Basu, 2005, Bandyopadhyay and Tang, 2011 has evolved emphasizing the role of credit market imperfection in perpetuating the inequality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An adjustment cost model of social mobility

Basu

Getachew

2015

Journal of Macroeconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractWe analyze herein the e¤ects of the human capital adjustment cost on social mobility. Such an adjustment cost is modeled as a rising marginal cost schedule for augmenting human capital. We use a general human capital technology, which disentangles the adjustment cost from the depreciation cost of the human capital. Missing credit markets prevent individuals from equalizing the initial di¤erences in the human capital. We …nd that a higher adjustment cost for human capital acquisition slows down the social mobility and results in a persistent inequality across generations. On the other hand, a higher rate of human capital depreciation could increase mobility via a positive e¤ect on new investment. The quantitative analysis of our model suggests that the human capital adjustment cost is nontrivial to account for the observed persistence of inequality and social mobility. In addition, we …nd that the government redistribution policy could account for the large observed variation in estimates of social mobility.

show abstract

“…See for example Loury (), Galor and Zeira (), Aghion and Bolton (), Aghion, Caroli, and Garcia‐Penalosa (), Benabou (), Bandyopadhyay and Tang (), and Basu and Getachew ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Redistributive innovation policy, inequality, and efficiency

Basu

Getachew

2019

J Public Economic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the efficiency and distributional effects of regressive and progressive public R&D policies that target high-tech and low-tech sectors using a heterogenous-agent growth model with in-house R&D and incomplete capital markets. We find that such policies have important implications for efficiency and inequality. A regressive public R&D investment financed by income tax could boost growth and welfare via a positive effect on individual savings and effort. It could, however, also lower growth and welfare via its effect on the efficiency-inequality trade-off. Thus, the relationship between public R&D spending and welfare is hump-shaped, admitting an optimal degree of regressivity in public R&D spending. Using our baseline model, and the US state-level GDP data, we derive the degree of regressiveness of public R&D investment in US states. We find that US states are more regressive in their R&D investment than the optimal regressiveness implied by our growth model.

show abstract

Parental nurturing and adverse effects of redistribution

Abstract: Heterogeneous ability, Parental input in education, Endogenous growth, Dynamic efficiency, Progressive income tax, Progressive education subsidy, D61, E24, E62, O11,

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Credit constraints, growth and inequality dynamics

Credit constraints, growth and inequality dynamics

An adjustment cost model of social mobility

Redistributive innovation policy, inequality, and efficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About