3
$\begingroup$

Assume, using the following equation $Y=[((A_1L)^\alpha K^\beta)^\sigma+ (A_2X^\gamma)^\sigma]^{1/\sigma}$, we back out (obtain) the evolution of $A_1$ & $A_2$. Can we interpret $A_1$ as labour-saving technical change index since it augments labour in the model?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Say, there is a limited substitutability between the C-D composite and X. $\endgroup$ – london Sep 4 '17 at 10:50
3
$\begingroup$

Think of your function as

$$Y=[A_1Q^\sigma+ A_2X^\sigma]^{1/\sigma}$$

where $Q=L^\alpha K^\beta$ (I removed unnecessary bits like $\gamma$ and exponent of $A_i$). This is a standard CES, where the optimal use of $Q$ and $X$ depend on $\frac{A_1}{A_2}$ and $\sigma$.

For a relatively low substitution ($\sigma<0$), an increase in $A_1$ (holding factor prices fixed) means firms make use of that extra increase in productivity of factor $Q$ by using less of it and more of $X$. Since $A_1$ corresponds to a Hick neutral change regarding $Q$, you will use the bundle $Q$ with the same initial $K/L$ ratio than before the change in $A_1$. Therefore, you will reduce both $K$ and $L$. In consequence, an increase in $A_1$ could be thought as labour-saving technical change with respect to $X$, and in absolute value (although notice that $K/L$ remains unchanged).

The reverse is true if $0<\sigma \leq 1$, namely an increase in $A_1$ leads to more use of $Q$ relative to $X$, thereby expanding the use of $L$ and $K$.

Meanwhile, in the inbetween case ($\sigma=0$), the function collapses to a Codd-Douglas:

$$ Y = \left(L^\alpha K^\beta\right)^{\phi} X^{1-\phi} $$

where $\phi = \frac{A_1}{A_1 + A_2}$. Here a change in $A_1$ does not affect the K/L ratio, albeit it does affect the optimal ratio with respect to $X$. But commonly technical change is though as a change in some $A$ rather than in the elasticities of factors, so this case does not nest well with the above. I think this might be because the original function is not properly normalised. This is, the terms $A_1$ and $A_2$ do not add up to one, which is necessary given your original assumption of constant returns to scale.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Once I get the time I will add the mathematical proof. $\endgroup$ – luchonacho Sep 4 '17 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ First, the in-between case is $\sigma=1$ not $\sigma=0$. $\sigma=1$ yields directly a linear $Y=A_1Q+A_2X$. In the case of $\sigma=0$ you get of course $Y=Q^\alpha X^{1-\alpha}$ where $\alpha=A_1/(A_1+A_2)$. $\endgroup$ – Fato Sep 5 '17 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Fato You are right. Confused $\sigma$ with $\rho$. Updated. $\endgroup$ – luchonacho Sep 5 '17 at 6:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.