Journal Article On a Two-Sector Model of Economic Growth with Technological Progress —A Comparative Statics Analysis— Get access Akira Takayama Akira Takayama University of Manchester Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 32, Issue 3, July 1965, Pages 251–259, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295830 Published: 01 July 1965

Journal Article On a Two-Sector Model of Economic Growth — A Comparative Statics Analysis— Get access Akira Takayama Akira Takayama Tokyo Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 30, Issue 2, June 1963, Pages 95–104, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295807 Published: 01 June 1963

Introduction, 117. — I. The model, 119. — II. Some remarks on the usual model, 123. — III. The effects of fiscal and monetary policies, 127. — IV. Dynamics and long-run equilibrium, 132. — Appendix: The budget condition, the monetary relation, and various policies, 139.

Journal Article Regional Allocation of Investment: A Further Analysis Get access Akira Takayama Akira Takayama Purdue University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 81, Issue 2, May 1967, Pages 330–337, https://doi.org/10.2307/1879591 Published: 01 May 1967

A recent article in this Review by Averch and Johnson [3] on the fair rate of return regulation in public utilities industries (or more generally regulated industries) attracted the attention of many economists. In essence, Averch-johnson argues that the introduction of an constraint of a fair rate of return type would induce the firm to invest more than the original profit maximizing value of capital, and this would create an inefficient allocation of inputs. In addition to frequent citations in verbal arguments, it has invited some thieoretical extensions by economists such as WVestfield [8] and Klevorick [5]. All of the writers seem to accept the basic theoretical foundations set by Averch and Johnson. For example, Klevorick [5] recently proposed that the fair rate of return should be inversely related to the size of the capital of a firm. The intuitive basis for this is apparent, for it in effect creates a penalty as the amount of capital used by the firm increases.' However, it seems to me that AverchJohnson's original arguments are sketchy and contain somewhat ambiguous logic at several important points. Although their conclusion, for which they tried to find empirical support, that a firm will tend to increase its investment with the introduction of an active constraint seems to be correct, it does not follow from their arguments. In particular, there seems to be a serious error which arises from confusing movements along a curve and shifts of a curve. In Section II, we clarify those ambiguities, and if necessary, correct the mistakes. In the third section of this paper, we shall provide a new formulation of the problem. We shall find that the new formulation will give the same answer as AverchJohnson, namely that a firm will tend to invest more with the iiltroductioin of an active constraint. It should be noted however that while the conclusion happens to be the same, this was not the necessity, for we needed a completely new formulation to obtain the old conclusion.

There has been an extensive study in the literature on the estimate of technological progress using an aggregative model. A typical assumption in this context is that of Hicks-neutral technological progress.' However, in theoretical models, the favorite assumption is that of Harrodneutral technological progress, which probably reflects the desire of researchers to characterize the steady state.2 Obviously, however, there should be no a priori reason why technological progress should be either Hicks neutral or Harrod neutral. There have recently been interesting studies by Robert Resek, Paul David and Th. van de Klundert, and Ryuzo Sato (1970), and others to determine the bias of technological progress.3 The purpose of this note is to propose simple formulas which can be and are subsequently used to determine and estimate the type of bias of technological progress. My estimates indicate that technological progress in the United States for the period of 1909-60 could be Solow labor-saving, and that it has been neither Hicks neutral nor Harrod neutral. The non-Hicks neutrality confirms the results of Resek, David and van de Klundert, Sato (1970), and others. However, unlike most studies on the topic, I do not assume that the production function is a priori of the f actoraugmenting type. Moreover, I do not, unlike David and van de Klundert, assume that the elasticity of factor substitution is a priori constant. In the last section, I investigate whether the elasticity of factor substitution has changed from period to period.

Richard K. Anderson, Akira Takayama; Tariffs, The Terms of Trade and Domestic Prices in a Monetary Economy: A Further Analysis, The Review of Economic Stud

Richard K. Anderson, Akira Takayama; Devaluation, the Specie Flow Mechanism and the Steady State, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 44, Issue 2, 1 Jun