Technological Change and the Distribution of Income
Technological Change and the Distribution of Income
复制标题
技术变革与收入分配
DOI：
10.2307/2525309
复制
发表时间：
1963
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
J. S. D. Cani
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murray Brown;J. S. D. Cani
也许，理解影响收入分配的因素的一个主要障碍是，与这个问题有关的许多理论都不能经受严格的测试，至少不能让许多学生满意。一些没有充分量化的力量是至关重要的，例如非中性的技术变化、替代的弹性以及产品和要素市场的垄断程度。上世纪30年代初，希克斯在《S》一书中从理论上阐明了前两种力量在决定收入在资本和劳动之间的分配中的作用。众所周知，新古典传统中有两个命题，认为相对份额是非中性技术变化配置、替代弹性和劳动资本比率的结果。第一种观点认为，节约创新的一个因素是CET。2第二种观点认为，如果一种要素的供给增加得比另一种要素更快，如果替代弹性a小于1，则第一种要素的相对份额减少。3当然，如果a超过1，则第一种要素的相对份额增加；如果a等于1(柯布-道格拉斯的情况)，要素的相对供给的变化将不会对相对份额产生影响。我们加入了第三个命题：替代弹性的增加(比方说，由于非中性的技术变化)减少了相对的--如果劳动力稀缺，那么劳动力的稀缺性。这一命题在下面针对一类重要的生产函数展开。*手稿于1962年3月1日收到，1962年11月7日修订。《工资理论》(伦敦：麦克米伦公司，1935年)。在很大程度上，希克斯假定市场竞争激烈。关于确定相对收入份额中的垄断力量的讨论，参见。《经济动力学理论》(伦敦：Allen and Unwin，Ltd.，1954)，第28-31页。虽然这篇文章从垄断的影响中抽象出来，但我们希望在未来的某个日期回到这个问题上来。2希克斯，俄亥俄州同上，122.创新是资本的使用，例如，如果每种劳动和资本的组合，资本的边际产出相对于劳动的边际产出增加。3希克斯，俄亥俄州同上，115.
PERHAPS A MAJOR OBSTACLE to an understanding of the forces affecting the distribution of income is that much of the theory bearing on the problem has not been susceptible to rigorous tests, at least not to the satisfaction of many students. Some forces which are not adequately quantified are crucial, such as nonneutral technological change, the elasticity of substitution, and the degree of monopoly in products and factor markets. The role of the first two of these forces in determining the distribution of income between, say, capital and labor has been spelled out theoretically in the early 1930's by J. R. Hicks.' As is well known, there are two propositions in the neoclassical tradition which hold that relative shares are the resultant of configurations of nonneutral technological change, the elasticity of substitution, and the labor-capital ratio. The first holds that a factor saving innovation, cet. par., reduces the relative share of income of that factor in all cases.2 The second maintains that if one factor increases in supply more rapidly than another, and if the elasticity of substitution a is less than unity, the relative share of the first factor decreases.3 Of course, if a exceeds unity, the relative share of the first factor increases; and if a is equal to unity (the Cobb-Douglas case), changes in the relative supplies of factors will have no effect on the relative shares. We add a third proposition: An increase in the elasticity of substitution (due, say, to a onneutral technological change) reduces the relative -'hare of labor provided labor is scarce. This proposition is developed below for an im-portant class of production functions. For * Manuscript received March 1, 1962, revised November 7, 1962. The Theory of Wages, (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1935). For the most part, Hicks assumed competitive markets. For a discussion of monopoly forces in the determination of relative income shares, cf. M. Kalecki, Theory of Economic Dynamics, (London: Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1954), 28-31. Although this paper abstracts from the effects of monopoly, we hope to return to the problem at a future date. 2 Hicks, op. cit., 122. An innovation is capital using, e.g., if the marginal product of capital increases relative to the marginal product of labor for each combination of labor and capital. 3 Hicks, op. cit., 115.