Abstract
It is by now incontrovertible that increases in per capita income cannot be explained simply by increases in the capital-labor ratio. Though doubtless no economist would ever have denied the role of technological change in economic growth, its overwhelming importance relative to capital formation has perhaps only been fully realized with the important empirical studies of Abramovitz [1] and Solow [l 1]. These results do not directly contradict the neo-classical view of the production function as an expression of technological knowledge. All that has to be added is the obvious fact that knowledge is growing in time. Nevertheless a view of economic growth that depends so heavily on an exogenous variable, let alone one so difficult to measure as the quantity of knowledge, is hardly intellectually satisfactory. From a quantitative, empirical point of view, we are left with time as an explanatory variable. Now trend projections, however necessary they may be in practice, are basically a confession of ignorance, and, what is worse from a practical viewpoint, are not policy variables.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abramovitz, M., “ Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the American Economic Association, 46 (May, 1956 ): 5–23.
Arrow, K. J., H. B. Chenery, B. S. Minhas, and R. M. Solow, “ Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 43 (1961): 225–250.
Asher, H., Cost-Quantity Relationships in the Airframe Industry, R-291, Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, 1956.
Haavelmo, T. A Study in the Theory of Economic Evolution, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1954.
Hilgard, E. R., Theories of Learning, 2nd ed., New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1956.
Hirsch, W. Z., “ Firm Progress Ratios,” Econometrica, 24 (1956): 136–143.
Johansen, L., “ Substitution vs. Fixed Production Coefficients in the Theory of Economic Growth: A Synthesis,” Econometrica, 27 (1959): 157–176.
Kaldor, N., “ Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth,” in F. A. Lutz and D. C. Hague (eds.), The Theory of Capital, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1961, 177–222.
Lundberg, E., Produktivitet och räntabilitet, Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt and Söner, 1961.
Muth, J., “ Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price Movements,” Econometrica (in press).
Solow, R. M., “ Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (1957): 312–320.
Solow, R. M., “ Investment and Technical Progress,” in K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1960, 89–104.
Verdoorn, P. J., “ Fattori the regolano lo sviluppo della produttività del lavoro,” L’Industria, 1(1949).
Verdoorn, P. J., “ Complementarity and Long-Range Projections,” Econometrica, 24 (1956): 429–450.
Wright, T. P., “ Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes,” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 3 (1936): 122–128.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 1971 Economic Study Society
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arrow, K.J. (1971). The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. In: Hahn, F.H. (eds) Readings in the Theory of Growth. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15430-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15430-2_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-10299-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-15430-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)