Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics

Ed. by Mizrach, Bruce

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.855

CiteScore 2017: 0.76

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.668
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.894

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 0.02

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 19, Issue 2


Endogenous technical change, employment and distribution in the Goodwin model of the growth cycle

Daniele Tavani
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Economics, Colorado State University, 1771 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1771, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Luca Zamparelli
Published Online: 2014-07-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2013-0117


In this paper, we introduce endogenous technological change through R&D expenditure on labor-augmenting innovation in the cyclical growth model by Goodwin (Goodwin, R. 1967. “A Growth Cycle.” In Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth, edited by Carl Feinstein, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.). Innovation is a costly, forward-looking process financed out of profits, and pursued by owners of capital stock (capitalists) in order to foster labor productivity and save on labor requirements. Our main findings are: (i) Goodwin-type distributive cycles arise even with dynamic optimization, but (ii) endogenous technical change has a dampening effect on economic fluctuations; (iii) steady state per capita growth, income distribution and employment rate are endogenous, and depend on the capitalists’ discount rate, the institutional variables regulating the labor market, and policy variables such as subsidies to R&D activity. Implementing the model numerically to match long run data for the US, we show that: (iv) an increase in the capitalists’ discount rate lowers per-capita growth, the employment rate and the labor share; (v) an increase in workers’ bargaining strength moderately raises the labor share and moderately decreases per-capita growth, while sharply reducing employment: quarterly US fluctuations (1948–2006) in employment and the labor share seem to support this result; (vi) a balanced budget increase in the R&D subsidy also fosters per-capita growth at the expenses of the labor share, even though the corresponding variations might be small.

Keywords: endogenous technical change; Goodwin model; income shares; employment.

JEL codes:: E32; O33


  • Aghion, P., and P. Howitt. 2010. The Economics of Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Benhabib, J., and K. Nishimura. 1979. “The Hopf Bifurcation and Existence and Stability of Closed Orbits in Multisector Models of Optimal Economic Growth.” Journal of Economic Theory 21: 421–444.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blanchard, O., and C. Kahn. 1980. “The Solution of Linear Difference Models under Rational Expectations.” Econometrica 48: 1303–1311.Google Scholar

  • Desai, M., B. Henry, A. Mosley and M. Penderton. 2006. “A Clarification of The Goodwin Model of The Growth Cycle.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30: 2661–2670.Google Scholar

  • Fiorio, C., S. Mohun, and R. Veneziani. 2013. “Social Democracy and Distributive Conflict in the UK, 1950-2010.” Working Paper No. 705, School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London. ISSN: 1473-0278.Google Scholar

  • Foley, D. K. 2003. “Endogenous Technical Change with Externalities in a Classical Growth Model.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 52: 167–189.Google Scholar

  • Foley, D. K., and T. Michl. 1999. Growth and Distribution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gandolfo, G. 1997. Economic Dynamics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, R. 1967. “A Growth Cycle.” In Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth, edited by Carl Feinstein, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Harvie, D. 2000. “Testing Goodwin: Growth Cycles in OECD Countries.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 24: 349–376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harvie, D., M. A. Kelmanson, and D. G. Knapp. 2007. “A Dynamical Model of Business–Cycle Asymmetries: Extending Goodwin.” Economic Issues 12: 53–92.Google Scholar

  • Impullitti, G. 2010. “International Competition and U.S. R&D Subsidies: A Quantitative Welfare Analysis.” International Economic Review 51: 1127–1158.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Julius, A. J. 2005. “Steady-State Growth and Distribution with An Endogenous Direction of Technical Change.” Metroeconomica 56: 101–125.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kennedy, C. 1964. “Induced Bias in Innovation and the Theory of Distribution.” Economic Journal 74: 541–547.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kortum, S. 1993. “Equilibrium R&D Ratio and the Patent-R&D Ratio: U.S. Evidence.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 83: 450–457.Google Scholar

  • Mehra, R., and E. C. Prescott. 1985. “The Equity Premium: A Puzzle.” Journal of Monetary Economics 15: 145–161.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Montrucchio, L. 1992. “Dynamical Systems that Solve Continuous-Time Concave Optimization Problem: Anything Goes.” In Cycles and Chaos in Economic Equilibrium, edited by J. Benhabib, 277–288. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Shah, A., and M. Desai. 1981. “Growth Cycles with Induced Technical Change.” Economic Journal 91: 1006–1010.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smulders, S., and T. van de Klundert. 1995. “Imperfect Competion, Concentration and Growth with Firm-specific R&D.” European Economic Review 39: 139–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • van der Ploeg, F. 1987. “Growth Cycles, Induced Technical Change, and Perpetual Conflict over the Distribution of Income.” Journal of Macroeconomics 9: 1–12.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Daniele Tavani, Department of Economics, Colorado State University, 1771 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1771, USA, Phone: +1 970 491 6657, e-mail:

Published Online: 2014-07-04

Published in Print: 2015-04-01

Citation Information: Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 209–216, ISSN (Online) 1558-3708, ISSN (Print) 1081-1826, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2013-0117.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Giorgos Galanis, Roberto Veneziani, and Naoki Yoshihara
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in