نابرابری های توزیع درآمد، جهانی شدن، و نوآوری:شبیه سازی تعادل عمومی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|28937||2013||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Volume 93, July 2013, Pages 117–127
Utilizing simulation approach, this paper examines if the income distribution inequality of a country expands through globalization and/or innovation, somewhat modifying the traditional Heckscher–Ohlin model. First, independently of innovation, the globalization is examined for a country A with two industries (commodities) and four consumers: the (aggregate) worker, the (aggregate) capitalist, and two entrepreneurs. It is shown that there is a clear tendency for the inequality to expand by globalization. Furthermore, when country A is small, the inequality-promoting tendency is stronger. Second, the innovation is examined independently of globalization, by the procedure in which the new-third industry (commodity) and the new-third entrepreneur are introduced, so that there are five consumers. When innovation emerges in country A in autarky, it is shown that the innovation has tendency to cause inequality expansion. Finally, the innovation and globalization are examined in an integrated manner. We start with the country in the second case. It is shown that when the new-third commodity is produced only in country A and is a non-traded commodity, inequality tends to expand through the globalization. It is shown, furthermore, that when the third commodity is produced in both countries and is a traded commodity, we have stronger tendency. Thus, there is a clear tendency for the inequality to expand through the globalization and/or innovation.
As developing countries, such as China and India, attained the economic development, the inequality of income distribution has been discussed. This theme was also discussed in the United States from the socio-economic viewpoint by prominent economists such as Krugman , Stiglitz  and Summers . The key concept used in their arguments on the causes of the expanded income distribution inequality is the globalization and innovation. They did not conduct the theoretical examination of the cause itself. While accepting it, they provide political argument on how to solve the problem. Meanwhile, pure-research papers on this topic have been dominated by empirical ones, such as Pikketty and Saez . Theoretical contributions have been provided by Mitra and Trindade  on the globalization, by Aghion and Howitt , Aghion , Baumol , Dasgupta and Stiglitz  on the innovation, and by Krugman , Leamer  on the globalization and innovation. Their common interest, however, is in how wages vary when they investigate the income distribution changes. Furthermore, the main interest for Aghion and Howitt , Baumol , and Dasgupta and Stiglitz  is whether the investment for innovation is excessive or not compared with the optimum level. Recently, Fukiharu  provided a theoretical examination on the globalization and innovation, with income distribution inequality measured by Gini coefficient. While it is similar to Krugman , in the sense that they both utilize general equilibrium trade model and the innovation, transferred from the developed country to the developing one, implies the creation of new commodity, there is an essential difference between the two. The motivation in Krugman  is to show that the higher wage rate in the developed country stems from the creation of new commodities in the developed country, while the one in Fukiharu  is to examine whether the innovation in the developed country worsens the income distribution inequality within that country. As is expected, the conclusion depends on the parameters of the model. The distinctive feature in  is to compute the probability of the worsened cases utilizing the simulations with random selection of those parameters. This approach was established in Fukiharu , whose motivation is to overcome the problem inherent in the calibration method of Applying General Equilibrium . While Fukiharu  conducted a theoretical examination, the treatment on innovation is not satisfactory. The aim of the present paper is to conduct the integrated examination of the globalization and innovation's effects on income distribution inequality, extending . We start with the independent examinations of the globalization and the innovation, proceeding to the integrated one. The independent examination of globalization is conducted by utilizing traditional Heckscher–Ohlin (H–O) model, which is an application of general equilibrium theory for the two-commodity-two-factor-of-production economy with trading two countries, A and B . In the present paper, in order to focus on the income distribution, a modification is made somewhat into the traditional model, in such a way that the two production functions are under decreasing returns to scale, so that positive profit accrues to the entrepreneurs. Thus, there are four consumers of goods: the (aggregate) worker, the (aggregate) capitalist, and two entrepreneurs. In this modified model, first, Gini coefficient is computed for the income distribution with four economic agents when country A is in autarkic general equilibrium. Next, supposing that the country A opens its economy to country B, Gini coefficient is computed for the income distribution with four economic agents in a country A, in the general equilibrium with trade. If the former is smaller than the latter, it is defined that the income inequality expands through the globalization. In this paper, a simulation approach is adopted to compute the Gini coefficients: i.e. specifying parameters in Cobb–Douglas type production and utility functions for two countries and initial endowments of working hours and capital goods, selected for country A and for country B, we compute country A's general equilibrium incomes for the four economic agents and compare Gini coefficients. The independent examination of innovation is conducted on the five-economic-agent model, by introducing the newly produced-third commodity and the new-third entrepreneur into the four-economic-agent model. It is examined if the innovation causes the expansion of income distribution inequality when country A is in autarky. The integrated examination the globalization and the innovation starts from the situation, in which country A is in autarky and the innovation has emerged: i.e. it has five economic agents. Supposing that country A begins trade with country B, we examine if the income inequality in country A expands by this globalization, when the new commodity is a non-traded commodity produced and consumed only in country A. Finally, further modifying the assumption in such a way that the innovation is transferred to country B and new commodity is a traded commodity produced and consumed in both countries, we examine if the income inequality in country A expands compared with the non-traded commodity case.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Utilizing simulation approach, this paper examined if the income distribution inequality of a country expands through her globalization and/or innovation, somewhat modifying traditional 2-commodity-2-factor-of-production Heckscher–Ohlin model for trading two countries. The modification consists in assuming decreasing returns to scale on production functions, so that entrepreneurs with positive profit, owners of the firms, become consumers. In section 2, the globalization was examined independently of innovation, for the economy with two industries (commodities) and four consumers: the (aggregate) worker, the (aggregate) capitalist, and two entrepreneurs. It was shown that there is a tendency for the inequality to expand by globalization, through simulation approach: i.e. 55% of the 20,000 cases, in which parameters are selected randomly, indicated that inequality expands when a country in autarky, say A, begins her trade with other country, say B. Furthermore, when country A is small compared with country B, 65% indicated that the inequality in country A expands by opening trade with country B. In section 3, innovation was examined independently of globalization, by the procedure in which the new-third industry (commodity) and the new-third entrepreneur are introduced, so that there are five consumers. When innovation emerges in country A in autarky, it was shown that the innovation causes inequality expansion: i.e. more than 70% of the simulation indicates that the income distribution becomes more unequal by the innovation. In section 4, the innovation and globalization were examined in an integrated manner. We start with a small country A in autarky with five consumers: the country examined in section 3. It was shown that when the third commodity is produced only in country A and is a non-traded commodity, only 55% of the 20,000 cases indicated that inequality expands when country A in autarky begins her trade with a large country B. It was shown, furthermore, that when the third commodity is produced in both countries and is a traded commodity, more than 60% of the 20,000 cases indicated that inequality expands when country A in autarky begins her trade with a large country B. Thus, we may conclude that there is a clear tendency for the inequality to expand through the globalization and/or innovation. The present paper does not insist that the present-day “excessive” income distribution inequality was caused by the globalization and/or innovation. It insists that the globalization and/or innovation tend to have inequality-promoting effect, however small the effect might be.