Structural change and long run growth: Agent based models of economic development Tommaso Ciarli 1 1 SPRU, University of Sussex [email protected]New tools and methods for policy making OECD-ECLAC Workshop Paris May 19, 2014 Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 0 / 22
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Structural change and long run growth:Agent based models of economic development
New tools and methods for policy makingOECD-ECLAC Workshop
Paris May 19, 2014
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 0 / 22
Introduction
Overview
Economic growth, development, technological change and structural change
Modelling complex systems: Agent Based Models
Modelling structural changes and economic development
Discussion
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 1 / 22
Introduction Economic development macro regularities
Economic growth and development: technological change
Long term income 1000-2001: huge divergences (Maddison, 2001)
Science and technology (Szirmai, 2005):▶ share of developing countries USPTO patents in 2001: 0.8%▶ R&D as % of GDP (pre 2000): 0.1%-0.7% (OECD 2.1%)
Technological capabilities and GDP per capita (Fagerberg and Srholec, 2010)▶ Various measure of education: positive non linear▶ Research base, advanced training, exploitation of innovation: positive
linear
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 2 / 22
Introduction Economic development macro regularities
Economic growth and development: structuralchange
Radical change in the share of employment and value added from agricultureto services (Maddison, 1989)
Radical change in the structure of gross domestic expenditure, from food andbasic needs to education, health and leisure (Maddison, 2003)
Product discovery and transition on the product space (Hidalgo andHausmann, 2008a)
⇒ We need to understand how to combine these difference dynamics ofgrowth, development, technological change, and structural change, which aredisequilibrating by definition
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 3 / 22
Complex evolving systems Properties of a Complex System
Main properties of a Social System
Emergence▶ No given macro dynamics: emerges from lower level interactions
Rationality: micro entities with simple and routinised behaviour (heuristics)
Heterogeneity▶ Structural and behavioural differences▶ Hierarchical organisations (different weights)
Interactions▶ Local (there is a topology)▶ Within and between different levels of aggregation
Time and dynamics▶ Equilibrium is a particular condition▶ Interactions lead to persistent evolution (no Nash equilibria)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 4 / 22
Complex evolving systems Properties of a Complex System
Economic models and Complex Evolving Systems
Standard Economic models Complex Evolving Systems
Individuals 1,2 or infinite, fully rational, so-phisticated learning
N large but finite, simple entities,adaptive, routine behaviour
Interactions Extreme cases, trivial patterns(full or empty/star graphs)
Non trivial patterns, local in-teractions with subset of otheragents
Diversity Possibly heterogeneous, but di-versity does not matter for aggre-gate dynamics
Persistently heterogeneous, di-versity matters for aggregate dy-namics
T i m e a n dAggregateDynamics
Static (not truly dynamic) mod-els, only equilibrium states count
Truly dynamic systems, equi-libria possibly irrelevant, meta-stable states and emergent (self-organized) properties
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 5 / 22
Complex evolving systems Agent based computational economics
A broad definition of ACE
Population of heterogeneous (economic) ‘agents’
Agents live in complex systems evolving through time (Kirman, 1998).True dynamics: non reversible
“Hyper-rationality” not viable (Dosi et al., 1996): internal states, rules ofbehaviour, and adaptive expectations
Agents are autonomous or semi–autonomous
Agents interact with one another and possibly with an environment(local/social interactions)
Endogenous and persistent novelty (technological change): open-ended spaces
Aggregate structure emerges from agent interactions (Tesfatsion, 1997)
Generations of agents emerge from the interactions of their ancestors (selection, retention,innovation 7→ evolution) (Nelson and Winter, 1982a)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 6 / 22
Complex evolving systems Agent based computational economics
Structure of ABMTime t = 0, 1, 2, ..., (T ) Discrete
Sets of Agents It = 1, 2, ..., Nt Often Nt = N
Sets of Micro States i→ xi,t Firm’s output
Vectors of Micro-Parameters i→θi Res. Wage
Vector of Macro-Parameters Θ ∈ ℜm Min. Wage
Interaction Structures Gt ∈ ℘(It) Networks
Micro Decision Rules Ri,t(·|·) Innovation rule
Aggregate variables Xt = f(x1,t, ..., xNt,t) GNPSource: Giorgio Fagiolo
A very large number of application in Economics and Business and othersocial sciences .. Check here
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 7 / 22
Structural change and economic development Introduction
A definition of structural change
Structural change involves many aspects of the economy
“[...] complementary changes in various aspects of the economy, such as the sectorcompositions of output and employment, the organization of industry, the financial system,income and wealth distribution, demography, political institutions, and even the society’svalue system” (Citation omitted, 2008)
“[...] a change in the structure of the economic system, that is, in its components and intheir interactions. Components are [...] particular goods or services, and other activitiesand institutions, such as technologies, types of knowledge, organizational forms etc. Whatdoes it mean for a system to be in equilibrium when its composition keeps changing due tothe emergence of qualitatively different entities? ” (Saviotti and Gaffard, 2008)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 8 / 22
Structural change and economic development More Evidence
E.g. the industrial revolution in England
Firm size growth & concentration in large capital intensive firms (Desmet andParente, 2009)
Increase in the number of goods for final consumption (Berg, 2002)
Closer involvement of science in technological change (Mokyr, 2002)
Increased use of capital in agriculture and manufacturing ⇒ technologyembedded in machines ⇒ overall increases in productivity (Kuznets, 1973)
Urbanisation, income inequality and changes in social class composition(McCloskey, 2009)...
Some changes precede income growth, others unfold as a consequence ofincome growth
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 9 / 22
Structural change and economic development More Evidence
Product variety, demand and economic growth
“Growth and development typically involve the creation of new economicactivities.” (Burgess and Venables, 2004, p. 3)
▶ Product variety relative to the US is correlated with relative per capitaincome (Funke and Ruhwedel, 2001)
▶ Related export variety (within sectors) predicts short run growth (OECD)(Saviotti and Frenken, 2008)
▶ Growth is related to moving to the core of sophisticated products and toexport complexity (Hidalgo and Hausmann, 2009, 2008b; Hidalgo et al.,2007; Felipe et al., 2011)
▶ But also, most economies grow successfully concentrating in a smallnumber of products (sectors) (Hausmann and Rodrik, 2003)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 10 / 22
Structural change and economic development Examples of research questions
1. What variety? (Ciarli and Lorentz, 2011)
Qualify (and possibly quantify) the variety-growth thesis▶ How relevant is the dynamics of product innovation for growth? Is the
relation linear?
Which aspect of product innovation is more relevant?▶ firm’s capacity to explore consumer needs / sectors▶ firm’s capacity to improve the quality of goods▶ the frequency at which new products are marketed
Which role for demand: changes in consumer tastes, needs and shares?
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 11 / 22
Structural change and economic development Examples of research questions
2. Comparing sources of structural change (Ciarli, 2012)
Which aspects of structural change are more relevant (for growth)?
Do the different aspects interact? If yes to which extent?
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 12 / 22
Structural change and economic development The model (in two slides)
Modelling structural change
(Agent-based) Model of complementary changes in various aspects of thestructure of an economy (Ciarli et al., 2012, 2010)
S–1 Organisation of production [structure of labour and earningsdisparities]
S–2 Technology of production [speed of change in capital innovation, theshare of R&D, and its success]
S–3 Composition of production [exploration of new sectors, quality ofnew products, and share of R&D]
D–1 Income distribution [profits]
D–2 Consumption patterns [change in consumption shares and changesin consumer preferences]
All aspects are interrelated
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 13 / 22
Structural change and economic development The model (in two slides)
▶ Capital suppliers: R&D =⇒ capital vintage, labour organisation▶ Consumers: preferences, consumer classes, expenditure shares▶ Wages setting: min wage (macro), labour hierarchies, bonuses
.. Model details
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 14 / 22
Structural change and economic development Results
Validation
Long term endogenous growth in output with a transition from linear growthto exponential growth (Maddison, 2001; Galor, 2010)
Kuznets curve
S-shaped curve of growth in sectoral output from birth to diffusion
Kaldor-Verdoorn law: output growth and labour productivity growth
Capital deepening
Autocatalytic productivity
Price short run fluctuations
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 15 / 22
Structural change and economic development Results
1. What variety? Summary of results
Variety as exploration of new markets/needs, and introduction of new goods,has a significant positive effect on growth
Variety in innovation result (product quality) has a negligible positive effect onOutput
Rate of convergence to expenditure shares concentrated on luxury ‘needs’ hasa negative effect on Output
▶ Demand and Supply distribute across markets ↓ firm concentration▶ ⇒ No time for development (K accumulation) of industry
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 16 / 22
Structural change and economic development Results
2. Comparing sources of structural change
Full factorial DOE: scenarios (different countries).
⇒ 210 economies starting from the same initial conditions except for one ofthe aspects of structural change: negligible structural changes VS largestructural changes in all economic aspects
The initial differences that determine growth divergence are those that definethe structure of an economy and the way in which this evolves through time
Different aspects of the structure of an economy: organisation, product,production, consumption, distribution
Interacting aspects
.. Factorial design details
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 17 / 22
Structural change and economic development Results
Assessing factors of structural change
Most aspects of structural change are significant determinants of output, butmagnitude varies substantially
▶ 1. Income distribution, 2. rate of change in production technology, 3.Emergence of new sectors, 4. Organisation of production, 5. Consumptionpatterns (barely significant)
Most relevant aspects determine growth irrespective of all other aspects, if theeconomy experiences slow structural change
Most aspects strongly interact
Implications▶ Account for a number of economic aspects to understand long term patterns of
divergence▶ Micro interactions: some aspects may be more relevant for some economies
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 18 / 22
Wrapping up
Wrapping up
An economy is a complex system with many direct interactions, persistentroutinised behaviour, heterogeneity, disequilibria: we observe an emergingorder
Economic growth and development are characterised by structural changes
Currently a wealth of Agent Based models of growth: from Nelson and Winter(1982b) to Dosi et al. (2013)
A few models of development (adapted to economies facing deep structuralchange)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 19 / 22
Wrapping up Discussion
Further contributions of the model
General-to-specific approach to (ABM) modelling▶ Simplify the model: e.g. irrelevant aspects of structural change
Focus on the most relevant aspects and investigate them in depth: e.g. differentaspects of inequality (profit shares, firms organisation, earnings)
Open up research avenues: with no assumptions on the macro behaviour, allemergent properties require an explanations
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 20 / 22
Wrapping up Discussion
The advantages of ABM
Represent nuanced micro behaviour that depart form perfect rationality
Represent complex interactions between the agents
Analyse the macro dynamics as an emergent properties
Allow for radical uncertainty
Evolutionary dynamics▶ Adaptation▶ Lock-in at the micro and at the macro level
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 21 / 22
Wrapping up Policy implications
Quantitative scenarios
Build experimental design with policy makers: parameter spaces andcombinations
▶ For example Robust Decision Making (Lempert et al., 2003)▶ Graph visualisations showing scenarios▶ Allow the policy maker to play with parameters and assumption to
visualise different scenarios
Open up the policy options (Stirling and Scoones, 2009): outcomes depend onthe state of the word that the policy maker assumes are correct
Allowing for radical uncertainty▶ The desired outcome is only one of the possible outcomes: minor events
can have unexpected effects
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 22 / 22
Marengo▶ Complexity: Frenken, Valente, Marengo▶ Strategy and organisations: Carley and Pietrula, Lomi and Larsen▶ Technological modularity, firm and industry organisation: Ethiraj et al.
(2007); Frenken et al. (1999); Kauffman et al. (2000); Marengo and Dosi(2005); Ciarli et al. (2008)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 23 / 22
ABM Examples
Some applications in economics and business
▶ Growth: Nelson and Winter (1982a), Silverberg, Verspagen, Dosi,Howitt, Llerena and Lorentz (2004); Dawid and Fagiolo (2008); Dosiet al. (2010); Ciarli et al. (2010); Ciarli (2012); Ciarli et al. (2012); Fagioloand Roventini (2012)
▶ Firms location: David et al. (1998)▶ Firms and technological change: Dawid (2006); Teitelbaum and
Dowlatabadi (2000); Yildizoglu (2002)▶ Markets: Axtell, Epstein, Tesfatsion, Kirman and Vriend (2000)▶ Electricity markets: Tesfatsion▶ Sectoral studies: Malerba et al▶ Environmental economics: van den Bergh, Safarzynska, Windrum et al.
(2009a,b)
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 24 / 22
ABM Examples
Some applications in economics and business▶ Industrial life cycle cycles: Windrum and Birchenhall (2005), Malerba et
al▶ Labour market: Tesfatsion, Fagiolo et al. (2004), Richiardi and
Leombruni▶ Financial markets (a huge number): Delli Gatti et al. (2004), Delli Gatti
and Stiglitz, Cont, econophisycs▶ Macro instability: Bak et al. (1993); Dosi et al. (2006), Weisbuch and
Battiston, Ciarli and Valente (2007)▶ Macro: Howitt, Duffy, Arifovic▶ Firms coalition and network formation: Cowan and Jonard, Ozman,
Page, Huberman, Axtell, Vega-Redondo, Jackson, Watts▶ Foresight: Lempert▶ Other social sciences: Politics (state cooperation, conflict), Sociology,
Anthropology, ...
.. Back to structure
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 25 / 22
Structural changes
Structural change, economic and social transformations: e.g.
the industrial revolution in England
Firm size growth & concentration in large capital intensive firms (Desmet andParente, 2009)
Increase in the number of goods for final consumption (Berg, 2002)
Closer involvement of science in technological change (Mokyr, 2002)
Increased use of capital in agriculture and manufacturing ⇒ technologyembedded in machines ⇒ overall increases in productivity (Kuznets, 1973)
Urbanisation, income inequality and changes in social class composition(McCloskey, 2009)...
Some changes precede income growth, others unfold as a consequence ofincome growth
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 26 / 22
The model Supply side
Firm’s output .. Back
Each firm produces one good, satisfying one consumer need (= sector), withprice (ip) and quality (iq).
Output constrained by labour and capital (Leontief PF):
Qt = min{Qd
t ;At−1L1t−1;DKt−1
}At−1 is the labour productivity embedded in K vintages
Price is determined as a fixed mark–up µ on variable costs▶ Firm organisations/size (S-1)▶ Labour productivity (S-2)
Large µ→ Larger bonuses for executives
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 27 / 22
The model Supply side
Factors of production: Labour .. Back
S–1 Organisation of production
Demand for first tier workers L1t adjusts to desired output and productivity.
Higher tiers workers co-ordinate a batch of ν subordinates
L2t = L1
t ν−1
...LΛt = L1
t ν1−Λ
where Λ is the total number of firms’ layers
Large ν → less workers per executive
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 28 / 22
The model Supply side
Factors of production: Capital Stock .. Back
S–2 Production technology
Investment decision of new capital units is unconstrained
ket = (1 + u)Y et
D−Kt−1
u: reserve; 1/D: K intensity.
Investment increases the efficiency of production incorporating new capitalvintages
At =
t∑τ=0
kτ (1− δ)t−τ
Ktaτ
δ: depreciation; aτ : vintage productivity
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 29 / 22
The model Supply side
Factors of production: Capital Stock .. Back
S–2 Production technology
Capital good firms innovate improving the productivity of the suppliedvintages proportionally to profits/sales:
▶ Spend a share ρk of cumulated profits Πg,t to hire R&D engineers
▶ Probability of success: P inng,t = 1− e−ζLE
g,t−1
▶ New vintage’s productivity increase depends on the variance of astochastic variable: εag,t ∼ N(0;σa)
Large ρk → more process innovationLarge ζ → higher prob of successLarge σa → larger change in vintage productivity
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 30 / 22
The model Supply side
Product innovation .. Back
S–3 Product technology
1. Spend a share ρ of non invested profits in R&D: Rf,t
2. Research in a neighbourhood of the current sector/need n, limited byιRf,t
3. Select the sector/need n′ with the largest excess demand Y xn,t
4. Develop a new prototype with stochastic quality qn′,f,t = f(
ϑ1−|n−n′|
)5. Add to the prototypes basket
6. Market a new product with probability f(− θ
∆Yf,t
),
moving to a new sector/need only if competition pressure is lower
Large ρ→ more product innovationLarge ι→ faster change in sectorsLarge ϑ→ larger increase in product quality Large θ→ quicker diffusion ofnew products
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 31 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
Income structure .. Back
D–1 Income distribution
A minimum wage wm is negotiated at the macro level
▶ labour market – wage + Beveridge curve (continuous)▶ inflation and productivity (discrete)
Exponential wage structure along the organisational pyramid
w1t = ωwm
t−1
w2t = bw1
t...
wΛt = bΛw1
t .
ω: firm bargain; b: executive multiplier
Executives receive bonuses ψl from residual profit shares (1− ρ)
Large b → higher wage differencesCiarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 32 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
Income classes and evolution of consumption .. Back
D–2 Consumption shares
Consumption level differ by labour/income class.
Each class z is populated by the workers of a corporation’s tier (identical wageand bonus)
Consumers in a class also consume according to the same expenditureshares and preferences.
Expenditure shares cn,z change across classes: satiation
cn,z = cn,z−1 (1− η (cn,z−1 − c̄n))
c̄n: an asymptotic value; η convergence (satiation) speed▶ We assume a need = a consumption category
Large η→ faster convergence to luxury goods
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 33 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
Change in consumption shares
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Need n
Expe
nditu
re s
hare
s c n,
z Asymptitic sharesHouseholds class z=1
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 34 / 22
Implicit Engel curves: evolution of consumption shares
Change in consumption share for η = 3 and ten consumer classes. In themodel consumption classes emerge endogenously .Init
The model Income generation & consumption
Consumer behaviour .. Back
For each need, given the perceived characteristics of a goodi∗fn,m = N
(ifn,m, σ
iifn,m)
(quality and price), a consumer selects all thefirms that offer a good with equivalent values and shares the demand
The tolerance with respect to less–then–optimal quality on each characteristicdefines consumer class preferences.
From low to high income classes the tolerance towards good’s quality reduces,and price becomes relatively indifferent
Total purchases close the model: firms sales.
Large υz,m → larger preference differences across classes
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 36 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
Experimental design2k full factorial design: analysis of k factors at two levels (High and Low),simulating all possible combinations (Montgomery, 2001; Kleijnen et al., 2005)
▶ identify the factors that are more influential▶ study a large number of interactions of different orders between factors▶ minimise the number of simulation runs
Analyse the 10 factors defining the initial structure and the scale ofstructural changes through time: extreme values
⇒ yijlt observations▶ i factor responses: output and other modal variables (Inequality, Productivity,
Concentration, Prices,...)▶ j designs: 1024▶ l replicates: 20▶ t periods: 2000
.. Back
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 37 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References I
Bak, P., Chen, K., Scheinkman, J., and Woodford, M. (1993). AggregateFluctuations from Independent Sectoral Shocks: Self–Organized Criticallyin a Model of Production and Inventory Dynamics. Ricerche Economiche,47(1):3–30.
Berg, M. (2002). From imitation to invention: creating commodities ineighteenth-century Britain. Economic History Review, 55(1):1–30.
Burgess, R. and Venables, A. J. (2004). Toward a microeconomics of growth.Policy Research Working Paper Series 3257, The World Bank.
Ciarli, T. (2012). Structural interactions and long run growth: An applicationof experimental design to agent based models. Revue de l’OFCE, Debates andpolicies, 124(5):295–345.
Ciarli, T., Leoncini, R., Montresor, S., and Valente, M. (2008). Technologicalchange and the vertical organisation of industries. Journal of EvolutionaryEconomics, forthcomin.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 38 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References II
Ciarli, T. and Lorentz, A. (2011). Product variety and economic growth. tradeoff between supply and demand dynamics. Working paper mimeo, MaxPlanck Institute of Economics.
Ciarli, T., Lorentz, A., Savona, M., and Valente, M. (2010). The effect ofconsumption and production structure on growth and distribution. A microto macro model. Metroeconomica, 61(1):180–218.
Ciarli, T., Lorentz, A., Savona, M., and Valente, M. (2012). The role oftechnology, organisation, and demand in growth and income distribution.LEM Working Papers 2012/06, Laboratory of Economics andManagement, San’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa.
David, P. A., Foray, D., and Dalle, J.-M. (1998). Marshallian Externalities andthe Emergence and Spatial Stability of Technological Enclaves. Economics ofInnovation and New Technology, 6:147–182.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 39 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References IIIDawid, H. (2006). Agent–Based Models of Innovation and Technical Change.
In Tesfatsion, L. and Judd, K. L., editors, Handbook of Computational Economics,Volume 2: Agent-Based Computational Economics, chapter 25, pages 1235–1272.North-Holland.
Dawid, H. and Fagiolo, G. (2008). Agent-based models for economic policydesign: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization, 67(2):351–354.
Delli Gatti, D., Di Guilmi, C., Gaffeo, E., Giulioni, G., Gallegati, M., andPalestrini, A. (2004). A New Approach to Business Fluctuations:Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, Scaling Laws and Financial Fragility.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 56:489–512.
Desmet, K. and Parente, S. L. (2009). The evolution of markets and therevolution of industry: A quantitative model of england’s development,1300-2000. Working Papers 2009-06, Instituto Madrileño de EstudiosAvanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 40 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References IV
Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., Napoletano, M., and Roventini, A. (2013). Incomedistribution, credit and fiscal policies in an agent-based keynesian model.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37(8):1598 – 1625. RethinkingEconomic Policies in a Landscape of Heterogeneous Agents.
Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., and Roventini, A. (2006). An Evolutionary Model ofEndogenous Business Cycles. Computational Economics, 27:3–34.
Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., and Roventini, A. (2010). Schumpeter Meeting Keynes:A Policy–Friendly Model of Endogenous Growth and Business Cycles.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34:1748–1767.
Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D. A., and Roy, R. R. (2007). The Dual Role ofModularity: Innovation and Imitation. Management Science, Forthcomin.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 41 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References V
Fagerberg, J. and Srholec, M. (2010). Innovation systems, technology anddevelopment: Unpacking the relationships. In Åke Lundvall, B., Joseph,K. J., Chaminade, C., and Vang, J., editors, Handbook Of Innovation Systems AndDeveloping Countries. Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting, chapter 4,pages 83–115. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Fagiolo, G., Dosi, G., and Gabriele, R. (2004). Matching, Bargaining, andWage Setting in an Evolutionary Model of Labor Market and OutputDynamics. Advances in Complex Systems, 14:237–273.
Fagiolo, G. and Roventini, A. (2012). Macroeconomic Policy in DSGE andAgent-Based Models. Revue de l’OFCE, 124(5):67.
Felipe, J., Kumar, U., Abdon, A., and Bacate, M. (2011). Product complexityand economic development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,forthcoming(0).
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 42 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References VI
Frenken, K., Marengo, L., and Valente, M. (1999). Interdependencies,{N}early-{D}ecomposability and {A}daptation. In Brenner, T., editor,Computational Techniques for Modelling Learning in Economics. Kluwer, BostonDordrecht and London.
Funke, M. and Ruhwedel, R. (2001). Product variety and economic growth:Empirical evidence for the oecd countries. IMF Staff Papers, 48(2):pp.225–242.
Galor, O. (2010). The 2008 lawrence r. klein lecture comparative economicdevelopment: Insights from unified growth theory. International EconomicReview, 51(1):1–44.
Hausmann, R. and Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as selfdiscovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(8952):603–633.
Hidalgo, C. A. and Hausmann, R. (2008a). A network view of economicdevelopment. Developing Alternatives, 12(1):5–10.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 43 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References VII
Hidalgo, C. A. and Hausmann, R. (2008b). A network view of economicdevelopment. Developing Alternatives, 12(1):5–10.
Hidalgo, C. A. and Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economiccomplexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26):10570–10575.
Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabasi, A.-L., and Hausmann, R. (2007). Theproduct space conditions the development of nations. Science, 317:482–487.
Kauffman, S. A., Lobo, J., and Macready, W. G. (2000). Optimal search on atechnology landscape. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,43(2):141–166.
Kirman, A. and Vriend, N. J. (2000). Learning to be Loyal. A Study of theMarseille Fish Market. In Delli Gatti, D., Gallegati, M., and Kirman, A.,editors, Interaction and Market Structure. Essays on Heterogeneity in Economics (LectureNotes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 484), pages 33–56. Springer, Berlin.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 44 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References VIII
Kleijnen, J. P. C., Sanchez, S. M., Lucas, T. W., and Cioppa, T. M. (Summer2005). State-of-the-art review: A user’s guide to the brave new world ofdesigning simulation experiments. INFORMS Journal on Computing,17(3):263–289.
Kuznets, S. (1973). Modern economic growth: Findings and reflections. TheAmerican Economic Review, 63(3):247–258.
Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W., and Bankes, S. C. (2003). Shaping the next onehundred years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND, SantaMonica.
Llerena, P. and Lorentz, A. (2004). Cumulative Causation and EvolutionaryMicro-founded Technical Change: On the Determinants of Growth RatesDifferences. Revue Economique, 55(6):1191–1214.
Maddison, A. (2001). The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. OECD, Paris.
Maddison, A. (2003). The World Economy: Historical Statistics. OECD.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 45 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References IX
Marengo, L. and Dosi, G. (2005). Division of labor, organizationalcoordination and market mechanisms in collective problem-solving. Journalof Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(2):303–326.
Matsuyama, K. (2008). Structural change. In Durlauf, S. N. and Blume, L. E.,editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.
McCloskey, D. N. (2009). Science, bourgeois dignity, and the industrialrevolution. MPRA Paper 22308.
Mokyr, J. (2002). The gifts of Athena: historical origins of the knowledge economy.Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Montgomery, D. C. (2001). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley &Sons, New York, 5 edition.
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982a). An Evolutionary Theory of EconomicChange. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 46 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References X
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982b). An Evolutionary Theory of EconomicChange. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Saviotti, P. and Frenken, K. (2008). Export variety and the economicperformance of countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18:201–218.10.1007/s00191-007-0081-5.
Saviotti, P. and Gaffard, J. (2008). Preface for the special issue of jee on’innovation, structural change and economic development’. Journal ofEvolutionary Economics, 18(2):115–117.
Stirling, A. C. and Scoones, I. (2009). From risk assessment to knowledgemapping: science, precaution and participation in disease ecology. Ecologyand Society, 14(2).
Szirmai, A. (2005). The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1 edition.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 47 / 22
The model Income generation & consumption
References XITeitelbaum, D. and Dowlatabadi, H. (2000). A Computational Model of
Technological Innovation at the Firm Level. Computational and MathematicalOrganization Theory, 6(3):227–247.
Windrum, P. and Birchenhall, C. (2005). Structural change in the presence ofnetwork externalities: a co-evolutionary model of technological successions.Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15:123–148.
Windrum, P., Ciarli, T., and Birchenhall, C. (2009a). Consumer heterogeneityand the development of environmentally friendly technologies. TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 76(4):533–551.
Windrum, P., Ciarli, T., and Birchenhall, C. (2009b). Environmental impact,quality, and price: Consumer trade-offs and the development ofenvironmentally friendly technologies. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 76(4):552–566.
Yildizoglu, M. (2002). Competing R&D Strategies in an Evolutionary IndustryModel. Computational Economics, 19:51–65.
Ciarli (SPRU, Sussex) Structural change and long run growth OECD-ECLAC 48 / 22