2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jedc.2011.01.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Formal education and public knowledge

Abstract: a b s t r a c tIn this paper, I examine the transitional dynamics of an economy populated by individuals who split their time between acquiring a formal education, producing final goods, and innovating.The paper has two objectives: (i) uncovering the macroeconomic circumstances that favored the rise of formal education; (ii) to reconcile the remarkable growth of the education sector with the constancy of other key macroeconomic variables, such as the interest rate, the consumption-output ratio, and the growth … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unlike Agénor and Neanidis (2015), in this paper the parameter = 0:61 which determines the elasticity of substitution between intermediate goods is similar to the value reported by Iacopetta (2011) and Chen and Funke (2013, Table 1). In the R&D sector, the elasticity with respect to existing stock of ideas, 2 is slightly lower than their value; it is set equal to 0:6 to begin with, whereas in the human capital sector, the elasticity with respect to public-private capital ratio, 3 is set equal to 0:0 in the benchmark case; a sensitivity analysis with respect to both parameters is reported later on.…”
Section: Calibration and Policy Experimentssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Unlike Agénor and Neanidis (2015), in this paper the parameter = 0:61 which determines the elasticity of substitution between intermediate goods is similar to the value reported by Iacopetta (2011) and Chen and Funke (2013, Table 1). In the R&D sector, the elasticity with respect to existing stock of ideas, 2 is slightly lower than their value; it is set equal to 0:6 to begin with, whereas in the human capital sector, the elasticity with respect to public-private capital ratio, 3 is set equal to 0:0 in the benchmark case; a sensitivity analysis with respect to both parameters is reported later on.…”
Section: Calibration and Policy Experimentssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Unlike Agénor and Neanidis (), in this paper the parameter η = 0.61, which determines the elasticity of substitution between intermediate goods, is similar to the value reported by Iacopetta () and Chen and Funke (, Table ). In the R&D sector, the elasticity with respect to existing stock of ideas, ϕ2, is slightly lower than their value; it is set equal to 0.6 to begin with, whereas in the human capital sector, the elasticity with respect to public–private capital ratio, ν3, is set equal to 0.0 in the benchmark case; a sensitivity analysis with respect to both parameters is reported later on.…”
Section: Calibration and Policy Experimentssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…In the intermediate good sectors, the parameter η (which determines the price elasticity of the demand for intermediate goods) is set to 0.61, similar to the value used by Iacopetta (2011) and Chen and Funke (2013). This implies an elasticity of substitution between intermediate inputs of about 2.6, which corresponds also to the value found by Acemoglu and Ventura (2002).…”
Section: Parameterizationmentioning
confidence: 99%