Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Economic growth, demographics, and renewable resources: A
dynamical systems approach
John M. Anderies
Mailing address: CSIRO Sustainable EcosystemsGPO Box 284Canberra, ACT 2601e-mail: [email protected]
DRAFT VERSION
Running Title: Demographics and economic growth
June 14, 2001
1
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 2
Abstract
A two sector growth model including human demographics and a renewable resource base is
developed and analyzed. The influence of economic structure, investment, and the interplay
between demographics and growth on the evolution of the system is studied. The model is very
robust over a wide parameter range and exhibits two basic classes of behavior: convergence
to a state with a stable population and constant consumption over time or “overshoot and
collapse” where periods of welfare increase are followed by periods of welfare decline. It
is shown via a combination of numerical bifurcation techniques and simple scaling arguments
that the key determinant of model behavior is the relationship between per capita consumption,
fertility and mortality, and the relative time scales implicit in the economic, demographic, and
resource systems. Also, technological change that increases productivity favors “overshoot and
collapse” type dynamics while technological change that reduces the environmental impact of
production has no effect on the dynamics of the model and thus cannot prevent “overshoot
and collapse” type behavior.
Key Words: investment, development, sustainability, demographic transition, system dy-
namics.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 3
Introduction
There has been a long association between the formal neoclassical theory of economic growth
and the study of environmental policy and sustainability. The most recent wave of work in
this area probably began with the well known work of Solow (1974) who used growth models
to study intergenerational equity with exhaustible resources, and papers by Stiglitz (1974),
and Dasgupta and Heal (1974) which address the optimal depletion of exhaustible resources.
This basic work has been extended in many directions including studying the feasibility of
maintaining consumption (Cass and Mitra, 1991) and optimal investment rules for doing so
(given constant consumption over time as a goal) (Hartwick, 1977).
These models have led to research on how they might be used to define “sustainability”, a
term for which there are many definitions (Pezzey, 1992). Toman et al. (1994) provide a neat
summary of this area of research and Pezzey (1997) has explored many subtleties concerning
using such models to define sustainability.
Growth models have been used more broadly (than the optimal consumption of a depletable
resource base) by incorporating such elements as renewable resources, assimilative capacity,
pollution, and defensive expenditures. Beltratti (1997) gives an excellent summary of this
area of research and its implications for policy. The main thrust of the work mentioned so far
is to better understand under what conditions (optimal) sustained economic development is
possible in the face of some type of physical environmental constraint.
Another line of work stemming from formal growth theory relates to social, rather than
physical, limits to growth outlined in the classic book by Hirsh (1977). The point here is that
the interaction of social and economic growth processes determines whether the latter can
deliver increased benefits to society. The crux of the argument is that a significant proportion
of consumption is what Hirsch terms “positional” in that its main function is to maintain
or increase ones position in the income hierarchy. Several papers have followed that address
“status” effects and the empirical evidence that growth is not increasing utility -i.e. people
are not getting any happier as economies grow (Keely, 2000).
My modest aim here is to bring together some general ideas from each of these areas
to study the influence of social processes on growth paths in an economy with a renewable
resource constraint. The social process I focus on is the demographic transition whereby
changing economic structure resulting from growth influences demographic patterns. By using
a combination of analytical and numerical bifurcation techniques, the influence of the interac-
tion of economic and demographic processes on growth paths is explored in several different
economic contexts.
The model
The model is a representative agent, two sector, three factor growth model with a renewable
resource base. The two sectors are agriculture and manufacturing (hereafter labeled as sectors
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 4
1 and 2, respectively), and the three factors are labor, human-made capital, and natural
capital. The human population dynamics are influenced by the per capita intake of goods
from each of these sectors.
Firms
I represent agricultural production with the Cobb-Douglass technology:
Y1 = E1(t)kαrr Lα11 K1−α1
1 (1)
where Y1 is output, kr, K1 and L1 represent natural capital, human-made capital and labor
in sector 1, respectively, and E1 is a time dependent measure of efficiency. The technology is
constant returns to scale in labor and human-made capital, but exhibits increasing returns in
natural capital. The presence of of kr in equation 1 is meant to capture the dependence of
agriculture on ecological attributes such as soil structure, fertility, and hydrological processes.
Thus kr should be interpreted not as a stock measure, but as a quality measure. Doubling
labor and capital on doubly fertile land can more than double output.
Similarly, manufacturing output, Y2 is given by
Y2 = E2(t)Lα22 K1−α2
2 , (2)
but in this case there is no dependence of E2 on natural capital. I do not include this depen-
dence for two reasons: exhaustible resources have been studied in great detail in the context
of economic growth (Solow, 1974; Hartwick, 1977; Dasgupta and Heal, 1974), and it does not
add significantly to the ideas developed here (Anderies, 1998b). Exogenous (labor augmenting)
technical progress can be incorporated by making Ei functions of time. Endogenous growth
can be modeled by setting αi = 0.
Consumers
In the economic growth literature, it has become customary to represent household behavior
as an intertemporal optimization problem, i.e. the standard Ramsey model (Barro and Sali-i
Martin, 1995). However, I have chosen to assume a constant savings rate as in the standard
Solow-Swan model. I do so for two reasons. First, including two sectors and the interaction of
demographic processes and economic growth requires that the model be more complex than
the usual one sector growth model. A constant savings rate makes the analysis more clear.
Second, although savings rates vary cross-sectionally, at the aggregate level they are constant
over time.1 Thus, individual agents are motivated to save by variety of forces i.e. consumption1See Frank (1985) for an interesting interpretation why this is so. He argues that for people lower in the
income hierarchy, consumption may have great importance for its demonstration effect. As people rise up theincome distribution, demonstration becomes less important, and savings rates go up. In this case, savings rateswould be determined by the shape of the income distribution, not the overall magnitude of the distribution.Thus as aggregate income increases, if the distribution remains the same, the aggregate savings rate will besame.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 5
smoothing, life cycle considerations, etc. which translates into a constant savings rate at the
aggregate level. In this context, a constant savings rate is a reasonable representation of reality.
Thus identical consumers solve the problem:
max U(q1, q2) = (q1)c1(q2)1−c1 (3)
subject to: P1q1 + P2q2 ≤ (1− s)M (4)
where U is utility, q1 and q2 are the per capita consumption rates of agricultural and manufac-
turing goods, P1 and P2, are their respective prices, M is per capita income, s is the savings
rate, and c1 is the preference for agricultural goods. The familiar solution is (see appendix for
details):
q1 =c1M(1− s)
P1and q2 =
(1− c1)M(1− s)P2
. (5)
General Equilibrium
Let the human population level at time t be denoted by h(t). Each of the h identical consumers
owns the same quantity of capital stock. Let labor and human-made capital factor prices be
given by w and r respectively. There are five markets in the economy, two factor, two output
markets, and an investment market. Equilibrium occurs when output and factor prices reach
equilibrium. Because technology is constant returns to scale and there are no adjustment
costs, firms are indifferent to scale. Thus firms will make use of all investment in new capital,
i.e. investment levels are completely determined by sY where Y is total output and thus the
investment market is always in equilibrium. I assume that the manufacturing sector supplies
both investment and consumer goods at the same price. The main elements of the computation
of the general equilibrium are highlighted below. For full details see the appendix.
The total demand for agricultural and manufactured goods is then
Y D1 = hq1 (6)
Y D2 = hq2 +
sM
P2(7)
where the superscript indicates “demanded”. Because of our assumption of constant returns
to scale, the zero profit condition specifies the supply output levels:
P1YS
1 = wL1 + rK1 (8a)
P2YS
2 = wL2 + rK2 (8b)
where the superscript indicates “supplied”. Again because of constant returns to scale, there
is nothing in (6), (7), (8a), or (8b) to determine the scale of production. Equations (6) and
(7) determine the proportions of total income spent in each sector and profit maximization
by firms determines the capital labor ratios in each sector. To set the scale of production, I
assume full factor utilization, i.e.:
L1 + L2 = h (9a)
K1 +K2 = kh. (9b)
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 6
Given r and w, equilibrium in output markets is computed by setting (6) equal to (8a)
and (7) equal to (8b). The economy comes to equilibrium when the rental rates of labor and
capital adjust to reflect the actual relative scarcity of labor and human-made capital given by
h and kh and factor markets clear. In equilibrium we have
L1 = βh (10a)
L2 = (1− β)h (10b)
K1 = γkh (10c)
K2 = (1− γ)kh (10d)
where β and γ are the proportions of labor and capital devoted to agriculture given by
β =((
1c1(1− s)
− 1)α2
α1+ 1)−1
(11)
γ =((
1c1(1− s)
− 1)
1− α2
1− α1+ 1)−1
, (12)
respectively. A glance at equation 11 reveals that the fraction of labor directed to agriculture
is an increasing function of preferences for agricultural goods (c1) and the productivity of
labor in agriculture (α1) and a decreasing function of productivity of labor in manufacturing
(α2). The same statement holds for γ with the word labor replaced with human-made capital.
Finally, combining equations (1), (2), and (10) yields
Y1 = E1βα1γ1−α1kαrr hα1k1−α1
h (13)
Y2 = E2(1− β)α2(1− γ)1−α1hα1k1−α1h (14)
Investment, I, is computed by substituting the expression for q2 in expression (5) into (8b)
and noting that investment is a proportion of total manufacturing good output (see appendix).
This yields
I =sY2
1− c1(1− s). (15)
Dynamic stock equations
In general terms, the three stocks in the model h, kh, and kr evolve according to the differential
equations
h = G(h, kh, kr)h (16a)
kh = I − δkh (16b)
kr = F (h, kh, kr)−D(h, kh, kr) (16c)
where G is the per capita growth rate of the human population and δ is the depreciation rate
of human-made capital. The function F represents the regeneration rate of natural capital
while D represents the degradation of natural capital caused by economic activity.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 7
Demographics
Over short time scales implicitly assumed in standard growth models, exogenously determined
exponential human population growth is a reasonable approximation. Over longer time scales,
this assumption is unreasonable. Demographics are linked to economic and natural resource
systems and thus should be endogenized. There have been several growth models that have
endogenized fertility with varying objectives, but often in an attempt to better understand
the mechanisms that underly relationships between economic growth, fertility, and mortality
observed empirically, e.g. (Raut, 1990; Barro and Sali-i Martin, 1995; Galor and Weil, 2000).
My purpose, rather, is to understand how these relationships might, via the demographic
transition, affect the nature of growth paths in an economy that relies on renewable resources.
In his recent work on human demography, Cohen (1995) notes that the “idealized historical
pattern” of the demographic transition occurs in four stages: 1) population has both high birth
and death rates that are nearly equal leading to slow population growth. 2) Death rate falls,
birth rate remains high leading to rapid population growth (mortality transition). 3) Birth
rate falls (fertility transition). 4) Birth and death rates are both low and nearly equal and the
population stabilizes at a higher level than at stage one.
As Cohen notes, there is often confusion surrounding the term “demographic transition”
as to whether it is interpreted as the historical process just discussed, or the hypothetical
mechanism by which the historical process occurs. Of course, for a model, we must build in
the hypothetical mechanism. To do so, I make only the most basic assumptions: the negative
income-child quantity relationship observed in developing economies is taken for granted and
mortality is assumed to be negatively correlated with nutrition. I doubt anyone would argue
with such basic assumptions. The difficulty is building them into the model in a reasonable
way.
To develop the relationships between birth and death rates, I assume that per capita man-
ufactured goods output is strongly correlated with overall economic development, e.g. with
more developed infrastructure, access to health care and education, etc. Increased manufac-
tured goods output reduces death rates through improved health care (“mortality transition”).
It reduces birthrates when economic development and associated social change puts downward
pressure on birth rates due to, for example, the increased marginal cost of children and chang-
ing preferences (“fertility transition”). Note that in this context, birth rates are associated
with fertility decisions as opposed to a physical measure of birth rates. Increased per capita
output of agricultural goods reduces the death rate through improved nutrition. It puts up-
ward pressure on birth rates through improved overall physical health which may, for example,
cause earlier onset of and higher fertility in females. It may also have had an influence on fer-
tility decisions in some societies - i.e. the better off one is, the more children one might decide
to have.
To capture these four elements, i.e. the effects of manufactured and agricultural goods on
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 8
birth and death rates we write
G(h, kh, kr) = G(q1(h, kh, kr), qm(h, kh)) = b(q1, qm)− d(q1, qm) (17)
where b(·) and d(·) have the obvious interpretations, and qm is total per capita manufacturing
goods output as opposed to q2 which represents per capita manufacturing goods consumption.
Here, I assume that
b(q1, qm) = b0(1− e−b1q1)e−b2qm . (18)
The term b0(1 − e−b1q1) represents increases in birth rates up to a maximum of b0 as q1 (i.e.
nutrition) increases. The parameter b1 measures the sensitivity of birth rates to such increases.
The term e−b2qm represents downward pressure on birth rates as qm increases (fertility transi-
tion). Again, b2 measures the sensitivity of birth rates to changes in qm. Similarly, I assume
d(q1, qm) = d0e−q1(d1+d2qm). (19)
Improved nutrition reduces death rates (i.e. through improved immunity, etc.) via the term
q1d1 while improved infrastructure reduces death rates via the term q1d2qm (mortality tran-
sition) where as above, d1 and d2 are sensitivity parameters. Note that death rates can only
be reduced by improved infrastructure when q1 > 0, i.e. people still starve when they have no
food regardless of the level of development of the society in which they live. The parameter
d0 measures the maximum death rate with no nutritional intake.
This simple demographic model captures the four basic linkages between population dy-
namics and the structure of the economy. The parameters bi, and di, i = 1, 2, 3 measure the
sensitivity of human population dynamics to economic structure.
The renewable resource system
The basic assumption in the model is that natural capital provides inputs for agricultural
production. Key inputs include clean irrigation water, soil nutrients, and soil structure, all of
which are provided by interacting biological processes. Tree and plant communities dramati-
cally influence hydrological cycles that affect groundwater and soil salinity, a major problem
in many areas (Lefkoff and Gorelick, 1990; Quiggin, 1988). Agricultural practices necessarily
disturb these communities and reduce the services they contribute to both surface and ground
water quality maintenance with, in some cases, drastic consequences. Further, soil is much
more than its material matrix. Complex communities of organisms live within the soil, cycling
nutrients and maintaining soil structure. Agricultural practices can disturb these communities
thus reducing their ability to perform these tasks. To maintain productivity, the goods and
services supplied by these forms of natural capital must be replaced by substitutes such as
fertilizer and complex water management systems generated using human-made capital.
Thus, natural capital is set of interlinked animal and plant populations and metabolic
processes. When disturbed, these processes can exhibit highly nonlinear behavior causing
the natural capital base to change rapidly and unpredictably (Carpenter et al., 1999). This
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 9
nonlinear behavior is the major difference between this model and depletable resource models
mentioned in the introduction. In the latter, a removal of x units of resource results in an x
unit reduction in the capital base regardless of its state (provided that it is larger than x). In
contrast, in a natural system, a removal of x trees may have a very small or very large effect
depending on the the state of the system (Carpenter et al., 1999).
It is impossible to accurately model the ecological processes described above. For our
purposes, all that need be captured is the fact that on time scales relevant to economic systems
the populations described above, if undisturbed, will grow up to maximum levels limited by the
physical environment. A simple way to capture this behavior is with a logistic growth function;
a very common way to model density dependent regeneration of a bioresource (Clark, 1990;
Anderies, 1998a; Brander and Taylor, 1998). Natural capital regenerates itself logistically and
is degraded by agricultural production, thus
F (h, kh, kr) = nrkr(1− kr) (20a)
D(h, kh, kr) = ηY1. (20b)
Note that I have not included a term for manufacturing output, Y2, which certainly can
degrade natural capital. Inclusion of such a term would needlessly complicate the analysis
of the model. It would have a minor effect on some results which I will address later. By
choice of scaling, kr lies in the interval [0, 1], nr is the aggregate intrinsic regeneration rate
of the renewable resource base, and η is a parameter that measures the impact of farming on
the natural capital base. This is the same basic set up used in (Brander and Taylor, 1998;
Anderies, 1998a).
Analysis of the Model
The model is analyzed in three sections. First, for a given economic structure, I explore
the influence of investment levels and the sensitivity of the birth rate to increases in per
capita manufacturing output on the dynamics of the model. Next, the influence of different
assumptions about economic structure on these results is examined. Finally, the possible
influence of technological change on the model dynamics is addressed. Throughout the analysis
of the model we will be interested in how changing certain parameters changes the location
and stability properties of the steady state and what different qualitative behaviors of growth
paths are possible.
There are two main classes of development paths possible in the model: Trajectories will
either approach an equilibrium either monotonically, or after a series of damped oscillations,
or not at all. If trajectories do not approach an equilibrium, they will approach a limit cycle
and undergo persistent oscillations. Figure 1 illustrates these possibilities. In figure 1 (A), any
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 10
reasonable initial condition with high biophysical capital and low population will evolve to a
stable steady state (perhaps through a series of damped oscillations). In figure 1 (B), on the
other hand, no reasonable initial condition with high biophysical capital and low population
will evolve to a steady state, and will instead converge to a limit cycle. The existence of the
limit cycle acts as a barrier between any initial condition and a long term sustainable growth
path. From a development perspective, oscillations are undesirable because they represent
periods of increasing per capita consumption followed by periods of decreasing per capita
consumption. The intergenerational equity problems associated with such trajectories are
obvious.
Limit Cycle
Stable FixedPoint
Initial Point
Natural Capital
Hum
an P
opul
atio
n
Hum
an P
opul
atio
n
Natural Capital
PointUnstable Fixed
Initial Point
(A) (B)
Figure 1: Two main model structures: (a) attainable steady state, (b) unattainable steadystate and limit cycle.
We wish to explore how changing model parameters effect the qualitative behavior of the
model. Unfortunately, even with simple models, such analysis is not easy. The two behaviors
(A) and (B) are separated by a Hopf bifurcation which occurs when, as a parameter is varied,
the steady state changes from being locally stable to unstable, and a periodic orbit develops
around the steady state. For simple systems, standard analytic methods of dynamical systems
theory can be applied reasonably easily (Kuznetsov, 1995). For more complex models, such
analysis becomes increasingly difficult and may be impractical. The main tool I employ here is a
numerical technique known as pseudo arclength continuation available in the software package
Auto (Doedel, 1981). By combining known analytical results with powerful computational
algorithms, models that are analytically tractable, but for which the analysis is impractical or
cumbersome can be efficiently, thoroughly, and accurately analyzed.
The analysis amounts to starting at a known fixed point of the system and tracking its
stability as a parameter is varied in very small steps. By locating points where the stabil-
ity of the fixed point changes, we can detect local bifurcations and use these to divide the
parameter space as mentioned above. This powerful tool for analyzing dynamical systems is
freely available. Interested readers should visit http://www.iam.ubc.ca/guides/xppaut/ for
more details and download information. For more details on the application of the method for
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 11
ecological models see (van Coller, 1997).
Critical points
There are sixteen parameters in the model. Fortunately, many of them merely scale the
variables and thus can be fixed by choice of units. An analysis of the critical points of the model
and their stability helps bound a reasonable range of values for the parameters. The model
exhibits three critical points (see appendix for details): (h, kh, kr) = (0, 0, 0), (h, kh, kr) =
(0, 0, 1), and (h, kh, kr) = (h∗, k∗h, k∗r) such that h∗ > 0, k∗h > 0 and 0 < k∗r < 1. The point
(0, 0, 0) is unstable, meaning that if not exploited, natural capital will increase to its maximum.
The stability of the point (0, 0, 1) depends on parameter choices. Stability of this point means
that the ecological economic system represented by this parameter set is not “viable”. That
is, the resource base is not sufficiently productive to support a human population with a given
technology. If this point is unstable, the system is “viable”. Given a viable parameter set,
it follows that there exists and interior equilibrium point (see appendix for details). Table 1
summarizes a set of viable parameters used in the model analysis.
Parameter Definition Value
Economic parameters
α1 Labor productivity in resource sector variesα2 Labor productivity in manufacturing sector variesαr resource productivity 0.75c1 resource good preference 0.3δ depreciation rate of capital 0.05s savings rate varies
Ei(t) Efficiency factor in sector i varies
Ecological parameters
η effect of resource good production on resource base 0.1nr intrinsic rate of increase of resource base 0.1
Demographic parameters
b0 maximum birth rate 0.1d0 maximum death rate 0.2b1 sensitivity of birth rate to resource good intake 1b2 sensitivity of birth rate to manufactured good intake variesd1 sensitivity of death rate to resource good intake 5d2 sensitivity of death rate to manufactured good intake varies
Table 1: Parameter values used in the model for the numerical bifurcation analysis.
Of interest is the stability of the interior equilibrium point as a function of model parame-
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 12
ters. A change in its stability marks the transition from the qualitative behavior in graph (A),
to the qualitative behavior in graph (B) in figure 1. The results of the analysis will be presented
in terms of the boundary between these two regions of qualitatively different behaviors.
The savings rate and the demographic transition
I begin the analysis by exploring the model behavior as a function of s (which should be
interpreted as gross fixed capital expenditure) and b2 which controls the “fertility transition”.
For this baseline case, I assume no technical progress and set Ei = 1 for i = 1, 2. The
parameters are set as shown in table 1 and α1 = 0.7 and α2 = 0.3. Finally, d2 is set to zero
for the moment.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
savings rate(A)
popu
lati
onde
nsit
y
natural capital(B)
>
>
<
Figure 2: Graph (A) shows the bifurcation diagram for the model with the basic parameterset from table 1 as s is varied. Graph (B) shows the trajectories in phase space that eventuallyconverge to the long run configurations (i.e. stable equilibrium or limit cycle) shown in (A)for a low savings rate (s = 0.09, dashed line) and a high savings rate (s = 0.23, solid line).The horizontal lines show the correspondence between (A) and (B). For s = 0.09, the modelconverges and for s = 0.23, the model overshoots and collapses.
Figure 2 summarizes the long term behavior of the model as a function of s with b2 = d2 =
0. Figure 2 (A) is a bifurcation diagram that plots the long run equilibrium population for the
model for different levels of investment. The solid line for lower values of s indicates that these
long run equilibria are stable. The dashed portion of the curve for higher values s indicates
that the equilibria are unstable and the system will never approach them. Rather, for value
of s above the Hopf bifurcation point near where the curve of heavy circles intersects the line,
the system will approach a stable limit cycle, whose amplitude is shown by the heavy solid
circles emanating from the curve of fixed points. Figure 2 (B) shows the transient behavior
and long run equilibria in phase space corresponding to points in Figure 2 (A) as indicated by
the horizontal lines which connect points in the bifurcation diagram with their counterparts
in phase space.
As is clear from the diagram, increased savings rates destabilize the model. Investment
tends to increase productive capacity which allows the population, in the short term, to over-
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 13
exploit resource base (Clark et al., 1979). A high level of investment enables the population
to grow beyond the long run carrying capacity of the resource base. The population must
subsequently (perhaps painfully) adjust downwards. This “overshoot and collapse” like be-
havior is generated by different time scales in the nonlinear model. If the time scale on which
productive capacity grows is faster (slower) than that on which the resource base regenerates
itself, the more (less) prone the system will be to overshoot and collapse. This is highlighted
in figure 3 which shows population and per capita output as functions of time for s = 0.09 (the
approximate savings rate that maximizes the long run sustainable population) and s = 0.23
corresponding to the two cases shown in figure 2.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 100 200 300 400 5000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
time (years)(A)
popu
lati
onde
nsit
y
time (years)(B)
per-
capi
taou
tput
Figure 3: Graph (A) shows the population density over time for s = 0.09 (solid line) ands = 0.23 (dashed line). Graph (B) shows the corresponding per capita output of manufactured(solid) and agricultural (dashed) for s = 0.1 (light) and s = 0.23 (bold).
Notice in figure 2 (A) that the time scale for population expansion with s = 0.23 is about
2.5 times faster than with s = 0.09. This is enabled by the higher per-capita manufacturing
output generated by higher investment. In this case per capita agricultural output can’t be
maintained as shown in figure 2 (B) (bold curves). Although peak agricultural output when
s = 0.09 can’t be maintained either, the downward adjustment is very small (light curves in
figure 2 (B)). If s is smaller still, there is no downward adjustment in agricultural output and
the the system approaches equilibrium monotonically. This suggests that, in the case with
constant technology, to avoid overshoot and collapse behavior, the rate of economic growth
should be calibrated to time scales intrinsic to the natural resource system.
The importance of relative time scales in determining model dynamics can be made explicit
by rescaling time. Define τ ≡ nrt. The new variable, τ , measures time relative to the natural
time scale implicit in nr. The model can then be rewritten with respect to this new timescale
using the chain rule, i.e.dh
dτ=dh
dt
dt
dτ=dh
dt
1nr. (21)
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 14
Performing this operation on each of the equations in the model yields
dh
dτ= (b(q1, qm)− d(q1, qm))h (22)
dkhdτ
=sY2
1− c1(1− s)− δkh (23)
dkrdτ
= kr(1− kr)− ηY1 (24)
where ˆ indicates division by nr, i.e. s =s
nr. The topological properties of this model are
equivalent to the original model. For a given set of parameters, this model will exhibit a Hopf
bifurcation when s exceeds a certain level. Here the interpretation is more revealing – as s
increases, the relative time scale in the economic system becomes faster than in the natural
system. For the parameter set used in the example, a Hopf bifurcation would occur when
s = snr≈ 0.2
0.1 = 2, i.e. when the economic time scale is roughly twice the natural time scale.
Thus, what is important is not the absolute savings rate, but the savings rate relative to the
intrinsic replacement rate of the resource base.
Of course, the results just presented are strongly influenced by the underlying economic
and demographic structure. Depending on these, for example, society might enjoy more rapid
growth without the overshoot and collapse problem discussed above. Growth paths are gov-
erned by four major drivers: the investment rate, the relationship between the birth and death
rates and the consumption of manufactured goods (measured by the parameters b2 and d2),
the relative productivity of labor versus capital within and across sectors (measured by the
parameters α1 and α2), and technological progress. I will explore each of these drivers in turn.
In the analysis thus far, b2 and d2 have been set to zero. Equilibrium occurs when birth
and death rates are equal, regardless of their magnitude. Thus a state with high birth and
high death rates (less desirable) or low birth and death rates (more desirable) can be stable
and the transition between these states is the crux of the demographic transition. With no
fertility transition, the model is stabilized by resource degradation, i.e. the “positive check” in
the Malthusian model. Figure 4 which shows birth and death rates for the first 200 years that
correspond to the trajectories shown in 3 illustrates this point. The main effect of the rate of
investment is not in determining the long run birth and death rates, but the magnitude of the
difference between them as the resource base is degraded. The heavy lines in figure 4 show the
birth (dashed) and death (solid) for s = 0.23 while the light lines show the same for s = 0.09.
In the first case, large increases in productive capacity cause a large difference in birth and
death rates leading to rapid population growth (around a maximum of 4% per year). This leads
to resource degradation and eventually to very high death rates peaking around year 170 at
8% annually. In the latter case, the difference between birth and death rates is relatively small
resulting in a growth rate of less than 1.7 % per annum. This results in a slower degradation
of the resource base as the birth and death rates approach their equilibrium value of around
3.1%. In both cases, the equilibrium “throughput” is high. A more desirable situation would
be one with low “throughput”, achieved by an increase in b2, i.e. the “preventive check” in
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 15
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 50 100 150 200
time (years)
birt
han
dde
ath
rate
s
Figure 4: The solid(dashed) lines show death(birth) rates over time for s = 0.09 (light lines)and s = 0.23 (heavy lines).
the Malthusian model.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 savings rate
b 2
O
C
Figure 5: Depicted in the graph on the right is the separation of s − b2 parameter spaceinto two regions. Points on the curve represent combinations of s and b2 for which a Hopfbifurcation occurs, i.e. a qualitative change in model behavior occurs at these points. Thethree graphs on the right shows human population density as a function of time for parametervalues located by the dotted lines. For all s - b2 parameter combinations in region “C”, themodel converges to long run equilibrium. For all s - b2 parameter combinations in region “O”,the model oscillates indefinitely.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 16
Figure 5 summarizes the effect the fertility transition has on growth paths. The graph
on the right shows the two regions in s − b2 parameter space that exhibit qualitatively dif-
ferent behavior. The curve that separates the two regions is generated by locating the Hopf
bifurcation point for each combination of s − b2. The three graphs on the left show the pop-
ulation trajectories over time corresponding to the points in parameter space to which they
are connected with a dotted line. The cases shown in the top two graphs both eventually
converge to a long run equilibrium as do all of the cases with parameter combinations in the
region marked “C” (convergence). The bottom graph never converges; it oscillates indefinitely
as do all cases for parameter combinations in the shaded region marked “O” (overshoot and
collapse). Notice that even though the model can experience some overshoot and collapse as
it converges for parameter combinations in region “C”, they are much less severe than the
overshoot and collapse for parameter combinations in region “O”. It is interesting to note that
recent archeological work suggests that human societies that have exhibited “O” type behavior
are very common (Tainter, 1988; Redman, 1999).
The interpretation is straightforward: the higher the value of b2 (the strength of the fertility
transition) the larger the savings rate s can be before the model moves into the region exhibiting
overshoot and collapse dynamics. In fact, if b2 > 1 the system does not undergo a Hopf
bifurcation. The reason that the curve separating the two regions bends over as s increases
beyond 0.45 is that with extremely high savings rates the population can’t afford to feed itself
and thus grows very slowly (not a very realistic scenario). Thus increasing b2 allows faster
growth without overshoot and enables the system to reach stage four of the demographic
transition with low birth and death rates. For example, with b2 = 1, and s = 0.2, the
equilibrium birth (and death rate) is approximately 1.1% versus 3.1% with b2 = 0.
The parameter b2 could have many different physical interpretations - i.e., how would two
economic systems with different values of b2 all else being equal differ? I offer one possibility.
Different distributions of income across a particular economy can give rise to the same average
per capita income. The homotheticity of the Cobb-Douglas utility function makes income
distribution irrelevant when computing aggregate demand (demand is a linear function of
income), but the same may not be true of birth rates. Suppose, as with preferences, each
agent has the same response for birth rate to consumption. If this function is nonlinear, then
the aggregate birth rate will depend on income distribution.
For example, if economic development is not even, some individuals might enjoy certain
benefits that reduce mortality without experiencing other aspects of the development process
that might suppress birth rates. In this case the response of the birth rate to consumption levels
would be weak (modeled by a low value of b2). If, on the other hand, economic growth is more
even and income is distributed evenly, birth rates would fall off more quickly as consumption
increased because more individuals in the population would reduce births for the same level of
per capita intake (high b2). Whatever the physical interpretation of b2, the key point is that
it is largely socially determined.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 17
Figure 6 illustrates the effect the other demographic parameter, d2 has on the model. Recall
that d2 measures the sensitivity of death rates to per capita manufactured goods output.
With both b2 and d2 non-zero, economic growth sets up a tug-of-war between the fertility
transition (stage 3 of the demographic transition), and the mortality transition (stage 2 of
the demographic transition). Figure 6 (A) shows how the bifurcation boundary shifts upward
and to the left as d2 is increased from 0 to 1. When d2 is zero, the “O” region is indicated
by dark grey shading. When d2 is 1, the “O” region is enlarged by the area shown with light
grey shading. The larger the effect growth has on reducing death rates the greater must be its
effect on reducing birth rates to avoid overshoot and collapse dynamics. This common-sense
result highlights the double-edged-sword nature of economic development. Finally figure 6 (A)
shows the explicit dependence of the minimum strength of the fertility transition, b2, required
to avoid overshoot and collapse dynamics on the strength of the mortality transition, d2. The
dotted (solid) line shows this relationship for s = 0.15 (s = 0.2). The larger savings rate
increases the size of the overshoot and collapse region from the dark grey shaded area to the
light grey plus the dark grey shaded areas.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
O
C
O
C
s
(A)
b 2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d2
b 2
(B)
Figure 6: In graph (A), The dashed line is a portion of the curve shown in figure 5 ford2 = 0. The grey region below the dashed line marked “O” has the same interpretation asin figure 5. The solid curve is the same for d2 = 0. The movement of the curve up andto the left expands the size of the overshoot and collapse region by an amount shown bythe light gray shading. The ligh Graph (B) the tradeoff between b2 and d2 (the influence ofmanufactured good consumption on birth and death rates, respectively). Points on the linesrepresent parameter combinations for which a Hopf bifurcation occurs for s = 0.15 (dot-dashedline) and s = 0.2 (solid line). These lines divide parameter space into regions with qualitativelydifferent behavior.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 18
Economic structure
Thus far, the analysis has summarized the model behavior as a function of demographic
parameters. Another critical factor in the model is economic structure which has to key
features: the overall labor (or capital) intensity and the relative labor (or capital) intensity in
each of the sectors. In the analysis thus far, α1 = 0.3, and α2 = 0.7. From 11 it is easy to see
that the labor fraction in the ith sector decreases with decreasing αi. Increasing α2 relative
to α1 increases the proportion of available labor devoted to manufacturing. The parameter
choice used in the analysis thus far (α1 = 0.3, and α2 = 0.7) is then roughly consistent with a
modern society where relatively less labor is employed in agriculture than in manufacturing.
The question of interest here is the relationship between the fertility transition, i.e. the
value of b2 and the relative and overall labor (or capital) intensity of the economy. Figure 7
summarizes this relationship. The savings rate is set at 0.2 and all other parameters are
as shown in table 1 with Ei both still set at 1, and d2 = 0. The heavy curve shows the
boundary between overshoot and collapse and convergence type dynamics in b2–α1 parameter
space with α2 set at 0.7. The lighter curve shows the same for α2 set at 0.5. Again, for
parameter combinations in region “C” or “O” the model converges or overshoots and collapses,
respectively.
C
O0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
labor productivity in agriculture, α1
Sens
itiv
ity
ofbi
rth
rate
tom
anuf
actu
red
good
outp
ut,b
2
Figure 7: Division of b2 – α1 parameter space into regions of qualitatively different behavior.In region “C” the model converges. In region “O” the model overshoots and collapses. Theheavy (light) line shows the division between the two regions when α2 = 0.7 (α2 = 0.5).
For a given value of b2, as the labor intensity in agriculture decreases the system moves
from the “C” region to the “O” region. The lower b2, the higher the value of α1 below
which the system will exhibit overshoot and collapse behavior. Thus, the less labor intense
agricultural production is, the stronger must be the effect of increased per capita manufactured
good output on decreasing birth rates. Thus in societies where the bulk of labor is engaged
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 19
in manufacturing, the more important social processes governing fertility become if overshoot
and collapse is to be avoided.
The lighter curve shows the what happens when the economy is more capital intense
overall.. In this case, the manufacturing sector is more capital intense than in the first case.
Two points are worth noting. First, when b2 is zero, the labor intensity below which the system
becomes unstable is higher (approximately 0.46 when α2 = 0.5 versus 0.35 when α2 = 0.7).
Second, for larger values of b2, the difference between the boundaries becomes less marked.
This is due to the fact that when the capital intensity increases in the manufacturing sector,
per capita output of of manufactured goods (q2) increases which increases the strength of the
downward pressure on birth rates for a given value of b2.
In summary, the structure of the economy has a strong influence on the dynamics of the
model. The more labor intense the agricultural sector the less likely the model will exhibit
overshoot and collapse behavior. The less labor intense the agricultural sector, the higher the
value of b2 must be to avoid overshoot and collapse. For example when α1 = 0.2, b2 must be
above 1.7 to avoid overshoot and collapse. When α1 = 0.3, b2 need only be above 0.7 to avoid
overshoot and collapse. Thus, the more society devotes labor to manufacturing and relies on
capital to produce food, the more important social processes such as the “fertility transition”
become in avoiding degradation of the natural resource base.
Technological change
The above analysis highlighted the important role that different (static) technological assump-
tions play in the model. As the ecological economic system evolves over time technology will
change. How would dynamically evolving technology effect the results presented thus far?
Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult question because of the fundamentally speculative
nature of technological change. In the case of endogenous growth theory where technological
change has been a focus, the question is how innovation might cause growth through, for ex-
ample, expanding product variety or rising product quality (Grossman and Helpman, 1991),
investment in human capital (Lucas, 1988), and knowledge spillovers (Romer, 1986). These
models treat knowledge as an aggregate which works to improve aggregate productivity. In
this case, no assumptions are required about in exactly what areas the knowledge and pro-
ductivity improvements are taking place and assuming that these processes are taking place
somewhere most of the time is plausible.
As highlighted in the previous section, in our model it is much more important in which
sector knowledge and productivity improvements come. For example, overall productivity
growth in an economy might be the result of small segment of the economy (e.g. computer
hardware and the U.S. economy in the decade from 1990-2000 (Gordon, 1999)). It is irrelevant
that the productivity gains are exceedingly narrow, they still generate growth. On the other
hand, it is difficult to say how these productivity gains might affect our ability to rehabilitate
soils degraded by salinization. One would have to assume similar gains in productivity in the
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 20
biotechnology sector. The point is, when addressing specific problems that have explicit spatial
and temporal components, one must assume the timely arrival of the appropriate knowledge.
Such assumptions are far more speculative than those of the much more general nature made
in aggregate growth models. As such, the meaning of technological change in a model such as
ours is much more dubious.
Technology can affect several things in the model: productivity in the manufacturing and
agricultural sector and the “environmental friendliness” of agricultural production. Includ-
ing exogenous technical change amounts to making E1 and E2 increasing functions of time.
Including technological change that reduces the environmental impact of agriculture can be
modeled by making η a decreasing function of time.
To explore the role of technological progress via increases in E1 and E2 we fix the demo-
graphic parameters and treat Ei as parameters. By varying them we can get an idea of how
the qualitative behavior of the model might change as Ei change over time. These quantities
affect the model dynamics in three basic ways: E1 and E2 affect human population dynamics
by increasing qi, E1 increases the per capita impact on the environment via equation (20),
and E2 increases the rate of growth of the capital stock (and thus the long run capital-labor
ratio). Figure 8 summarizes the effects of change Ei on the model. In order to compare with
previous results, the parameters are set as shown in table 1 with α1 = 0.3, α2 = 0.7, s = 0.1,
and b2 = d2 = 1.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
E1
E2
O
C
Figure 8: Division of E2 − E1 parameter space into convergence (”C”) and overshoot andcollapse (”O”) regions. The arrows indicate possible paths E2 and E1 might take as theyevolve over time.
The interpretation of the shading and labels is the same as with previous figures. The solid
arrows indicate trajectories that Ei(t) might take over time. Notice that for this parameter
combination with Ei both fixed at 1 as previously, the model will converge to a long run
equilibrium and will not overshoot and collapse. As is clear from the figure, technological
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 21
advance that increases productivity is destabilizing. The more even the advance of E1(t) and
E2(t) (i.e. the 45o line) the sooner the model becomes unstable. The more uneven the advance
of E1(t) and E2(t), the longer it takes for the model to become unstable.
The destabilization occurs through the increasing impact of agricultural production on the
natural resource base given by
ηY1 = ηE1βα1γ1−α1kαrr hα1k1−α1
h , (25)
directly through E1 and indirectly through E2 increasing kh. To prevent the inevitable desta-
bilization of the model, this impact must eventually stop increasing. This can be achieved
several ways. The most direct way is, of course, for technological progress to cease before E1
and E2 move into region “O”. Another way is through technological progress that causes η(t)
to decrease over time at a rate fast enough compensate for increases in Ei(t). Thus as pro-
duction becomes more efficient, its impact on the environment must decrease over time. The
model highlights the fact that outside a simple one sector growth model the role technological
progress may play in achieving sustainable outcomes is not obvious. A balancing act between
different types of progress is required.
Finally, consider a case where the main effect of technological progress is to reduce the
impact of production on the resource base (i.e. Ei are constant and η(t) is a decreasing
function over time). Such technological progress has no effect on the basic topology of the
model - it does nothing more than to scale the human and human-made capital populations.
To see this make the following change of variables:
h = ηh (26)
kh = ηkh. (27)
The new variables h and kh measure the capital and human populations in units of η, i.e. in
terms of their impact on the environment. Then
Y1(h, kh, kr) = E1βα1γ1−α1kαrr
(h
η
)α1(khη
)1−α1
=Y1(h, kh, kr)
η(28)
Y2(h, kh) = E2(1− β)α2(1− γ)1−α2
(h
η
)α2(khη
)1−α1
=Y2(h, kh)
η. (29)
Next note that sincekhh
=kh
h,
q1(h, kh, kr) = q1(h, kh, kr) (30)
q2(h, kh) = q2(h, kh), (31)
(32)
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 22
Using these expressions we can rewrite the model in terms of h, and kh:
˙h = ηh = η(b(q1, qm)− d(q1, qm))
h
η= (b(q1, qm)− d(q1, qm))h (33)
˙kh = ηkh = η
sY2(h,kh)η
1− c1(1− s)− δ kh
η
=sY2(h, kh)
1− c1(1− s)− δkh (34)
kr = nrkr(1− kr)− ηY1(h, kh, kr)
η= nrkr(1− kr)− Y1(h, kh, kr). (35)
Note that equations (33) and (34) are identical to the original model- all that has changed are
the variable names. Equation (35) appears different but, since equation 28 holds, is not. The
qualitative behavior of this model is identical to the original model. the rescaled variables can
be converted back into the original variables using the simple expressions
h(t) =h(t)η
and kh(t) =kh(t)η
. (36)
Notice that the smaller η (the more environmentally friendly production) is the larger h(t)
and kh(t). Thus if the parameter set is in region “O” in figure 5, the model will overshoot
and collapse no matter what η is. The only difference between different values of η will be
the overall scale the economic system attains before it collapses. Thus technological progress
towards cleaner technology can do nothing to prevent overshoot and collapse. Only changes
in social parameters (e.g. increasing b2 or decreasing s) can prevent overshoot and collapse.
Concluding remarks
In this paper I developed and analyzed a simple growth model which includes the dynamic
interaction of an economic system based on representative agents with identical preferences
with a simple demographic model and a renewable resource base exhibiting logistic growth.
We certainly have no hope of representing an actual ecological economic system with a model
made up of such simple ingredients. However, three points concerning the interaction of
demographics and growth that emerge from the model analysis are worth making.
First, somewhat analogous to growth models with depletable resources which suggest that
there is a minimum investment level required to maintain consumption, the model developed
here suggests that there is a maximum allowable investment level set by renewable natural
capital constraints. The overshoot and collapse dynamic is generated by differing time scales
in the economic, demographic, and natural systems. The larger the economic and demographic
time scales are relative to the time scale on which natural capital regenerates itself, the more
prone to overshoot and collapse the system is.
Second, the relationship between model stability and investment rates depends on economic
and social structure as parametrized in the model. The basic result is summarized in figure 6
(A): the stronger the impact of economic growth on reducing fertility (higher b2), the less prone
to overshoot and collapse the model will be. However, economic growth sets up a tug-of-war
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 23
between the mortality and fertility transitions. As shown in figure 6 (B), the more effective
growth is in reducing death rates, the stronger it must be in reducing birth rates. Increases in
the productivity of labor tends to destabilize the system as shown in figure 7, increasing the
importance of b1 and the social mechanisms that would tend to increase it.
Third, technological change does not play as important role in avoiding overshoot and
collapse as do demographic processes. Productivity increasing technological change (increasing
Ei(nn) favors overshoot and collapse type dynamics (figure 8). The destabilizing effect of such
chance can be mediated by technological change that reduces the environmental impact of
economic processes (decreasing η). There is a tug-of-war between increases in productivity
and environmental friendliness. Increasing environmental friendliness has no influence on
whether the model overshoots and collapses or attains a long run sustainable equilibrium
(equations (26) through (35). At best, the right combination of technological progress which
reduces the environmental impact of production faster than it increases factor productivity
can buy time in the model system to allow the critical social processes governing the increase
of b2 to progress.
The model is very robust over a wide parameter range and the different behaviors exhibited
share a common thread: the key aspect of those ecological economic systems capable of a
smooth transition from a natural capital to a human-made capital intensive state is not so
strongly related to the nature of technology and productive capacity per worker (as in the
neoclassical models) as to the evolution of sufficient social capital to manage that capacity.
The greater this productive capacity, the more prone to overshoot and collapse the model
becomes, and the more critical becomes the role of social capital in avoiding this possibility.
Put another way, technical innovation gives rise to the need for social and cultural innovation.
Many past human ecological systems that have managed resources well have done it through
ritual or religious representation of resource management (Berkes et al., 1995), i.e. with rich
endowments of social and cultural capital. It is unlikely that smart elders at some point de-
cided to invest heavily in social capital and invent intricate and brilliant resource management
systems which they then codified in ritual. It is more probable that effective resource man-
agement and the social institutions through which it was implemented, such as complex ritual
and religious practices, evolved through selection. The time scale needed for the latter method
to develop resource management strategies makes the more active approach more attractive
to say the least. Unfortunately, because of strong potential profit asymmetries, growth in
social capital may be more difficult to achieve than for human-made capital at a time when
the former may be critical.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 24
1 Appendix
Consumer optimization
To derive the demand functions in (5) from the constrained optimization problem given in (4)
we define the Lagrangian:
L ≡ U(q1, q2)− λ[P1q1 + P2q2 −M(1− s)]. (37)
The first order conditions are
∂L∂q1
= c1qc1−11 q1−c1
2 − λP1 =c1U
q1− λP1 = 0 (38)
∂L∂q2
= (1− c1)qc11 q−c12 − λP2 =
(1− c1)Uq2
− λP2 = 0 (39)
Adding (38) and (39) yields
U
λ= P1q1 + P2q2 = M(1− s) (40)
Solving (38) and (39) for q1 and q2, respectively, and substituting the right hand side of (40)
for Uλ yields (5).
General equilibrium
Assume firms rent capital from individuals. Savings is used to purchase investment goods from
the manufacturing sector which are added to the capital stock. The price of investment goods
is the same as for consumer goods. Perfectly competitive firms solve:
max πi(Li,Ki) = PiYi − wLi − rKi
Li,Ki(41)
where πi(Li,Ki) is profit in sector i = 1, 2. The first order conditions are
∂π
∂Li=αiPiYiLi
− w = 0 (42)
∂π
∂Ki=
(1− αi)PiYiKi
− w = 0 (43)
Adding (42) and (43) for i = 1, 2 yields the supply equations 8 (a) and (b).
Output markets clear when
P1YD
1 = P1YS
1 ⇐⇒ c1hM(1− s) = wL1 + rK1 (44)
P2YD
2 = P2YS
2 ⇐⇒ (1− c1)hM(1− s) + sM = wL2 + rK2 (45)
Since technology is constant returns to scale, there is nothing in the equations so far to de-
termine the scale of economic output. I thus assume full capital utilization as given by the
conditions in (9a) and (9b).
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 25
Factor markets clear when labor and capital rental rates, w and r adjust to reflect the
relative scarcity of total available labor, h, and capital, kh. Equations (42), (43), (44), (9a)
and (9b) can be used to calculate K1 as follows: Note that
hM = wh+ rkh (46)
by definition. Given r and w, (42) and (43) imply that firms will choose capital-labor ratios
that satisfyKi
Li=w(1− αi)
rαi. (47)
This combined with (46) allows (44) to be written as
c1(1− s)[rK1
1− α1+r(kh −K1)
1− α2
]=rα1K1
1− α1+ rK1 (48)
which when solved for K1 yields (10c) with γ given by (12). The expression for K2 in (10d)
follows immediately from (9b).
Given this capital allocation, the labor demand in each sector dictated by 47 is
L1 =rγkhα1
w(1− α1)L1 =
r(1− γ)khα2
w(1− α2)(49)
To close the system, choose r as the numeraire and set it equal to one. It is now easy to
see that labor demand is determined by total available capital stock, and wage rates. If total
labor demand is higher (lower) than the total available, h, there will be upward (downward)
pressure on the wage rate. The wage rate will adjust until (9a) is satisfied, factor markets
clear, and the whole system converges to the general equilibrium. Substituting the expressions
for labor demand in (49) into (9a) and solving for the equilibrium wage rate yields
w =khh
[γα1
(1− α1)+
(1− γ)α2
(1− α2)
](50)
Substituting this expression for the wage rate into the labor demand equations in (49) yields
the equilibrium labor allocations given in (10a) and (10b) with β given by (11).
1.1 Investment
Note that as with most models of growth and the environment, total investment is completely
supply side driven. This is due to the fact that there are no adjustment costs in the model. Re-
call from (45) that the total demand for manufactured goods is comprised of total consumption
goods, hq2 and investment goods,shM
P2. At equilibrium,
P2Y2 = h(1− c1)M(1− s) + hsM (51)
which when rearranged giveshM
P2=
Y2
1− c1(1− s). (52)
Thus investment is given by
I =shM
P2=
sY2
1− c1(1− s). (53)
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 26
Equilibria and local stability analysis
The model,
h = (b(q1, qm)− d(q1, qm))h (54)
kh =sY2
1− c1(1− s)− δkh (55)
kr = nrkr(1− kr)− ηY1 (56)
has three equilibria:
(h, kh, kr) = (0, 0, 0) (57)
(h, kh, kr) = (0, 0, 1) (58)
(h, kh, kr) = (h∗, k∗h, k∗r), h
∗ > 0, k∗h > 0, k∗r ∈ (0, 1). (59)
The first two equilibria follow immediately from the model equations. We will establish con-
ditions for the existence of the third (non-trivial) equilibrium below.
Standard methods for checking the stability of the first two points are not applicable
because the Jacobian does not exist when h and kh are zero. It is easy to show that the point
(0, 0, 0) is unstable by considering a perturbation of the form (0, 0, ε). For such a perturbation,
both h and kh are zero while kr > 0. Thus the perturbation will tend to grow, and the system
will move away from (0, 0, 0). This implies (0, 0, 0) is unstable.
To check the stability of the second point, consider a perturbation of the form (ε1, ε2, 0).
Define
A ≡[sE2(1− β)α2(1− γ)1−α2
δ(1− c1(1− s))
] 1α2
. (60)
Equation 55 implieskhh≤A⇐⇒ kh ≥ 0. (61)
Thus perturbations such that ε1 >ε2A
will tend to grow in the kh dimension untilkhh→ A.
Similarly, perturbations such that ε1 <ε2A
will tend to decay in the kh dimension untilkhh→ A.
The question of the stability of this equilibrium (and the existence of the third equilibrium)
then hinges on whether this perturbation will grow in the h dimension as well, or will decay
back to zero.
Fix all the parameters in the model except b0. Rewriting equations (13) and (14) in per-
capita terms yields
q1(x, kr) = E1βα1γ1−α1kαrr x1−α1 (62)
q2(x) = E2(1− β)α2(1− γ)1−α1x1−α1 (63)
(64)
where x is the capital labor ratio,khh
. Choose b0 such that
b0 >d0e−q1(A,1)(d1+d2q2(A))
e−b2q2(A)(1− e−b1q1(A,1))(65)
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 27
For parameter sets satisfying (65), at the equilibrium capital labor ratio A and with kr = 1,
h > 0 so the population will grow. Increasing the population will tend to decrease x below
A, all else being equal. When this occurs, equation (61) implies that kh will grow. Thus a
perturbation of the form above will tend to grow in both h and kh dimensions away from
(0,0,1) - i.e. (0,0,1) is unstable. If, on the other hand, the inequality in condition (65) is
reversed, at the equilibrium capital labor ratio A and with kr = 1, h < 0 so the population
will decay. As h decreases, x will tend to increase above A, all else being equal. When this
occurs, equation (61) implies that kh will decay. Thus a perturbation of the form above will
tend to decay in both h and kh dimensions back to (0,0,1) - i.e. (0,0,1) is stable.
Condition (65) describes a parameter set for a “viable” system. Parameter combinations
that satisfy (65) yield a model system in which the resource base can support a human and
human-made capital population. Otherwise, the resource base, given technology and prefer-
ences, cannot meet the needs of the human population. Our final task is, given a “viable”
system, to establish the existence and uniqueness of the equilibrium point (h∗, k∗h, k∗r).
If this equilibrium exists,k∗hh∗
= A, and (54) implies that
ξ(k∗r) ≡ b0e−b2q2(A)(1− e−b1q1(A,k∗r ))− d0e−q1(A,k∗r )(d1+d2q2(A)) = 0. (66)
Note that if (65) is satisfied, ξ(1) > 0 and it is easy to check that ξ(0) < 0. The continuity
of ξ and the Intermediate Value Theorem imply that ∃ k∗r ∈ (0, 1) such that ξ(k∗r) = 0. Next
note that
ξ′(k∗r) = b0e−b2q2(A)e−b1q1(A,k∗r )b1
∂q1
∂kr+ d0e
−q1(A,k∗r )(d1+d2q2(A))(d1 + d2q2(A))∂q1
∂kr> 0. (67)
The Mean Value Theorem along with (67) implies that ∃ at most one k∗r such that ξ(k∗r) = 0.
This combined with the existence statement above implies that there exists a unique k∗r such
that ξ(k∗r) = 0. Then
h∗ =k∗rnr(1− k∗r)
ηE1βα1γ1−α1(k∗r)αrA1−α1and (68)
k∗h = Ah∗. (69)
Thus, for parameter sets satisfying (65), we have established the existence and uniqueness
of an equilibrium point (h∗, k∗h, k∗r) with h∗ > 0, k∗h > 0, k∗r ∈ (0, 1). In general, there is no
closed form solution for equation (66). Thus the analysis of the equilibrium point (h∗, k∗h, k∗r)
is carried out numerically as outlined in the text.
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 28
References
Anderies, J. 1998a, Culture and human agro-ecosystem dynamics: the tsembaga of new
guinea., Journal of Theoretical Biology 192(4):515–530
Anderies, J. M. 1998b, Culture, economic structure and the dynamics of ecological economic
systems, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia
Barro, R. and Sali-i Martin, X. 1995, Economic Growth, MIT Press
Beltratti, A. 1997, Growth with natural and environmental resources, in C. Carraro and D.
Siniscalcoa (eds.), New Directions in the Economic Theory of the Environment, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Gadgil, M. 1995, Traditional ecological knowledge, biodi-
versity, resilience and sustainability, in C. A. Perrings (ed.), Biodiversity Conservation, pp
281–299, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Boserup, E. 1965, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. The Economics of Agriculture
under Population Pressure, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London
Brander, J. A. and Taylor, M. S. 1998, The simple economics of Easter Island: A
Ricardo-Malthus model of renewable resource use, American Economic Review 88(1):119–
138
Carpenter, S. A., Ludwig, D., and Brock, W. A. 1999, Management of eutrophication
for lakes subject to potentially irreversible change, Ecological Applications 9(3):751–771
Cass, D. and Mitra, T. 1991, Indefinitely sustained consumption despite exhaustible re-
sources, Economic Theory 1:119–146
Clark, C. W. 1990, Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable
Resources, J. Wiley, N.Y., U.S.A.
Clark, C. W., Clarke, F. H., and Munro, G. R. 1979, The optimal exploitation of
renewable resource stocks: Problems of irreversible investment, Econometrica 47(1):25–47
Cohen, J. 1995, How Many People Can the Earth Support?, W.W. Norton & Company
Dasgupta, P. and Heal, G. 1974, The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources, in Review
of Economic Studies, Symposium on the Economics of Exh austible Resources, Vol. 41, pp
3–28, Longman, Edinburgh
Doedel, E. 1981, A program for the automatic bifurcation analysis of autonomous systems,
Congressus Numerantium 30:265–284
Frank, R. 1985, The demand for unobservable and other nonopositional goods, American
Economic Review 75:101–116
Galor, O. and Weil, D. 2000, Population, technology, and growth: From malthusian stag-
nation to the demographic transition and beyond, American Economic Review 90(4):806–
828
Gordon, R. 1999, Has the ”New Economy” rendered the productivity slowdown obsolete?,
Technical report, Northwestern University and NBER
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 29
Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. 1991, Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy,
MIT Press
Hartwick, J. M. 1977, Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible
resources, American Economic Review 67(5):972–974
Hirsch, F. 1977, Social Limits to Growth, Routledge, London, U.K.
Keely, L. 2000, Why isn’t growth making us happier, Manuscript, Center for Economic
Performance, LSE
Kuznetsov, I. A. 1995, Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory, Springer-Verlag
Lefkoff, L. and Gorelick, S. 1990, Simulating physical processes and economic behavior
in saline irrigated agriculture: model development., Water Resources Research 26(7):1359–
1369
Lucas, R. 1988, On the mechanics of economic development, Journal of Monetary Economics
22:3–42
Malthus, T. R. 1999, An essay on the principle of population. Edited with an introduction
and notes by Geoffrey Gilbert, Oxford University Press
Pezzey, J. 1992, Sustainability: an interdisciplinary guide, Environmental Values 1(4):321–
362
Pezzey, J. 1997, Sustainability constraints versus ”optimality” versus intertemporal concern,
and axioms versus data., Land Economics 73(4):448–66
Quiggin, J. 1988, Murray river salinity-an illustrative model, American Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics 70(3):635–645
Raut, L. 1990, Capital accumulation, income distribution and endogenous fertility in an
overlapping generations general equilibrium model, Journal of development economics
34(1/2):123–150
Redman, C. L. 1999, Human Impact on Ancient Environments, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson
Romer, P. 1986, Increasing returns and long-run growth, Journal of Political Economy
94:1002–1037
Solow, R. 1974, Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources, in Review of Economic
Studies, Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resources, Vol. 41, pp 29–45, Long-
man, Edinburgh
Stiglitz, J. 1974, Growth with exhaustible natural resources: efficient and optimal growth
paths, in Review of Economic Studies, Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Re-
sources, Vol. 41, pp 123–137, Longman, Edinburgh
Tainter, J. A. 1988, The collapse of complex societies, Cambridge University Press
Toman, M., Pezzey, J., and Krautkraemer, J. 1994, Neoclassical Economic Growth
Theory and “Sustainability”, Technical report, Resources for the Future, Energy and Nat-
ural Resources Division Discussion Paper: ENR93-14
van Coller, L. 1997, Automated techniques for the qualitative analy-
Growth and Demographics — DRAFT 30
sis of ecological models, Conservation Ecology 1(1), available online at
http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol1/iss1/art5