



|
Capital and Savings
When The
Wealth of Nations
was published in 1776, James Watt and others were making the
improvements to the steam engine that would usher in a
century of steam power and set the stage for the age of
fossil fuels. A technological revolution was underway, but
it was still too early to really understand that. What the
economists in the generation after Smith did recognize was
the importance of machinery, or what economists call
capital. The economist who explained the importance of
capital best was David Ricardo.
Ricardo developed a complete model of the economy in an
effort to figure out how much income different groups would
earn. He was a master of abstraction, and he simplified the
economy into three types of resources: land (or natural
resources), labor (or human resources), and capital (or
man-made tools that increase production). This
simplification is still used today. Ricardo imagined an
economy at rest that for some reason increased the amount of
capital. Production would increase, and if population did
not increase as a result, per-capita income would rise,
which would mean a higher standard of living. You might
think that if capital kept growing, then production could
grow without limit, but Ricardo saw a limit: diminishing
returns. Additional increases in capital would yield smaller
and smaller increases in output, until the contribution of
more capital would be nil. At this point, no further
improvements in the standard of living would be
possible.
Ricardo tells a more complicated story than that outlined
in the previous paragraph, and you can find out about those
complications from many other sources if you are interested.
For our purposes, we want to emphasize that additional
capital produces additional output and that to get
additional capital, investment and savings are necessary. A
nation that does not invest, perhaps because it does not
save, will have less capital and hence a lower standard of
living than a nation that invests more.
In the 1950s the pre-Keynesian growth model was revived
in mathematical splendor. Robert Solow of MIT led the
revival of what is now called the neo-classical growth
model. The Explore
supplement to this page allows you to play a bit with
some of the results of this model.
Since Ricardo, economists have stressed the importance of
capital. Sometimes they have overstressed it, as in the
1950s when they worried that the Soviet Union would grow
faster than the United States because it seemed to be
investing more. However, they have also expanded their
understanding of capital beyond factories and physical
machines. As important now is human capital, the
development of skills that make people more produce. The two
most important ways of building human capital are by
education and on-the-job training. Today when economists
talk about economic development, human capital is likely to
be as important as physical capital.
Concern about investment has made economists aware of the
importance of financial markets and financial institutions
in growth and development. Those who save are generally
different people than those who invest. If a society cannot
bring together these two groups so they can cooperate in
mutually beneficial exchange, it will struggle to grow. An
effective financial sector requires well-defined property
rights and a judicial system that enforces contracts.
Without enforceable contracts, the risk of lending is so
high that little will take place.
Finally, we see the importance of savings and capital
emphasized in what some, such as Jeffrey Sachs, term the
"poverty trap."1 They argue that there are some
nations that are so poor that they cannot save. Because they
cannot save, they cannot invest and increase capital. Hence,
they are trapped in poverty. The solution is for outsiders
to provide aid so that they can make the initial investment
that will get them onto the ladder of development. To use an
analogy, consider a poor fisherman who must fish all his
working hours to feed himself. If he could take time to make
a net, he could be able to catch more, but if he does take
this time, he will starve. However, if someone gives him
assistance, he can then make the net, produce more fish, and
have free time to plot other ways to increase his wellbeing.
The savings could come from foreign investment, but Sachs
downplays this source, emphasizing the need for government
foreign assistance. He emphasizes the need for investment in
education, health, and infrastructure.
  
1 Jeffrey Sachs, The
End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our
Time .
Penguin, 2006. William Easterly in The
White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest
Have Done So Much Ill and So Little
Good
(Penguin Press, 2006) dismisses the notion of the poverty
trap. He says that there are no nations in a real poverty
trap. He also is more pessimistic than Sachs about the
ability of poor-nation governments to spend aid wisely.
Copyright
Robert Schenk
|