A New Explanation for Changes in China's Labor Income Share: Capital Heterogeneity

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jse.202411312

Author(s)

Chen Chen*

Affiliation(s)

Center for International Economic and Technological Cooperation, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of P.R.China, Beijing, China *Corresponding Author.

Abstract

In this paper, a two-sector general equilibrium model with Putty-Clay technology is constructed, and the characteristics of capital heterogeneity are depicted in the model in the form of capital goods productivity variance. Through the capital selection mechanism, the impact of capital heterogeneity on labor income share is explored. It is found that the inverted U-trend of relative capital heterogeneity in capital-intensive industries is the cause. Second, the mechanism of capital heterogeneity affecting labor income share lies in the capital goods selection mechanism. With the increase of capital heterogeneity, the investment uncertainty faced by enterprises is strengthened. When choosing capital goods, enterprises will diversify investment and reduce capital intensity. After capital goods are put into production, firms will use high-productivity capital goods and shut down low-productivity capital goods, leading to a decline in capital utilization, the increase in total factor productivity, and the increase in output. Third, in the capital-intensive sector, the increase of capital heterogeneity will reduce, while in the labor-intensive sector, the opposite effect is presented. The new characteristics of Chinese capital and the change of labor income share, and has important policy reference significance for promoting.

Keywords

Labor Income Share; Capital Choice; Capital Heterogeneity

References

[1]Acemoglu, D. and Guerrieri, V. “Capital Deepening and Non-Balanced Economic Growth” Journal of political Economy,2008,116(3),pp.467-498. [2]Acemoglu, D. “Labor‐and capital‐augmenting technical change” Journal of the European Economic Association, 2003,1(1),pp.1-37. [3]Arrow, K. J. “The Economic Implications of Learning By Doing” Review of Economic Studies, 1962,(3),pp.3. [4]Autor, D.; Dorn, D. and Katz, L.F.; et al. “The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2020,135(2),pp.645-709 [5]Blanchard, O.J.; Nordhaus and Phelps E.S. “The medium run” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,1997,28(2),pp.89−158. [6]Blanchard, O. and Giavazzi, F. “Macroeconomic effects of regulation and deregulation in goods and labor markets” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003,118(3),pp.879-907. [7]Choi, S. and Rios-Rull, J. Labor share and technology dynamics” Society for Economic Dynamics, 2012,12,pp.123-132 [8]Dao, M.C.; Das, M.M. and Koczan,Z.; et al. “Why is labor receiving a smaller share of global income? Theory and empirical evidence” International Monetary Fund,2017. [9]Elsby, M.W.L.; Hobijn, B. and Şahin,A. “The decline of the US labor share” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2013,2013(2),pp.1-63. [10]Fukao, K. and Perugini C. “The Long‐Run Dynamics of the Labor Share in Japan” Review of Income and Wealth, 2021,67(2),pp.445-480