Lucas paradox in the light of neoclassical theory

• Authors: Małgorzata Janicka
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In their analyses devoted to the directions of international capital flows, economists dealing with the subject often make references to conclusions reached by R. Lucas Jr, i.e., to the so called Lucas paradox. In literature, Lucas paradox provides the starting point for considerations on how neoclassical model works when it comes to the directions and volume of capital flowing among countries in modern global economy. This paper aims at discussing the rationale behind the study conducted by R. Lucas Jr and, consequently, the justification for his conclusion. Lucas paradox is considered in two approaches: classical, i.e., consistent with conclusions drawn by R. Lucas: capital flows between countries in amounts smaller than suggested by differences in marginal products of capital in individual countries and the flow does not equalise them; and contemporary: directions of capital flows in global economy are not consistent with those delineated by the neoclassical model, capital flows from poor (developing) countries to rich (developed) ones. Taking account of neoclassical model assumptions, in both approaches to Lucas paradox drawing "hard" conclusions with respect to directions of capital flows in contemporary economy based on quoted studies does not seem justified.(original abstract)

Keywords

EN

Capital flows; International capital flows; Neoclassical theory of institutions

PL

Przepływy kapitałowe; Międzynarodowe przepływy kapitałowe; Neoklasyczna teoria instytucji

• Publisher: Instytut Naukowo-Wydawniczy "SPATIUM"
• Journal: Central European Review of Economics & Finance
• Year: 2016
• Issue: Vol. 11, No 1
• Pages: 27-40

Contributors

author

Małgorzata Janicka

• University of Lodz, Poland

References

• Alfaro, L., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Volosovych, V. (2005), Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries? An Empirical Investigation. NBER Working Paper No. 11901.
• Caselli, F., & Feyrer, J. (2006). The Marginal Product of Capital. Paper presented at the 7th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference hosted by the IMF, Washington D.C., November 9-10 from www.imf.org/external/np/res/seminars/2006/arc/ pdf/cas.pdf
• Clemens, M.A. (2002). Do Rich Countries Invest Less in Poor Countries than the Poor Countries Themselves?. Center for Global Development, Working Paper, 19 from http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/2771
• Czarczyńska, A., & Śledziewska, K. (2003). Teoria integracji europejskiej. Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, Warsaw.
• McDonald, F., & Dearden, S. (1999). European Economic Integration. Longman.
• Janicka, M. (2010). Liberalizacja przepływow kapitałowych w gospodarce światowej. Przypadek Polski. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łodzkiego, Lodz 2010.
• Lucas R.E., Jr. (1990). Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries? American Economic Review, Paper and Proceedings 80 (May).
• Patnaik, I., & Shah A. (2012). Did the Indian capital controls work as a tool of macroeconomic policy? from http://www.nipfp.org.in/newweb/sites/default/ files/wp_2011_87.pdf
• Reinhart, C.M., & Rogoff, K.S. (2004). Serial Default and the "Paradox" of Rich to Poor Capital Flows, NBER Working Paper, 10296.
• Schularick, M. (2006). A Tale Of Two Globalizations: Capital Flows From Rich To Poor In Two Eras Of Global Finance, International Journal of Finance and Economics, N11, 339-354, published online in Wiley InterScience
• Singh, A. (2002). Capital Account Liberalization, Free Long Term Capital Flows, Financial Crises and Economic Development. ESCR Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper, 245.
• www.tradingeconomics.com