A So dynasties descending from cu∣ali...ed workers and cu∣ali...ed entrepre-
neurs donctexperienceoccupaticnal mcb>i lity D escendants from a cu∣aii...∈d
worker converge to (bw;q)* = (1 ∣ )(w ' ±h), 'h) = 2:25. D escendants from a
cuali.ed entrepreneurconverge to a steady state which is parametrized to
. .........r∣..b.∙...∣∙>.⅜ ~____ fuo V (l °) |qKx(1 °i +h )-i(x+h )]
the dynasty s degree oftechnιcaι11 neX αency (be,q) =-----l—1-(1-7)i-------i.
T he ∈ss ineXdentthedynasty thehicherthesteadystatewealth: (be;q)* 2
(2:2 5;9:83].
The dynamics of the dynasty coming from non-cuali.ed entrepreneur
are a little bit more complex. In this case dynasties characterized by a
level of ineX dency lower than e = 1 ∣ i(x-b)(1-7)-h = о,23233 succeed in
q 1 qK (1-7)
accumulating enough wealth in order to invest in human capital. T hey
become cuali.ed entrepreneurs, whereas dynasties characterized by a de-
græ of technical ineCdencye ∙ ° ∙ °e;nq accumulate wealth converg-
■__. ∕7en0V (1-7)[qκ(1-°i)-iχ∣ ._____ ɪ- ■ ɪ. ■
ing to (be;nq) = -----1-(1-7)i----i and remain ndn-euaii,,,ed. Even in this
case, the higher the degree of ineX dency, the lower steady state wealth:
(be>nq)* 2 [0,69; 0,7).
Theevolution ofthe occupationalstructure ofthe population is summa-
rized in table 2-3: in the long-run 54% ofthe population do not invest in
education. 53.66% ofthe population consists ofunskilled workers. The re-
maining46% ofthe population is cuali.ed. The majorshare ofthe cuali.ed
populationismadeofentrepreneurs: theyare38.26% ofthepopulation. Only
entrepreneurs experimentoccupationalmobility: 16.26% ofnon-cuali.eden-
trepreneurs become cuali.ed entrepreneurs.
|
N Q |
Q |
marg. distr. | ||
|
W |
0,5366 |
0,5366 |
0,08 ! 0,08 |
0,6166 ! 0,6166 |
|
E |
0,1633 |
0,0007 |
0,22 ! 0,382633 |
0,3833 ! 0,3833 |
|
marg, distr. |
0,7 ! |
0,5373 |
0,3 ! 0,462633 |
1 |
|
G IN I = |
0,263 |
! 0,367 | ||
T able 3: evolution of occupational distribution in scenario I (progenitors !long-run) .
A verage wealth increases, from 0.5 to 2.8 6, thanks tothe increase ofthe
cuali.ed entrepreneurialshare ofthe population6.
6A verage wealth is also an indicatorofaggregate utility. A ctually, given preferences,
aggregate utility is an increasingfunction ofaggregate income. Ifpopulation is constant,
aggregate utility is alsoan increasingfunction ofaverage income and wealth.
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. PROJECTED COSTS FOR SELECTED LOUISIANA VEGETABLE CROPS - 1997 SEASON
3. Constrained School Choice
4. The name is absent
5. Willingness-to-Pay for Energy Conservation and Free-Ridership on Subsidization – Evidence from Germany
6. Perfect Regular Equilibrium
7. Robust Econometrics
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Ruptures in the probability scale. Calculation of ruptures’ values