5.1 Calibration
As usual, the simulation of the model requires a calibration, and the values chosen
for the different parameters are reported in the following table:
Table 5: Calibration of the model, benchmark case
|
Parameter |
Symbol |
Value |
|
Parameter α in the production function |
α |
0.65 |
|
Psychological discount factor |
β |
0.99 |
|
Productivity of human capital |
δ |
0.9 |
|
Parameter ξ in the coordination costs function |
_i_______ |
1.2 |
|
Parameter θ in the coordination costs function |
_e_________ |
^O |
|
Parameter η in the coordination costs function |
л___ |
0.01 |
|
Productivity of output |
A |
1 |
|
Efficiency of human capital |
E |
^2 |
|
Size of the workforce |
L |
1 |
|
Parameter d in the coordination costs function |
d______ |
0.5 |
In particular, on the one hand these parameters are such that they satisfy the
restrictions obtained above (in order to have convexity of the cost function and exis-
tence of the steady-state). On the other hand, the same parameters allow to obtain
steady-state values of some relevant quantities that are reasonable on the basis on
the empirical evidence that is available. For instance, with this parameterization in
the steady state the fraction of time devoted to production is slightly more than
0.5, the ratio consumption/output is close to 0.95 and the fraction of the workforce
in the human resources services is close to 0.15 (this is consistent with the numbers
for UK and US in recent years, see Table 3).
It is important to observe that this calibration considers a value of the parameter
η positive and small, that corresponds to a “high bureaucratic” scenario, in which
both coordination costs and fraction of the workforce in the human resources ser-
vices are quite high. Considering a value of η negative would correspond to a “less
bureaucratic” situation, in which coordination costs decrease as the proportion of
human resources employees increases in the economy, but in any case the qualitative
results would not be altered, and there would be no major difference in terms of
organizational change.
5.2 Simulation
Starting from the values chosen, different types of shocks are considered, and the
consequences on the economy are analyzed. In particular, it is possible to consider
a shock on the productivity of output A, a shock on the efficiency of human capital
E and a shock on the coordination costs through the parameter d. All these shocks
are permanent.
20
More intriguing information
1. Rent Dissipation in Chartered Recreational Fishing: Inside the Black Box2. ADJUSTMENT TO GLOBALISATION: A STUDY OF THE FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY IN EUROPE
3. Work Rich, Time Poor? Time-Use of Women and Men in Ireland
4. What should educational research do, and how should it do it? A response to “Will a clinical approach make educational research more relevant to practice” by Jacquelien Bulterman-Bos
5. The Prohibition of the Proposed Springer-ProSiebenSat.1-Merger: How much Economics in German Merger Control?
6. National curriculum assessment: how to make it better
7. Second Order Filter Distribution Approximations for Financial Time Series with Extreme Outlier
8. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance
9. The name is absent
10. MULTIPLE COMPARISONS WITH THE BEST: BAYESIAN PRECISION MEASURES OF EFFICIENCY RANKINGS