Stephen Kosempel

Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Phone: (519) 824-4120 ext. 53948;

Fax: (519) 763-8497;

Publications:

· Friesen, Paul and Stephen Kosempel, “A Calibrated Trade Model of Agglomeration,” Review of International Economics 18(4), 714-729, September 2010.

Abstract: This paper explores just how good the idea of international agglomeration of industry can be at explaining observed economic differences between countries. An international trade model with industrial agglomeration is outlined and calibrated to real data from the World's 10 largest countries by population, in order to assess how well it can explain the gap between rich and poor countries, observed trade volumes, price differences, and other types of data. The model is revealing in showing that, given the existing location of labor, an asymmetric exogenous distribution of firms is enough to generate income disparity and other stylized facts.

· Annen, Kurt and Stephen Kosempel, “Foreign Aid, Donor Fragmentation, and Economic Growth,” The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics: 9(1) (Contributions), Article 33, 2009.

Abstract: This paper analyzes the impact of foreign aid on growth. It differs from the existing literature in at least two important ways. First, we differentiate between foreign aid as technical assistance and non-technical assistance, and demonstrate both theoretically and empirically that this distinction is important. Second, we test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of aid depends on its level of fragmentation. To preview our main results: non-technical assistance has no statistically significant impact on growth; but technical assistance has a positive and significant impact, except in countries where it is highly fragmented.

· Kosempel, Stephen, “Interaction Between Knowledge and Technology: A Contribution to the Theory of Development,” Canadian Journal of Economics 40(4), 1237-1260, November 2007.

Abstract: This article attempts to explain the large and persistent disparities in levels of output per worker across countries. It is argued that an explanation for these disparities requires an understanding of the relationship between knowledge and technology. The model that is constructed can be summarized as an open economy version of the Solow-Swan growth model; in which technological change is investment-specific, and knowledge about new technologies is embodied in labour. In the model, income differences arise because poor countries lack the knowledge to implement foreign technologies productively. Furthermore, these disparities persist when countries differ in their ability to learn.

· Banerjee, Robindranath and Stephen Kosempel, “Inter-Generational Redistribution in an Endogenous Growth Model,” Economics Bulletin, Vol. 5 no. 1, 1-6, January 2005. (with Robindranath Banerjee)

Abstract: This letter applies the Blanchard overlapping generations model to examine the effects of inter-generational redistribution on aggregate growth.

· Kosempel, Stephen, “A Theory of Development and Long Run Growth,” Journal of Development Economics 75(1), 201-220, October 2004.

Abstract: This paper presents a synthesized theory of development and long run growth. The theory that is presented combines two engines of growth which have been emphasized in the literature: technological progress and human capital accumulation. In the model, the growth rate of per capita output depends in part on the interaction between these two types of economic forces.

· Kosempel, Stephen, “Finite Lifetimes and Government Spending in an Endogenous Growth Model,” Journal of Economics and Business 56(3), 197-210, May-June 2004.

Abstract: This paper studies the long-run effects of government spending and taxation in an endogenous growth model with finite lived agents. Public expenditures are classified according to their type: Type I expenditures enter as inputs into the production function. Type II expenditures enter as goods into the utility function. Mourmouras and Lee (1999) demonstrated that when only Type I expenditures are incorporated into the analysis, the tax rate that maximizes the welfare of the average agent is invariant to life expectancy. It will be demonstrated that their result no long holds when their framework is extended to incorporate Type II expenditures.

· Carlaw, Kenneth and Stephen Kosempel, “The Sources of Total Factor Productivity Growth: Evidence from Canadian Data,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13(4), 299-309, June 2004. (with Kenneth Carlaw)

Abstract: A competitive general equilibrium model is constructed and used to identify sources of productivity growth in Canada and to quantify their importance. The model also provides procedures for constructing various economic time series. We find that periods of low productivity growth correspond to periods of high investment-specific technological change (IST) or high rates of technology embodiment. For example, the rate of IST was relatively high between 1974 and 1996. The higher rate of IST during this period should have increased the rate of productivity growth by an estimated 0.29 percentage points, ceteris paribus. Yet, productivity growth slowed. Why?

· Carlaw, Kenneth and Stephen Kosempel, “Accounting for Canada's Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Development 28(2), 83-102, December 2003. (with Kenneth Carlaw)

Abstract: A dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model is constructed and calibrated to the Canadian economy. Technology disturbances from the Canadian economy are filtered through the model and used to generate artificial time series. Output growth in the model is then decomposed into the share weighted growth rates of the factor inputs and productivity. The model is then used to identify the endogenous responses of the factor inputs to the technology disturbances. The results suggest that much of the slowdown observed in Canadian income growth since 1974 can be explained by fluctuations in the rates of investment-specific and residual-neutral technological change.

Stephen Kosempel

Last Updated: September 1, 2010