SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

DISTRIBUTION MODELS OF MARKET ECONOMY

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 14 (no. 2),

The article presents an approach for estimating the equilibrium prices of macrofactors – labor, capital and institutions. For this purpose production-institutional functions are introduced, linking produced net income with these three factors. A special indicator resulting from the multiplication of life expectancy and the Gini index serves as the criterion of institutional efficiency. Thus, the components of the indicator allows to take into account two properties of institutions including provision of basic guarantees and fundamental freedoms, with the number of employed people taken as the characteristic of labor, and investment in fixed assets – as the characteristic of capital. Econometric analysis has confirmed relevance of causal relationships based on the production-institutional functions for Russia, the USA and the UK. Such a generic three-factor model allows one to classify the possible modes of distribution of income. Calculations have shown that in the U.S. and UK a stable oligarchic model of income distribution has developed, with the income distribution in favor of capital. In Russia, this model has changed in the last decade toward the state-oligarchic type, with the income distribution in favor of capital and state. We introduce the notion of disequilibrium of the economy, representing the amount of price distortions for three macro-factors. Econometric parabolic functions are built for the three countries, showing dependency between economic growth rate and the indicator of disequilibrium. These functions enabled us to examine the relationship between economic equilibrium and production optimum, as well as to demonstrate how they actually may not align. The links between the notion of equilibrium and social justice, on the one hand, and between the optimum and economic efficiency, on the other hand, are uncovered. The issue of the «equitable» taxation depending on the institutional efficiency achieved is addressed.


Keywords: production-institutional functions; distribution model; disequilibrium of economy; institutional efficiency

References:
  • Ananiashvili U. and Papava V. (2010). Taxes and macroeconomic equilibrium: LafferKeynesian synthesis. Stockholm, CA&CC Press, 142 p. (In Russian.)
  • Balatsky E. (2002). Functional properties of institutional traps. Economics and mathematical methods, no. 3, pp. 54–72. (In Russian.)
  • Balatsky E. (2003). Analysis of influence of tax burden on economic growth using production-institutional functions. Studies on Russian Economic Development, no. 2. (In Russian.)
  • Balatsky E. (2004). Evaluation of the influence of fiscal instruments on economic growth. Studies on Russian Economic Development, no. 4. (In Russian.)
  • Balatsky E. (2006). Non-equilibrium prices and the flexibility of the economic markets. Studies on Russian Economic Development, no. 6, pp. 67–83. (In Russian.)
  • Balatsky E. and Ekimova N. (2011). Fiscal policy and economic growth. Society and Economy, no. 4–5, pp. 197–214. (In Russian.)
  • Balatsky E. and Ekimova N. (2015). Effectiveness of the Russian institutional development: an alternative assessment. Terra Economicus, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 31–51. (In Russian.)
  • Cartashov G. (2006). Economic growth and quality of institutions a resource based countries. Preprint #BSP/2006/82. Moscow: New Economic School, 62 p. (In Russian.)
  • Cartashov G. (2007). Economic growth and quality of institutions a resource based countries. Quantile, no. 2, pp. 141–157. (In Russian.)
  • Majewski V. (1999). Evolutionary theory and non-equilibrium processes (on the example of the US economy). Economic science of modern Russia, no. 4, pp. 45–62 (http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/968/143/1217/04-Mayevsky.pdf; accessed on February 26, 2016) (In Russian.)
  • Aghion P. and Williamson J. (2004). Growth, inequality and globalization: theory, history and policy. Cambridge University Press (http://bookre.org/reader?file=1048201/; accessed on November 10, 2015).
  • Arthur W.B. (2013). Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought (http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/Papers/Comp.Econ.SFI.pdf; accessed on February 26, 2016).
  • Bauman Z. (2013). Does the Richness of the Few Benefit Us All? Cambridge: Polity Press, 101 p.
  • Blank R.M. (ed.) (1994). Social Protection versus Economic Flexibility: Is There a TradeOff?
  • Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 386 p. (http://papers.nber.org/books/blan94-1; accessed on February 26, 2016).
  • Cusack T. and Fuchs S. (2002). Ideology, Institutions, and Public Spending. Discussion paper. Berlin, 46 p.
  • Krugman P. (2007). The Conscience of a Liberal. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 296 p.
  • North D. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton University Press, 2208 p. (http://ecsocman.hse.ru/text/19208527/; accessed on November 10, 2015).
  • Palacios-Huerta I. (ed.) (2013). In 100 Years. Leading Economists Predict The Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 216 p.
  • Popov V. (2011). Developing New Measurements of State Institutional Capacity. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, no. 158, pp. 1–7.
  • Popov V. (2014). Mixed Fortunes. An Economic History of China, Russia, and the West. Oxford University Press, 191 p.
  • Rodrik D. (ed.) (2003). In search of prosperity. Analytic narratives on economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 496 p.
  • Zolo D. (1992). Democracy and complexity: a realist approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 220 p.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606