UNIT 9 ENDOGENOUS GROWTH

MODELS
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Neoclassical Growth Model with Human Capital
9.3 Endogenous Technology, Increasing Returns and Monopolistic Competition
9.4 Some Issues in Endogenous Growth Theory
9.5 Let Us Sum Up
9.6 Keywords
9.7 Soriie Useful Books
9.8 Answers /Hints to Check Your Progress Exercises

9.0 OBJECTIVES
After going tlirougli the unit, you sliould be able to:
disti~iguishbetween exogenous growth models and e~ldogenousgrowtli models;
o describe the impact of human capital on economic growtli;
discuss the nature of ideas as a spur to liunza~icapital formation arid as an engine
of growth;
'analyse how teclinology can be nod el led as nn endogenoi~svariable; and
discuss what impact increasing returns and ~no~iopolistic
competition have on the
growtli process.

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Endogenous growth encompasses a wide body of theoretical and empirical work on
growtli theory tliat emerged in the 1980s. 'Tlie work differs from the standard neo-
classical model in empliasisi~igthat economic growth is caused by forces e~idogenous
to the eco~ionzicsystem ratlier than being influenced by factors outside the system.
These tnodels do not rely on exogenous technical change to explain the rise in per
capita income, nor do these rnodels set great store by the growtli accounting methods
i and the measurement of the growth accounting 'residual'. Endogenous growth theory
began with the works of Paul Romer in 1986 ar~dRobert Lucas in 1988.

f
Models of endogenous growtli had their origins in two sources: one was to give a
coherent explanation of the convergence controversy, and the other, to go beyond a
simple world of perfect competition and co~istantreturns to scale i n growtli theory.
You are studying in your microecono~nicscourse about inlperfections in the market,
but the assumption in macroeconomics and growth tlieory seems to be that there is
perfect co~npetitioneverywhere in the economy. Althoi~glieconomists had given up
this simplifying assunzption in mauy areas of economic theory, it took a long time in
growth tlieory to construct models tliat bring in imperfect competition. Another
standard assumption that was challenged was,that (eventual) di~ninisliingreturns to
ilidividual factors of production would set in, and that the aggregate production
function would exhibit co~istantreturns to scale.
Economic Growth The neo-classical Solow model exhibited diminishing returns to capital and labour
Models- Ill
separately and constant returns to scale. Thus the idea was, like in traditional
economic theory, diminishing returns to factors would eventually set in. The new
endogenous growth theories extend the Solow model in this respect: they explore the
idea that it is possible to stave off diminishing returns, and there can be increasing
returns, because of specialisation and investment in knowledge capital. The basic
neoclassical model suggests that countries with a higher return to capital (relatively
lower stock of capital) would catch up with richer countries. Failure to show
empirical convergence led to plans to drop neoclassical assumptions of (1) exogenous
technological change (2) equal technological opportunities across different countries
Endogenous growth theory does not require abandoning the neoclassical framework,
only extending it. Also, we should not look at growth theory only to investigate the
issue of convergence. A different perspective on models of growth is needed. The
basic idea in endogenous growth theory is that growtl~is caused by factors like
technology, and technology is not something given exogenously but is determined
within the system.

THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH MODEL

WITH HUMAN CAPITAL
One of the assumptions of standard growth models of the Solow type was that if
initial conditions were similar in different countries then eventually the levels of
incomes of these countries would converge. Thus it seemed that what was being
suggested was that growth rates of poor countries would tend to be faster than those
of the developed nations. The growth rates of the poor countries would get faster and
faster, while the growth rates of the richer countries would slow down. But looking at
the experiences of economic growth of countries in the world, two facts stand out.
First, output growth has consistently been much faster than population growth for
most of the world. Secondly, countries have remained on disparate growth paths for a
very long time and there does not seem to be much convergence. It was also observed
that there was a correlation of economic growth with several economic, social and
political factors, many of which were influenced by government policies.
In response to these observations there have been attempts to build models where rise
in per capita incomes goes on indefinitely. One strand of this research effort involves
models that continue lo see capital accumulation as the driving force behind
economic growth. But capital accumulation is broadened to include human capital. In
some of these works, firms keep on adding to their stocks of capital in a perfectly
competitive environment with constant returns to scale.
We first look at a body of theory that takes the basic structure of the Solow growth
model, and explores modifications that result when human capital is used along with
physical capital. Another way is to see human capital as an extension of the factor of
production, labour. We have so far considered labour as a single homogeneous factor
of production. A class of endogenous growth theory tries to go beyond this simple
formulation.
Mankiw, Romer and Weil in a 1992 paper gave a marginal extension to the
neoclassical model - include human capital (H) as a distinct factor of production. K
and H are allowed to vary together across countries and arrive at decent results for
the example discussed earlier. The Mankiw Romer Weil formulation maintains the
Solow assumption of decreasing returns to the factor capitiil. Their model is thus
within the tradition
The motivation and structure of the Mankiw, Romer and Weil (MRW) model can be
presented as follows. Suppose we consider an economy which produces an output Y
using physical capital in combination with human capital, according to a constant
returns to scale Cobb-Douglas production function
 Endogenous Growth
y = K n ( A H ) I - ~ , where A represents labour augrnentilig technology that grows at Models
an exogenous rate g. H OW people accumulate human capital is modelled differently
by different writers. According to Mankiw, Romer and Weil, people accu~nulate
human capital the way they accumulate physical capital-by foregoing current
consumption. Lucas on the other hand posits that individuals spend by in
accumulating skills. The Lucas type of presentation is made here. This idea was first
put forward by Kenneth Arrow in a 1962 article on 'The Economic l~nplicationsof
Learning by Doing'. In our economy, individuals acc~umulatecapital by building and
learning new skills and foregoing working for ihal period. Let q denote the
proportion of an individual's time spent learning new skills, and let L be the total
a m o u ~ ~oft raw labour used in production in the economy. Let us assume that
unskilled labour learning skills for time q generates skilled labour H according to the
function

where $ is a constant.. If q = 0, the L = El, and all labour is unsl<illed.By raising q, a

unit of unskilled labour increases the effective units of skilled labour iI.

In the economy, physical capital is accuniulated by investing some output instead of

consuming it, as in tlie Solow model:

Let us denote by lower-case letters variables divided by the stock of unskilled labour
1,. We can rewrite tlie production .filnction in terms of output pcr worker:

I-lere h = e@". The model assumes that q is constant and given exogenously. Since 1
too is a constant, this model ilnplies tliat along n balanced growth path, y and k will
grow at the constant rate g, the rate of technical progress. Let LIS dividc tlie per-
worker production function by dividing by Ah. We obtain

We can write the capital accumulatio~~ in ter~nsof state variables as

ecl~~ation
- -
k=s,y-(nig+6)k

the steady-state values of k and y arc obtained by setting k = 0 , which gives us

k --
- " .substituting this into the prod~~ctioo in tenns of the equation
fb~~ction
-
Y
1z+g+6

involving y , we can find the steady-state value of tlie output technology ratio y :

a-
1-a

. If we rewrite this in terliis of output per worker, we get

Economic Growth
Models-Ill

Here t is introduced to stress that: some variables are growing over time.
This gives us some explanation into why some countries are rich and some are poor.
Those countries that have a high investment rates in physical capital (That is, those
that save more), have high levels of technology, and spend a high propol-tion of time
accumulating skills are comparatively richer.
'Knowledge capital' or 'ideas' is slightly different from human capital, and facilitates
i n the accumulation of the latter. In the new growth theories endogenise
technological progress and human capital formation. New knowledge is produced by
investment in the research sector. Once knowledge is treated as a public good, there
are spillover effects that accrue to other firms. This is what we will discuss in the
next section. ,
Cheek Yorlr Progress 1
1) In what way arc the models Lhat incorporate human capital different From the
I
standard neoclassical model?

2) Using the human-capital augmented model, can you provide an explanation why
in spite of diminishing returns to physical capital, similar savings and similar
levels of technology, there may not be convergence in the growth rates of
countries?

9.3 ENDOGENOUS TECHNOLOGY,

INCREASING RETURNS AND
MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION
In the previous section we looked at the implications for economic growth, of
expanding the notion of capital 'to include human capital. We tried to see what
answers have been provided for the question 'what is the effect of human capital on
economic growlh'? In this section we get into a detailed discussion about the nature
of human capital itself, and how it is created. Tile intuitive answer to the rhetorical
question above seems to be obvious: human capital will aid growth. But then the
question is, how exactly does it affect growth and what is its nature? This is what this
section would explore. This section also explores the issue of diminishing returns to
capital that was a standard conclusion of the Solow model. We look at attempts to
come up with models where diminishing returns to capital do not set in.
Given that we see evidence of cross-country variation in per capita incomes and Endogenous Growth
national growth rates, how far can the neoclassical growth model, with decreasing Models
.
returns to capital, perfect competition, and exogenous technology, fully explain it?
Let us take a standard Cobb-Douglas production function in the standard (human
capital augmented) neoclassical model: Y = AeqtKaL'-". This is constant-returns to
scale production function. Here Y is gross domestic output, K is the stock of physical
(and human) capital, L is unskilled labour, A is a constant reflecting the technological
position of society, and eq is the exogenous rate at which the technology evolves. In
the above formulation, a indicates the percentage increase in Y froin a 1 per cent
increase in capital. Here a is obtained from the share of capital in the national
income, assuming capital is paid its marginal product. As long as n. is less than 1,
there are diminishing returns to capital and labour.
In this type of model, saving will create growth for a while. But as the ratio of capital
to labour rises, the marginal capital of capital will fall, and the economy will revert
back to the steady state and capital, labour and output will all increase at the same
rate. Growth in income per worker will continue and will equal 7, the annual rate of
productivity measurement. We mat think of q as improvement in knowledge.
Traditional neoclassical theory says nothing about how q is determined. This is
where endogenous growth theory steps in and tries to rectify this shortconling.
The AK model of endogenous growth is the basic type of formulation that captures
the essence of endogenous growth. Sergio Rebelo in an article titled "Long Run
Policy Analysis and Long Run Growlh" published in 1991, introduced the AK
model, building upon earlier work by Romer and Lucas. The basic equation of the
AK model is Y = AK . Here A is to be understood as factors that affect technology,
and K includes physical as well as human capital. This model has no diminishing
returns. One way to achieve this is to invoke some kind of externalities or spillovers.
Another way to stave off diminishing returns is to postulate that an increasing variety
or quality of intermediate inputs.
Let us look at the AK model in some detail. We have the basic equation. Suppose
capital is accumulated as some of the aggregate output is saved by individuals.

K = sY - 6 K , where the dot on top indicates time derivative, s is the rate of saving
and 6 denotes depreciation. Here whatever the initial quantity of capital, it will
continue to grow since investment in this model is greater than depreciation since sY
and 6K are both linear upward sloping lines, since saving is a constant function of Y,
and Y is linear in K.We can show it as follows:

K=sY-SK
Dividing both sides by K, we have

On the right-hand side, substitute AK for Y and we get

Let us go back to the growth equation

Y=AK
Taking natural logarithms we get
hY=lnA-lnK
Diffetentiating with respect to time we get
Economic Growth
Models-lill

K
Using this in the equation - = sA - 6 we obtain
K

Thus we see that growth rate of the output is an increasing function of the rate of
investment.
The general progression in that area has been to attribute a smaller fraction of
observed growth to the residual and a higher fraction to the accumulation of inputs.
The way that literature started out was a statement that technology is extremely
important because it explains the bulk of growth. Endogenous growth theory admits
that technology does not explain, by itself, the majority of growth. Initially, these
theorists overstated its importance. But some people say there is no need to
understand technology, because it is such a small part of the contribution to growth.
They argue that we can just ignore it. It does not follow logically. We know from the
Solow model, and this observation has been borne out empirically, that even if
investment in capital contributes directly to growth, it is technology that causes the
investment in the capital and indirectly causes all the growth. Without technological
change, growth would stop. If we look at AF {K, L) we find that there are increasing
returns {to factor) in all the relevant inputs A, K and L We need to think of
technology as a key input and one that is fundamentally different From traditional
inputs. Technology makes increasing returns possible.
Let us look a little closely now at the notion of technology and how it is produced.
.The neoclassical growth model considers technology as exogenous and leaves it
unmodeled, although technology is a key ingredient of that theory. Thc neoclassical
model also does not explain differences in technology across economies. What is
technology? In development economics the term technology denotes the way inputs
to the production process are transfomed into output. If we take a normal production
function Y = f ( K , L ) , the functionf(.) represents technology because it explains
how the inputs K and L are transformed into output. In the Cobb-Douglas production
function .

Y = K a (AL)'-" , A is an index of technology.

It is the generation of new ideas, and the ideas themselves, that improve the
technology of production. New ideas allow a given bundle of inputs to produce more
output or better output. Paul Romer, in a paper in 1986 and. another in 1990,
presented a way of n~odellingideas as an engine of growth. Romer's basic argument
was that ideas are non-rivalrous in nature as a good. Romer suggested that the nature
of ideas as a non-rivalrous good implies the presence of increasing returns to scale. If
increasing returns are to be present in a cotnpetitive environment with explicit
involvement in research, we need to invoke imperfect competition.
Most economic good are rivalrous. This means that the use of a good, say, a shirt,
excludes the use of that same shirt by anyone else. By contrast, ideas are non-
rivalrous goods. Once an idea has been created, anyone with knowledge of the idea
can take advantage of it. However, ideas share a characteristic with other goods:
ideas are excludable, at least partially, The degree of excludability is the degree to
which the owner of a good or service can charge a price for its use. In the case of
idem, patents and copyrights allow the creators of ideas to charge a price or fee.
Goods that are both non-rivalrous as well as very low or no excludability are called
pure 'public, goods, like national defence. There are goods that are rivalrous but have
 low excludability like common property resources, like a fishing lake or grazing land. Entlogenous Growth
Ideas are non-rivalrous goods but they vary in their degree of excludability. Goods Models
that are excludable allow their producers to capture the benefits they produce. Goods
that are non-excludable lead to externalities, which are spillovers of benefits not
captured by their producers.
Goods that are ri.valrous, as most goods are in economics, need to be produced every
time they are sold. For example, each shirt has to be separately produced. Non-rival
goods have to be produced only once. Think of a park or a beach. Once it is created,
everybody can use these, and they do not have to be created again and again. Ideas
are such non-rivalrous goods. Think of the idea of some operating system software
for a computer. Every time the physical product embodied in that software has to be
produced but not the intellectual property that created it. The implication of the fact
that non-rivalrous goods need to be produced only once is that such goods have a
fixed cost of production and zero marginal cost. It takes a lot of effort to bring out the
first unit of a software, but subsequent copies are produced merely by copying from
that first unit.
The nature of costs involving non-rivalrous goods suggests the presence of increasing
returns to scale and imperfect competition. Think again of the software development
example. Here the idea or knowledge capital required to come up with a new
software involves a one-time research costs and effort. However, subsequent units are
produced under constant returns to scale. The production of subsequent 100 copies
merely requires raising the production of the various units by 100. This is production
with fixed costs and zero marginal cost. Since the units after tlie first one are
produced under constant returns to scale, the entire production takes place under
increasing returns to scale. The average cost curve will be a downward sloping curve.
The cost structure has an implication for pricing: should the price charged be equal to
marginal costs? In perfect competition, firms charge a price that is equal to the
marginal cost. But if firms that produce ideas were to charge a price equal to
marginal costs, they would make losses. Since there are increasing returns to scale,
average cost will always be greater than marginal costs, and charging a price (price is
average revenue) equal to marginal costs will result in average revenue being less
than average cost and thus negative profits. In the production of ideas, producers are
given patents and copyrights when they apply for these, and these patents and
copyrights are legal mechanisms that grant these producers monopoly powers for
some time and allow them to reap profits from their ideas and inventions. This was
the case with, say, the'invention of the light bulb or the phonograph.
Romer's contribution was that he combined morlopolistic competition and increasing
returns to technological advances. His concept of positive spillovers to R&D led to
the creation of models where growth could be sustained in a framework of
endogenously determined variables that impinge on the growth process. Endogenous
growth models introduce monopolistic competition in order to show increasing
returns that would sustain time-dependent production functions for technological
change. Perfect competition woukd not allow this since finns would operate at a
minimal efficient level and increasing firm size would have no effect on output.
,
Let us now look closely some more at Romer's model of endogenous technical
change. Romer begins with a standard production knction of the type

Y = K n(ALy)l-awhere Lu denotes labour, A is taken as the stock of ideas and a

lies between 0 and 1. This production function exhibits constant returns to scale in K
and L: if we double the amount of capital and labour, output will double. But once A
enters tlie picture, there are increasing returns to scale. If K, and Lyare doubled, and
the stock of ideas is doubled as well, output will more than double.
The accumulation equation in Romer is similar to that in Solow. Capital accumulates
as people save at a constant rate, and there is also depreciation of capital.
Economic Growth
Models-111 K=s,Y-6.K
Labour grows at a constant rate n:

In Romer's model, what is new is an equation describing the accumulation of ideas,

or technical progress. In the neoclassical model, A is a productivity term and g&s
exogenously at a constant rate. The crucial point in Romer's model is that th growth
of A is endogenised. The theoretical devise to endogenise the growth of A is to
conceive of a production function for new ideas. According to: the Romer model,
there is a stock of knowledge or ideas that has been accumulated till time. t. Then
A=-dA is the number of new ideas produced at any given time. We can think of the
dt
number of people engaged in producing new ideas LAand the rate { at which they
produce new ideas. Thus '

A = Y'L,. We can think of y' as an increasing function of A, y *=f (A)

We could think of the new ideas appearing as
y' = y ~ 'where y and 0 are constants.
\
!'In the Romer model, what is the growth rate along a balanced growth path? If a
'constant fraction of the population is employed in producing ideas, then the model
predicts, just like the neoclassical model, that all per capita growth is due to technical
progress. Rate of growth of output will be equal to the rate of growth of capital and
these will be equal to the rate of growth of technical progress. From this follows the
question as to what is the rate of growth of technical progress along the balanced
growth path. Along the balanced growth path the rate of growth of ideas, A, is
constant.
Romer in his model develops three sectors to depict the generation of ideas: there is a
final goods sector, an intennediate-goodssector and an R and D sector. Basically the
research sector creates ideas which take the form of new types of capital goods. The
research sector sells the rights to the intermediate goods sector to produce a specific
type of capital good. Each firm in the intermediate-goods sector is a monopolist.
Each monopolist in the intermediate-goods sector manufactures a specific type of
capital goods and sells it to the final goods sector which produces the output. Thus
the imperfection in the model appears in the intenediate-gods sector.
The Neoclassical model of growth ignores the tirne-dependent production function
for technological advances as well as the fact that firms own these innovations and
charge monopoly rents for them. Introduce monopolistic competition in order to
show increasing returns that would sustain time-dependent production functions for
technological change. Perfect competition would not allow this since firms would
operate at a minimal efficient level and increasing firm size would have no effect on
output.
Check Your Progress 2
1) Explain why the production of ideas involves imperfect competition.
................................................................................................
I . . . . .
..................I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2) Why do diminishing returns to capital not set in the AK model of production? Endogenous Growth
Morlcls

SOME ISSUES IN ENDOGENOUS GROWTH

THEORY
What are the implications of the new endogenous growth theory for developing
nations? It had long been supposed that developing nations need to push up their
rates of saving. This came through in the writings of economists like Arthur Lewis
and W.W. Rostow, who insisted that for the economy to get transformed or to "take
off' (Ros.tow's term), it is necessary to substantially raise the savings rate. The first
lesson of endogenous growth theory is to place greater emphasis on accumulation of
human capital - even more than physical capital, Knowledge capital has to be
stressed. The second implication for developing nations is that, since knowledge
capital can be acquired by transfer of technology, developing nations would do well
to open up their economies and integrate with the world economy. In that case,
international transfer of technology-can take place.
Endogenous growth theory suggests that for developing nations that are interested in
growth should pay close attention to policy and governance. Particular attention has
to be paid to policies For the creation of knowledge capital and suitable investment to
this end. The research sector has to be promoted.
We have seen in the earlier part of this unit that endogenous growth theory explains
why convergence in growth rates does not always take place as suggested by neo-
classical growth theory. Hence developing nations would do well to devise policies
that create the situation for higher growth rates. The neoclassical model, augmented
by human capital can still predict conditional convergence
How does endogenous growth theory relate to exogenous growth theory? Sometimes
endogenous growth theory, because of the chronological time when it appeared, is
called 'new' growth theory, to contrast it with neoclassical growth theory of the
Solow type, in which technical change is exogenous, and which is called 'old' growth
theory. The implication seems to be that the '01d"owth theory is outdated while the
new growth theory is 'modern' and also superior because it explains empirical facts
better. IJowever, we must realise that technology being important and endogenous is
not a new idea and had appeared in the writings of economists like Marx and
Schumpeter. Moreover, in the 1950s, there was some work on the endogeneity of
technology, though not directly within a model of growth, by Nelson. Similarly,
Arrow's seminal work on learning-by-doing appeared as early as 1962, and this is the
basic work from which much of the endogenous growth theory has drawn inspiration.
It appeared initially that the endogenous growth theory did a better job of explaining
the lack of convergence -or divergence-in per capita growth rates of countries that
was empirically observed. However, if we consider the work of Mankiw, Romer and
Weil, which augmented the Solow model by expanding the notion of capital to
include human bapital, and which we might take to be in the tradition of exogenous
growth theory, we find it does a reasonably good job of explaining inter-country
divergence. But then, Mankiw, Romer and Weil's paper appeared in 1992, and this
was after the seminal papers of Romer and L,ucas, which were published in the mid to
late 1 980s, as we1l as Romer' s 1990 paper on endogenous technical change.
Economic Growth Where the endogenous growth theo~yappears to havc extended the exogenous
Models-Ill growth theory seenis to be in the way the creation of technology conies about in
economies. It brings in explicitly the R and D process and imperfect competition.
Check Your Progress 3
1) What are the implications of endogenous growth models for the developing
riations'l

2) Briefly colnpare the exogenous neoclassical model and the AK model of

production.

9.5 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we took a close look at some new growth theories that suggest that the
engine of growth is technology, and that this teclinology is not given exogenously,
but are endogenously deterniined. We began by observing the basic implications of
the standard neo-classical model like constant returns to scale in all factors and
diminishing returns to each factor; the fact that increasing saving does nothing to
push up the per capita income growth rates; only the levels. Iliitially the growth rates
will rise but eventually it will reach a balanced growth state and stay there.
The unit then went on to look at the human- capital-augmented neoclassical mode.
The neoclassical model had predicted that there would be convergence in growth
rates, but reality was coming up with a different picture. The Mankiw Romer and
'
Weil approach was to put human capital into the neoclassical growth model. The unit
discussed this approach in detail.
Following this, the unit took up the presentation of endogenous technical change and
its impact on economic growth. Basically the ideas of Romer and others were
discussed regarding llie creation of technical change as a result of augmenting of
knowledge capital. How ideas create human capital was discussed. We saw ideas
d
were non-rival go ds which had externalities and spillovers. We saw how R and D
created knowledge capital, and how monopolistic competition was required for suc11 q

creation were discussed.

The unit discussed a class of models and theories that attempt to present a scenario
theoretically yhere diminishing returns to capital do not set in. these are several
variants of the so-called AK model where K is physical cum human capital. Why
diminishing returns do not appear was explored. Finally the unit discussed some
issues related to endogenous growth theory, namely, its implications for developing
nations, and its relation with exogenous growth theory.
 Endogenous Growth
Models

Endogenous variable: A variable that is explained by a particular model; a variable

whose value is determined by the model's solution.
Exogenous variable: A variable that the model takes as given; a variable whose
value is taken as given from outside the model, whose value does not depend on the
model's solution.
Non-excludable goods: goods for which it is difficult to charge a price to ttie user.
Rival Goods: goods, which, when consumed by one person, reduces the amount left
over for consumption by other people.

9.7 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

Bal-ro, Robert, and Sala- I-Martin. (2002), Econonzic Gro~lth(2"d edition) McGraw-
Hill Singapore
Rotner, David. (2001), Advanced Macroeconomics (2nd editionj McGraw-I-Iill,
Singapore.
Solow, Robert M. (2000), Growlh Theory: An E-uposition (2"" edition). Oxford
University Press, Oxford and New York.

9.8 ANSWERS OR HINTS TO CHECK YOUR

'

PROGRESS EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1 ) See section 9.2
2) See section 9.2
Check Your Progress 2
1 ) See section 9.3
2) See section 9.3
Claeck Your Progress 3
1 ) See section 9.4
2) See section 9.4