You are on page 1of 11

Int Rev Econ (2009) 56:17–27

DOI 10.1007/s12232-008-0054-5

Population and economic growth with human
and physical capital investments

Alberto Bucci Æ Davide La Torre

Published online: 21 October 2008 
Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract We present a two-sector endogenous growth model with human and
physical capital accumulation to analyze the long-run relationship between popu-
lation growth and real per capita income growth. Formal education and investment
in physical capital are assumed to be two separate components of human capital
production. Along the balanced growth path equilibrium, population change may
have a positive, negative, or else neutral effect on economic growth depending on
whether physical and human capital are complementary/substitutes for each other in
the formation of new human capital and on their degree of complementarity.

Keywords Economic growth  Population  Human capital accumulation 
Physical capital investment

JEL Classification O33  O41  J24

1 Introduction

Projections of the United Nations (1998) show that 3 more billion people will be
added to the planet before 2050. Within a similar scenario, it is extremely important
to analyze the long-run effects of the increase in population on real per capita
income growth. Despite the huge body of theoretical and empirical research,
economists and demographers still do not have a shared view on the connections
between population change and economic growth (see Kelley 1988; Ehrlich and Lui

A. Bucci (&)  D. La Torre
Department of Economics, Business and Statistics,
University of Milan, Via Conservatorio 7, 20122 Milan, Italy
e-mail: alberto.bucci@unimi.it
D. La Torre
e-mail: davide.latorre@unimi.it

123

this negative correlation typically disappears (or even reverses direction) once other fac- tors…are taken into account’’. For given per-capita physical capital stock. via this channel. Instead. If physical and human capital are substitutes the larger amount of physical capital now available in the economy deters the demand and. On the other hand. In his work economic growth depends positively on technological progress and human capital investment. leads ceteris paribus to an unambiguous decline of the per- capita level of skills and. 123 . summarize as follows the available evidence: ‘‘…Though countries with rapidly growing populations tend to have more slowly growing economies….18 A. on per-capita income growth may be positive. By using a two-sector endogenous growth model where individuals may purposefully invest in human and physical capital. or else equal to zero. in this paper we aim at providing an alternative theoretical explanation of these apparently ambiguous effects of population growth on economic growth1 based on a new technology for the formation of skills that emphasizes the presence of a relationship of substitutability/ complementarity between physical and human capital (formal education) in the production of new human capital. there is no purposeful investment in technical progress and new human capital is produced both through formal education and physical capital investment. if physical and human capital are complements. a larger population drives the rate of technical progress up (this is the traditional scale effect one may commonly find in the innovation-based growth literature). Hence. For a given growth rate of human capital. 1686 was among the first to conclude that. thus. human capital accumulation and population growth are endogenous. Bucci. therefore. the increase in population size. the source of economic growth. we find that when physical capital and formal education are substitutes for each other the impact of population growth on income growth is always negative. to a lower per-capita income growth rate. In this situation the final effect of the increase in population size on the per capita level of skills and. increasing population size requires to bear more children. or negative. deter or even have no impact on economic development. In this regard. In particular. At the same time. Hence. Bloom et al. in the growth rate of per-capita income as well (quality–quantity trade off effect). In a recent paper Tournemaine (2007) also attempts at reconciling the ambiguous effects of population change on per-capita income growth within an unified framework. D. he presents a growth model where technical progress. the consequent production of new human capital. population change may contribute. The intuition is the following. which in turn diverts time from education. This implies a reduction in the growth rate of human capital and. while Tournemaine (2007) explains the ambiguous impact of population growth on 1 Kelley (1988) p. Unlike Tournemaine (2007). in our model population growth is exogenous (rather than being the outcome of individuals’ fertility choice). La Torre 1997 and Tournemaine 2007 for a survey of this literature). depending on the country. ultimately. however. the consequent supply of human capital. the increase in the supply of physical capital spurs the demand and. hence. when they are complementary for each other the effect becomes ambiguous. (2003) p. 17. together with the reduction of the aggregate human capital stock. an increase of population causes the aggregate physical capital to rise.

we omit disembodied technological progress) because in analyzing the relationship between demographic and economic growth we wish to focus on 123 . The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. 5. who considers a purely Lucas (1988)-type per-capita human capital accumulation equation where. and eventually on their degree of complementarity. as we shall specify in a moment) and where it is assumed that the production of human capital is relatively intensive in this factor-input. We posit A = 1 (i. 2 The model The economy is composed of households and firms. 2 we set the model. a 2 ð0. Section 4 concludes. Labor is only skilled and all human capital available at t (Ht) is employed into two alternative uses: a fraction ut (equal to HYt) is used to produce goods and the remaining fraction (1 – ut) is used to produce new human capital. A¼1 ð1Þ In Eq. Population (Lt) grows at a constant and exogenous rate.a are the factor shares and A is total factor productivity. n  Lt =Lt [ 0. In this section we also study the long-run relationship between population and economic growth. the scale and the quality–quantity trade off effects). 1Þ.e. in our model the presence of the growth rate of physical capital in the law of motion of per-capita human capital acts as an endogenous mechanism of depreciation/appreciation of (embodied) knowledge. Following Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004) Chap. we propose instead a different theoretical explanation of the same result based on whether formal education and physical capital are complementary/substitutes for each other in the acquisition of new human capital.1 Production Consumption goods (Y) are produced by combining human (HY) and physical (K) capital according to: Yt ¼ AKta ðHYt Þ1a . 2. we build a two-sector growth model in which technological capital accumulation is replaced by physical capital accumulation (a measure of learning. these papers also analyze the long-run effects of an increase in population on real per-capita income growth by taking population change as exogenous. like ours. and its size at t = 0 is normalized to one. Households choose how much to save and how much to invest in skill acquisition. Our work is probably most closely related to Dalgaard and Kreiner (2001) and Strulik (2005) as.. HYt  ut Ht . Firms produce consumption goods. 1 a and 1 . In Sect. Section 3 analyzes the properties of the model along the balanced growth path equilibrium. besides population growth.Population and economic growth 19 economic growth by the interaction of the two effects mentioned above (namely. who use a one-sector growth model with human and technological capital accumulation (patents and education are generated by the same production function). Unlike Dalgaard and Kreiner (2001). the total human capital stock is given by the number of workers (Lt) times the average level of each worker’s human capital (ht). unlike Strulik (2005). an exogenous depreciation rate of skills operates. Instead.

Bucci. e 6¼ 0: ð5Þ In Eq. 2 and 3 rt and wt denote the real interest rate and the wage rate per unit of productive human capital. Boucekkine and Ruiz-Tamarit (2008) pp. the constraint e [ -1 prevents the growth rate of the model’s aggregate variables from either exploding (e = -1) or being negative (e \ -1) along a balanced-growth-path (BGP. 3 Alvarez Albelo (1999). 2. 4 See Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004) equation 5. K0 [ 0. At the aggregate level the law of human capital accumulation is postulated to be:  Ht ¼ rð1  ut ÞHt  ðegKt ÞHt . the law of motion of physical capital reads as:  kt ¼ ðyt  ct Þ  nkt ¼ ðrt  nÞkt þ wt ðut ht Þ  ct . 4 yt (:Yt/Lt). yt ¼ rt kt þ wt ðut ht Þ: ð4Þ In Eq. the main difference with Uzawa (1965) and Lucas (1988)4 2 The rate of physical capital depreciation is set equal to zero. Introducing a positive depreciation rate does not alter the results. with a human capital depreciation rate equal to zero. ct (:Ct/Lt) and utht (:HYt/Lt) represent per-capita income and consumption and the fraction of per-capita human capital employed in production.  where Kt represents (gross and net) physical capital investment2 and Ct is aggregate consumption.ut of individual skills is used to acquire new human capital. D. respectively. The remaining fraction 1 . For given r [ 0 and 0 \ ut \ 1. whose size (L) rises over time at the exogenous rate of population growth (n). Hence. The representative household uses the income it does not consume to accumulate physical capital. maximization of the representative firm’s profit implies:  1a   oYt HYt ut ht 1a rt  ¼a ¼a ð2Þ oKt Kt kt  a   oYt Kt kt a wt  ¼ ð 1  aÞ ¼ ð 1  aÞ ð3Þ oHYt HYt ut ht In Eqs. hereafter) equilibrium where Ht/Kt is constant.21. we can concentrate on the choices of a single dynastic family. La Torre human capital investment as the sole source of per-capita income growth. 1 þ e [ 0. respectively. Defining by ht (:Ht/Lt) and kt (:Kt/Lt) per-capita human and physical capital. r [ 0. Thus:  Kt ¼ Yt  Ct .20 A.2 Consumers The economy is closed and populated by structurally identical households. 5 e reflects the impact of the growth rate of K (gKt)—a measure of learning by using the new technology embodied in new capital goods3 (from now on simply learning)—on the accumulation of H. 5 reveals that. respectively. when e = 0. In per-capita terms. Consumption goods are produced competitively and used as the numeraire (PY = 1). 34–35 have recently highlighted the main reasons of the rebirth of the Lucas and Uzawa growth theory based on human capital formation. H0 [ 0. Simple inspection of Eq. 123 .

358). This is what happens in Eq. 5 allows us to analyze the predictions of an endogenous growth model where in the long run u may still remain constant but the common and constant growth rate of all (aggregate and per-capita) variables is positive (see next section). our model can encompass those of Uzawa (1965) and Lucas (1988) as special cases. ht. 1Þ: 6 ‘‘…The steady state paths are such that ct. In her work. This implies that. Eq. c 2 ð0. we show in this paper that. gHt. The first is that we  measure learning by g Kt  K t =Kt and not by physical capital net investment ðKt Þ The reason is technical. the presence of large time-costs from learning the use of the most up-to-date technologies embodied in new capital goods leads to a faster depreciation of the available human capital (erosion effect). On the other hand. 5 when e [ 0. ceteris paribus. under specific assumptions on some key parameters.7 we do not make any a priori assumption in this respect. depending on the sign of e. 7 ‘‘…this new technology implies that both types of capital are complementary for each other in such a way that if Ut were equal to unity we would obtain the AK model’’ (p. especially in those sectors experiencing rapid advancements in technological change. However. learning acts as a mechanism of endogenous appreciation of human capital in the equation of skill-supply and our model reproduces the same situation already studied by Alvarez Albelo (1999). Equation 5 presents two major differences also with respect  to Alvarez Albelo (1999).Population and economic growth 21 consists in postulating a technology for human capital formation in which a faster learning (higher gKt) may. and thus in Kt. kt. when -1 \ e \ 0. using a BGP- t!1 perspective. Alvarez Albelo (1999) uses a technology of human capital accumulation that is additive in two components (formal education and learning)5 and defines the long-run equilibrium of the model (what she calls steady state) as a situation where u remains constant and the main variables depending  on time grow at a constant rate. and eventually   5 Namely. it is well recognized (Galor and Moav 2002) that the time required for learning the latest technology increases with the rate of technical progress. yt grow at the same rate’’ (p. we would write Eq. 5 as Ht ¼ rð1  uÞHt  ðe Kt ÞHt and obtain that in the long  run growth in physical capital ceases ð lim Kt =Kt ! 0Þ: Instead. ht grow at a constant rate and u remains constant. More precisely. learning can act as a mechanism of endogenous depreciation or appreciation of H. with b. either accelerate (-1 \ e \ 0) or slow down (e [ 0) the rate at which human capital accumulates over time. In this case physical and human capital are complementary for each other in the production of skills since in the long run an increase in gK. harms investment in human capital ðHt Þ and its growth rate (gH). In her model there is no population growth and all variables are expressed in per-capita terms. Ht ¼ bHt ð1  Ut Þ þ c Kt . In this case physical and human capital are substitutes for each other in the production of new human capital since in the long period (when gK and gH are constant) an increase in learning (gK). and thus in Kt. its growth rate (gH). The second difference is more substantial and has to do with the fact that. ultimately leading to a fall of Ht. …It is easy to check that ct.6 If we applied her definitions of learning ðKt Þ and steady state  equilibrium to our framework. 123 . unlike Alvarez Albelo (1999) who analyses only the case where physical and human capital (formal education) are complementary for each other in the production of new human capital. kt. Indeed. stimulates human capital investment ðHt Þ. 359).

La Torre  leads to a rise of Ht. h[1 fct . kt and ht each takes the growth rate of aggregate physical capital as given. e 6¼ 0 ð7Þ lim kkt kt ¼ 0. m 2 ½0. Proposition 1 Characterization of the BGP equilibrium Along the BGP we have (see Appendix 1 for algebraic details):     rq 1þem gc ¼ gk ¼ gh ¼ gy  g ¼  n ð8Þ hþe hþe ð1 þ eÞ½ðr  qÞ  ð1  m  hÞn u¼1 ð9Þ rðh þ eÞ 8 Bucci (2008) also uses a technology for human capital accumulation similar to (5) within a model where R&D activity. 1. 2 and 3 suggest that u. 123 . in solving for the optimal paths of ct. instead. ð50 Þ and the problem of the representative household can be expressed as: Z1  1h  ct  1 ðqmnÞt Max U0  e dt. by m the parameter controlling for their degree of altruism towards future generations (Strulik 2005) and by h the inverse of the intertemporal elasticity of substitution in consumption. ut 2 ½0. Equation 7. 1 þ e [ 0. Equations 50 . employing human capital. the law of motion of per-capita human capital becomes:  ht ¼ rð1  ut Þht  ðegKt þ nÞht . ut.kt .ht g1 t¼0 1h 0 ð6Þ  s:t: : kt ¼ ðrt  nÞkt þ wt ðut ht Þ  ct .22 A. 1 8t  ht ¼ rð1  ut Þht  ðegKt þ nÞht . Households are competitive in that. is the source of endogenous technological progress. gives the two transversality conditions. h0 [ 0: In Eq. r [ 0. q  m  n [ 0. Bucci. r and w are all constant along the BGP equilibrium. lim kht ht ¼ 0 t!1 t!1 k0 . 3 BGP analysis In this section we focus on a BGP equilibrium where: (1) the growth rate of all time- dependant variables is constant (and possibly positive). The hypothesis h [ 1 is dictated by available evidence (Growiec 2006).8 Given Ht . (2) the ratio Ht/Kt remains invariant over time.ut . 6 we denoted by q the agents’ pure rate of time preference. D.

Population and economic growth 23 rh þ e½q þ ð1  m  hÞn r¼ ð10Þ hþe     ht rh þ e½q þ ð1  m  hÞn 1=ð1aÞ rðh þ eÞ ¼  kt að h þ e Þ rðh  1Þ þ ð1 þ eÞ½q þ ð1  m  hÞn ð11Þ Equation 8 gives the common growth rate of per-capita variables.31). qgy/qn is positive when 1\e\e\0. Lemma • If human and physical capital are complementary for each other in the production of new human capital (-1 \ e \ 0).1). 9 With our parameter values. when e [ e. the term r(1 . Therefore. when e ¼ e these two effects exactly cancel out each other. d = 0 and r : B our model allows to reproduce those by Uzawa.The condition r [ q also ensures that g is positive even when n = 0. 123 . and the positive indirect accumulation effect. instead. the accumulation effect prevails over the dilution effect. We have the following theorem: Theorem In an economy described by Eqs. the impact of population change on economic growth depends on two effects: the negative direct dilution effect (the term -n above). the impact of population growth on economic growth is ambiguous. Proposition 2 When n = 0. respectively. 1988 (see Barro and Sala-i-Martin. 2004. above. recast the growth rate of per capita income gy as: rð1  uÞ gy ¼ n: þ e ffl} 1ffl{zfflfflfflffl |fflfflfflffl gK ¼gH g Thus.28–5. Consider. The theorem states that when 1\e\e\0. A = 1. e = 0. the most general case where e = 0 and m [ (0. finally.u)/(1 ? e). the impact of population growth on economic growth depends on whether e is below. in the model population growth is not necessary to economic growth. 10 and 11 provide the real interest rate and the per capita human to physical capital ratio. 1–7.9 We can now state our main results. or equal to a threshold level e  ð1  mÞ: Proof From (8). equations 5. r [ q and r [ q þ ð1 þ e  mÞn [ q þ ð1  m  hÞn [ e½ðmþh1 h Þnq are sufficient to guarantee that the household’s problem has an interior solution (0 \ u \ 1) and that the values of the other key variables of the model are strictly positive. m = 1. Equation 9 represents the share of human capital employed in production activity and Eqs. 1965 and Lucas. it is possible to show that the conditions q  nv [ nðh  1Þ. negative when e [ e and equal to zero when e ¼ e h To see the intuition. the dilution effect outweighs the accumulation effect. reflecting the cost of equipping the newborns with the existing per-capita (physical/human) capital.

(See Appendix 2 for a simple proof) Proposition 3 analyzes two special cases. thus. Proposition 3 In an economy described by Eqs. La Torre • If human and physical capital are substitutes (e [ 0). Instead. 1–7. physical and technological capital).24 A. If human and physical capital are substitutes for each other in the production of new human capital. 1). the rate of per-capita human capital accumulation (and. or else be exactly equal to zero. The presence of the growth rate of physical capital in the law of motion of human capital allowed us to introduce in the model a sort of endogenous mechanism of depreciation/ appreciation of embodied knowledge. For future theoretical research it would be interesting to analyze how the results of this paper might ultimately change either in the presence of two forms of capital (human and physical capital) but endogenous population growth (endogenous fertility) or in the presence of still exogenous population growth but with three forms of capital (human. We assumed that formal education and investment in physical capital (learning) represent two separate components of human capital production. In particular. the rate of per-capita income growth) may either go up. the joint increase of population and of the available physical capital definitely lowers human capital accumulation at the individual level and. down. for given per-capita physical capital stock. The idea is that population may affect economic growth either directly (through the traditional negative dilution effect) or indirectly (through the positive accumu- lation effect). per-capita income growth as well. the impact of population growth on economic growth is: • Equal to zero when e = 0 and m = 1. Contrary to existing literature. D. depending on whether physical and human capital are complementary/substitutes for each other in the process of skill formation and on their degree of complementarity. (See Appendix 3 for a simple proof) 4 Concluding remarks In this paper we built a two-sector endogenous growth model in order to analyze the long-run relationship between population change and real per capita income growth. Bucci. if human and physical capital are complements. We showed that the long-run impact of population change on per-capita income growth is ambiguous. an increase in population size always raises the growth rate of aggregate physical capital. such impact becomes negative. however. 123 . we did not do any a priori specific hypothesis on the relationship of complementarity/substitutability between physical and human capital in the production of skills. thus. as long as population and the growth rate of aggregate physical capital increase. • Unambiguously negative when e = 0 and m [ [0.

140 and 16 into Eq. ð15Þ where kkt and kht are the shadow prices of per-capita physical and human capital. 130 gives: rt ¼ ðr  egK Þ þ gw : ð17Þ From Eqs. 12. ð12Þ cht r kkt ¼ kht . gw  wt =wt : ð130 Þ kkt kht Plugging Eqs. 2 and 3 it follows that along the BGP (where k and h grow at the same rate. 4 and 140 . 170 and 2 leads to:     uht r  eðg þ nÞ 1=1a  r 1=1a ¼ ¼ : ð18Þ kt a a Using Eqs. gk = gh : g) r and w are constant (gw = 0). respectively:  kht ¼ ½r  ðegK þ nÞ ð16Þ kht  kkt ¼ ðrt  nÞ: ð140 Þ kkt Equation 13 also implies:   kkt kht  ¼  gw . The first order conditions for the representative household’s optimization problems are: eðqmnÞt ¼ kkt . instead. Combining Eqs. 8–11 Along the BGP equilibrium u is constant and all time-dependant variables grow at a constant rate. kt  Kt =Lt : ð170 Þ Equalization of Eqs. 13 and 15 and using Eq. 140 and 170 :  ct 1  gc ¼ ½ðr  qÞ  eg  ð1 þ e  mÞn: ð19Þ ct h From Eqs. Therefore: rt ¼ r  egK ¼ r  eðg þ nÞ ¼ r. one obtains:  kkt ht c t ¼ g þ wu  : ð20Þ kkt kt kt 123 . ð13Þ wt  kkt ðrt  nÞ ¼  kkt . 14 yields.Population and economic growth 25 Appendix 1: Derivation of Eqs. ð14Þ  kkt uwt þ kht ½rð1  uÞ  ðegK þ nÞ ¼  kht .

t!1 t!1 t!1 t!1 where k0. h0 and kk0. h 123 . u and ht/kt constant along the BGP. 19 it follows: ð r  qÞ ð 1 þ e  m Þ g¼  n: ð24Þ ðh þ eÞ ðh þ eÞ To find out (1 . 170 and 24: rh þ e½q þ ð1  m  hÞn r ¼ r  e ð g þ nÞ ¼ : ð26Þ ðh þ eÞ Given r and u. 23 and 24 and obtain: ð1 þ eÞ½ðr  qÞ  ð1  m  hÞn ð1  uÞ ¼ : ð25Þ rðh þ eÞ Combining Eqs. D. 130 :   kkt kht ¼ . ð1300 Þ kkt kht and. 1300 and 21. 22—together with Eqs. then. 20 and 21:     ct ht ¼ wu þ ru: ð22Þ kt kt With w. kh0 are.26 A. La Torre By combining Eqs. we get:  kht ¼ g  ru: ð21Þ kht Since gw ¼ 0. from Eq. we equate Eqs. the (given) initial values (at t = 0) of the two-state variables (k and h) and their respective shadow prices (kk and kh). respectively. 1 and 50 —implies: rð1  uÞ gc ¼ gk ¼ gh ¼ gy  g ¼ rð1  uÞ  egK  n. from Eq. 1). it is possible to recast the two transversality conditions as: lim kkt kt ¼ kk0  k0 lim eðruÞt ¼ 0 and lim kht ht ¼ kh0 h0 lim eðruÞt ¼ 0.u). The transversality conditions are trivially satisfied whenever u [ (0. 50 and 16. from Eq. Eq. Bucci. 18:      ht r 1=1a 1 ¼ kt a u     rh þ e½q þ ð1  m  hÞ  n 1=ð1aÞ rðh þ eÞ ¼  : að h þ e Þ rðh  1Þ þ ð1 þ eÞ½q þ ð1  m  hÞ  n ð27Þ Using Eqs. y  Y=L ) g ¼  n: ð1 þ eÞ ð23Þ With gc : g. by equating Eqs.

On the other hand.q)/h. Sala-i-Martin X (2004) Economic growth. is independent of population growth.q . J Monet Econ 22:3–42 Strulik H (2005) The role of human capital and population growth in R&D-based models of economic growth. On the other hand. When e ¼ e human and physical capital are complementary for each other and qgy/qn = 0. gy. MIT Press. CA Boucekkine R. when e = 0 and m [ [0. J Macroecon 30:1124–1147 Dalgaard CJ. Cambridge Bloom DE. J Math Econ 44:33–54 Bucci A (2008) Population growth in a model of economic growth with human capital accumulation and horizontal R&D. with population growth now affecting negatively economic growth. Quart J Econ 117:1133–1191 Growiec J (2006) Fertility choice and semi-endogenous growth: where Becker meets Jones. Moav O (2002) Natural selection and the origin of economic growth. Canning D. n.m)n]/h. Sevilla J (2003) The demographic dividend: a new perspective on the economic consequences of population change.1) we have: gy = [r . Rev Int Econ 13:129–145 Tournemaine F (2007) Can population promote income per-capita growth? A balanced perspective. In this case economic growth. Ruiz-Tamarit J-R (2008) Special functions for the study of economic dynamics: the case of the Lucas-Uzawa model. 2nd edn. MR-1274. Econ Bull 15:1–7 United Nations (1998) Demographic Indicators 1950–2050. J Econ Dyn Control 21:205–242 Galor O. J Econ Lit 26:1685–1728 Lucas RE (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. Econ Lett 64:357–361 Barro RJ. Eq. Kreiner CT (2001) Is declining productivity inevitable? J Econ Growth 6:187–203 Ehrlich I. Int Econ Rev 6:18–31 123 . Lui F (1997) The problem of population and growth: a review of the literature from Malthus to contemporary models of endogenous population and endogenous growth. Finally. (8) gives: gy = (r .Population and economic growth 27 Appendix 2: Proof of the Lemma When 1\e\e human and physical capital are complementary for each other in new human capital production and qgy/qn [ 0.(1 . Rand. when e [ 0 human and physical capital are substitutes for each other and qgy/qn \ 0. New York Uzawa H (1965) Optimum technical change in an aggregative model of economic growth. Santa Monica. but now qgy/qn \ 0. Topics Macroecon 6(2) Kelley AC (1988) Economic consequences of population change in the Third World. when e\e\0 human and physical capital are still complementary. h References Alvarez Albelo CD (1999) Complementarity between physical and human capital. and speed of convergence. h Appendix 3: Proof of Proposition 3 When e = 0 and m = 1.