The great growth debate: a statistical look at Mankiw, Romer, and Weil, versus Islam.: An article from: Atlantic Economic Journal

This digital document is an article from Atlantic Economic Journal, published by Thomson Gale on March 1, 2005. The length of the article is 8879 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

From the author: This paper takes a purely statistical look at two of the most important empirical growth papers authored by Mankiw et al. [1992] and Islam [1995]. MRW claim that the Solow model is justified only when human capital is added to the regression, while Islam claims that cross-country heterogeneity is the actual culprit. In a statistical sense, the author of this study finds that Islam was correct in the fact that mean heterogeneity does exist in MRW's data. However, after statistical adequacy is achieved, human capital continues to maintain its role as a significant determinant of growth even though the estimates are not robust for one of the two cross-country samples investigated. On the other hand, though Islam's models were not without statistical problems, they continue to maintain their traditional form and his estimates are robust to respecification. This paper also exemplifies the need for objective statistical testing methods in applied work. (JEL C1, C5, E0, N0, O0)

Citation Details
Title: The great growth debate: a statistical look at Mankiw, Romer, and Weil, versus Islam.
Author: Jeffrey Edwards
Publication:Atlantic Economic Journal (Magazine/Journal)
Date: March 1, 2005
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 33 Issue: 1 Page: 71(22)

Distributed by Thomson Gale