The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What have We Learnt from the Convergence Debate?
Abstract
This paper surveys the convergence literature. It begins by laying out different definitions of convergence and by showing the link between the convergence issue and the growth theory debate. The paper then follows the convergence research conducted along four different approaches, namely the cross‐section, panel, time‐series, and distribution approaches. The paper shows the association of these methodological approaches with various definitions of convergence and highlights the connections among the convergence results. It shows that, despite some impressions to the contrary, there is considerable agreement among the results. Although the convergence research might not have solved the growth debate entirely, it has helped both the neoclassical and the new growth theories to adapt and evolve. The research on convergence has established new stylized facts regarding cross‐country growth regularities. It has brought to fore the existence of large technological and institutional differences across countries and has given rise to new methodologies for quantifying and analyzing these differences. This is providing a new information base for analysis of technological and institutional diffusion and for further development of growth theory in general.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing
Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913236 · Cited by 32,007
A contribution to the theory of economic growth
Solow, R. M. (1956) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884513 · Cited by 24,483
On the mechanics of economic development
Lucas, R. E. (1988) · Journal of Monetary Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7 · Cited by 24,085
Endogenous Technological Change
Romer, P. M. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261725 · Cited by 17,711
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COINTEGRATION VECTORS
Johansen, S. (1988) · Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control · doi:10.1016/0165-1889(88)90041-3 · Cited by 17,027
Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels
Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s0304-4076(03)00092-7 · Cited by 15,435
Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-y · Cited by 12,633
The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1988
Summers, R., & Heston, A. (1991) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2937941 · Cited by 3,429
Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth
Rebelo, S. (1991) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261764 · Cited by 3,319
Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists
Judson, R. A., & Owen, A. L. (1999) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/s0165-1765(99)00130-5 · Cited by 2,171
Cited by
A pair-wise approach to testing for output and growth convergence
Hashem Pesaran, M. (2007) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2006.05.024 · Cited by 343
Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures
Pfotenhauer, S., & Jasanoff, S. (2017) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312717706110 · Cited by 211
Çelik, O., Adali, Z., & Bari, B. (2022) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-022-23178-3 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Islam, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Surveys
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-06-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 309-362
- ISSN
- 0950-0804 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6419
- OpenAlex
- W2078924997
- Cited by
- 1,087
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 62.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.