The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Empirics of Growth: An Update
Abstract
The past decade has seen an explosion of empirical research on eco-nomic growth and its determinants, yet many of the central issues of inter-est remain unresolved. For instance, no consensus has emerged about the relative contributions of capital accumulation and improvements in total factor productivity in accounting for differences in growth across coun-tries and time. Nor is there agreement about the role of increased educa-tion or the importance of economic policy. Indeed, results from the many studies on a given issue frequently reach opposite conclusions. And two of the main empirical approaches—growth accounting and growth regres-sions—have themselves come under attack, with some researchers going so far as to label them as irrelevant to policymaking. In this paper we argue that, properly implemented and interpreted, both growth accounts and growth regressions are valuable tools, which can improve—and have improved—our understanding of growth experiences across countries. We also show that careful attention to issues of mea-surement and consistency goes a long way in explaining the apparent con-tradictions among findings in the literature. Our analysis combines growth accounts and growth regressions with a focus on measurement and procedural consistency to address the issues raised. The growth accounts are constructed for eighty-four countries that together represent 95 percent of gross world product and 84 percent of world population, over a period of forty years from 1960 to 2000. Appendix A lists the
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
Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function
Solow, R. M. (1957) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1926047 · Cited by 12,259
Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration
Sachs, J. D., Warner, A., Aslund, A., & Fischer, S. (1995) · Brookings Papers on Economic Activity · doi:10.2307/2534573 · Cited by 4,950
Gollin, D. (2002) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/338747 · Cited by 1,977
Cited by
Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal
Kose, M. A., Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., & Wei, S.-J. (2006) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w12484 · Cited by 927
Accounting for Growth: Comparing China and India
Bosworth, B., & Collins, S. M. (2008) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.22.1.45 · Cited by 714
Self-citationAccess to Financial Services: A Review of the Issues and Public Policy Objectives
Claessens, S. (2006) · The World Bank Research Observer · doi:10.1093/wbro/lkl004 · Cited by 675
Blunt Instruments: Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Identifying the Causes of Economic Growth
Bazzi, S., & Clemens, M. A. (2013) · American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics · doi:10.1257/mac.5.2.152 · Cited by 640
Woo, J., Kumar, M. S., JWoo@imf.org, & MKumar@imf.org (2010) · IMF Working Papers · doi:10.5089/9781455201853.001 · Cited by 485
Metadata
- Authors
- Bosworth, B., & Collins, S. M.
- Venue
- Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 2003
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-206
- ISSN
- 0007-2303 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4465
- OpenAlex
- W2116047968
- Cited by
- 952
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 105.78
- 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.