Comment on 'It's Not Factor Accumulation : Stylized Facts and Growth Models,' by William Easterly and Ross Levine
When economists in the 1950s and 1960s used growth models to understand the experience of developing countries, they allowed for the possibility of technology differences between developing countries and the United States. But because they did not...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
Washington, DC: World Bank
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2001/05/17737434/comment-not-factor-accumulation-stylized-facts-growth-models-william-easterly-ross-levine http://hdl.handle.net/10986/17448 |
| Summary: | When economists in the 1950s and 1960s
used growth models to understand the experience of
developing countries, they allowed for the possibility of
technology differences between developing countries and the
United States. But because they did not have a good theory
for talking about the forces that determined the level of
the technology-in the United States any more than in
developing countries-technology factors tended to be pushed
into the background in policy discussions. The new growth
theory of the 1980s generated a counter reaction in the
1990s that Pete Klenow and Andres Rodriguez-Clare have
called the 'neoclassical revival.' The article by
William Easterly and Ross Levine is part of the next swing
in the scholarly pendulum. It moves away from the critical
assumption in the neoclassical revival that the level of
technology is the same in all countries. |
|---|