This essay suggests that the convergence controversy may reflect, in part, differences in perception regarding the viable set of competing testable hypotheses generated by existing growth theories. It argues that, in contrast to the prevailing wisdom, the traditional neoclassical growth paradigm generates the club convergence hypothesis as well as the conditional convergence hypothesis. Furthermore, the inclusion of empirically significant variables such as human capital, income distribution, and fertility in conventional growth models, along with capital markets imperfections, externalities, and nonconvexities, strengthens the viability of club convergence as a competing hypothesis with conditional convergence. Copyright 1996 by Royal Economic Society.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.) This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.