Talk:Economic growth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as High-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as High-importance on the importance scale |
[edit] To be improved!
In general, this article needs a lot of work. Some sections are very long and cumbersome, and sometimes they digress into different fields such as free trade and the history thereof. The sections about the "origins" and the "theories" could be shortened and merged. A reader coming to economic growth probably wants to quickly understand the meaning of the word and understand the hot issues related to it, e.g. for understanding a newspaper article: this is really missing here. The article resembles a collage of abstract (but probably academically correct) inputs, whith no connections between them and no plan. By reading it, one feels that it is impossible to understand economic growth without going to university and reading enormous books.... that its understanding is a mistery reserved for specialists!
Also, several points in this discussion are still open and could be addressed. J Brassington (see section below on "Made more sense of it") felt that the article missed the pros and cons of the "economic growth ideology" and tried to contribute himself. This part had to be reworked (as the whole article has) but it actually has been removed by Brusegadi. Brusegadi's points and my reply to him are to be found in the section on "Disadvantages of Economic growth removed", later in this talk page. To find J Brassington's points again, go in the article's history and look for Revision as of 22:38, 6 October 2006 by Rfalcon27. J Brassington's points can be useful hints for writing a section on "implications and ethics of growth". These points may be controversial, but then it is even more interesting to find a formulation which can satisfy different contributors.
The connection of economic growth with climate was previously addressed in a completeley unacceptable way; see discussion below about "Ridiculous comparison serves only white self-adoration". This has been changed by myself, as history (not climate) is the driving factor: I hope this modification is appreciated, :-). However, a connection between GDP and climate still exists on a global scale, and more and more people get convinced that economic growth is the principal driver of climate change (see e.g. the publications by the IPCC). This should be (very shortly) mentioned when adding the section about the implications and ethics of growth.
Best regards, Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- On the changes you made to the climate correlation, to say that it is correlated with history makes no sense. You need to specify the aspect of history. I also think it is important to mention that there is a correlation between climate and income, but that the correlation is not casual and explain why it is not casual. Such an explanation evokes talking about colonization and its aftermath. I will wait for your response to my comments before making any changes, but please do not take too long. Also, I will try to build around the changes you made, but I defenetly think that it is important to mention the climate issue since it is such a common misconception. Brusegadi 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Brusegadi, I think the little paragraph in the article is still acceptable, with respect to what it was before. At least it is clearly stated that we are talking about a misconception. I still wonder whether this is really relevant here and whether it fits in the article: personally I have never encountered this climate-growth misconception, on which you strongly put the accent (at least not with such a simplistic discussion). If you intend "correlation" in a purely neutral statistical sense, then you can probably find other variables than temperature: latitude, possession of natural resources, colour of the skin, etc. Moreover, for many agricultural economies even tiny changes in local climate from year to year can have more drastic effects on the economy than the average global temperature trend could suggest. However, for the moment leave it as it is: anyways the whole article needs deep rewriting. I must state however that I am surprised with your arguments and tone in this talk page. You say that the history correlation makes no sense, but you admit it yourself since you have left it with the article; you say that the aspect of history must be specified, but you know that it was well specified (colonization); you say that you wait for my response, but then change the article in a hurry. I have to ask you to be more collaborative, since with this article there is lots of work to be done (the first thing it needs is a plannified structure). Also, don't expect rapid responses from me, since I am a human being and wikipedia is not my principal activity. Marenco 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Marenco, before it was also stated that we were talking about a misconseption, but I guess it was not clear enough. You assertion is correct in that the variables you mention do also correlate with income, but the correlations are again not casual (notice that the variables you mention also tend to have a positive correlation with each other.) Now, I do not see why you are talking about climate change. When we talk about economic growth, we are basically attempting to explain the enormous gaps in incomes across countries. Since climate has been roughly constant over the relevant centuries, it is not worth mentioning climate change in the context of the theory. When we talk about correlating climate with income we simply mean that certain climate zones have more income then others. The mission of the economist specializing in growth is to explain why climate may play a role in defining these gaps. Thus, to talk about the adverse effects of climate change (I suppose you are referring to global warming) implies talking about events today and the future and I think that events of today and of the future played no role in defining income differences of today. Climate change belongs in a section by itself where questions concerning the future are adressed. What are possible effects of Global Warming? Given that R&D has diminishing returns to scale, for how long can we expect technological progress to continue at the pace it has had for the last few decades? I think the beginning of the article should include more on the Malthusian model, the solow model, and end with modern theory. I will propose a structure to present the subject in a logical manner and see how it goes from there. Have a good day, Brusegadi 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- One more thing, since there is a confusion between the study of long term growth and growth in the short term we could attempt to disambiguate. At my center of study we create a distinction between economic development and Theory of Economic growth. It may be the case that such a distinction is not defined here and one subject is covered inside the other. Anyways, the page could have a section on growth from the policy perspective and a section on growth in the academic sense (basically, looking at fundamental aspects.) Also, sorry if I sound rude, I have a lot of stuff to do and I got frustrated by the confusion. Take care, Brusegadi 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead with the plan and the work on the article; it seems you have clear ideas. We'll meet again on this talk page. Maybe the talk page itself is getting confused, so I suggest that further discussion go in a new section at the top or the bottom of the page. Later, when we have a good article, I will try to explain to you what I meant with the climate change issue and also give references to published work (at this point it seems too early). Yours sincerely, Marenco 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that there is a bit of confusion here on what we are dealing with. When I here economic growth I think in terms of the sub-field in economics that studies economic growth. I feel that there is a great difference between that and the economic growth studied in a course in macro-economics... ALso, economic growth is not the principle drive in climate change, it is emissions of green house gases. It may be true that nations with high GDPs have high emissions, but that does not have to be true 50 years from now. So, it is not correct to link growth to emissions. Brusegadi 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that if "economic growth" has different meanings, this must be specified. The article should start with a "common sense definition" that allows most people to quickly understand what we are dealing about, i.e. when a politician or journalist tells us that we have to increase growth, what does he mean? This is already attempted in the article as it is now: good! Then we need to go into some details (with no exageration): give the definition recognized by economists (if macro-economics and micro-economics have different definitions, say it in the article; I am eager to learn about this! of course if tens of different definitions exist, this gets rather confusing; then it's better to say: "this one is the mostly accepted definition, but 25 others exist"). Then a section about the history of the concept can be useful, followed by another section on controversial points. Regarding the climate change issue, I am sure we can find a way of addressing this on a neutral point of view. Of course if in 50 years from now we don't have anymore an economy driven by fossil fuels (?), then economic growth and carbon dioxide will get decorrelated (as it was decorrelated in the past, e.g. for economies based on hunting); but we don't have the crystal ball to know this! Most people will be interested in the possible link between growth and climate in our present (fossil fuel based) economy, and not in an abstract principle. Yours sincerely, Marenco 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear All, I think it would be helpful and make the article more complete to talk about and mention specific models like the Harrod-Domar model, Solow Growth Model, Rostow's stages of growth, Lewis-Renis-Fei model, etc... Your thoughts? Dwrudy 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. We should do that. As it is now the article is just a fight between right and left on short run stuff. Brusegadi (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tidying...
Page heavily edited and re-written - hopefully it is more cohesive and clearer now (plus inaccurate references (e.g. to wealth when discussing national income removed). I have not touched the Limits to Growth debate as I am not familiar with this field. It also strikes me that different theories of non-convergence should be covered more fully within this article as well as the correlation with climate. (Note: I am very sceptical of this explanation, but have left it in with a qualifying sentance; hopefully it remains NPOV.) Comments welcome. --Geordieandy 11:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Good job on a much needed fix of this article. It is my opinion that the influence of climate paragraph could be condensed seeing as very few economists accept these ideas today and because the topic is cover much better in economic geography. Agree with you about non-convergence - important topic. Talk to you later. mydogategodshat 03:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The climate issue has been replaced with a history issue, which makes more sense. See below the discussion about "Ridiculous comparison". Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More tidying-up
I did a bit more tidying-up. I think more needs to be written about endogenous growth theory, have pointed to a couple of big issues. Perhaps could summarise non-technical points from the academic literature/research without breaching copyright. It can still read like an ecowarrior school essay in some parts. There are environmental problems/impacts associated with growth but these need to be explained clearly. I think the climate/growth link is a bit controversial and could come later in the article.
Yes and it needs a discussion of total factor productivity. FGerard Adams
Moved the reference to the book Limits to Growth into the narrative - it seemed strange to see it hanging under the see also section when there was a section dealing with the topic - Martinku 12:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think that a cross-reference to the article on Limits to growth is still useful in an article about growth. Therefore a refernce in the "See also" section has been included. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Made more sense of it
As a 17 year old A-level srudent in the UK studying I find wikipedia far too complicated when it somes to economic theories. I also noticed no one had really indicated why economic growth was a good or a bad thing. Therefore I include advantages and disadvantages of it. I've tried to keep what I've wrote as neutral as possible but if anyone feels I've pushed the boundaries don't be afraid to edit it. J Brassington
- Unfortunately this section has been removed by Brusegadi (I think it was useful, but had to be rewritten). See below "Disadvantages of economic growth removed". See also "To be improved" on top of this discussion page. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National income
The article referred only to GDP but there is also a page on National Income that nicely links to Welfare Economics.
PM. Note that economic growth is the change and not necessarily the increase (since it can be negative). But it doesn't matter much once you allow for negative increases ...
Will add a link to SNI as well and tidy up that paragraph.
Colignatus 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subjectivity
There are a lot of normative statements in the measurement section. What GDP "should" or "should not" include is not a real description of GDP. It seems to go against the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. GDP is what it is. It does include X, Y, and Z. It does not include A, B, and C. Whether it should or should not is not something I expect an encyclopdia to cover.
[edit] Ridiculous comparison serves only white self-adoration
"Cold states like Sweden are much more successful economically than warm countries like Nigeria."
1., Sweden was not colonialized and ransacked and the fittest part of its population taken as negro slaves over the ocean for centuries. Thus the comparison is meaningless. Use a tropical country in the example that was not colonialized and ransacked or genetically exploited by whites. (Hard to find any...)
2., You certainly cannot expect steel smeltering at the equator. Sweden is heavy industry, which is impossible in the tropicals with 50 degrees celsius ambient temperature already boiling the brain of people. Thus the comparison is on unequal footing. However, the pre-columbian very-south american cultures that lived under similarly coldish climate, but independently of northern europe, had great architecture (Machu Piccu, etc.) and very organized nations comparable to europe. It was only because of the conquistadors that they fell.
3., The whole comparison is based on the cold countries' definition of economy, therefore the result of comparison is a pre-arranged trial already decided in favour of the western world. Why compare then?
4., It is a matter of fact that you cannot expect the same amount of effort from people living under hot climate you see in cold climate. When freezing you can always wear more hides or clotches or light a fire, even caveman did that. When your brain boils under the sun, you cannot take off more than your skin, on the equator or in the desert you can only idle if you want to survive. The air conditioner device is so much more complicated technology compared to the simple fireplace that hot climate nations could never jump that "quantum gap" on their own, which would afford them great productivity allowed by mild temparature spaces.
That biased comparison should disappear from the article. 195.70.48.242 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that empirically speaking it is true that today we observe those differences, yet, since this is an article in growth, to simply mention them is to go back 200 years and attempt to explain income distributions in terms of culture or merely climate. I think that if we look at fundamental issues we should most defently add in factors that are considered a bit 'fundamental.' For example, corruption is known to have correlation with low income countries. Thus, we can make the historical connection that countries with tropical climates were colonized by Europeans that could not inhabit the colonies. Thus, they set up governments that were design to exploit as much as they could. On the other hand, the colonies with more temperate climates (eg. Australia, US, Canada, Chile, Argentina) were inhabited by the colonizers and the governemnts that were set up were not design to exploit. Thus, we observe incomes that correlate with latitude but the correlation is not directly casual. The next logical question is "Why were some groups able to colonize others?" We can go that far and look at responses such as the one provided by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel. I will do some work on this! Brusegadi 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the fact is that the important point is history, not climate! I therefore rewrote the paragraph. The economy-climate link is actually a different one, and is more related to global change (see "To be improved" at the top of this page). Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I feel that it is important, non the less, to mention the misconseption. Yet, we have discussed that above so I will not repeat. Also, the "economy-climate link" that you mention is not relevant as a current determinant of income since historically there has not been much climate change (in the relevant time period, of course, which spans only a few thousand years.) If we look at Mann hockey-stick graph we see that it is until now that temperatures are beginning to change drastically. Global change is a current phenomenah that will have strong effects in the future but it has not played a role in defining income today. Of course that, we may always say that those responsible for climate change may very well be those who have released most of the CO2. Discussing that, thought, would add a certain philosophic twist to the discussion. Brusegadi 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disadvantges of Economic growth removed
I removed this because it is defently conflicts with modern theory. First, inflation does not merit inclution because, under the classical dichotomy, inflation is a short run phenomenah that does not play a role in the long term.
In terms of income inequality, the inequality is not caused by growth, it is caused by a particular system of distribution. Thus, attributing such inequality to economic growth is defently wrong. Finally, in terms of the environmental effects (this is pollution; depletion of resources and space may well be relevant, but require some research before being left in a section by themsleves):
- Take a look at the environmental Kuznet curve for an economy. It basically states that countries pollute more and more as they are developing, eventually at some point in time, they reach a maximum level of pollution, and then they begin to pollute less. The result is a curve that has an inverted U shape with pollution on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis.
- Modern growth theory focuses on growth produced by technologies and ideas. Ideas are not material, thus, they are not bound to the phisical constraints that our resource base is bound to. If you want to see what some potential implications of this are see the Simon-Ehrlich wager (bet between Paul Ralph Ehrlich and Julian Lincoln Simon).
- Finally, we can make our measurments of well being so that they consider environmental damage.
For these reasons that section does not merit inclusion. I will expand the article further since this is an important area od research. Brusegadi 05:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree on these arguments. I only agree on the fact that the text had to be rewritten in a more rigorous manner, but this 17-year old boy or girl (see "Made more sense of it") had important points. As a matter of fact, economic growth is not just a neutral and measurable parameter, since our economical and political life is often dominated by the desire for more growth. I therefore think that someone trying to understand whether this matches his ideas should find a paragraph discussing pros and cons. More specifically:
- inequality may not be caused by growth in strict sense, but unequal growth rates amplify inequality. Think of 2 neighbours, equally rich at start. One has success and grows by 10% per year, and the second one does a little worse and only grows by 5% per year. This 5% difference may seem small at first sight, but admitting that the growth rate stays constant, after 15 years the first man is four times richer whereas the second one is only twice richer. Therefore a 5% difference in annual growth means a 100% absolute difference after 15 years! Therefore, for common sense continuous growth is more responsible for the inequality between the two men than their different ability in business, and no re-distribution system could stop the gap between the two from growing in time (it can only mitigate it).
- the connection of economic growth with the depletion of resources and changes in the environment are well known and studies exist (see e.g. Limits to Growth); it seems difficult to dismiss such arguments in a too easy way (e.g., how can an oil-based economy grow without reducing the reserves? how can it function without producing CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere?). See also the reports by the IPCC. Rise and decline of civilizations (and also species within ecosystems) is actually often dominated by reaching system limits faster than the system can respond, and this high speed is due to continuous acceleration in exponential growth!
- In conclusion, I believe that sooner or later wee need include something about implications and ethics of growth.
- See also the "To be improved" section above. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have a few notes that I'd like to make. First, the link between inequality and growth goes beyond Merenco's observation. There is quite a bit of literature arguing that high inequality can slow growth by preventing the poor from borrowing due to lack of collateral, and high inequality, usually due to redistribution, can slow growth by severely distorting incentives. I'm not necessarily saying that it should be added to the article, but any discussion of the link between inequality and growth should include this point.
-
- Secondly, growth is correlated to more-or-less everything. Having a section for the correlation between economic growth and climate or environment in general is probably not the most important correlation to mention (many theorists believe geography affects GDP through institutions and usually not directly). Perhaps testing the neoclassical growth model (between average growth rates and initial GDP), endogenous growth models, or even other institutional factors could enrich the article.
-
- Finally, I know it is not part of this post, but the mathematics behind the models should be included in this article much like they are included in other articles.
-
- P.S. I've never edited a page before so if there are some guidelines I should read to do it, could someone let me know? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stankweed111 (talk Stankweed111 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• contribs) 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Of course that different growth rates can amplify inequalities, does that mean the growth is bad? In terms of inequality, growth can be bad if the new output is not properly distributed. In the example of the neighbors, if they grow different because one of them does not work, then so be it. If they grow at different rates because the government favors one over the other, then it is unjust... Inequality can be good at times. Ancient societies flourished partly because of the rise of a bureaucracy that administered resources towards huge projects and scientific inventions. Today, however, inequality is generally bad, specially among the most developed nations.Brusegadi 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advantages of Economic growth removed
This section focused way too much on the "growth" over the short run. Thus, it does not merit inclusion since economic growth is best viewed as the study of the historical trends. As I expand the article, some of the short run aspects may become important, but not necessarily. I will paste the image that was there here in case it becomes useful in the future. Brusegadi 05:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- See discussion in section "Disadvantages of economic growth removed", above. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More statistics
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007) |
It would be nice to have a list of all countries in the world by recent growth rate. Some articles mention a given country's ranking, like Economy of India, which prompts curiosity about the complete listing. -- Beland 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Bold text
[edit] Criticisms?
Why is there no discussion of criticisms or alternatives conceptions of growth? Seems like this article does not present an NPOV. -- Autumninjersey 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will add them today or tomorrow when I have the chance. Springbreak04 08:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The criticisms, as worked up now, are poorly structured. I think that to use a universal quantifier, 'all life is bad when growth' occur is too much. Instead, let say 'sometimes.' I will propose a rewording tomorrow and hope to see discussion. Laters,Brusegadi 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will be getting rid of some of the bullet points. I will begin with the one that needs a source. I feel like wether the creation of needs is bad or good is a rather subjective view. Brusegadi 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth, I first came to this article looking for a information about the pros and cons of economic growth. Perhaps a new article dealing with just that may be a good idea. Maybe economic growth debate or economic growth - benefits vs. consequences Then under criticisms, the arguments could be summarized and a link provide to main article about the debate. I started finding many articles related to the pros and cons of economic growth and it would be nice to see them in one place or at least sumarized in one single article. As it is this article gave me a starting point and so I came back to give an opinion for those of you who seem to be interested. Thanks172.164.67.78 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Africa and growth
The text states "Supporters argue that global income inequality is in fact diminishing,[8] and that the rapid reduction in global poverty is in large part due to economic growth, according to World Bank.[9] However, decline in poverty has been the slowest where growth performance has been the worst (in Africa). [10]" Why "However"? This is an argument for the importance of economic growth.Ultramarine 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as you said, that argument, and its reference, points out the benefit of economic growth, which is the decline in poverty. However--that word again--it also points out that the decline is not equal, and certain countries, such as the ones in Africa, do not experience the benefits of economic growth at the same rate as others, but slower. In fact, that is the notion in the reference from which it came. For example, two cars are going forward, but it does not necessarily mean that both cars are accelerating. Therefore I used, and would still choose the word however, or other synonyms. In my opinion, a link between them is better than two related yet made stand-alone sentences. Springbreak04 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The "however" makes the sentances nonsense. I read through the article and when I came to it I immediately said "what?" The second statement clearly reinforces the first. "However" should be changed to "for example". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.18.142 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Lets merge them. The new page should be titled Theory of Economic Growth. Brusegadi 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I presume you mean to merge 'Growth theory' with this one--I agree with this. But why not keep the title 'Economic growth' (which is much more informative than 'Growth theory' anyway)? Countermereology 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I really think that the articles are too similar. The names suggest the same topic. Last time I tried there was only one other editor and I decided to leave the status quo, but maybe we discuss this a little more? Let me place the tag and lets live it for a while to see who comes by...? To facilitate discusiion, lets talk on the other page. So, discuss merge here Brusegadi 06:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As suggested by many, I have merged the pages. There is still some redundance so I will edit further now. Thanks Brusegadi 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I moved the merge to the bottom as it just became more resent. Here, it is easier to find. Brusegadi 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Graph
I reverted your edit (anon). The page you edited did not simply refer to GDP growth, but also to the rise in the standards of living. Thus, using historical data historians and economist have been able to calculate how well people lived in the past and express it in dollar terms. The graph is common in Growth Theory textbooks so please do not delete it again. Brusegadi 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is fallacious to try do estimate stardard of living in terms of 1990 dollars for time periods. Because it is not possible to compare the subjective standards of value. --201.11.209.111 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has opinions about those things. It so happens to be that most economist and historians take the approach taken in the article. Remember that this is not about how we feel, but about what economists, historians, and academics do. Brusegadi 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Many economists do not consider very long term gdp comparisons, like the first picture of the page, to be realistic. It is only useful as an short term index. And only very few economists have studied and estimated gdp figures for long term periods, and these estimates vary greatly.--200.203.3.76 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would disagree there. I think most economist studying growth use such comparisons. I recall an article titled "Divergence Big Time" and even an intro book to Growth Theory by David Weil titled 'Economic Growth.' Just think of it as some measure of what people consumed. Brusegadi 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say, regardless of the merit of the "World GDP" graph in the context of the specific economist's work (Maddisson, i think), I think it is fairly useless on this page. To be honest, there's not enough data points, the axes are not well-defined, and the "western offshots" thing is just silly. The only reason this image shouldn't be deleted outright (and not just removed from this page), is that I could understand it being relevant to the work of a particular group of economists. IANAE, but as a layman, this image contributes nothing to the article that couldn't be summed up (better) with ten or fifteen words of text. Messiahxi (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problems with Malthus
Hey, I disagree with saying proven. This is not math, so the best you could go with is "some claim." Most of the sources shown were either theoretical pages presented in the wrong way (that is, we could talk about theory as theory but to use it to show something is inappropriate since we first would have to discuss the assumptions, which tend to fail in most places) or partisan stuff. I agree that, as is now, the page is not really about Economic growth but a battlefield between POVs. I think we should make it more about theories of growth such as the Solow (the most elaborate version with human capital and source depletion), several of the 1950s ones, and the north-south models (leftists schools if you wish.) But, lets leave the biologists and libertarians outside (the relevant aspects of their views are already incorporated in the mainstream literature.) Brusegadi (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I used sourced material. If you disagree, add your own. I will change the language somewhat. Remember NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] convergence
[edit] Economics
Conditional convergence is predicted by the Solow model. It predicts, that given certain conditions, all countries should converge to the same level of per capital output.
The conditions for convergence are: same population growth rates, same capital depreciation rate, same levels of education, same investment rates in physical and organizational capital, and the same rates of technological adoption. However, the Solow model fails to explain what accounts for differences in these inputs. Explanations for these differences is theorized to be explained by such causes such as climate, geography, natural endowments, economic institutions, and cultural (sociological) differences.
The Solow model also predicts that countries possessing the same rates of technological adoption will converge to the same rate of output growth per capita. Thus, economic growth in the long run will be independent of the population growth rate, the savings rate, the rate of capital depreciation, and the initial capital-output ratio.
Found the above in an unrelated article. I think it belongs here, so I'll merge it. Brusegadi (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is the opening paragraph correct?
I question the correctness of the opening paragraph. It claims that economic growth is measured by the change in real GDP. Would it be more correct to say that it is measured by the change in real per capita GDP? Is an increase in population really counted as part of economic growth? A country with high immigration or a high birth rate could increase its real GDP while real per capita GDP stays flat or declines. --JHP (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The very basic definition is just the one on the paragraph, where it is defined as real GDP growth regardless of population. So, you can define growth as a function of labor and capital, Y=F(L,K) . The next thing is that you assume constant returns and divide each input by L to get a function of growth per unit labor (thought of as growth per capita) y=f(k). So, yes, technically the paragraph is correct, but it would not hurt to clarify later on in the article that a more significant figure is growth per capita. Brusegadi (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lucas' Law
There is a page on Lucas' Law and not having heard of it before I had quick look on the web and in other references and have been unable to find anything about Spencer Lucas and his Law and the page is unreferenced and it all seems a bit odd. Does anyone here know anything about this Lucas? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Merge proposal
A new merge proposal: Economic development contains a separate section on growth theory. Makes no sense, and that article is under fire already because of its difficult relationship with Development economics. I suggest we split Economic development into
- a general non-theoretical article on economic development
- a small section on economic growth, pointing to Economic growth as its main article
- a small section on regional development, pointing to Regional economics as its main article
- a small section on development economics, pointing to Development economics as its main article.
Classical geographer (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
