scholarly journals Human capital and state income differences in Mexico

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Jorge N. Valero-Gil ◽  
Magali Valero
2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aamir Rafique Hashmi

I add intangible capital to a variant of the neoclassical growth model that already features physical and human capital, and study the implications for international income differences. I calibrate the parameters associated with intangible capital by using new estimates of investment in intangibles by Corrado et al. [Review of Income and Wealth 55, 661–685 (2009)] and depreciation rates by Corrado and Hulten [American Economic Review 100, 99–104 (2010)]. I find that for a given efficiency difference between rich and poor countries, the model with intangible capital can explain more than double the income differences of the model without. Put another way, in the benchmark case, differences in intangible capital account for 14.3% of the observed income differences. I also examine the role played by intangible capital in versions of the model with barriers to accumulation. In all the variants that I consider, differences in intangible capital account for 10% to 22% of the observed income differences.


2000 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Howitt

A multicountry Schumpeterian growth model is constructed. Because of technology transfer, R&D-performing countries converge to parallel growth paths; other countries stagnate. A parameter change that would have raised a country's growth rate in standard Schumpeterian theory will permanently raise its productivity and per capita income relative to other countries and raise the world growth rate. Transitional dynamics are analyzed for each country and for the world economy. Steady-state income differences obey the same equation as in neoclassical theory, but since R&D is positively correlated with investment rates, capital accumulation accounts for less than estimated by neoclassical theory. (JEL E10, O40)


2020 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 43-64
Author(s):  
Susanna G. Campbell ◽  
Murat Üngör

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 3752-3777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin F. Jones

This paper reconsiders the traditional approach to human capital measurement in the study of cross-country income differences. Within a broader class of neoclassical human capital aggregators, traditional accounting is found to be a theoretical lower bound on human capital differences across economies. Implementing a generalized accounting empirically illustrates the possibility that capital variation may now account (even fully) for the large income variation between rich and poor countries. These findings reject the constraints on human capital variation that traditional accounting has imposed. (JEL E24, J24)


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd Schoellman

A growing literature stresses the importance of early childhood human capital. I ask whether variation in early childhood investments can help explain cross-country income differences. I provide new empirical evidence: the adult outcomes of refugees are independent of age at arrival to the United States up to age six, despite dramatic improvements in income and environment upon arrival. A standard model is consistent with this finding if parents but not country are important for early childhood development. This finding limits the mechanisms for generating cross-country early childhood human capital differences. I also provide suggestive evidence on parental inputs. (JEL I24, I26, I32, J13, J15, J24, J31)


2002 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 198-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lutz Hendricks

This paper offers new evidence on the sources of cross-country income differences. It exploits the idea that observing immigrant workers from different countries in the same labor market provides an opportunity to estimate their human-capital endowments. These estimates suggest that human and physical capital account for only a fraction of cross-country income differences. For countries below 40 percent of U.S. output per worker, less than half of the output gap relative to the United States is attributed to human and physical capital.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Rajaram
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document