What have We Learnt from the Convergence Debate?

This paper surveys the convergence literature. It begins by laying out different definitions of convergence and by showing the link between the convergence issue and the growth theory debate. The paper then follows the convergence research conducted along four different approaches, namely the cross‐...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of economic surveys Vol. 17; no. 3; pp. 309 - 362
Main Author Islam, Nazrul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.07.2003
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This paper surveys the convergence literature. It begins by laying out different definitions of convergence and by showing the link between the convergence issue and the growth theory debate. The paper then follows the convergence research conducted along four different approaches, namely the cross‐section, panel, time‐series, and distribution approaches. The paper shows the association of these methodological approaches with various definitions of convergence and highlights the connections among the convergence results. It shows that, despite some impressions to the contrary, there is considerable agreement among the results. Although the convergence research might not have solved the growth debate entirely, it has helped both the neoclassical and the new growth theories to adapt and evolve. The research on convergence has established new stylized facts regarding cross‐country growth regularities. It has brought to fore the existence of large technological and institutional differences across countries and has given rise to new methodologies for quantifying and analyzing these differences. This is providing a new information base for analysis of technological and institutional diffusion and for further development of growth theory in general.
Bibliography:ArticleID:JOES197
istex:F39F9F324A77C2EB67CC4F7106CD7DEC2C7E8C66
ark:/67375/WNG-W4ZMCSNL-R
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0950-0804
1467-6419
DOI:10.1111/1467-6419.00197