Showing papers by "Robert M. Solow published in 2001"

International Productivity Comparisons Built from the Firm Level

Abstract: ost international comparisons of economic productivity work throughaggregate calculations of labor productivity or total factor productivityat the level of the national income, or sometimes at the broad sector orindustry level (for example, Jorgenson, 1995; Wagner and Van Ark, 1996). A lot hasbeen learned in this way. Increasingly, however, there have been attempts tosupplement aggregate calculations with micro-level information about individualdepartments, firms or narrowly defined industries and their operations. A variety ofsuch studies has been done.One line of research has used data from single establishments, especially inU.S. manufacturing, to study productivity and employment patterns (Griliches,1998; Olley and Pakes, 1996; Baily, Hulten and Campbell, 1992). Another approachhas focused on the firms or plants within a particular industry (for example,Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990, on the auto industry). Still another line of researchstudies the frequency distribution of plant-level changes in output and employ-ment, revealing large gross flows even when net changes at the industry level aresmall (Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh, 1996). The National Bureau of EconomicResearch has developed a program of “pin factory” visits as a way of bringingfirst-hand information into the analysis of economic performance ( Jaffe, Trajten-berg and Fogarty, 2000; Freeman and Kleiner, 2000; Borenstein and Farrell, 2000;Helper, 2000).We have been extensively involved, along with a group of other academicadvisers, in a series of international comparative performance studies carried out by

Applying Growth Theory across Countries

Abstract: I am broadly in sympathy with the spirit of the article by William Brock and Steven Durlauf and that by William Easterly and Ross Levine They are trying to move the literature in the right direction I say this even though I have been skeptical from the beginning about the interpretation of cross-country growth regressions The potential problem of reverse causality has been obvious to everyone It has usually been met with the standard econometric dodge: using lagged values of slow-moving variables as instruments But this cannot be a serious solution to the problem The causality issue points to a deeper question: Do cross-country regressions define a meaningful surface along which countries can move back and forth at will? If this is the idea, what mechanism could underlie such a surface? Brock and Durlauf call such a regression a “model” I suppose in a statistical sense it is But an economic model should have some internal structure; its causal arrows should rest on some sort of behavioral mechanism, and that seems to be missing in this literature I think I had this prejudice even before cross-country regressions became fashionable I thought of growth theory as the search for a dynamic model that could explain the evolution of one economy over time There were no explicit crosssectional implications Were there implicit ones? Certainly, and my comments bear on the question of what they might be

From Neoclassical Growth Theory to New Classical Macroeconomics

Abstract: The puzzle I want to discuss — at least it seems to me to be a puzzle, though part of the puzzle is why it does not seem to be a puzzle to many of my younger colleagues — is this. More than forty years ago, I — and many others, especially Trevor Swan and James Tobin — worked out what has since come to be called neoclassical growth theory. It may not be clear exactly what we or I — I had better speak for myself — thought growth theory applied to, what it was trying to describe. We may have to talk more about that later. But it was clear from the very beginning what I thought it did not apply to, namely short-run fluctuations in aggregate output and employment, what used to be called the business cycle and is now often called that again. In those days I thought growth theory was about the supply side of the economy, whereas the business cycle was mostly to be analysed in terms of changes in aggregate demand.

Landmark papers in economic growth

Abstract: Robert Solow has made a significant contribution in the field of aggregative economics. This volume should be an important starting point for any researcher or professional economist seeking to understand how this branch of economics advanced in the 20th century.

The most significant contributions to economics during the twentieth century: lists of the Nobel laureates

Abstract: (2001). The most significant contributions to economics during the twentieth century: lists of the Nobel laureates. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought: Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 289-297.

Nobel laureates' letter to President Bush.

Abstract: We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. We join with other research institutions and patient groups in our belief that the current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, which enable scientists to conduct stem cell research within the rigorous constraints of federal oversight and standards, should be permitted to remain in effect. The discovery of human pluripotent stem cells is a significant milestone in medical research. Federal support for the enormous creativity of the US biomedical community is essential to translate this discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and currently intractable diseases.