1997
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a028601
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stabilization Policy, Learning-by-Doing, and Economic Growth

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
76
0
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
76
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The estimated coefficient for growth volatility is negative and statistically significant. This suggests that uncertainty in growth decreases TFP, which is consistent with the theory of a negative relationship between volatility and growth through the productivity channel (see Martin and Rogers, 1997;and Talvi and Végh, 2000).…”
Section: Estimatessupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The estimated coefficient for growth volatility is negative and statistically significant. This suggests that uncertainty in growth decreases TFP, which is consistent with the theory of a negative relationship between volatility and growth through the productivity channel (see Martin and Rogers, 1997;and Talvi and Végh, 2000).…”
Section: Estimatessupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The negative estimated coefficient is consistent with Bernanke (1983), Pindyck (1991), Ramey (1991, 1995), Aizenman and Marion (1993), Martin andRogers (1997), Caballero (2000), and Talvi and Végh (2000). Similar to the AR specification, the coefficients for the lag values of the growth variable are not interpreted because they are used to capture the dynamics of the series.…”
Section: Estimatesmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Martin and Rogers (1997) employ an endogenous growth model in which labor productivity is augmented through learning by doing to show that recessions are periods in which opportunities for acquiring experience and improving productivity are foregone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In short, the literature indicates that the relationship between volatility and economic growth may be: 1) independent -the mainstream; 2) negative -e.g. Bernanke (1983), Pindyck (1991), Ramey & Ramey (1995), Miller (1996), Rogers (1997 and2000), and Kneller & Young (2001); or 3) positivee.g. Mirman (1971), Kormendi & Meguire (1985), Black (1987), Grier & Tullock (1989), Bean (1990), Saint-Paul (1993), Blackburn, (1999, and Fountas & Karanasos (2006).…”
Section: Volatility and Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 99%