Human Capital and New Growth Theory: Some Insight from a Cross-Country Study

  • Michael Graff
Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP, volume 1994)


While it is generally accepted that human capital is an important factor of production, no consensus has yet been reached on how to conceptualize and measure this input factor. This can be clearly seen from the recent empirical cross-country studies of the ‘new growth’ literature: Firstly, the apparent lack of theoretical knowledge leads to specification problems; secondly, there are well-known data problems.

Panel data analysis using fixed effects-models allows to consider explicitely that a model may be mis-specified because of omitted variables. Applying this method to the estimation of aggregate Cobb Douglas production-functions drawing on a pooled data set of 75 countries and various years, it is shown that production functions with constant returns to scale to ‘raw’ labour, physical capital and human capital fit the data best Of several human capital variables tried out, ‘educational attainment of the labour force’ seems to be the most adequate indicator for human capital as a factor of production. Moreover, no support is found in favour of the increasing returns to scale-hypothesis, frequently advanced in the ‘new growth’ literature.


Human Capital Labour Force Physical Capital Constant Return Growth Literature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Lucas, Robert E.: On the Mechanics of Economic Development, in: Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22 (1988), pp. 3–42. Romer, Paul M.: Endogenous Technical Change, in: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89 (1990), Supplement, pp. S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Graff, Michael: Bildung und technischer Fortschritt als Determinanten wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung, Heidelberg 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Summers, Robert and Heston, Alan: The Penn World Tables (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950–1988, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106 (1991), pp. 327–368.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Levine, Ross and Renelt, David: A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions, in: American Economic Review, Vol. 82 (1992), pp. 942–963.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Robert J. Barro and Jong-Wha Lee, International Comparisons of Educational Attainment, World Bank Conference “How Do National Policies Affect Long Run Growth”, Washington, D. C., Feb. 1993Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Psacharopoulos, George and Arriagada, Ana María: The Educational Composition of the Labour Force: An International Comparison, in: International Labour Review, Vol. 125 (1986), pp. 561–574; The Educational Composition of the Labor Force: An International Update, Mimeo, The World Bank, Washington, D. C. 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Johnston, Econometric Methods, 3rd edition, New York 1984, pp. 396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Graff
    • 1
  1. 1.Germany

Personalised recommendations