Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Cliometrics pp 1–31Cite as

GDP and Convergence in Modern Times

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:

  • 326 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, I discuss historical estimates of GDP at both the national and the regional level and their application for assessing economic performance in modern times. Having been invented in (and conceived for) industrial capitalist societies, GDP has stronger informative power in those contexts where industry and services, and market exchange, retain the lion’s share of production. In modern times, when comparing the series available for different countries, there are three major methodological problems to be acknowledged and possibly addressed: the dissimilarity of the quantity series and related proxies, deflation through purchasing power parities distant in time, and the differences in the base year used to construct GDP constant price (Laspeyres) indices (the latter issue may be less widely recognized, but it may have a remarkable impact). The way the estimates are constructed also has a bearing upon the statistical tools and models we should use to interpret them; owing to the lack of reliable long-run series, cross-sectional techniques are often preferable to time series analysis; provided we have reliable estimates, growth accounting – decomposing GDP growth into productivity and industry mix effects – may provide important clues about the choice between theoretical approaches; not least for the quality of our data, cross-country convergence models based on conditioning variables should always be supplemented by historical information from qualitative sources and case studies. More generally, cliometricians should prove themselves capable of adapting their models to different historical contexts and relativizing findings to the limits of their estimates.

Financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, project HAR2013-47182-C02-01, and the Generalitat de Catalunya, project 2014 SGR 591, is gratefully acknowledged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a country, GDP includes the incomes earned by the individuals not officially living in that country. Gross national production (GNP) includes instead the incomes earned abroad by the citizens of that country.

  2. 2.

    To be consistent with the definition of the previous footnote, GDP should be divided by the population de facto (present population) and GNP by the resident population.

  3. 3.

    The United States used GNP instead of GDP as late as 1991. By that time, virtually all the other countries had already adopted GDP.

  4. 4.

    The first official estimates for the United Kingdom were made in 1941 by Richard Stone and James Meade. The former also was the main contributor to developing a standardized system that since 1952 was implemented in OEEC (Organization for European Economic Cooperation) countries (Stone 1956, 1961).

  5. 5.

    However, many others are equally excluded: take, for instance, political and civil freedoms. Nussbaum (2000) increases up to ten the number of basic capabilities: (1) life; (2) bodily health; (3) bodily integrity; (4) sense, imagination, and thought; (5) emotion; (6) practical reason; (7) affiliation; (8) other species; (9) play; and (10) control over one’s environment.

  6. 6.

    In this direction, some progress has recently been made, but with little or no heed, thus far, in the systems of national accounts: see Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) and Ferreira et al. (2008).

  7. 7.

    They could, of course, take advantage of a long tradition of income and macroeconomic estimates, dating back to the seventeenth century (for an outline, see Maddison 2007, pp. 393–401).

  8. 8.

    However, some improvements on this are now on the way (Bolt and van Zanden 2014).

  9. 9.

    For modern times, outstanding examples are Feinstein (1972) for the United Kingdom and Prados de la Escosura (2003) for Spain.

  10. 10.

    Just a handful of examples: for Switzerland, per capita GDP growth from 1820 to 1951 is assumed equal to average for France and Germany (Maddison 2006, p. 409); for Italy, a “guesstimate” for 1820 is created, “assuming that GDP per capita grew at the same pace from 1820–1861 as from 1861–90” (Maddison 1991, p. 234; Maddison 2006, p. 408); but for this country, see Malanima (2006, 2011), his 2011 article having been incorporated in the updated version of Maddison’s database (Bolt and van Zanden 2014). For Albania, per capita GDP from 1870 to 1950 was assumed to move in the same proportion as the average for Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary (!), Czechoslovakia (!), and Poland (!); but what is more worrisome, this same average should work also for the entire Russian empire (Soviet Union territories) from 1820 to 1870 and for Greece from 1820 to 1913 (Maddison 2006, pp. 407, 469–471).

  11. 11.

    See, for example, the review of Good and Ma’s (1999) proxy measures of per capita GDP for six Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia) plus Austria, which are derived by regression by using three indicators (letters posted per capita, crude birth rate, and the share of nonagricultural employment in the labor force) and are accepted by Maddison only for some countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia), owing to the lack of any other information (Maddison 2006, pp. 403–404, 471–472). For a comprehensive picture of Maddison’s amendments to his previous (2001) estimates, see Maddison (2006, p. 624).

  12. 12.

    The project consists of a small working party of four established economic historians and a larger advisory board composed of 22 scholars from around the world. See the website of the project: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm.

  13. 13.

    Despite the title of the article (“Re-estimating Growth Before 1820”), updated estimates referring to the last two centuries also are included.

  14. 14.

    For a detailed discussion of Laspeyres indices and their properties as well as of the other main indices used in time series (see Feinstein and Thomas (2002, pp. 507–525)).

  15. 15.

    For updated international comparisons of Italy’s GDP with the rest of the world, in 10-year intervals from the unification of the country (1861) until 2011, see Felice and Vecchi (2013, p. 28).

  16. 16.

    For further details and more countries, reference must be made to the previous version of Maddison’s work (1995, pp. 126–139) and to the country-specific sources cited by the author.

  17. 17.

    For an application of Divisia and Fisher Ideal indices, see Crafts (1985) for England, Prados de la Escosura (2003) for Spain (Fisher Ideal index), and Felice and Carreras (2012) for Italy (Fisher Ideal index). In Prados de la Escosura (2003, pp. 46–47), an application of the Paasche index can also be found: the Paasche index (which uses a changing set of prices to value the quantities) is used to produce price series, which are then combined with the Laspeyres quantity index to estimate GDP at current prices.

  18. 18.

    The Geary-Khamis purchasing power converters for most countries can be found in Maddison (2006, pp. 189 (OECD countries), 190 (five East European countries and USSR), 199 (Latin America), 219–220 (Asia), 228 (Africa)). The reference year was always 1990 only for OECD, East European countries, USSR, Japan, and China; for the others, it varies from 1975 to 1993.

  19. 19.

    Other multilateral measures either give all countries the same weight (such the EKS system used by Eurostat for political reasons), are a shortcut approach based on reduced information (such as ESCWA used for 8 West Asian countries), or employ as a numeraire a currency different from the US dollar (such the ESCAP measure used for 14 East Asian countries, which takes as a reference the Hong Kong dollar) (see Maddison 2006, p. 172).

  20. 20.

    In that article, an excellent discussion of the literature about these issues and the different shortcut methods is also provided (pp. 2–8).

  21. 21.

    Prados de la Escosura (2000), p. 19

  22. 22.

    As confirmed by the results. Just a couple of examples: in 1860, according to Maddison, Greece would have a per capita GDP higher than France (0.855 vs. 0.850), while according to Prados de la Escosura, France had a much higher GDP per capita (0.821 vs. 0.405) in 1860, 1870, and 1880. According to Maddison, Austria (at pre-World War I borders) would be above France, Germany, and Canada, while according to Prados de la Escosura, and much more plausibly, it would be below them (2000, pp. 24–25).

  23. 23.

    The countries are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The benchmarks are 1880, 1890, 1900, 1913, 1929, 1939, 1950, 1960, 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990. GDP per capita is expressed in 1990 international dollars, but in the case of Prados de la Escosura, the figures are rescaled with his current price PPPs (2000, pp. 24–31).

  24. 24.

    It should be reminded that all are expressed in logs. In absolute terms, the standard deviation of real GDP per capita increased in both Maddison and (more) in Prados de la Escosura.

  25. 25.

    See Federico (2003) for Italy.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, the regional series for Italy estimated by Daniele and Malanima (2007), which have been produced by interpolating through the available regional benchmarks the national cycles of agriculture, industry, and services.

  27. 27.

    For instance, the industrial production of Italy in the liberal age (1861–1913) (e.g., Ciccarelli and Fenoaltea 2009, 2014). In fact, time series techniques have been applied to the Italian regional construction movements during the liberal age (Ciccarelli et al. 2010). Even in this case, however, it must be pointed out that although the regional series by Ciccarelli and Fenoaltea running from 1861 to 1913 are indeed very accurate, they are estimated at constant 1911 prices, with possible distortions in interregional comparisons for the early years.

  28. 28.

    Different population-weighted standard deviation measures are available and can be used, from the Williamson (1965) to the Theil (1967) index.

  29. 29.

    Data for the United States run from 1880 to 1990, those for Canada from 1961 to 1991, and those for Spain from 1955 to 1987; data for Japan start in 1955.

  30. 30.

    The results from panel models, for the years 1891–2001, are even lower: 0.5% (random effects GLS regression) (Felice 2011). The growth rate of convergence increases to 2% only once fixed effects are considered, that is, when we pass from unconditional to conditional convergence (Felice 2012).

  31. 31.

    For Italy, the western country where the most impressive regional policy (in terms of expenditures as a share of GDP) was carried out (see again Felice (2010)).

References

  • Ahmad S (1988) International real income comparisons with reduced information. In: Salazar-Carrillo J, Prasada Rao DS (eds) World comparisons of incomes, prices, and product. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 75–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Amos OM Jr (1988) Unbalanced regional growth and regional income inequality in the latter stages of development. Reg Sci Urban Econ 18(4):549–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baffigi A (2013) National accounts, 1861–2011. In: Toniolo G (ed) The Oxford handbook of the Italian economy since unification. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Bairoch P (1976) Europe’s gross national product: 1800–1975. J Eur Econ Hist 5(2):273–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Barro RJ (1991) Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Q J Econ 106(2):407–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1991) Convergence across states and regions. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:107–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1992) Convergence. J Polit Econ 100(2):223–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolt J, van Zanden JL (2014) The Maddison Project: collaborative research on historical national accounts. Econ Hist Rev 67:627–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0289.12032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63(2–3):616–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson CS (1975) The history of the United States national income and product accounts: the development of an analytical tool. J Income Wealth 21(2):153–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciccarelli C, Fenoaltea S (2009) La produzione industriale delle regioni d’Italia, 1861–1913: una ricostruzione quantitativa. 1. Le industrie non manifatturiere. Banca d’Italia, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciccarelli C, Fenoaltea S (2014) La produzione industriale delle regioni d’Italia, 1861–1913: una ricostruzione quantitativa. 2. Le industrie estrattivo-manifatturiere. Banca d’Italia, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciccarelli C, Fenoaltea S, Proietti T (2010) The effects of unification: markets, policy, and cyclical convergence in Italy, 1861–1913. Cliometrica 4(3):269–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark G (2009) Review essay: Angus Maddison, contours of the world economy, 1-2030 AD: essays in macro-economic history. J Econ Hist 69(4):1156–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crafts NFR (1985) British economic growth during the industrial revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Crafts NFR (1997) The human development index and changes in standards of living: some historical comparisons. Eur Rev Econ Hist 1(3):299–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crafts NFR (2002) The human development index, 1870–1999: some revised estimates. Eur Rev Econ Hist 6(3):395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniele V, Malanima P (2007) Il prodotto delle regioni e il divario Nord-Sud in Italia (1861–2004). Riv Polit Econ 67(3–4):267–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas PH (1976) The Cobb-Douglas production function once again: its history, its testing, and some new empirical values. J Polit Econ 84(5):903–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf SN, Johnson PA, Temple JRW (2005) Growth econometrics. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 1A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 555–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichengreen B (1986) What have we learned from historical comparisons of income and productivity? In: O’Brien P (ed) International productivity comparisons and problems of measurement, 1750–1939. 9th international economic history congress, Session B6, Bern, pp 26–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Epifani P (2005) Heckscher-Ohlin and agglomeration. Reg Sci Urban Econ 35(6):645–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico G (2003) Le nuove stime della produzione agricola italiana, 1860–1910: primi risultati e implicazioni. Riv Storia Econ 19(3):359–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein CH (1972) National income, expenditure and output for the United Kingdom, 1855–1965. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein CH, Thomas M (2002) Making history count. A primer in quantitative methods for historians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Felice E (2010) Regional development: reviewing the Italian mosaic. J Mod Ital Stud 15(1):64–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felice E (2011) Regional value added in Italy, 1891–2001, and the foundation of a long-term picture. Econ Hist Rev 64(3):929–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felice E (2012) Regional convergence in Italy (1891–2001): testing human and social capital. Cliometrica 6(3):267–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felice E (2014) Regional income inequality in Italy over the long-run (1871–2001). Patterns and determinants. In: Rosés JR, Wolf N (eds) Europe’s regions, 1900–2010. A new quantitative history of the economic development of Europe. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Felice E (2016) The misty grail: the search for a comprehensive measure of development and the reasons of GDP primacy. Dev Chang 47(5):967–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felice E, Carreras A (2012) When did modernization begin? Italy’s industrial growth reconsidered in light of new value-added series, 1911–1951. Explor Econ Hist 49(4):443–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felice E, Vecchi G (2013) Italy’s growth and decline, 1861–2011. CEIS Tor Vergata. Res Pap Ser 11(13):293

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenoaltea S (1976) Real value added and the measurement of industrial production. Ann Econ Soc Meas 5(1):113–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenoaltea S (2003) Notes on the rate of industrial growth in Italy, 1861–1913. J Econ Hist 63(3):695–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenoaltea S (2008) A proposito del PIL. Italianieuropei 8(1):165–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenoaltea S (2010) The reconstruction of historical national accounts: the case of Italy. PSL Q Rev 63(252):77–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira S, Hamilton K, Vincent J (2008) Comprehensive wealth and future consumption: accounting for population growth. World Bank Econ Rev 22(2):233–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary F, Stark T (2002) Examining Ireland’s post-famine economic growth performance. Econ J 112:919–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerschenkron A (1947) The soviet indices of industrial production. Rev Econ Stat 29(4):217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good D, Ma T (1999) The economic growth of central and eastern Europe in comparative perspective, 1870–1989. Eur Rev Econ Hist 3(2):103–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istat (1957) Indagine statistica sullo sviluppo del reddito nazionale dell’Italia dal 1861 al 1956. Ann Stat 8(9):1–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim S (1998) Economic integration and convergence: U.S. regions, 1840–1987. J Econ Hist 58(3):659–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kravis IB, Heston A, Summers R (1978) Real per capita income for more than one hundred countries. Econ J 88:215–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99(3):483–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets S (1934) National income 1929–1932. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Lequiller F, Blades D (2006) Understanding national accounts. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas R (2000) Some macroeconomics for the 21st century. J Econ Perspect 14(1):159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (1991) A revised estimate of Italian economic growth, 1861–1989. Banca Nazionale Lav Q Rev 44(177):225–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (1994) Confessions of a chiffrephile. Banca Nazionale Lav Q Rev 47(189):123–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (1995) Monitoring the world economy 1820–1992. Development Centre Studies, OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (2001) The world economy: a millennial perspective. Development Centre Studies, OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (2006) The world economy. A millennial perspective and volume II: historical statistics, Development Centre Studies, vol I. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (2007) Contours of the world economy I-2030 AD. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanima P (2006) Alle origini della crescita in Italia 1820–1913. Riv Storia Econ 22(3):306–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanima P (2011) The long decline of a leading economy: GDP in central and northern Italy, 1300–1913. Eur Rev Econ Hist 15(2):169–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankiw NG, Romer D, Weil DN (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q J Econ 107(2):407–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Galarraga J, Rosés JR, Tirado D (2014) The evolution of regional income inequality in Spain, 1860–2000. In: Rosés JR, Wolf N (eds) Europe’s regions, 1900–2010. A new quantitative history of the economic development of Europe. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal G (1957) Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2000) International comparisons of real product, 1820–1990: an alternative data set. Explor Econ Hist 37(1):1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2003) El progreso económico de España (1850–2000). Fundación BBVA, Bilbao

    Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2007) When did Latin America fall behind? In: Edwards S, Esquivel G, Márquez G (eds) The decline of Latin American economies: growth, institutions, and crises. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2010) Improving human development: a long-run view. J Econ Surv 24(5):841–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2013) Human development in Africa: a long-run perspective. Explor Econ Hist 50(2):179–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2015) World human development, 1870–2007. Rev Income Wealth 61(2):220–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prados de la Escosura L (2016) Mismeasuring long-run growth: the bias from splicing national accounts—the case of Spain. Cliometrica 10(3):251–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion M (2012a) Mashup indices of development. World Bank Res Obs 27(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion M (2012b) Troubling tradeoffs in the human development index. J Dev Econ 99(2):201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer P (1986) Increasing returns and long run growth. J Polit Econ 94(5):1002–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosés JR, Wolf N (eds) (2014) Europe’s regions, 1900–2010. A new quantitative history of the economic development of Europe. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosés JR, Martínez-Galarraga J, Tirado DA (2010) The upswing of regional income inequality in Spain (1860–1930). Explor Econ Hist 47(2):244–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala-i-Martin X (1996) Regional cohesion: evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. Eur Econ Rev 40(6):1325–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala-i-Martin X, Doppelhofer G, Miller RI (2004) Determinants of long term growth: a Bayesian averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach. Am Econ Rev 94(4):813–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1950) Wesley Clair Mitchell (1874–1948). Q J Econ 64(1):139–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen AK (1985) Commodities and capabilities. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone R (1956) Quantity and price indexes in national accounts. OEEC, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone R (1961) Input-output and national accounts. OEEC, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan T (1956) Economic growth and capital accumulation. Econ Rec 32(2):334–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theil H (1967) Economics and information theory. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Waring M (1988) If women counted. A new feminist economics. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson JG (1965) Regional inequality and the process of national development: a description of the pattern. Econ Dev Cult Chang 13(4):3–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson JG (2011) Industrial catching up in the poor periphery 1870–1975. CEPR discussion paper no 8335

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Filosofiche, Pedagogiche ed Economico-Quantitative, Università “G. D’Annunzio” Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy

    Emanuele Felice

Authors
  1. Emanuele Felice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuele Felice .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. BETA/CNRS (UMR 7522), University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Claude Diebolt

  2. University of Wisconsin Department of Economics, La Crosse, WI, USA

    Michael Haupert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Felice, E. (2019). GDP and Convergence in Modern Times. In: Diebolt, C., Haupert, M. (eds) Handbook of Cliometrics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40458-0_5-3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40458-0_5-3

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40458-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40458-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    GDP and Convergence in Modern Times
    Published:
    19 March 2019

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40458-0_5-3

  2. GDP and Convergence in Modern Times
    Published:
    05 March 2015

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40458-0_5-2

  3. Original

    GDP and Convergence in Modern Times
    Published:
    09 May 2014

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40458-0_5-1

Search

Navigation