Search

Prior to his Nobel Prize-winning work in economic development and human capital, T.W. Schultz focused his attention most centrally on the economics of U.S. agriculture. His research on this subject, published mostly between 1932 and 1951, laid the foundation for his later work. However, the lasting value of Schultz's earlier work may appear to have been called into question even by the author himself. In the three books of collected writings he published toward the end of his life (Schultz, 1990, 1993a, 1993b), very few early writings are reprinted or even cited. Nonetheless, among agricultural economists, Schultz's earlier work has been as influential as his later work became among economists generally. In the American Economic Association's (1969) compilation, Schultz was referenced in the index more than any other economist, and all twenty-two references to his works refer to studies of U.S. agriculture (and only two of them to his work on human capital). In this paper, I review Schultz's contributions under two headings: the economics of farming and agricultural policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to measure the impact of investment in education on U.S. economic growth. Education is treated as an investment in human capital, since benefits accrue to an educated individual over a lifetime of activities. One of the most important benefits is higher income from labor market participation. This is the key to understanding the link between investment in education and economic growth. Our most important finding is that investment in human and nonhuman capital accounts for an overwhelming proportion of the growth of the U.S. economy during the postwar period. Educational investment will continue to predominate in the investment requirements for more rapid growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate the relationship between economic growth and top income inequality under the influence of human and physical capital accumulation, using an annual panel of U.S. state-level data. Our analysis is based upon the 'unified' framework offered by Galor and Moav (2004) while the empirics account for cross-section dependence, parameter heterogeneity, and endogeneity, in nonstationary series. We conclude that changes in inequality do not influence growth, neither in the short run nor in the long run in the United States as a whole in the 1929-2013 period. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of overall income inequality measures. These findings provide support for the theoretical prediction of the unified theory of inequality and growth, according to which the growth effect of inequality becomes insignificant in the latest stages of economic development that the United States experiences during our period of investigation. Therefore, future policies aiming at moderating the concentration at the upper end of income distribution are not likely to have adverse growth consequences in developed countries such as the United States. ( JEL I21, O47, C23) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy makers who wish to spur economic development in rural forests face challenges that include population decline and poverty. Protected land and natural amenities enhance the quality of life and prospects for economic development, but there is limited research on how different types of protected land or natural amenities affect the rural forest economy. We use county level variables for protected areas differentiated by access and extractive use, and natural amenities differentiated by climate, water area, and topography to explain spatial variation in labor and built space markets. Results show that temperate summers and water area increase wages and housing prices and explain more than 30 percent of the spatial differences in wages, housing price, employment density, built space percent, human capital, and local road density. Protected area decreases wages, but, if open access, increase housing prices and human capital and explain more than 20 percent of the spatial differences in human capital, built space percent, and local road density. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and development (R&D) has a large effect on both state output and total factor productivity in the long run. Our estimates for the private sector of the U.S. states from 1963 to 2007 show that the R&D elasticity averages 0.056-0.143. The implied returns to state Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from R&D spending are 82-211%. There are also positive R&D spillovers, with 70-80% of the total returns accruing to other states. We also find that states with more human capital have higher own- and other-R&D elasticities, and those in lowest tier of economic development have the least own-state R&D elasticity but the highest other-R&D elasticity. In addition, we find that the positive effect of R&D spillovers across states is larger when we consider R&D spillovers across states based on economic similarity of R&D across sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study identifies the determinants of growth for male and female business ownership in a subset of U.S. counties. The results indicate that there are important characteristic and behavioral differences between the male and female populations in each county that affect regional changes in business ownership for each gender. In particular, the education level of males and females as well as the local family structure impact the propensity for firms owned by each gender differently. A Blinder-Oaxaca type decomposition, a novel approach in the context of regional outcomes, demonstrates that although the effect of characteristic differences is larger, the behavioral differences are key to narrowing the gender disparity in business ownership. ( JEL L26, R2, R3) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Has the progress of output convergence changed within the United States? This article examines the output convergence among U.S. states for the last five decades by making several improvements over the extant literature. By applying a battery of convergence tests designed to capture nonlinear transitional dynamics to real output per worker data (i.e., nominal values deflated by state-level price), we find that output convergence has not been a feature of the continental United States since the 1970s. Instead, output convergence has proceeded among four subgroups within which constituent states have certain characteristics in common. Our regression analysis suggests that state-level characteristics related to technology and human capital play a crucial role in accounting for the formation and composition of convergence clubs, in agreement with the recent theoretical models of growth and development (e.g., Aghion et al. 2009; Gennaioli et al. 2013b). The level of technology, proxied by patents, turns out to be a consistently significant determinant even after controlling for endogeneity, suggesting that frictions in the diffusion of technology and human capital may have led to clustering of states with different levels of productivity. Our results therefore cast doubt on the common view that diffusion of knowledge and technology across state borders is frictionless. ( JEL O47, O51) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American states have provided a rich laboratory in which to examine influences on economic growth, physical capital, human capital, and a variety of policy variables. Existing studies typically use broad cross sections of all states or particular regional subsamples. Pairwise matching is an alternative design for better controlling of omitted variables. We estimate a growth model of U.S. states for 1997-2005 before and after applying different pairwise matching techniques. Our results indicate that sample estimates based on pairwise matching substantially improve the overall ability of the growth model to identify the growth-enhancing effects of lower tax burdens in general and lower individual income-tax rates in particular. These effects are more pronounced with narrower matching criteria. ( JEL H00, C29, O40) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article augments an R&D-based growth model of the third generation with human capital accumulation and impure altruism, calibrates it with U.S. data, and investigates whether the market provides too little or too much R&D. For benchmark parameters, the market share of employment in R&D is close to the socially optimal solution. Sensitivity analysis shows that the order of magnitude of possible deviation between market R&D and optimal R&D is also smaller than suggested by previous studies. Small deviation of total research effort, however, can be compatible with large sectoral misallocations. Furthermore, the model allows for two additional channels through which population growth may affect the resource allocation so that its overall economic impact is no longer predetermined as positive. Numerical calibrations show that economic growth at the average rate in the U.S. over the last century can be consistent with a small and probably negative partial correlation between population growth and economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on an article titled "Investment in Education and U.S. Economic Growth," by D.W. Jorgenson and B.M. Fraumeni. Measurement of investment in human capital; Relationship between measures of schooling quality and subsequent attainment; Output of the educational sector.