Abstract
This study compares GDP per capita levels and growth rates across 17 advanced economies over the period 1890–2013 using an accounting breakdown and runs Phillips and Sul (Econometrica 75(6):1771–1855, 2007) convergence tests. An overall convergence process has been at work among advanced economies, mainly after WWII, driven mostly by capital intensity and then TFP, while trends in hours worked and employment rates are disparate. However, this convergence process came to a halt during technology shocks, during the two world wars and since the 1990s, with the convergence of advanced economies stopping far from the level of US GDP per capita.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For example, it has been particularly hampered since 1990. Indeed, the convergence of the euro area, the United Kingdom and Japan towards the level of US GDP per capita has stopped far from the US level, while reforming or structurally flexible countries have accelerated thanks to the information and communications technology shock. This fact has already been identified in the literature (see for example Crafts and ORourke 2013) and means that the GDP per capita catch-up process is not always continuous.
See “Online Appendix B” for further details about data construction, updates and sources. See also the dedicated website of this database: www.longtermproductivity.com to download the series.
For example, backdating consistent economic series at unchanging border is almost impossible in the case of countries such as Germany whose territories changed considerably over the period 1890–2013.
The accounting breakdown for GDP per capita is described in “Online Appendix A”
In another paper (Bergeaud et al. 2018), the author measures that human capital accounts for 20% to 33% of the growth rate of the Solow residual that we call TFP in the present study.
This offers two advantages over existing databases. First compared to the Maddison (2001) database, we provide estimates of TFP, capital intensity and labour in addition to his GDP per capita estimates. Second, compared to the Penn World Tables, we cover a longer time period and our capital stock estimates are less affected by the initial year steady-state assumption.
The use of different sub-periods should be understood as follows: given the set of information contained in the time series during a given sub-period, does the panel of countries tend to converge towards a common steady state at some point in the future (even if this future is long after the end of this sub-period)? Hence, if the test suggests convergence during one sub-period, this does not mean that the convergence process will occur during this sub-period, but rather that the countries display convergence dynamics during this sub-period.
To control for outliers and check for consistency, a similar chart is presented in “Online Appendix C, section C.3”. This additional chart shows the normalised interquartile range for each series (see “Online Appendix” for details).
In fact, it can be demonstrated that \(\sigma \)-convergence implies \(\beta \)-convergence (see Young et al. 2008).
Whose dynamics could in turn be driven by the convergence in the cost of capital across advanced economies, see Mazet-Sonilhac and Mésonnier (2016).
To be more accurate, the real assumption is that \(\delta _{i,t}=\delta _i+\frac{\sigma _i \xi _{i,t}}{t^k L(t)}\) where L is a slowly varying function satisfying: \(L(at)/L(t) \longrightarrow 1\) as \(t \longrightarrow \infty \) for all \(a>0\) and \(L(t)\longrightarrow \infty \). The logarithm is a good candidate, and it is the function which is recommended by Phillips and Sul (2007) based on Monte Carlo simulations.
In particular, if \(\beta \) is larger than 2 and if the common trend \(\mu _t\) follows a random walk with drift, then Phillips and Sul (2007) argue that there is evidence of convergence in level, whereas if \(\beta \) is between 0 and 2, there is only evidence of convergence in growth rate. Consistently with the study of the trend in GDP per capita presented in Phillips and Sul (2009), we consider that this is the case for our series.
Barro (2015) finds conditional \(\beta \)-convergence in GDP per capita since 1870 over 28 countries at a 2.6% annual convergence rate.
The presence of Canada in the group of laggards is not robust and less consistent with the series of LP and GDP per capita. Canada is thus probably the reason for the weak coefficient associated with club 2 in the 1990–2013 period for TFP and is not considered a laggard in the discussion.
References
Abramovitz M, David PA (1996) Convergence and deferred catch-up: productivity leadership and the waning of American exceptionalism. In: Landau R, Taylor T, Wright G (eds) Growth and development: the economics of the 21st century. Stanford University Press, California, pp 21–62
Acemoglu D, Naidu S, Restrepo P, Robinson JA (2019) Democracy does cause growth. J Polit Econ 127(1):47–100
Aghion P, Howitt P (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT Press, Cambridge
Aghion P, Howitt P (2006) Appropriate growth policy: a unifying framework. J Eur Econ Assoc 4(2–3):269–314
Aghion P, Howitt P (2008) The economics of growth. MIT Press, Cambridge
Aghion P, Askenazy P, Bourlès R, Cette G, Dromel N (2009) Education, market rigidities and growth. Econ Lett 102(1):62–65
Barro RJ (1991) Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Q J Econ 106(2):407–443
Barro RJ (2015) Convergence and modernisation. Econ J 125(585):911–942
Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1991) Convergence across States and Regions. Brook Pap Econ Act 22(1):107–182
Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1995) Economic growth. McGraw-Hill, New York
Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1997) Technological diffusion, convergence, and growth. J Econ Growth 2:1–27
Bartkowska M, Riedl A (2012) Regional convergence clubs in Europe: identification and conditioning factors. Econ Model 29(1):22–31
Bergeaud A, Cette G, Lecat R (2016) Productivity trends in advanced countries between 1890 and 2012. Rev Income Wealth 62(3):420–444
Bergeaud A, Cette G, Lecat R (2018) The role of production factor quality and technology diffusion in twentieth-century productivity growth. Cliometrica J Hist Econ Econom Hist 12(1):61–97
Bolt J, Zanden JLV (2014) The Maddison Project: collaborative research on historical national accounts. Econ Hist Rev 67(3):627–651
Cette G, Kocoglu Y, Mairesse J (2009) Productivity growth and levels in France, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States in the twentieth century, Working Paper 15577, National Bureau of Economic Research
Crafts N, O’Rourke KH (2014) Twentieth century growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 2. Elsevier, pp 263–346
Durlauf SN, Johnson PA (1995) Multiple regimes and cross-country growth behaviour. J Appl Econom 10(4):365–384
Galor O (1996) Convergence? Inferences from theoretical models. Econ J 106(437):1056–1069
Gordon RJ (1999) US economic growth since 1870: one big wave? Am Econ Rev 89(2):123–128
Hall RE, Jones CI (1999) Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Q J Econ 114(1):83–116
Islam N (2003) What have we learnt from the convergence debate? J Econ Surv 17(3):309–362
Maddison A (2001) The world economy, a millennial perspective. OECD Publishing, Paris
Madsen JB (2010) The anatomy of growth in the OECD since 1870. J Monet Econ 57(6):753–767
Madsen JB (2010) Growth and capital deepening since 1870: is it all technological progress? J Macroecon 32(2):641–656
Mazet-Sonilhac C, Mésonnier J-S (2016) The cost of equity for large non-financial companies in the euro area: an estimation over the last decade. Q Sel Art Bulletin de la Banque de France 44:28–39
Phillips PCB, Sul D (2007) Transition modeling and econometric convergence tests. Econometrica 75(6):1771–1855
Phillips PCB, Sul D (2009) Economic transition and growth. J Appl Econom 24(7):1153–1185
Prescott EC (2004) Why do Americans work so much more than Europeans? Q Rev 39-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94
Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320
Temple J, Johnson PA (1998) Social capability and economic growth. Q J Econ 113(3):965–990
Young AT, Higgins MJ, Levy D (2008) Sigma convergence versus beta convergence: evidence from US county-level dData. J Money Credit Bank 40(5):1083–1093
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bergeaud, A., Cette, G. & Lecat, R. Convergence of GDP per capita in advanced countries over the twentieth century. Empir Econ 59, 2509–2526 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01761-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01761-x