Interpreting tests of the convergence hypothesis
如何解释收敛假说检验AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确讨论跨国产出收敛的时间序列检验及极限分布;横截面国家比较未说明面板结构,因此不选宏观面板。
如何解释收敛假说检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This paper provides a framework for understanding the cross- section and time series approaches which have been used to test the convergence hypothesis. First, we present two definitions of convergence which capture the implications of the neoclassical growth model for the relationship between current and future cross-country output differences. Second, we identify how the cross-section and time series approaches relate to these definitions. Cross-section tests are shown to be associated with a weaker notion of convergence than time series tests. Third, we show how these alternative approaches make different assumptions on whether the data are well characterized by a limiting distribution. As a result, the choice of an appropriate testing framework is shown to depend on both the specific null and alternative hypotheses under consideration as well as on the initial conditions characterizing the data being studied.