Is the <i>AK</i> model still alive? The long‐run relation between growth and investment re‐examined
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the empirical validity of AK ‐type endogenous growth models, the long‐run relation between growth and investment is examined. Contrary to Jones’s (1995) findings, the broadly measured rate of investment exerts a long‐run positive effect on the growth rate. This result is supported by evidence from twenty‐four OECD countries, 1950–92, and five major industrialized countries, 1870–1987. The panel‐data evidence from OECD countries also supports an extended AK model based on the Uzawa (1965) / Lucas (1988) two‐sector model with transitional dynamics. These findings suggest that the long‐run relation between growth and investment is consistent the AK model. JEL Classification: O4 Est‐ce que le modèle AK est encore en vie? Un autre coup d’œil sur la relation à long terme entre croissance et investissement. Pour explorer la validité empirique des modèles de croissance endogène de type AK , l’auteur jette un autre coup d’œil sur la relation à long terme entre croissance et investissement. Contrairement à ce que suggèrent les résultats de l’étude de Jones (1995), le taux d’investissement mesuré d’une manière assez compréhensive exerce un effet positif sur le taux de croissance à long terme. Ce résultat est supporté par les données récoltées pour vingt‐quatre pays de l’OCDE entre 1950 et 1992, et pour cinq pays industrialisés importants entre 1870 et 1987. Les résultats tirés des études longitudinales des pays de l’OCDE supportent aussi une version générale du modèle AK fondée sur le modèle à deux secteurs à la Uzawa (1965) / Lucas (1988) avec dynamique de transition. Ces résultats suggèrent que la relation en longue période entre croissance et investissement est consistante avec le modèle AK .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".