Quirin Dammerer, Ludwig List, Miriam Rehm, Matthias Schnetzer
This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between the functional distribution of income and aggregate demand, which investigates whether declining wage shares increase (“profit‐led”) or decrease (“wage‐led”) demand. It conducts a meta‐regression analysis of 33 studies with 578 estimates for total and domestic demand, covering up to 163 years and 59 countries and regions. Our results suggest that, on average and across all countries, total demand is predominantly profit‐led and domestic demand mainly wage‐led. The effects in the literature range between 0.8 and −0.3 within one standard deviation for domestic demand and between 0.4 and −0.7 for total demand, which are economically significant at the outer bounds. We find mixed evidence for publication selectivity, which may affect the size but not the direction of the results in the literature. If one was to nonetheless correct for this, then total demand would be less profit‐led or statistically insignificant. A set of moderator variables, including publication characteristics, estimation strategies, the covariates included in the studies’ estimation functions, and, in particular, controls for time and space, help explain the variation in the empirical estimates.
{"title":"Macroeconomic effects of a declining wage share: A meta‐analysis of the functional income distribution and aggregate demand","authors":"Quirin Dammerer, Ludwig List, Miriam Rehm, Matthias Schnetzer","doi":"10.1111/joes.12614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12614","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between the functional distribution of income and aggregate demand, which investigates whether declining wage shares increase (“profit‐led”) or decrease (“wage‐led”) demand. It conducts a meta‐regression analysis of 33 studies with 578 estimates for total and domestic demand, covering up to 163 years and 59 countries and regions. Our results suggest that, on average and across all countries, total demand is predominantly profit‐led and domestic demand mainly wage‐led. The effects in the literature range between 0.8 and −0.3 within one standard deviation for domestic demand and between 0.4 and −0.7 for total demand, which are economically significant at the outer bounds. We find mixed evidence for publication selectivity, which may affect the size but not the direction of the results in the literature. If one was to nonetheless correct for this, then total demand would be less profit‐led or statistically insignificant. A set of moderator variables, including publication characteristics, estimation strategies, the covariates included in the studies’ estimation functions, and, in particular, controls for time and space, help explain the variation in the empirical estimates.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"124 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Innovations can substantially contribute to the transformation toward sustainability if they induce a positive social and/or environmental impact. Such sustainable innovations differ considerably from conventional, purely economic innovations. The main difference stems from the different knowledge bases necessary for the development of these innovations. These knowledge bases are widely dispersed across different actors from business, academia, government, and civil society. Following the innovation system approach, we look at actor constellations, linkages between actors, and knowledge flows within networks that generate sustainable innovations. For this purpose, we conduct a systematic literature review, focusing on the concept of proximity and its five dimensions (geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, and social proximity). The results show that all proximity dimensions, as well as the interdependencies between them, are relevant for analyzing knowledge flows leading to sustainable innovations. The interplay of the different proximity dimensions can be described via two mechanisms, one being reinforcement and the other one being either substitution or overlap. We conclude that for the occurrence of radical, systemic innovations, which have the potential of altering the prevailing socio-economic paradigm toward greater sustainability, a combination of low cognitive and low (micro-) institutional proximity combined with high organizational, social, or geographical proximity, appears particularly conducive.
{"title":"Sustainable innovations, knowledge and the role of proximity: A systematic literature review","authors":"Ulrich Wilke, Andreas Pyka","doi":"10.1111/joes.12617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12617","url":null,"abstract":"Innovations can substantially contribute to the transformation toward sustainability if they induce a positive social and/or environmental impact. Such sustainable innovations differ considerably from conventional, purely economic innovations. The main difference stems from the different knowledge bases necessary for the development of these innovations. These knowledge bases are widely dispersed across different actors from business, academia, government, and civil society. Following the innovation system approach, we look at actor constellations, linkages between actors, and knowledge flows within networks that generate sustainable innovations. For this purpose, we conduct a systematic literature review, focusing on the concept of proximity and its five dimensions (geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, and social proximity). The results show that all proximity dimensions, as well as the interdependencies between them, are relevant for analyzing knowledge flows leading to sustainable innovations. The interplay of the different proximity dimensions can be described via two mechanisms, one being reinforcement and the other one being either substitution or overlap. We conclude that for the occurrence of radical, systemic innovations, which have the potential of altering the prevailing socio-economic paradigm toward greater sustainability, a combination of low cognitive and low (micro-) institutional proximity combined with high organizational, social, or geographical proximity, appears particularly conducive.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"124 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides an overview of long‐term trends in income and wealth inequality, from ca. 1300 until today. It discusses recent acquisitions in terms of inequality measurement, building upon earlier research and systematically connecting preindustrial, industrial, and post‐industrial tendencies. It shows that in the last seven centuries or so, inequality of both income and wealth has tended to grow continuously, with two exceptions: the century or so following the Black Death pandemic of 1347–52, and the period from the beginning of World War I until the mid‐1970s. It discusses recent encompassing hypotheses about the factors leading to long‐run inequality change, highlighting their relative merits and faults, and arguing for the need to pay close attention to the historical context.
{"title":"Inequality in history: A long‐run view","authors":"Guido Alfani","doi":"10.1111/joes.12616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12616","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of long‐term trends in income and wealth inequality, from ca. 1300 until today. It discusses recent acquisitions in terms of inequality measurement, building upon earlier research and systematically connecting preindustrial, industrial, and post‐industrial tendencies. It shows that in the last seven centuries or so, inequality of both income and wealth has tended to grow continuously, with two exceptions: the century or so following the Black Death pandemic of 1347–52, and the period from the beginning of World War I until the mid‐1970s. It discusses recent encompassing hypotheses about the factors leading to long‐run inequality change, highlighting their relative merits and faults, and arguing for the need to pay close attention to the historical context.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"247 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140047422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The productivity growth slowdown in advanced economies during the early decades of the 21st century has led to renewed interest in economic measurement. Measured productivity growth has largely evaporated, yet in many ways, the average person is better off than at any time in history and technological advance is ever evident. Are we simply, or at least in part, mismeasuring productivity change? More fundamentally, are we measuring an outdated or otherwise less relevant economic concept? What should and can we measure in the interest of developing evidence‐based policy solutions to support productivity growth? This paper reviews some of the recent advances in economic measurement and points to an expanded productivity measurement research agenda arising from these questions.
{"title":"Productivity measurement: Reassessing the production function from micro to macro","authors":"Josh Martin, Rebecca Riley","doi":"10.1111/joes.12615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12615","url":null,"abstract":"The productivity growth slowdown in advanced economies during the early decades of the 21<jats:sup>st</jats:sup> century has led to renewed interest in economic measurement. Measured productivity growth has largely evaporated, yet in many ways, the average person is better off than at any time in history and technological advance is ever evident. Are we simply, or at least in part, mismeasuring productivity change? More fundamentally, are we measuring an outdated or otherwise less relevant economic concept? What should and can we measure in the interest of developing evidence‐based policy solutions to support productivity growth? This paper reviews some of the recent advances in economic measurement and points to an expanded productivity measurement research agenda arising from these questions.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140047893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz
As the year 2020 marks the 60th anniversary of the landmark paper in the Law & Economics (L&E) field by Ronald Coase—The Problem of Social Cost—we provide a systematic bibliometric analysis of the development of this field over the years. We look at the output and input side of knowledge production in the field of L&E. The former consists of the volume of production and thematic coverage of the field. The latter—input—looks at the producers of knowledge, the institutional and country affiliations of authors, and the intellectual structure of the field. Thus, the “who”, the “where” knowledge is produced as is also that of on “whose” shoulders the field stands. We demonstrate that Law & Economics shifted from more theory driven work to empirical and evidence‐based contributions. Likewise, we show that the Law & Economics field tends to be dominated by authors affiliated with economics departments, and crucially; however, more impactful research seems to be produced by inter‐disciplinary cooperation. The L&E field further resembles the economics domain in terms of co‐authorship patterns, number of citations and lengths of papers. Finally, we look at diversity in the field of L&E and show, for instance, that the share of female scholars has been steadily growing for the last two decades.
2020 年是罗纳德-科斯（Ronald Coase）在法律与经济学（L&E）领域发表里程碑式论文《社会成本问题》（The Problem of Social Cost）60 周年，我们对该领域多年来的发展进行了系统的文献计量分析。我们研究了法律和经济学领域知识生产的产出和投入方面。前者包括该领域的产量和专题覆盖面。后者--投入--则是指知识的生产者、作者所在的机构和国家以及该领域的知识结构。因此，"谁 "和 "在哪里 "生产知识，也是该领域 "站在谁的肩膀上 "的问题。我们表明，法律与经济学已从更多的理论研究转向以经验和证据为基础的研究。同样，我们还表明，法律与经济学领域往往由经济学系的作者主导，但关键的是，跨学科合作似乎能产生更有影响力的研究成果。在合著模式、引用次数和论文长度方面，法律与经济学领域与经济学领域更为相似。最后，我们审视了 L&E 领域的多样性，并举例说明，在过去二十年中，女性学者的比例一直在稳步增长。
{"title":"Law & Economics at sixty: Mapping the field with bibliometric and machine learning tools","authors":"Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz","doi":"10.1111/joes.12613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12613","url":null,"abstract":"As the year 2020 marks the 60th anniversary of the landmark paper in the Law & Economics (L&E) field by Ronald Coase—The Problem of Social Cost—we provide a systematic bibliometric analysis of the development of this field over the years. We look at the output and input side of knowledge production in the field of L&E. The former consists of the volume of production and thematic coverage of the field. The latter—input—looks at the producers of knowledge, the institutional and country affiliations of authors, and the intellectual structure of the field. Thus, the “who”, the “where” knowledge is produced as is also that of on “whose” shoulders the field stands. We demonstrate that Law & Economics shifted from more theory driven work to empirical and evidence‐based contributions. Likewise, we show that the Law & Economics field tends to be dominated by authors affiliated with economics departments, and crucially; however, more impactful research seems to be produced by inter‐disciplinary cooperation. The L&E field further resembles the economics domain in terms of co‐authorship patterns, number of citations and lengths of papers. Finally, we look at diversity in the field of L&E and show, for instance, that the share of female scholars has been steadily growing for the last two decades.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139954152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We review recent advances in dynamic stochastic general equilibrium theory concerned with the emergence of fat‐tailed time‐series distributions. Focusing on mechanisms that are firmly grounded in structural equilibrium models, we provide a common reference framework to organize existing contributions according to whether they entail extreme business cycle swings as an endogenous response to small and short‐lived shocks (“thin in, fat out”), or rather as an automatic consequence of large and/or heteroskedastic exogenous impulses (“fat in, fat out”). Within the former class, non‐Gaussian features of equilibrium patterns can endogenously emerge in fully rational, Gaussian environments. Using an empirically plausible real business cycle framework, we also report novel simulation‐based evidence that helps reconcile theoretical predictions with the documented higher‐order properties of time‐series data for output measures.
{"title":"Fat‐tailed DSGE models: A survey and new results","authors":"Chetan Dave, M. Sorge","doi":"10.1111/joes.12612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12612","url":null,"abstract":"We review recent advances in dynamic stochastic general equilibrium theory concerned with the emergence of fat‐tailed time‐series distributions. Focusing on mechanisms that are firmly grounded in structural equilibrium models, we provide a common reference framework to organize existing contributions according to whether they entail extreme business cycle swings as an endogenous response to small and short‐lived shocks (“thin in, fat out”), or rather as an automatic consequence of large and/or heteroskedastic exogenous impulses (“fat in, fat out”). Within the former class, non‐Gaussian features of equilibrium patterns can endogenously emerge in fully rational, Gaussian environments. Using an empirically plausible real business cycle framework, we also report novel simulation‐based evidence that helps reconcile theoretical predictions with the documented higher‐order properties of time‐series data for output measures.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"1 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139438434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is an urgent need to transition our economy, society, and culture towards systems and actions that facilitate ecological sustainability. Such radical change requires equally radical transformation of approaches to decision making and resource use. Sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) is often presented as the answer to meeting the triple-bottom-line challenges that businesses face; however, there are very real limits to what it can achieve. SE is in the early stages of adopting tools at the technological frontier that offer empirical guidance at every point of an entrepreneurial decision-making process. Big Data (BD) advances the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decision making, while also charting pathways to achieve desired outcomes. So far, the interactions between AI, BD, and SE have been generally under-studied. In this primarily conceptual paper, we address the lack of work consolidating and synthesizing these literatures. We suggest that AI and BD readily contribute to further sustainable development of the weak form, but that it also holds great promise for achieving the strong sustainability ideal. We offer two propositions regarding how the integration of AI and BD can inform/support SE. We conclude by mapping out potential avenues for future research.
我们的经济、社会和文化迫切需要向有利于生态可持续性的系统和行动转型。这种根本性的变革要求决策和资源利用的方法发生同样根本性的转变。可持续创业（SE）常常被视为应对企业所面临的三重底线挑战的答案；然而，它所能实现的目标存在着非常现实的限制。可持续创业正处于采用技术前沿工具的早期阶段，这些工具可在创业决策过程的每个环节提供经验指导。大数据（BD）提升了人工智能（AI）为决策提供信息的潜力，同时也为实现预期成果规划了路径。迄今为止，人们对人工智能、BD 和 SE 之间的互动研究普遍不足。在这篇以概念性为主的论文中，我们将探讨这些文献之间缺乏整合与综合的问题。我们认为，人工智能和企业发展很容易促进弱形式的进一步可持续发展，但它对实现强可持续性理想也大有可为。我们就人工智能与企业发展的结合如何为可持续发展提供信息/支持提出了两个命题。最后，我们规划了未来研究的潜在途径。
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and Big Data in Sustainable Entrepreneurship","authors":"Steve J. Bickley, Alison Macintyre, Benno Torgler","doi":"10.1111/joes.12611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12611","url":null,"abstract":"There is an urgent need to transition our economy, society, and culture towards systems and actions that facilitate ecological sustainability. Such radical change requires equally radical transformation of approaches to decision making and resource use. Sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) is often presented as the answer to meeting the triple-bottom-line challenges that businesses face; however, there are very real limits to what it can achieve. SE is in the early stages of adopting tools at the technological frontier that offer empirical guidance at every point of an entrepreneurial decision-making process. Big Data (BD) advances the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decision making, while also charting pathways to achieve desired outcomes. So far, the interactions between AI, BD, and SE have been generally under-studied. In this primarily conceptual paper, we address the lack of work consolidating and synthesizing these literatures. We suggest that AI and BD readily contribute to further sustainable development of the weak form, but that it also holds great promise for achieving the strong sustainability ideal. We offer two propositions regarding how the integration of AI and BD can inform/support SE. We conclude by mapping out potential avenues for future research.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139461873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Simona Malovaná, Martin Hodula, Zuzana Gric, Josef Bajzík
This paper analyzes over 700 estimates from 34 studies on the impact of borrower-based measures (such as loan-to-value, debt-to-income, and debt-service-to-income ratios) on bank loan provision. Our dataset reveals notable fragmentation in the literature concerning variable transformations, methods, and estimated coefficients. We run a meta-analysis on a subsample of 422 semi-elasticities from 23 studies employing a consistent estimation framework to draw an economic interpretation. We confirm strong publication bias, particularly against positive and statistically insignificant estimates. After correcting for this bias, the effect indicates a credit growth reduction of −0.6 to −1.1 percentage points following the occurrence of borrower-based measures, significantly lower than the unadjusted simple mean effect of the collected estimates. Additionally, our study examines the contexts of these estimates, finding that beyond publication bias, model specification and estimation method are vital in explaining the variation in reported coefficients.
{"title":"Borrower-based macroprudential measures and credit growth: How biased is the existing literature?","authors":"Simona Malovaná, Martin Hodula, Zuzana Gric, Josef Bajzík","doi":"10.1111/joes.12608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12608","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes over 700 estimates from 34 studies on the impact of borrower-based measures (such as loan-to-value, debt-to-income, and debt-service-to-income ratios) on bank loan provision. Our dataset reveals notable fragmentation in the literature concerning variable transformations, methods, and estimated coefficients. We run a meta-analysis on a subsample of 422 semi-elasticities from 23 studies employing a consistent estimation framework to draw an economic interpretation. We confirm strong publication bias, particularly against positive and statistically insignificant estimates. After correcting for this bias, the effect indicates a credit growth reduction of −0.6 to −1.1 percentage points following the occurrence of borrower-based measures, significantly lower than the unadjusted simple mean effect of the collected estimates. Additionally, our study examines the contexts of these estimates, finding that beyond publication bias, model specification and estimation method are vital in explaining the variation in reported coefficients.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139408280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Expectations matter in dynamic models where decisions in one period have implications for outcomes in subsequent periods. Rational expectations were once the dominant assumption but its popularity is waning. Human decision-making deviates from rationality suggesting important influences of perceptions and beliefs on decision-making. The articles in this special issue provide up-to-date reviews of the importance of expectations, beliefs, and perceptions including the role of social media in shaping them.
{"title":"Expectations, beliefs, and perceptions in the modern economy: An overview","authors":"Edda Claus, F. Antoine Dedewanou","doi":"10.1111/joes.12610","DOIUrl":"10.1111/joes.12610","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Expectations matter in dynamic models where decisions in one period have implications for outcomes in subsequent periods. Rational expectations were once the dominant assumption but its popularity is waning. Human decision-making deviates from rationality suggesting important influences of perceptions and beliefs on decision-making. The articles in this special issue provide up-to-date reviews of the importance of expectations, beliefs, and perceptions including the role of social media in shaping them.</p>","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"38 2","pages":"297-302"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joes.12610","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139415274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Great Divergence debate has been the leading conversation in economic history for the past 25 years. This review article explores new comparative horizons in global economic history. I argue that questions of South–South Divergence form a logical and timely extension to the Great Divergence research agenda. Asia's economic renaissance did not only put an end to a century-spanning process of widening global income disparities, it also set a new process of divergence within the global south in motion. Deeper understandings of the historical nature and origins of this transition are pertinent in light of the increasing demographic and economic weight of the global south. South–south comparisons also offer an opportunity to counter the dominance of western-centered and north–south perspectives and incentivize the development of new approaches and theories that go beyond mainstream concepts designed by development economists and political scientists. I argue that these novel approaches will have to grapple with the opportunities and constraints to “late” development being shaped by the quadruple challenge of vast technology gaps, limited state autonomy, global competition, and rapidly closing land and resource frontiers.
{"title":"From the Great Divergence to South–South Divergence: New comparative horizons in global economic history","authors":"Ewout Frankema","doi":"10.1111/joes.12609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12609","url":null,"abstract":"The <i>Great Divergence</i> debate has been the leading conversation in economic history for the past 25 years. This review article explores new comparative horizons in global economic history. I argue that questions of <i>South–South Divergence</i> form a logical and timely extension to the Great Divergence research agenda. Asia's economic renaissance did not only put an end to a century-spanning process of widening global income disparities, it also set a new process of divergence <i>within</i> the global south in motion. Deeper understandings of the historical nature and origins of this transition are pertinent in light of the increasing demographic and economic weight of the global south. South–south comparisons also offer an opportunity to counter the dominance of western-centered and north–south perspectives and incentivize the development of new approaches and theories that go beyond mainstream concepts designed by development economists and political scientists. I argue that these novel approaches will have to grapple with the opportunities and constraints to “late” development being shaped by the quadruple challenge of <i>vast technology gaps, limited state autonomy, global competition</i>, and rapidly <i>closing</i> land and resource <i>frontiers</i>.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139373878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：