Panel Data Analysis of Population Growth and It Implication on

Transcription

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Emerging Trends in Social Science Research
(IS15Chennai Symposium) ISBN: 978-1-941505-23-6
Chennai-India, 3-5 April 2015 Paper ID: C509
Panel Data Analysis of Population Growth and It Implication on
Economic Growth of Developing Countries
LABARAN HAMZA,
Department of Economics,
SRM University,
Chennai, India.
Email: [email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Economists have often neglected the impact of fundamental demographic processes on
economic growth. Bloom and Canning (2001) are among the few who explore the effect of the
demographic transition on economic growth. As such the study investigated the effects of
population dynamic on the economic growth of thirty developing countries from Africa, Asia,
and Latin America illustrating both orthodox and heterodox theories for the period of
fourteen years by specifically determining the effects of birth rate, death rate, and migration
on the economic growth. To this aim, it is possible to compare the population growth of each
member and the whole group using paned data co-integration and causality. The study used
annual secondary data on birth rate, death rate, as well as migration from World
Development Indicators (WDI), and World Bank. The data were analysed using Linear Panel
Data Regression Analysis of Pooled, Fixed Effect (LSDV), and Random Effect (ECM)
econometrics techniques. The results showed that population growth and dynamism has a
significant impact on economic growth of developing countries. As such, fiscal and monetary
policy tools for the last three decades should not be seen as the utmost instruments of
achieving target growth in developing countries, but should be combined with certain
population policy instruments in stimulating economic growth especially in the higher birth
rate economies such as Niger, Angola, Iraq, etc.
Key words: Panel Co-integration, Fixed/Random Effect, Economic growth
1
www.globalbizresearch.org
1. Introduction
The implications of population either in terms of size or composition for change,
development and the quality of life has long and widely be debated by economists,
demographer and some other concerned disciplines. Theoretically, there are three alternative
views regarding population-economic growth nexus (Hudson, 1988; and Blanchet, 1991).
“Population pessimists” - a popular view which belongs to the Malthusian or Orthodox
school- believe that rapid population growth is problematic because it tends to overwhelm any
induced response by technological progress and capital accumulation (Hoover, 1958; Ehrlich,
1968; and Coale and Hoover, 1958). “Population optimists” on the other hand are of the view
that rapid population growth allows economies of scale to be captured and promotes
technological and institutional innovation (Boserup E, 1981; Simon, 1981; Kuznets, 1967).
Later research defeats both views as “population neutralists” contend that population growth
in isolation from other factors has neither a significant positive nor a significant negative
impact on economic growth (Bloom and Freeman, 1986; Kelley, 1988). However, going by
what is bedevilling the developing countries today there is no doubt that Malthus has been
vindicated because among other implications, rapid population growth will require that
government spend more on provision of education, security, health, shelter and other social
facilities. The fact that the different theories predict different causal mechanisms shows that
there are gaps yet to be filled with empirical evidence. Therefore, the understanding of
population-growth nexus has remained one of the oldest problems in economics.
While some developing countries of the world had fertility and mortality rates that were
lower than those in developed nations, some including many in sub-Saharan Africa, were
stuck in high fertility/low-growth traps, and others such as Niger, Angola etc. had hit speed
bumps on the road toward longer, healthier lives (Mantu, 2001). In most of the poor
developing countries, a sharp drop in death rates has not been accompanied by a
corresponding fall in birth rates. The explosive growth of the human population in the world
in the nineteenth and twentieth century was the result of a historically unprecedented decline
in the rate of mortality, and a relatively stable fertility rate. The East Asian nations are among
the nations of the world that have experienced the greatest success in "reaping" the
demographic dividend produced by reduced mortality and fertility rates as a result of strong
policy environment. Latin America has undergone a fairly sharp demographic transition, but
because of a weak policy environment it has not been able to capitalize on it. The
demographic transitions in South, Central and Southeast Asia started later and have been less
pronounced than that in East Asia. The Middle East and North Africa are still in the early
phases of the demographic transition, while indeed many parts of sub-Saharan Africa have
2
seen almost no decrease in traditionally high fertility rates (Rand Population Matters project,
2002).
The first part of this research aims to provide a summary of the alternative theoretical
frameworks that deal with population and its impact on economic growth of
developing countries. The latter parts present an econometric analysis of population and
economic growth in the thirty developing countries from the cross-section of Asia, Africa,
and Latin America for the period of fourteen years.
Unlike in the previous researches where pure time series econometrics was used in the
study of short and long-run impact of population growth parameters on economic growth. The
present research resort to Panel Data econometrics analysis, so that both the time and space
dimensions and effect are captured between the subjects of the study by means of traditional
and new theoretical perspectives of panel data.
This study therefore aims to measure the impact of the population on the economic
growth of developing countries and see how these variables move together both in the short
and long-run. To this end, it is possible to compare these impacts for each member and the
whole group using panel data co-integration method.
2. Literature Review
While Dyson (2010) contends that mortality decline is the chief cause of economic
development, McKeown (1976) argues that the direction of causality should be reversed, i.e.,
it is the improvement in the standard of living that results in lower death rates. Easterlin
(1996) and Schofield and Reher (1991) also show that the dire living conditions that came
with the industrial revolution and modern economic growth in cities of Europe during the
nineteenth century might have raised mortality rates. On the other hand, evidence from
contemporary developing economies tends to show that it is mortality decline that leads to
economic growth, as it increases investment in both physical and human capital via increased
savings rates and education (see, for instance Bloom and Canning (2001) and Kalemli-Ozcan
(2002). Furthermore, mortality tends to fall as a result of declines in death rates from
infectious diseases. Declines in these diseases tend to bring about an improvement in the
nutritional status of children which in turn leads to a fitter future labour force. In fact, Strauss
and Thomas (1998) show that healthier workers tend to be more productive. In pretransitional societies, relatively rapid population growth almost always resulted in a fall in the
standard of living due to the rather severe limits to the technical progress in agriculture or to
the fixed supply of land, as pointed out by Malthus (1798; 1830 [1970]). This prompts Clark
(2007) to state that income levels before the nineteenth century could not escape the
Malthusian equilibrium due to the very low rate of technological advance in all economies.
3
Some theories suggest that more rapid population growth should be bad for economic
performance because with a larger population each worker will have less productive factors,
both non-accumulated and accumulated, to work with. Other theories suggest that greater
population growth will lead to greater productivity either by inducing innovation, producing
innovation, or through creating greater economies of scale, specialization or agglomeration
(Boserup, 1981, Simon, 1992, Kremer, 1993). Robert Cassen's (1994) recent summary of the
state of the art in research on Population and development, states nicely the conventional
wisdom of contrasting negative factor accumulation effects versus possibly positive
productivity effects: What about the effect of population on per capita income? Here simple
economics suggests that the effect is probably negative. Unless population exerts a strong
positive influence on capital formation and the suggestion that it does is a minority opinionthe more people there are, and the less capital there is per person; as a result even though total
output may be larger with a bigger population, output per person is smaller. There are
however, three arguments against this: larger population may generate economies of scale;
they may induce favourable technological change; and when population is growing, the
average age of the labour force will be younger, which may have beneficial productivity
effects. The fact that the different theories predict a different causal mechanism shows that
there is a gap yet to be filled with empirical evidence across countries. Between 1950 and
1995, the world's population grew from 2.5 billion to 5.7 billion people, and is expected to
grow by another 4 billion people over the next 50 years. There has been a long-standing
debate on the effects that such population growth can have on economic development and
growth of countries. This debate is generally couched in the distinctions made by ‘population
optimists' and by ‘population pessimists'. Population optimists believe that increases in
population increase the incentives for the invention of new technologies and the diffusion of
existing ones (Boserup 1981). They also point out that larger population allow for economies
of scale both in production and in consumption (Kuznets 1966, Simon 1977). Population
pessimists, on the other hand, believe that the burden placed on the resources of an economy
by an increasing population is a hindrance to economic development. The original
‘Malthusian' perspective focused on agricultural resource constraints, while later economic
models were based on the capital to labour ratio: increases in population meant that there was
less capital per person, thereby reducing the productivity of labour, such as in the neoclassical
model discussed above. Empirical studies, which have used cross-country data to try and
evaluate these claims, however found little evidence to support either argument. Once the
effects of initial income, education, and other determinants of growth are taken into account,
population growth is found to have a negligible effect on growth of GDP (Bloom and
Freeman 1986). This gave rise to the "population neutralist" or "revisionist" perspective,
4
which held that demography, was not a significant factor in the economic growth process.
This view was in part responsible for the tenuous position population variables have recently
occupied in studies of economic growth. More recent research, however, has pointed out that
it is not sufficient to take into account simply the growth in population when attempting to
evaluate the role-played by demography, as demographic effects are significantly more
complex. Kelley and Schmidt (1995) show that the composition of population growth is an
important factor. For example, if population growth occurs mainly through mortality declines
that affect infants and children disproportionately (as is well known to be the case in high
mortality populations), the effect on age structure will be different than if population growth
occurs due to migration, which generally selects for working age people.
In all the foregoing studies, no attempt was made to analyse the impact of population
changes, especially demographic behaviour on economic growth at panel, and the resultant
implications on growth.
3. Methodology Overview
According to the nature of the data, which are a mixture (combination) of the independent
and dependent variables related to developing countries in the years from 1985 to 2014,
model estimation was done based on panel co-integration method which is a new approach in
econometrics and the traditional approaches that’s fixed and random effect. Panel data is a
method to integrate time series and cross-section data where due to corporate (joint)
consideration of the variable changes in each cross-section and time, all available data are
used. Nowadays, in addition to the traditional attitude of panel data econometrics, there exist
new insights in this regard.
3.1. New Insights in Panel Econometrics
Panel Time Series (PTS) or unstable (non-stationary) panel econometrics was proposed as
an important factor in the economic development with a new approach in the early '90s.
Although there are not many texts on this issue and the concepts used in this method are
theoretical and there is not much evidence in this regard, using this method is much simpler
than the traditional one. In this method, the panel data are firstly divided from the viewpoint
of priority of significance in time or sections and then the applicable models are considered
for each one.
From the viewpoint of new theory of macro panels, two issues are raised:
i). Mixed regressions (Pooled) in which the parameter homogeneity is rejected. In other
words, the regression is heterogeneous (Pesaran & Smith, 1995).
ii). Non-stationary, spurious regressions and co-integration
5
• Time series fully revised estimate techniques have been added to the fixed effect
and random effect methods which are used in within-group dependence, autocorrelation and
heterosk elasticity in interruption terms.
• There exist several tests for unit root test and panel co-integration test which are
addressed in the following sections.
3.2. Old Views on Panel Econometrics
In this attitude, according to the main model of the panel data, the model and its
estimators are recognized (identified) using the various tests. At the end, if the regression
slope(gradient) is fixed (constant) at each section and the fixed terms changes from one
section to another or in other words if time effect is not significant and just there is a
significant difference between various sections, and coefficients of the sections do not change
with time changes, the model is fixed effect. While, in the unilateral (one-way) fixed effect
model, the slopes are constant but the constant terms are different in different times and in
fixed (constant) two-way effect model, the slope of the functions is constant in each section
but the constant term (abscissa) will vary with time and with the section. Seemingly unrelated
regression (SUR) is another type of fixed effect model in which the constant terms and the
slope of the regressions are different. But if the variables have been selected randomly, and
there is no correlation between explanatory variables and correlation errors, to obtain efficient
and consistent estimates, the random effects model can be used.
However, the purpose and objective of this research is to determine how the demographic
structure and the economics growth of developing countries are related and affect one another
in the short or long-run. As such relevant variables that go into the model are: Real Gross
domestic Product (RGDP) which indicates a country’s economic performance over time, the
birth rate, death rate both in thousand per persons, and the net migration. Note that variables
which were not in rate were logged.
3.3. Data Sources
The study used annual secondary data of real GDP, birth rate, death rate, and net
migration from World Development Indicators (WDI); World Bank, Annual Abstract of
Statistics by National Bureau of Statistics(NBS). The period of the study was 2001 to 2014.
3.4. Model Specifications
The model functional form can be express as
LGDPit=α+β1BRit+β2DRit+β3NMigit+Uit
…(1)
Where L= Logarithm
RGDPit = Real GDP
α= intercept
BRit = Birth rate in thousand
6
DRit = Death rate in thousand
NMigit = Net Migration
Uit = Panel error term
A panel data regression differs from a regular time-series or cross-section regression in that it
has a double subscript on its variables, i.e.
i= 1, 2, 3 …, 30
Panel Identification (Countries)
t= 1, 2, 3… 30 Time period
3.5. Justification for the Variable Selected
A higher GDP (Per Capita) will result in a higher birth rate, and a lower death rate.
Background Information GDP - "Gross Domestic Product" - Total market value of all
finished goods and services produced in a year, as well as investments, government spending,
and exports minus imports. GDP (Per Capita) - Gross Domestic Product divided by
Population. Birth Rate is the average number of births per 1000 persons. Death rate is the
average number of deaths per 1000 persons, whereas bilateral causality existed between GDP
and migration.
4. Empirical Results
This chapter systematically tests whether the birth rate, death rate, and migration has a
negative effect on economic growth. We first provide the basic results and then conduct some
diagnostic tests.
4.1 Panel Unit Root Test
The power of Panel unit root test is by far more than the same test in time series, but
considering the point that there is a possibility of conflict in various unit root tests, all tests
have been considered. In general, the usual unit roots tests, such as Dickey- Fuller (DF),
Augmented Dickey -Fuller (ADF) and Phillips - Perron (PP), which are used for a time series,
are of low test power and have a bias towards accepting null hypothesis. When the sample
size is small (n<50), it becomes more serious (worse). One of the methods that have been
proposed to solve this problem is to use panel data to increase the sample size and the unit
root test in panel data.
Table 1: Panel Unit Root Test (Levin-Lin-Chu)
Model with intercept
Model with intercept and trend
Variables
Lags
Oder
of
Integration
t-statistic
t-critical
t-statistic
t-critical
Log GDP
-36891*
-4.6466
-4.3239***
-4.8883
2
I(1)
BR
-3.6891***
-5.2916
-4.3239**
-5.6673
2
I(1)
DR
-3.6891***
-5.9752
-4..3239***
-5.8652
2
I(1)
7
NMig
-3.6891***
-5.6659
-4.3239***
-5.5528
2
I(1)
Sources: Stata Version 11.
Table 2: Panel Unit Root Test (Im-Pesaran-Shin)
Model with intercept
Model with intercept and trend
Variables
Lags
Oder
of
Integration
t-statistic
t-critical
t-statistic
t-critical
Log GDP
-3.6891***
-4.6859
-4.3239***
-4.8974
2
I(1)
BR
-3.6891***
-5.2311
-4.3239***
-5.6621
2
I(1)
DR
-3.6891**
-5.9754
-4.3239*
-5.8652
2
I(1)
NMig
-3.6891*
-5.7416
-4.3239***
-5.6164
2
I(1)
Note: (*), (**), (***) indicates 1%, 5% and 10% level respectively.
According to the results of Table1 and 2, the tests emphasize the existence of the unit root i.e.
they are non-stationary at level, but after taking the first difference they become stationary.
4.2 Panel Co-integration Test
In co-integration analyses, long-term economic relations are tested and estimated. If an
economic theory is correct, a special set of variables specified by the theory are linked
together in the long run. In addition, the economic theory just specifies the relations as static
(long-term) and the does not provide information on the short-term dynamics among the
variables.
Table 3: Results of Pedroni Co-integration Test
Test Result
Test Result
0.765
P-Value
0.046
Test Result
-0.699
Panel Phillips - Perron type P –Statistic
P-Value
0.064
Panel Phillips - Perron type t –Statistic
Test Result
-1.428
P-Value
0.000
Test Result
-1.123
P-Value
0.230
Test Result
-0.315
P-Value
0.004
Test Result
-2.175
P-Value
0.000
Test Result
-2.041
P-Value
0.002
Test Result
-7.560
𝛾 𝑃𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙 –𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐
Within Group
Augmented Dickey - Fuller (ADF) Type t-Statistic
Group Phillips - Perron Type p- Statistic
Between
Groups
Group Phillips - Perron t- Statistic
Group ADF Type t- Statistic
Kao
without intercept
ADF Type t- Statistic
8
co-integration
P-Value
0.000
test
H0: There is no co-integration in heterogeneous panels
H1: there is one co-integration in heterogeneous panel
According to the results of Pedroni co-integration tests above, most test statistics (in each
case, at least six statistics) strongly reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration vector for
all variables. Besides, the result of Kao co-integration test also rejects the lack of cointegration relationship among the model variables at 5 per-cent level.
4.3. Granger Causality Test Results
Therefore, if the variables are found to be co-integrated as in the case above, we can
specify an error correction model and estimate using standard methods and diagnostic test.
The co-integration tested above indicates that causality existed between the four variables
i.e. GDP, Birth rate, Death rate and Net migration but it fails to show us the direction of the
causal relationship.
Engel and Granger suggested that if co-integration existed between two or more variables
in the long-run, then, there must be either unidirectional or bi directional Granger-Causality
between these variable.
Engle and Granger illustrated that the co-integrating variables can be represented by ECM
(Error Correction Model) representation. In other words, according to Granger, if there is
evidence of co-integration between two or more variables, then a valid error correction model
should also exist between them.
As GDP, Birth rate, Death rate, and Migration are co-integrated, a ECM (error correction
model) representation could have the table below.
Table 4: Granger Causality Test Result for the Long-run
Directions
ECT
Coefficient
Standard Error
t-statistic
P-Value
Decisions
BR→LnGDP
ECT1t-1
-0.0383
0.2424
0.8536
0.4100
Do not reject H0
LnGDP→BR
ECT2t-1
-0.2142
0.0892
-2.4004
0.0335
Reject H0
DR→LnGDP
ECT3t-1
0.1069
0.1716
0.6231
0.5449
Do not reject Ho
LnGDP→DR
ECT4t-1
-0.4995
0.1391
-3.6414
0.0034
Reject H0
Mig→LnGDP
ECT5t-1
-0.3920
0.1406
-2.7885
0.0164
Reject H0
LnGDP→Mig
ECT6t-1
-0.3547
0.3637
-0.9754
0.3486
Do not reject H0
Source: Author’s Computation Using stata version 9.
9
Table 5: Granger Causality Test Result for the Short-run
Directions of Causality
F-statistic (F)
Chi-square (χ2)
P-Value
Decisions
BR→LnGDP
0.7919
3.9595
0.5553
Do not reject H0
LnGDP→BR
3.1094
15.5474
0.0083
Reject H0
DR→LnGDP
0.7097
3.5489
0.6160
Do not reject H0
LnGDP→DR
2.4961
12.4807
0.0288
Reject H0
Mig→LnGDP
1.3961
6.9808
0.2221
Do not reject H0
Mig→LnGDP
0.2021
1.0105
0.9617
Do not reject H0
Source: Author’s Computation Using stata version 9.
Table 6: Granger Causality Test Result for the Short and Long-run
Direction
Short-run Causality
Long-run Causality
BR→GDP
No causality
No causality
GDP→BR
There is causality
There is causality
DR→GDP
No causality
No causality
GDP→DR
There is causality
There is causality
NMig→GDP
No causality
There is causality
GDP→NMig
No causality
No causality
Check appendix table 1&2 for the computation
From the above table, we accept the null hypothesis of long-run causality running from
the independent variable to dependent variable if and only if the coefficient of the lagged
Error Correction Term ECTt-j is negative and statistically significant, and we do not reject the
null hypothesis otherwise.
The result has shown that, the birthrate has no cause unto the GDP both in the short-run
and long-run, but there is both short-run and long-run causality running from the GDP to
birthrate. This shows a unidirectional causality, and it hold true that higher economic growth
is among the significant factors leading to higher birthrate in the developing countries
particularly Sub-Saharan Africans.
The result also shown that, the death-rate has no cause unto the GDP both in the short and
long-run and this is hold true in the economic theory, and confirming the previous researches
in the same field. On the other hand, there is short and long-run causality running from GDP
to death-rate indicating a unidirectional causality. Meaning that higher economic growth and
increase in income per head among the citizens does not automatically reflect the falls in the
death-rate rather aggravate it. This prevalence or phenomenon in most developing economies
could be attributed to uneven distribution and allocation of increasing income realized from
10
the growth in the provision of heath and healthcare facilities, and some elements of corruption
perpetuated.
Moreover, the result has shown a long-run unidirectional causality running from the
migration to the GDP, and the economic theory (migration) also holds true. The influxes of
skilled labor, capital and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) have positive long-run effect onto
the GDP not in the short-run. .
4.4. Estimation from the Old Theoretical Perspective
As it’s clearly stated, the research would employ both the new (Co-integration) method,
as well as the old method of panel estimation (fixed/random effect) model.
In order to estimate model from the old theoretical perspective, if Chow test result
indicates that the model is panel, to determine the fixed (constant) and random effects,
Hauseman test must be used. According to Chow and Hausman test results, the model is of
panel type with random effects.
Table 7: Results of Diagnostic Panel Tests
P-value
Statistics
Results
Test
Chow
0.0000
13.16
panel
Hausman
0.5330
2.032
random effect
4.5. Random Effect Model Estimation Result
Table 8: Random Effect Model Estimation Result
Log GDP
Coefficient
Standard Error
t-statistics
P >|t|
Birth rate
-0.0861
0.0037
-22.84
0.0000
Death rate
-1.0004
0.0002
-1.47
0.3329
Net Migration
-1.47e-08
3.47e-08
-0.41
0.0421
Constant
6.50057
0.2199
29.55
0.0000
2
2
2
Probability >F
R Within
R Between
R Overall
Wald Chi
0.0000
0.674
0.681
0.795
490.02
Source: Stata Version 9
The results of the above table shows that all model estimate coefficients are significant
with the highest level of confidence, and are in line with the research expectations with the
exception of the death rate which is not statistically significance in explaining the GDP in
most developing countries. So, that a one per-cent increase in Birth-rate and one per-cent
increase in the Net migration leads respectively to a -0.0861 per cent and a -1.47e-08 per cent
decrease in the log of GDP.
11
5. Summary Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 summary and conclusion
Pure time series econometrics tools were used by previous researches in explaining the
time dimensions of the implications of the rate of population growth with respect to birth rate,
death rate and net migration on GDP growth of most developing nations. However, the
present research as stated earlier has resort to panel data econometric analysis so as to take in
to account both the time as well as the size or space dimensions of these implications.
The main objective of this study is to estimate by using an econometric model of panel
data from a sample of thirty developing countries for the period of fourteen years to
empirically analyse the impact of several dimensions of the demographic transition on per
capita GDP growth. We observe that the results are more robust when interactive variables of
random effect are used to estimate the model. We are able to draw the following conclusions:
1.
Based on the research findings, causality test has been used, fixed and random
effect of GDP of developing countries relative to birth rate, death rate, and
migration are respectively -0.1073, 0.0006, -1.81e-0762 and -0.0854, -1.0004, 1.29e-08
2.
We find that the birth rate has a negative impact on economic growth, and this
finding is robust even after we control for a number of demographic and
institutional variables. Our finding provides some new evidence in the developing
countries that shows the negative causal effect of population on economic growth
in both the short and long-run, as asserted by Malthus.
3.
The effect of population growth on per capita GDP growth is linear and
everywhere negative. It is stronger when interaction terms are included in the
statistical model.
4.
The unilateral causality running from GDP to death rate both in the short and
long-run shows that despite the tremendous effort made by various government
of developing countries for the last three decade to reduce the death rate, shows
no evidences of the decline in the death rate in many developing countries.
5.
The level of emigration growth has no statistically significant impact or causality
on per capita GDP growth.
6.
The panel data econometrics estimation is more powerful in separating the
individual effects within, between and overall effect of the group or panel than
the pure time series econometrics which provides the time effect only.
12
5.2 Policy Recommendations
Based on the major and minor findings of this research, however, I recommend the following
1.
Governments in developing countries can influence population growth in order to
stimulate growth. China provides a clear example by suddenly introducing a
collection of highly coercive methods to reduce the total birth rate reduction
policy from about 5.8 to 2.2 births per woman between 1970 and 1980, whereas
India policy on the fertility rate rather than the birth rate from about 6.7 to 4.1 per
woman, and these policies were put in to social awareness campaign in many
other developing countries.
2.
Fiscal and monetary policy should not be seen as the utmost instruments of
achieving target growth in developing countries, but should be combined with
population policy instrument especially in the high birth rate economies such as
Niger, Angola, Iraq, etc.
3.
There is the need for the full participation in global market by removing the
import impediments, and enactment of sound trade policies and security so as to
attract influx of both physical and human capital, because of the exist a long-run
causality running from the net migration and GDP not on the other way round.
References
Barro, R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (2004) Economic Growth, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beall, J. and S. Fox (2009) Cities and Development, London: Routledge.
Birdsall, N. and S. Sinding (2001), “How and why population matters: new findings, new
issues”, in N. Birdsall, A.C. Kelley and S. Sinding (eds), Population Matters: Demographic
Change, Economic Growth, and Poverty in the Developing World, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bloom, D. and D. Canning (2001), “Cumulative causality, economic growth, and the
demographic transition”, in N. Birdsall, A.C. Kelley and S. Sinding (eds), Population
Matters: Demographic Change, Economic Growth, and Poverty in the Developing World,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bloom, D., D. Canning, G. Fink and J.E. Finlay (2009),
“The cost of low fertility in Europe”, NBER Working Paper no. 14828, Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research. Brockerhoff, M. and E. Brennan (1998), “The
poverty of cities in developing regions,” Population and Development Review, 24(1): 75-114.
Clark, G. (2007) A Farewell to Alms-A Brief Economic History of the World, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. Crook, N. (1997) Principles of Population and Development,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dyson T. (2010) Population and Development: The
Demographic Transition, New York, NY: Zed Books. Easterlin, R. A. (1996) Growth
Triumphant – the Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective, Ann Arbor: University of
13
Michigan Press. Fox, S. and T. Dyson (2008) “On the relationship between population growth
and economic growth: historical and sect oral considerations”, Unpublished paper, London
School of Economics. Headey, D. D. and A. Hodge (2009), “The effect of population growth
on economic growth: a meta-regression analysis of the macroeconomic literature”, Population
and Development Review, 35(2): 221-48. Higgins, M. and J. G. Williamson (1997), “Age
structure dynamics n Asia and dependence of foreign capital”, Population and Development
Review, 23(2): 261-93.
Jacobs, J. (1972) The Economy of Cities, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Kalemli-Ozcan, S.
(2002), “Does mortality decline promote economic growth?”, Journal of Economic Growth,
7(4): 411-39. Kelley, A. C. (1998), “Economic consequences of population change in the
Third World”, Journal of Economic Literature, 26(4): 1685-728. Kelley, A. C. and W. P.
McGreevey (1994), “Population and development in historical perspective”, in R. H. Cassen
(ed.), Population and Development: Old Debates, New Conclusions, New Brunswick, NJ and
Oxford: Transaction Publishers. Kuznets, S. (1967), “Population and economic growth,”
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 111(3): 170-93. Malthus, T. R. (1798) An
essay on the Principle of Population, London: J. Johnson. Mason A. (1997), “Population and
the Asian economic miracle,” Asia-Pacific Population and Policy, 43, East-West Center,
Honolulu, HI. Massey, D. S. (1996), “The age of extremes: concentrated affluence and
poverty in the twenty-first century,” Demography, 33(4): 395-412. McKeown, T. (1976) the
Modern Rise of Population, London: Edward Arnold. Sachs, J. (2008) Common Wealth:
Economics for a Crowded Planet, London: Penguin Press. Schofield, R. and D. Reher (1991),
“The decline of mortality in Europe”, in R. Schofield, D. Reher, and A. Bideau (eds), The
Decline of Mortality in Europe, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Simon, J.L. (1981) The Ultimate
Resource, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Strauss, J., and Thomas, D. (1998),
“Health, nutrition and economic development”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36(2): 766817. World Bank (2010), World Development Indicators, Washington, DC: World Bank.
14

Panel Data Analysis of Population Growth and It Implication on

Transcription

Similar documents

BAYTEK

2003-2005 To set the tone for Women's History Month, the Women's... Program organized the 1st Women's Fair. The fair provided students...

Read moreâ¦ - Asia-Pacific Data

Careers in Space Policy: A Panel Discussion, January 27, 2015

Building Code Training – August 30th at Burgundy Basin Inn

program review - California State University San Marcos

The Value of Air Transport for Africa: Oxford Economics

Installation Manual for Lowering Module Bentley Continental GT

peterposkas - Behnke • Doherty Gallery

Hertco Express 20-DoorStyles_062013-A.indd