IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v24y2000i3p349-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Goodwin: Growth Cycles in Ten OECD Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Harvie, David

Abstract

Following Desai (1984), Goodwin's simple "predator-prey" growth cycle model of the economy (1967) is tested, using post-war data for ten OECD countries--Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, the UK and the US. At a quantitative level, Goodwin's model is found not to be adequate: (i) estimated parameter values poorly predict the cycles' centres; and (ii) Goodwin's restrictive assumptions are not justified. However, at a qualitative level, the evidence presented here for the existence of Goodwin-type cycles is extremely encouraging, justifying both existing theoretical extensions of Goodwin's model and further empirical work in this area. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Harvie, David, 2000. "Testing Goodwin: Growth Cycles in Ten OECD Countries," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(3), pages 349-376, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:3:p:349-76
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:3:p:349-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.