2017, Volume 70 - Issue 3
RSS feed citation: At RePEc
Publication date: 01 August 2017
ASYMMETRIC EFFECT OF REAL EXCHANGE RATE VOLATILITY ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS EXPORT: A CASE STUDYRead the article
FACTORS INFLUENCING INTER-REGIONAL LIVING-COST DIFFERENTIALS: PANEL DATA ANALYSIS FOR THE CASE OF THE U.S.Read the article
HOW MUCH INEQUALITY IS HARMFUL FOR GROWTH? THE GROWTH MAXIMIZING RATE OF INEQUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MEXICAN ECONOMYRead the article
PROCYCLICAL TENDENCIES IN A SMALL OIL EXPORTERRead the article
WHEN IS LOWER INFLATION LESS STABLE? EVIDENCE FROM EIGHT DEVELOPING ECONOMIESRead the article
INDIA'S BURGEONING FOOD SUBSIDIES: HOW MUCH CAN WE BLAME THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA?Read the article
Oluwole OWOYE, Department of Social Sciences, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, Connecticut, USA
Olugbenga A. ONAFOWORA, Department of Economics, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA
This study provides a theoretical analysis of sustainable economic growth and development in different communities across the United States. In this paper, we contend that there are two distinct communities at the citywide or statewide or nationwide levels. In big cities and towns nationwide, the wealthy communities co-exist with the poor-marginalized communities. The main objective of any country, including the United States, is to achieve high employment and sustainable economic growth and development at all levels. Countries worldwide are made up of different communities, therefore, sustainable growth and development would be achievable if policymakers adopt and implement growth policies that bridge the gap between the wealthy and poor-marginalized communities. To analyze this for the United States, we use the Cobb-Douglas-type aggregate production function that assumes technology as knowledge capital – a public good that is nonrival and nonexcludable, and we highlight five important inputs (physical capital, human capital, security/safety, trust, and social capital) that are plausible determinants of the income disparity between and among communities or cities across the United States. We assert that the wealthy communities in the United States tend to invest more in physical capital, human capital, security/safety of lives and properties, entrenched trust, and social capital than the poor-marginalized communities; therefore, these differences could explain the disparity between communities. We argue that it is possible to attain apparent convergence and minimize income inequality in order to achieve sustainable growth and development across communities in the United States if policymakers address these important fundamental causes of the disparity in income. We conclude that the poor-marginalized communities can catch-up with the wealthy communities by intensifying their investment in these relevant factors of production; and that capital can flow from the wealthy to the poor-marginalized communities (or in both directions) if both communities build mutually on trust, security/safety, and social capital.
O11, O15, R10, R11
Sustainable Development, Poor-Marginalized Communities, Physical Capital, Human Capital, Trust, Security, Social Capital
Barro, R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (2004), Economic Growth (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill: New York.
Becker, G. (1964), Human Capital, Columbia University Press: New York.
Becker, G. and B. Chiswick (1966), “Education and the Distribution of Earnings”, The American Economic Review, 56(1/2), 358-369.
Ellenberg, J. (2001), “Growing Apart: The Mathematical Evidence for Congress’ Growing Polarization”, available at: <www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2001/12/growing_apart.html>.
Krugman, P. ( 2013), “The New Growth Fizzle”, New York Times, August 18.
Lucas, R.E. (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42.
Lucas, R.E. (1990), “Why Doesn’t Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries”, The American Economic Review, 80(2), 92-96.
Moretti, E. (2003), “Human Capital Externalities in Cities”, NBER Working Paper No. W9641.
Nelson, R. and E. Phelps (1966), “Investment in Humans, Technological Diffusion, and Economic Growth”, The American Economic Review, 56(1-2), 69-75.
Parente, S. (2001), “The Failure of Endogenous Growth”, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 13(4), 49-58.
Putnam, R.D. (2001), “Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences”, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.
Ranis, G. (2004), “Human Development and Economic Growth”, Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 887.
Rebelo, S. (1991), “Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 500-521.
Romer, P.M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
Romer, P.M. (1994), “The Origins of Endogenous Growth”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3-22.
Weil, D.N. (2013), Economic Growth (3rd ed.), Addison-Wesley/Pearson: New York.
Sachs, J.D. and A.M. Warner (1997), “Fundamental Sources of Long-Run Growth”, American Economic Review, 87(2), 184-188.
Sauter, M.B., E.M. Alexander and T.C. Frohlich (2013), “Cities with the Widest Gap between Rich and Poor,” available at <http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance /2013/11/04/widest-gap-cities-rich-poor/343141234>. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
Solow, R.M. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
Solow, R.M. (1957), “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-320.
Swan, T.W. (1956), “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation”, Economic Record, 32(2), 334-361.
Thordike, E.L. (1920), “Intelligence and Its Uses”, Harper’s Magazine, 140(January), 227-235.
Zeidner, M., G. Matthews and R.D. Roberts (2009), “What We Know About Emotional Intelligence: How It Affects Learning, Work, Relationships, and Our Mental Health”, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.