HUMAN CAPITAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: EVIDENCE FROM

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES*
by Hrishikesh D. Vinod** and Surendra K. Kaushik***
Abstract
Human capital in the form of education has been used to explain GDP growth in augmented
Solow models. A statistically significant coefficient for human capital variable in these models
was recently reported for OECD countries using recent data. We use time series and panel
regressions for data on a group of eighteen large developing countries for the period 1982-2001.
This study confirms and extends results by OECD and other similar studies. Since most of our
models have a significant human capital regressor in such a study of developing countries, it is
important for policy regarding educational opportunities, and increased emphasis and focus on
education and technology in developing countries.
Key Words: Dependent Data Bootstrap, Schooling, Educational Expenditures, Ergodic Theorem.
I. Introduction
The traditional Solow (1956) theory of economic growth does not explicitly measure the role
of human capital.

He found that the increased use of capital explained 12.5 percent of the

change in gross output per man-hour while the concept of technical change explained the
residual 87.5 percent. Later it was realized that much of this residual might be due to human
capital. Hence researchers developed augmented Solow models, which contain human capital as
a regressor in explaining GDP growth.

*The authors thank the Lubin School of Business of Pace University for partial funding and James Xin Chen,
Radhika Rangan and Demetrios Stamoulakis for research assistance for this paper. They also thank William J.
Baumol, Oded Galor, Frank C. Genovese, Kathleen M. Langley, Robert M. Solow, Lawrence H. Summers, Michael
Szenberg, an anonymous referee, and others for encouraging comments on earlier versions.
**Professor of Economics, Fordham University. NY 10458 (vinod@fordham.edu) (718) 817-4065
***Professor of Finance, Lubin School of Business Pace University, 1 Martine Avenue, White Plains, NY 10606,
(skaushik@pace.edu), (914) 422-4350

The topic is important in the context of education and human capital policies and budget
allocations in developing countries. Some versions of augmented models are found in Romer
(1990), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), Knight, Loyaza, and Villanueva (1993), Benhabib and
Spiegel (1994) and Lucas (2002). Using a variety of older data and standard estimation and
inference techniques these authors did not find human capital to be statistically significant. Barro
and Lee (1993) constructed a measure of human capital based on the number of years of
schooling of adults 25 or older for 129 countries. However, Barro and Lee (1994, 1996) or
Caselli, Esquivel and Lefort (1996) did not find any unique importance of the human capital
variable.
Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992, hereafter MRW) state that: particularly for the
developing countries, investment in human capital also becomes more quantitatively important
when a more open trading environment and a better public infrastructure are in place. However,
Temple (1998) applies robustness tests to MRW results and does not find human capital to be
significant. By contrast, Judson (1998) studies the efficiency of existing educational allocations
in a panel of countries. He uses cross-country growth decomposition regression to show that the
correlation of human capital with capital accumulation and GDP growth is not significant in
countries with poor allocations but is significant and positive in countries with better allocations.
Thus better allocations and open trading environment might reverse the conclusions regarding
the significance of human capital, since the earlier doubts were based on older data.
Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992, hereafter MRW) state that: particularly for the
developing countries, investment in human capital also becomes more quantitatively important
when a more open trading environment and a better public infrastructure are in place. However,
Temple (1998) applies robustness tests to MRW results and does not find human capital to be
significant. By contrast, Judson (1998) studies the efficiency of existing educational allocations

in a panel of countries. He uses cross-country growth decomposition regression to show that the
correlation of human capital with capital accumulation and GDP growth is not significant in
countries with poor allocations but is significant and positive in countries with better allocations.
Thus better allocations and open trading environment might reverse the conclusions regarding
the significance of human capital, since the earlier doubts were based on older data.
Recently many developing countries have opened up their markets to global competition and
are installing the needed knowledge infrastructure. Has the time come to start investing in
human capital? Bassanini, Scarpetta and Visco (2000) and Bassanini and Scarpetta (2002, 2001,
BaS hereafter) use the data for OECD countries to find that human capital is statistically
significant. The issue is very important for developing countries. Mamuneas, Savvides and
Stengos (2006) also find a positive impact of human capital on economic growth in a group of
high, middle, and low-income countries across continents consistent with BaS.
This paper applies the BaS version of the augmented Solow model to a panel of eighteen large
developing countries over twenty years (1982-2001) measuring the importance of human capital
in explaining the GDP growth. An earlier version of this paper used Vinod's (2003, 2004) new
ME bootstrap for dependent data, which was developed as an alternative to the moving blocks
bootstrap for inference in financial economics. We note in passing that the use of modern
bootstrap inference tools support the results reported here. We are using a larger sample of
important developing countries with more recent data.
Recent less formal data analyses under the World Education Indicators (WEI) program has
developed newer education indicators for the following developing countries: Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Malaysia, Paraguay, Peru, the
Philippines, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe. Soto
(2002), Karine Tremblay (2002) find that education receives 4.9 % of GDP in OECD, 4.2% in

WEI countries and 5.5% of national wealth in both. There is a more limited access to upper
secondary and tertiary education in WEI compared with OECD countries. Accumulation of
human capital improves economic growth through many channels and externalities. World Bank
(1999) finds that education is the single most important key to poverty alleviation and that
tertiary education increases income from 82% to 300% in WEI countries. World Bank (2000),
and Cohen & Soto (2001) find a positive correlation between the number of years of schooling
and per capita income growth from 1960 to 2000. Thus the informal analyses also point to a
need to do more formal study of this paper.
The plan of the remaining paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the data and briefly
reviews the endogenous growth theory behind the estimation equation. Section 3 describes our
estimates based on time series and panel data. Section 4 has our conclusions.

II. The Data and Model Estimates

First let us briefly review the MRW model on which the BaS model is based. Being an
augmented Solow model, one starts with a constant returns to scale production function where
output is a function of capital (regular and human) and augmented labor. Let Y, K, H, L denote
output, physical capital, human capital and labor, respectively. Now the starting production
function is:
Y (t ) K (t ) H (t ) A(t ) L (t ) 1

(2.1)

where and are parameters and A is the augmentation of labor. The original Solow model is a
special case of (2.1) with =0. First rescale the quantities in (2.1) to per unit of effective labor
input and use the lower case letters to denote: y = Y/AL, k = K/AL, and h = H/AL.
y (t ) k (t ) h(t )

(2.2)
Let us omit (t) from all expressions in the sequel whenever we do not expect any confusion.
Taking natural logarithms of both sides of (2.1) we have:

ln y = ln k + ln h
The derivative of both sides with respect to time (d/dt) yields:
(1/y) (dy/dt) = (/k)(dk/dt)+(/h)(dh/dt)

(2.3)
(2.4)

As in the Solow model, let L and A grow exogenously at rates n and g, respectively, by the
relations: L(t)= L(0)exp(nt) and A(t)=A(0)exp(gt). After taking logs, lnL(t)= lnL(0) + nt.
Differentiate with respect to t and denote the time derivative by a power to yield: L =nL.
Similarly, we have A=gA. If constant fractions (shares sk and sh) of output are invested in
physical and human capital, and if is the depreciation rate, then the evolution of k =K/AL or
effective labor is governed by:
(2.5)

k(t)= sk y(t) (n+g+) k(t).

The evolution of human capital is governed by:
h(t)= sh y(t) (n+g+) h(t).

(2.6)

The steady state (by definition) means k = 0 = h, implying that the right hand sides of (2.5) and
(2.6) are zero. Denoting W=1/(n+g+), steady state implies: yW=k/ sk =h/ sh. That is, we have
two useful relations: h=k sh/sk and k=hsk/sh. Now using (2.2) y= kh =k[(k sh)/sk] =k+ [ sh/sk]
we can equate the right side of (2.5) to zero while yielding a function of k alone as Wskk+
[ sh/sk] =k. This is rewritten as
k*=[Wsk1 sh =]1/(1)
And similarly,
h*=[Wsh1 sk =]1/(1)

(2.7)
(2.8)

Now, the steady state production function (2.3) becomes: ln y= ln k* + ln h*. Recall that
y=Y/AL, where A(t)=A(0)exp(gt) implies ln Y/L = lnA(0) +gt + ln k* + ln h*. After
substituting (2.7) and (2.8) this yields the following equation for steady state per capita income
y* depending on population growth n, growth rate g of A(t) and factor shares:
ln Y(t)/L(t)= lnA(0) +gt [(+)/(1)]ln (n+g+)+[/(1)] ln sk +
[ /(1)]ln sh.
5

(2.9)

This equation is an extension of the Solow model to include investment in human capital. Note
that the last three terms in (2.9) whose coefficients involve and add up to zero. A test of the
MRW model would be to check if this holds in observed data. Since the data on the rate of
human capital accumulation (=ln sh.) is harder to get, it is rewritten by MRW in terms of level of
human capital as:
ln Y(t)/L(t)= lnA(0) +gt [/(1)]ln (n+g+)+[/(1)] ln sk +
[ /(1)]ln h*.

(2.10)

Note again that an empirical test would be to check if the coefficients of the last three terms add
up to zero. The hypothesis is not rejected by the data in MRW.
Human capital is not subject to diminishing returns to scale, similar to land and some forms of
physical capital. Hence with the presence human capital in the production function it is tempting
to make economic growth explicitly endogenous. MRW incorporate endogeneity by studying
behavior out of steady state y*. They use a Taylor series approximation for ln y(t) near ln y* and
write :
ln y = [ln y* ln y]
where = (n+g+) (1). This is a differential equation whose solution is:
ln y(t) = ( 1 exp(t) ) ln y* + exp(t) ln y(0)

(2.11)
(2.12)

If (2.12) is a solution, the time derivative of the right side must equal the right side of (2.11).
Time derivative of exp(t) is exp(t). The time derivative of the right side of (2.12) is
exp(t) ln y* exp(t) ln y(0). Rewrite the time derivative by using (2.12) to replace its ln
y(0) term by ln y. Then the exp(t) term cancels and we have the right side of (2.8), proving
that (2.12) is indeed a solution for (2.11). The estimable equation is given upon substitution for
y* from (2.6) on the right side of (2.12).
The BaS derivation uses a different scaling. Instead of defining y=Y/AL they define it as Y/A
and similarly for capital and labor. This makes the derivations somewhat complicated. For
example, instead of (2.11) BaS have:

(2.13)
ln( y(t) / A(t) )ln( y(t1) / A(t1) )= ()[ln( y*(t) / A(t) )ln( y(t1) / A(t1) )]
where () = 1exp( t). BaS also replace the y* in (2.13) with an expression similar to (2.9) of
MRW and state a possible regression equation as:
(2.14)
ln y(t)= ln y(t-1)+[ /(1)]ln sk +[ /(1)] ln h + 1 ln h
2ln(g+n+) +3g+ ln A(0)+gt
where denotes the first difference, 1, 2 and 3 are functions , and (n+g+). Since the
depreciation rate is fixed over time, it merges with the intercept of the regression (2.14). An
advantage of this formulation is that it does not lend itself to any simple testable implications on
the coefficients. By contrast, sum of three regression coefficients must sum to zero for the MRW
model (2.10) to be empirically supported.
The contribution of endogenous growth theory in BaS formulation is that it helps the
econometrician with a list of candidate regressors: [ln y(t-1), ln s k , ln h, ln h, ln(g+n+), g, ln
A(0), and gt]. They also suggest using time dummies for a nonlinear trend. Moreover, BaS
simply add ( ln sk), ( ln n) as short run regressors and propose an error correction form
familiar from the unit root literature in econometrics. Since their additional regressors introduced
for econometric convenience are not in (2.14), one is free to exclude them.
Appendix 1 is devoted to data details including sources and precise definitions. GDP is Gross
Domestic Product, GDPm1 is lagged GDP by one year (m= minus), H is human capital as
measured by percentage of literate adults (15 years of age and above) in the population, K is
gross physical capital formation and EN is growth rate of labor. Coulombe et al (2004) conclude
that among alternative measures of H our choice outperforms measures based on years of
schooling. In any case, consistent and large enough (18 countries, 20 years) data for other
measures are unavailable. A study of 14 OECD countries (Coulombe, Tremblay and Marchand
2004) reports that measuring H based on literacy is superior. In future work we expect to study

several measures of H, since we wish to study, among other things, returns to higher education
needed for the computer age.
The prefix Ln stands for natural logarithm and the prefix D represents the first difference.
LnK is log K and DLnK is annual change in physical capital formation. Similarly, DLnH, is
annual change in human capital constructed from the data on H and DLnGDP is growth in GDP,
often available directly without using the first difference of log of GDP. TIM denotes a sequence
of numbers to represent t as the regressor in the last term of (2.14).

III. Empirical Estimates of the Importance of Human Capital

This section has two subsections for reporting the results from two views of our data: pure
time series with T=20 and panel of 18 individual countries.
III.i. Time Series Estimates
[Table 2 and Figures 1, 2 and 3 go here.]
Note that we have a separate time series for each of the 18 countries. Each country has its
own individual institutional structure and distinct array of physical and human endowments.
Rather than pooling the data for different countries into one, it may be worth considering the
model of (2.2) for each country separately. Table 2 reports the results of such direct time series
estimation. We have used the bold font to focus attention on the column for LnH, the regressor
(or input) representing log of human capital. The LnH coefficient, based on the double log
estimation, when interpreted as a direct elasticity of GDP with respect to human capital, shows
that it is larger than 1 for 13 of the 18 countries. The positive and significant elasticity estimates
range from 1.2 to 4.7. The numbers in Figures 1 to 3 refer to countries as listed in the column
entitled id in Table 2. The list is by the GDP order with larger rank number representing a
larger GDP. Figure 1 has the regression coefficients (Beta), Figure 2 has the corresponding
Students t values and Figure 3 has standardized regression coefficients. All figures tell the same
8

story that LnH is generally an important regressor. Symbols for regressors are described in
Section 2 and further details are given in Appendix 1 for data.
III.ii. Pooled Panel Data Estimates
Recall that our panel consists of the top eighteen countries ranked by the GDP. Recall that the
first column of Table 2 lists the GDP rank from the lowest to the largest and the second column
has the country name. Our panel data regression was implemented by LIMDEP (version 7)
software on Pentium III processor running at 850 MHz, Windows ME operating system. We find
that there is significant heteroscedasticity and correlation across countries. We assumed no
significant autocorrelation within country, to reduce the number of parameters to be estimated
with limited data.
Since LnGDP is highly correlated with LnGDPm1, the inclusion of lagged LnGDP causes
multicollinearity, and had to be deleted, even though the study by OECD did include it. Similarly
we are not including as regressors the first differences of LnH, LnK and EN, because they do not
contribute new information into the model, while making the estimates subject to collinearity.
Since the likelihood ratio statistic exceeds the critical value at the 99 percent level with n=18,
with n (n-1)/2=153 degrees of freedom. Since a textbook Table for the Chi-square distribution
usually goes only up to 100 degrees of freedom (df), we use a computer program for inverse of
the cumulative distribution function to find the relevant tabulated values (182.9 at the 95% level
and 196.6 at the 99% level) for 153 df. Our observed value of the likelihood statistic 344.51
obviously exceeds both the tabled critical values. Hence, we reject the null hypothesis that the
off-diagonal correlations are zero. Here we are referring to the 1818 correlation matrix over
time across 18 countries based on 20 time series data points whose off diagonals are found to be
nonzero.

The LIMDEP software recognizes this, allows for it, and also allows for

heteroscedasticity in obtaining our estimates in Table 3.

(Table 3 goes about here)

The results in Table 3 indicate the positive sign for LnH and the relevant Students t ratio for
LnH exceeds1200. In fact, all t statistics are very large in Table 3. Since the negative sign of the
coefficient of the lnK regressor does not seem plausible, we seek alternative specifications. The
model for Table 3 has 176 parameters estimated with 360 observations. The results in Table 3
implicitly assume no significant autocorrelation within each country, thereby keeping the number
of parameters to be estimated at 176.
(Table 4 goes about here)
In Table 4 we introduce three more regressors than in Table 3 and the model ends up with 179
parameters with 360 data points. Next, we allow for within-country autocorrelations also, and
report the results in Table 5 implying 194 parameters to be estimated with 360 observations.
(Table 5 goes about here)
All panel data regressions in Tables 3 to 5 together suggest statistically significant and
positive coefficients for LnH, the human capital variable of main interest in this paper. Due to
shortage of space here, further tests and confirmation of robustness of the results in this paper
using Maximum Entropy for Time Series Inference will be reported in a separate follow-up paper
as the importance of human capital variable grows with globalization of the world economy.

IV. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Note that much of the earlier literature did not find a clear and strong statistical support for
education being important for growth and development, if one insisted on a large sample of
several developing countries over many years. Hence, investment in human capital has remained
a low priority compared to physical capital. This study applies an array of alternative statistical
methods based on twenty years of data for a select group of 18 developing countries. We find

10

that human capital (LnH) has a statistically significant impact on economic growth in large
developing countries.
Therefore, our results support a recently introduced modest shift in the direction of increased
spending on education by the World Bank, international aid agencies, and developing countries
themselves. All OECD countries have at least 10 percent of their population with college level
education. Ireland is the best example of the fruits of investing in education in the last thirty
years. The remaining 170 countries can pursue that target by investing in human capital.
Generally, Asian countries that have invested in human capital since World War II have made
great leaps in their standard of living. Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, and China are
good examples of economies achieving growth based on human capital in recent years. India is
the most dramatic example of doubling its growth rate in recent years mainly from knowledgebased industries of computer software, call centers, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and
biotechnology in recent years. Educated but unemployed labor in 1990 is the proverbial cash
cow in 2006 where Indias foreign exchange reserves have increased from a mere $300 million
to over $140 billion in that time period. All of these countries also have statistically significant
impact of human capital on growth in this study. In most countries, a one percent increase in
literacy increases growth by 1.2 to 4.7 percent. Therefore, developing countries should increase
their human capital from their own savings, support from bilateral and multilateral sources of aid
and loans, as well as funding from private capital markets. Debt relief for the poorest countries
proposed by the developed countries and multilateral institutions can also be tied to building
education and technology resources for sustainable growth to increase incomes.

11

References
1. R.J. Barro, J.W. Lee, and Jong Wha, International Measures of Schooling Years and
Schooling Quality, American Economic Review, 2, 218-223, (1996).
2. R.J. Barro, and J.W. Lee, Sources of Economic Growth, Carnegie-Rochester Conference
Series on Public Policy, 40, 1-46 (1994).
3. R.J. Barro, and J.W. Lee, International Comparisons of Educational Attainment, Journal
of Monetary Economics, 32, 363-94(1993).
4. R.J. Barro, and Xavier Sala-I-Martin, Economic Growth, New York: McGraw Hill
(1995).
5. A.Bassanini, and S.Scarpetta, Does Human Capital Matter for Growth in OECD
Countries? A Pooled Mean Group Approach, Economics Letters, 74(3), 399-405 (2002).
6. A.Bassanini, and S.Scarpetta, The Driving Forces of Economics Growth Panel Data:
Evidence for the OECD Countries, OECD Economic Studies, 33, 9-56, (2001).
7. A.Bassanini, S.Scarpetta, and I. Visco, Knowledge, Technology and Economic Growth:
Recent Evidence from OECD Countries, OECD: Economics Department Working
Papers, 259, 1-36, (2000).
8. J. Benhabib, and M. Spiegel, The Role of Human Capital in Economic Development:
Evidence from Aggregate Cross-country Data, Journal of Monetary Economics 34, 14373(1994).
9. F. Caselli, G. Esquivel, and F. Lefort, Reopening the Convergence Debate: A new Look at
Cross-country Growth Empirics, Journal of Economic Growth, 1(3), 363-89, (1996).
10. Daniel Cohen, and Marcelo Soto, Growth and Human Capital: Good Data, Good Results,
CEPR Discussion Papers 3025, C.E.P.R., (2001).
11. Serge Coulombe, Jean-Francois Tremblay, and Sylvie Marchand, Literacy Scores, human
capital and growth across fourteen OECD countries, Statistics Canada - Catalogue no. 89552, no.11, (2004).
12. G.S. Fishman, Monte Carlo: Concepts, algorithms and applications, (Springer Verlag,
New York), (1996)
13. P. Hall, The bootstrap and Edgeworth expansion (Springer Verlag, New York), (1992).
14. E.T. Jaynes, Information theory and statistical mechanics, The Physical Review, 106(4),
620-630, (1957).
15. Ruth Judson, Economic Growth and Investment in Education: How Allocation Matters,
Journal of Economic Growth, 3 (4): 337-359, (1998).
12

16. A.M. Kagan, Yu.V. Linnik, and C. R. Rao, Characterization problems in mathematical
statistics. (J. Wiley and Sons, New York), (1973)
17. M. Knight, N. Loayza and D. Villanueva, Testing the Neo-classical Theory of Economic
Growth: A Panel Data Approach, IMF Staff Papers 40(3), 512-41, (1993).
18. S.N. Lahiri, Resampling Methods for Dependent data, New York: Springer, (2003).
19. Robert E. Lucas, Jr., Lectures on Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, (2002).
20. T.P. Mamuneas, A. Savvides and T. Stengos, Economic Development and Human Capital,
Journal of Applied Econometrics 21: 111-132, (2006).
21. G.N. Mankiw, D. Romer, and D.N. Weil, A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic
Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 2, 407-37, (1992).
22. B.D. McCullough, and H.D. Vinod, Verifying the Solution from a Nonlinear Solver: A
Case Study, The American Economic Review, 93, 3, 873-892, (2003).
23. P.M. Romer, Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political Economy, 98, 5, 71102, (1990).
24. R.M. Solow, Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function, Review of
Economics and Statistics; 39, 312-20, (1957).
25. R.M. Solow, A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 50, 65-94, (1956).
26. Marcelo Soto, Rediscovering Education in Growth Regressions, OECD Development
Centre: Technical Papers 202, 1-37, (2002).
27. A. Spanos, Probability theory and statistical inference: econometric modeling with
observational data, (Cambridge University Press, New York), (1999).
28. J.R.W. Temple, Robustness Tests of the Augmented Solow Model, Journal of Applied
Economics 13, 361-75, (1998).
29. H. Theil, and K. Laitinen, Singular moment matrices in applied econometrics, in P.R.
Krishnaiah, (Ed.) Multivariate Analysis V, (North-Holland Publishing Co., New York),
pp. 629-649, (1980).
30. Karine Tremblay, Investing in Human Capital and Returns, in Financing EducationInvestment and Returns: Analysis of the World Education Indicators, Paris: OECD,
(2002).
31. UNESCO/OECD, Financing Education Investments and Returns: Analysis of the World
Education Indicators, 1-234, (2002).
13

32. H.D. Vinod, Constructive ensembles for time series analysis avoid unit root testing, 2003
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Statistical Computing Section [CDROM], (American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA), (2003).
33. H.D. Vinod, Ranking Mutual Funds Using Unconventional Utility Theory and Stochastic
Dominance, Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(3), 353-377, (2004).
34. World Bank, World Product and Income- International Comparison of Real Gross
Product,(http://www.worldbank.org/data/icp/pdf/world%20product%20and
%20income.pdf), (2002).

TABLE 1
Descriptive
Variable
YEAR
DLnGDP
LnGDPm1
LnK
LnH
EN
DLnK
DLnH
DLnN

Statistics
Mean
1991.5
3.84E-02
23.9029
3.0098
1.3771
2.3572
-1.20E-03
1.76E-02
-1.36E-02

Std.Dev.
5.7743
0.1715
1.8948
0.4434
0.6193
0.6705
0.1649
4.91E-02
0.1874

Minimum
1982
-0.8156
18.6998
1.2522
-0.5766
0.7744
-1.7333
-0.1362
-1.5059

Maximum
2001
0.6186
27.7079
4.3057
2.2146
3.8546
1.2158
0.5831
1.2541

14

Cases
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360

TABLE 2
Individual Country OLS Time Series Regressions (1982-2001)
Summary Results
Dependent Variable: DLnGDP
ID

Countries

Intercept

LnGDPm1

LnK

LnH

EN

DLnK

DLnH

DEN

R-Sq

Adj-R Sq

Liberia

Coeff.
t

2.844188
0.763718

-0.18378
-1.5479

0.850592
1.667777

-0.70632
-0.46582

-0.33324
-2.03546

-0.73531
-0.69254

6.482192
2.812054

0.060822
0.44937

0.771849

0.595751

2.526382

Haiti

Coeff.

17.10295

-0.76389

-0.36752

0.811799

-0.34727

0.166721

-0.55029

0.555238

0.712267

0.507325

1.765259

3.213658

-3.16571

-2.84785

2.110672

-1.56156

1.330028

-1.04776

1.293837

Coeff.

5.754793

-0.10385

-2.21785

2.240809

-0.02262

1.333771

-2.09335

0.703918

0.637676

0.42632

3.01707

2.077411

-0.59945

-1.74584

1.945879

-0.15499

2.211765

-2.24967

2.277152

Coeff.

5.316072

-0.22075

-1.35155

2.764271

-0.15468

0.386958

-2.55857

0.267617

0.696827

0.485568

1.618101

1.563301

-0.9296

-1.61778

1.283343

-1.01342

0.676582

-1.06802

1.637614

Coeff.

17.91065

-0.91508

0.908691

1.675191

-0.58625

-0.57912

-0.32699

0.350069

0.77163

0.595413

2.522843

2.49458

-3.56561

1.750035

1.305504

-2.2288

-1.44204

-0.24845

1.119276

Coeff

4.561913

-0.30679

-0.01264

1.551377

-0.32333

0.596507

-1.47451

0.160945

0.855122

0.731234

4.664063

1.373485

-2.73633

-0.03914

1.228379

-1.32042

1.872855

-1.12789

0.855451

Coeff

4.702557

-0.38686

0.020985

0.735654

-0.12965

-0.30448

229.6473

0.301666

0.737966

0.544594

2.050018

65535

-2.41955

0.090002

1.505524

-0.36146

-1.4534

65535

0.603091

Coeff

12.38765

-0.86629

-0.59796

4.670403

0.504177

0.856897

-1.4774

0.351372

0.585542

0.34286

0.89442

2.178273

-1.95646

-1.38189

1.917687

0.916326

1.268339

-0.64935

0.497529

Coeff.

7.245669

-0.25491

-0.6129

0.099659

0.230001

0.279859

-0.19412

-0.13314

0.816142

0.666088

3.419663

2.776697

-2.22932

-2.75143

1.273624

0.990411

1.435144

-1.80896

-0.786

Coefficient

8.37849

-0.40531

-0.03466

2.047297

-0.86487

0.098744

-0.81743

0.92987

0.687617

0.472817

1.537498

1.666309

-1.23572

-0.17453

1.61478

-2.20295

0.50529

-0.51569

1.337544

Coefficient

10.98383

-0.67107

0.211058

3.121063

-0.26145

0.280698

-2.10993

0.471675

0.722937

0.522637

1.876874

2.746352

-2.32189

0.542052

2.84494

-0.93716

0.925049

-1.02231

2.002954

Coefficient

10.8547

-0.62564

0.864038

1.227914

-0.10946

-0.14891

-3.6204

-0.15784

0.802687

0.644306

3.105264

1.127195

-1.31836

1.239893

1.968267

-0.40436

-0.3912

-2.07292

-0.67194

Coeff.

45.38586

-1.35819

1.972853

-6.41564

-2.98819

0.561112

1.676904

-0.64292

0.811137

0.657943

3.297407

3.139299

-4.27225

2.388762

-1.78727

-2.41935

0.596

0.654846

-0.41152

Coeff

10.58024

-0.643

0.949305

1.235738

0.424454

0.178142

-0.62335

0.238457

0.835164

0.6975

3.952768

2.488969

-2.58529

2.320188

2.115887

1.403505

0.464717

-0.59871

0.758227

Coefficient

19.79648

-1.07293

-0.3936

3.956895

0.468387

1.001072

-2.04604

-0.28517

0.809808

0.655788

3.266036

3.311626

-3.73169

-1.07251

2.418098

1.098002

1.459086

-1.05206

-1.00807

Coeff

10.4787

-0.44722

0.101826

1.308209

-0.37596

-0.04282

-2.18095

0.002251

0.7609

0.578969

2.357354

Uganda

Jamaica

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Kenya
Uruguay
Nigeria
Peru
Pakistan
Philippines
Malaysia
Thailand
Indonesia
Turkey
Argentina
India

17
18

Mexico
China

1.824411

-1.88273

1.187682

1.912632

-1.93962

-0.76941

-0.64877

0.015754

Coeff

13.34606

-0.70025

1.060475

1.46077

-0.2704

0.062396

-0.75215

-0.29389

2.740183

-3.27664

2.391778

2.783062

-1.25848

0.101945

-0.83039

-0.54477

Coeff

4.029335

-0.21965

-0.14529

1.408718

0.028657

-0.48438

-2.63312

0.126304

1.573718

-2.50252

-0.37946

1.691618

0.22007

-1.63898

-2.27634

0.99338

16

0.859031

0.737934

4.82715

0.741217

0.549402

2.090182

TABLE 3
Panel Data Estimation with 4 regressors
Variable
ONE
LnK
LnH
EN
TIM

Coeff.
0.286022
-0.07243
0.024118
-0.03092
0.000853

Std.Err.
3.96E-08
1.21E-08
2.01E-08
8.02E-09
1.31E-09

t-ratio
7.22E+06
-5.97E+06
1.20E+06
-3.86E+06
648974

P-value
0
0
0
0
0

TABLE 4
Panel Data Estimation with 4 regressors allowing countryspecific autocorrelations
variable. Coeff.
Std.Err.
ONE
0.138425 7.30E-09
LnK
0.008574 1.84E-09
LnH
0.008319 2.71E-09
EN
-0.02699 1.07E-09
TIM
-0.00436 1.92E-10

t-ratio
1.90E+07
4.66E+06
3.07E+06
-2.51E+07
-2.27E+07

P-value
0
0
0
0
0

TABLE 5
Panel Data Estimation with 7 regressors allowing countryspecific autocorrelations
Variance Coeff.
Std.Err.
ONE
0.162965 1.28E-07
T
-0.00089 2.48E-09
LnK
0.000986 3.51E-08
LnH
0.008055 4.82E-08
EN
-0.03861 2.16E-08
DLnK
0.000881 2.46E-08
DLnH
-0.18013 6.98E-08
DEN
0.051055 1.38E-08

t-ratio
1.27E+06
-359556
28046
167129
-1.79E+06
35775.7
-2.58E+06
3.70E+06

P-value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

FIGURE 1.

Impact of Human Capital on Economic Growth

15
8

10

15
4

BETA

5
0
(5)

3
1

15

17

19

21

23

11
12

10
7

14

25

27

(10)
13

(15)
(20)
LnGDP

18

17
16

18

29

FIGURE 2. Impact of Human Capital on Economic Growth

4
3
11
3

STUDENT-t

12

17
14

16

18

10
9

0
15.0000 17.0000 19.0000 21.0000 23.0000 25.0000 27.0000 29.0000
1

-1

13

-2
-3
LnGDP

FIGURE 3.

Impact of Human Capital on Economic Growth

6
BETA

15

19
18

16

15
14

11

17
13

APPENDIX 1 (DATA)
The main source of data for this study is the World Banks World Development Indicator (WDI),
report for 2003. First, we provide the definitions of the variables used and indicate the notation
used for them in brackets in titles. We transform many variables by using logarithms and
inserting Ln as a prefix it its name. The prefix D in the names of variables stands for the first
difference. The LIMDEP software does not allow variable names to have spaces, symbols such
as minus and the number of characters must not exceed 8. Also, the name n for growth rate of
labor is not allowed in the software, so we made it EN and replace the minus symbol for lagged
variable by lower case m.
GDP (current US$): [denoted by GDP]
Definition: GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus
any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is
calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and
degradation of natural resources. Data are in current U.S. dollars. Dollar figures for GDP are
converted from domestic currencies using single year official exchange rates. For a few countries
where the official exchange rate does not reflect the rate effectively applied to actual foreign
exchange transactions, an alternative conversion factor is used.
Source: World Bank national accounts data.
GDP growth (annual %): [Denoted by DLnGDP]
Definition: Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local
currency. Aggregates are based on constant 1995 U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross value
added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies

20

not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for
depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources.
Source: World Bank national accounts data.
Adult Illiteracy rate, (%) [denoted by H]:
Definition: Adult illiteracy rate is the percentage of people ages 15 and above who cannot, with
understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday life.
Source: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Gross capital formation (% of GDP): [denoted by K]
Definition: Gross capital formation (formerly gross domestic investment) consists of outlays on
additions to the fixed assets of the economy plus net changes in the level of inventories. Fixed
assets include land improvements (fences, ditches, drains, and so on); plant, machinery, and
equipment purchases; and the construction of roads, railways, and the like, including schools,
offices, hospitals, private residential dwellings, and commercial and industrial buildings.
Inventories are stocks of goods held by firms to meet temporary or unexpected fluctuations in
production or sales, and work in progress. According to the 1993 SNA, net acquisitions of
valuables are also considered capital formation.
Source: World Bank national accounts data.
Growth Rate of Labor: [denoted by EN]
Growth rate of labor force is reported as WDI national data on labor force compiled by the
World Bank and denoted there as (n). Since we use n to denote the number of countries, we have
changed that notation.

21

Data Series Used in estimations reported in this paper.

Source: WDI database
COUNTRY
Population Total 2001
Algeria
30835000
Argentina
37488000
Bolivia
8515220
Brazil
172386000
Centre Africa
3770820
Chad
7916010
Chile
15402000
China
1.272E+09
Colombia
43035170
Comoros
571890
Congo,
Dem. 52354100

Literacy Rate
67.8
96.91
86
87.3
48
44.23
95.9
85.77
91.89
55.99
62.75

Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Egypt
Haiti
India
Indonesia
Jamaica
Kenya
Liberia
Malaysia
Mali
Mexico
Nigeria
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Turkey
Uganda
Uruguay

81.81
56
50.83
58.01
87.34
87.28
83.34
54.8
87.88
26.4
91.43
65
44.04
90.2
95.15
85.61
91.86
95.65
85.51
67.97
97.64

3103350
65176940
8132000
1.032E+09
208981100
2590000
30735760
3213770
23802360
11094340
99419690
129874976
141450100
26347000
78317030
43240000
18732000
61183900
66229000
22788000
3361000

22