<p>Here are three:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11037.pdf" rel="nofollow">Klenow, P., &amp; Rodriguez-Clare, A. (1997). The neoclassical revival in growth economics: Has it gone too far?. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, Volume 12 (pp. 73-114). MIT Press.</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.ecostat.unical.it/aiello/Didattica/economia_Crescita/CRESCITA/CrescitaKlenow-rodriguez-Clare-JME-1997.pdf" rel="nofollow">Klenow, P. J., &amp; Rodriguez-Clare,A. (1997). Economic growth: A review essay. Journal of monetary economics, 40(3), 597-617.</a></p>

<p>They pose certain conceptual issues as regards entangled causalities (in the economics' sense, not in the econometrics' sense).</p>

<p>All are freely downloadable.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11063.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bernanke, B. S., &amp; Gürkaynak, R. S. (2002). Is growth exogenous? taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil seriously. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2001, Volume 16 (pp. 11-72). MIT Press.</a></p>

<p>This paper argues that one of the most important implications of any Solow framework is that long-run growth depends only on exogenous technological progress, and that MRW do not test in the right way this implication (the authors do it their way and reject this implication).</p>

<p>But I don't think you will find papers with deep <em>statistical-econometric</em> testing/validation of the model.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-23T14:12:27.667Z
2016-03-23T14:12:27.667Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>I'm searching for bibliography on the critiques to the <a href="http://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/MRW_QJE1992.pdf" rel="nofollow">Mankiw, Romer, Weil (1992)</a> paper.</p>

<p>If possible, could you give references to each critique?</p>

<p>Any help would be appreciated.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T13:50:55.423Z
The question is "why"? What bothers you in it?
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T13:56:05.993Z
...After all, as regards at least style, it has one of the best introductory sentences in an economics paper.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T14:19:11.643Z
@AlecosPapadopoulos I'm trying to do a work on it, but I'm not sure if what I'll do is going to be problematic later on. So, I was wondering what critiques there were to the paper... As to the sentence: Yes, I completely agree with you. I smiled a bit when I read it. =D
An old man in the sea.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-23T07:56:07.413Z
@AlecosPapadopoulos also, in the paper not one test is performed to check if the residuals are good or not, or any other test. their onlymeasure of performance is R^2... it seems to be too simplistic
An old man in the sea.
<macroeconomics><economic-growth>
Critiques to Mankiw, Romer, Weil (1992) paper on Economic Growth
An old man in the sea.
# Critiques to Mankiw, Romer, Weil (1992) paper on Economic Growth

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-22)

I'm searching for bibliography on the critiques to the [Mankiw, Romer, Weil (1992)](http://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/MRW_QJE1992.pdf) paper.

If possible, could you give references to each critique?

Any help would be appreciated.

**Tags:** macroeconomics, economic-growth

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The question is "why"? What bothers you in it?  
> **username_1**: ...After all, as regards at least style, it has one of the best introductory sentences in an economics paper.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I'm trying to do a work on it, but I'm not sure if what I'll do is going to be problematic later on. So, I was wondering what critiques there were to the paper... As to the sentence: Yes, I completely agree with you. I smiled a bit when I read it. =D  
> **username_0**: @username_1 also, in the paper not one test is performed to check if the residuals are good or not, or any other test. their onlymeasure of performance is R^2... it seems to be too simplistic  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-03-23. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Here are three:

[Klenow, P., & Rodriguez-Clare, A. (1997). The neoclassical revival in growth economics: Has it gone too far?. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, Volume 12 (pp. 73-114). MIT Press.](http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11037.pdf)

[Klenow, P. J., & Rodriguez-Clare,A. (1997). Economic growth: A review essay. Journal of monetary economics, 40(3), 597-617.](http://www.ecostat.unical.it/aiello/Didattica/economia_Crescita/CRESCITA/CrescitaKlenow-rodriguez-Clare-JME-1997.pdf)

They pose certain conceptual issues as regards entangled causalities (in the economics' sense, not in the econometrics' sense).

All are freely downloadable.

[Bernanke, B. S., & Gürkaynak, R. S. (2002). Is growth exogenous? taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil seriously. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2001, Volume 16 (pp. 11-72). MIT Press.](http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11063.pdf)

This paper argues that one of the most important implications of any Solow framework is that long-run growth depends only on exogenous technological progress, and that MRW do not test in the right way this implication (the authors do it their way and reject this implication).

But I don't think you will find papers with deep *statistical-econometric* testing/validation of the model.


---

