LAJED No 24

Noviembre 2015 79 - 96
ISSN: 2074 - 4706

The World Productivity Distribution:
Convergence and Divergence
Patterns in the Postwar Era
La distribución de la productividad
mundial: convergencia y divergencia
en el periodo de la posguerra

Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra*

Abstract
The post-World War II period has seen substantial changes in labor productivity aroundthe world. Motivated by these changes, this article documents four stylized facts about theworld productivity distribution. First, there is a large and increasing disparity between its tails.
Second, this disparity rapidly increased in the 1980s, slowed down in the next decade, andstabilized in the mid-2000s. Third, overtime, there has been substantial forward and backward
mobility of countries and regions. Forth, the upper tail the distribution is more sensitive
to improvements in human capital, while the lower tail is more sensitive to improvements
in technology. The article concludes pointing out that, at least in the near future, the world
productivity distribution may still be characterized by divergence at the bottom, andconvergence and overtaking at the top.
Key words: labor productivity, world distribution, convergence, divergence*

Kyushu University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences - Nishi-ku, Fukuoka, 891-0395 Japan
Contact: mendez.carlos@artsci.kyushu-u.ac.jp79The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

Resumen
En el periodo de la posguerra se han visto cambios sustanciales en la productividad laboral
en el mundo. Este artículo documenta cuatro hechos estilizados sobre la distribución de la
productividad mundial. Primero, existe una disparidad enorme y creciente entre las colas dela distribución. Segundo, esta disparidad incrementó rápidamente en la década de 1980, se
desaceleró en la siguiente década, y finalmente se estabilizó a mediados de los años 2000.
Tercero, existe substancial movilidad de países hacia adelante y hacia atrás. Cuarto, la cola
superior es más sensible a mejoras en capital humano, mientras que la cola inferior es mássensible a mejoras en tecnología. El artículo termina señalando que, por lo menos en el futuro
más cercano, la distribución-productividad mundial podría seguir siendo caracterizada por
divergencia en los países más cercanos a la cola inferior, y convergencia y adelantamiento en
los países más cercanos a la cola superior.
Palabras clave: productividad laboral, distribución mundial, convergencia, divergencia
Classification/Clasificación JEL: O40, 050, E10

1. Introduction
Both convergence and divergence in output per worker characterize the post-WorldWar II period. The world productivity distribution shows a noticeable divergence at thebottom, and convergence and overtaking at the top. For example, in Taiwan average laborproductivity relative to that in the United States increased from 13% to 78% between 1960
and 2010. Conversely, during the same period, labor productivity declined from 60% to 25%
in Venezuela.
Motivated by these extreme cases, this article documents converge and divergence patterns
in labor productivity for a representative sample of countries. In particular, it highlights four
stylized facts about the world productivity distribution between 1960 and 2010. First, there
is a large and increasing disparity between its tails. Second, this disparity rapidly increased in
the 1980s, slowed down in the next decade, and stabilized in the mid-2000s. Third, overtime,
there has been substantial forward and backward mobility of countries. Forth, the upper tailthe distribution is more sensitive to improvements in human capital, while the lower tail ismore sensitive to improvements in technology.

80Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

The first fact points out the large cross-section disparities in labor productivity since 1960.
For example, in 1960 an average worker from the top of the distribution produced almost 40
times more than an average worker from the bottom. Also, the shape of the world productivity
distribution in 1960 appeared unimodal and largely concentrated at the bottom, with 50%of the sampled countries showing a productivity level no greater than 17% relative to that in
United States.
The second fact highlights the speed at which these disparities have been evolving overtime. After more than two decades of relative stability, productivity disparities across countries
rapidly increased in the mid-1980s. In the next decade, however, the speed of this divergenceslowed down; and particularly since mid-2000s, the data suggest a small tendency towards
convergence.
These two facts alone update and extend the previous literature. Parente and Prescott(1993) report stable differences in labor productivity across countries for the coverage period
ending in 1985. The work of Duarte and Restuccia (2006) verifies this stability, and —after
extending the coverage period until 1996— documents a rapidly increasing dispersion. In
this context, this article not only updates the disparity facts until 2010, but also provides some
initial evidence on the stabilization of disparities due to recent improvements in the least
productive countries.
The third fact documents substantial forward and backward mobility of countries andregions within the distribution. For example, Asia’s relative productivity increased from 15 to
37% between 1960 and 2010. In contrast, productivity declined from 28 to 23% during thesame period in Latin America.
Given the previous thee facts, a natural question emerges: how might the world
productivity distribution look in the future? Aggregate production function analysis provides
some insights to answer this question. Jones (1997a) emphasizes that potential differencesin labor productivity can be attributed to current differences in population growth rates,
physical investment rates, human capital stocks, and technology levels. Using this approach,this article documents its forth stylized fact: the upper tail the distribution is more sensitive
to improvements in human capital, while the lower tail is more sensitive to improvements intechnology. Given this fact, and if current institutions and public policies remain in place, theworld productivity distribution may still be characterized as bimodal in the future

81

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

A complementary framework to forecast the world productivity distribution uses historicalmobility probabilities to estimate the steady state of a Markov chain. This is an approachtaken by Quah (1993, 1996) and Jones (1997b), among others. Using this framework, thisarticle finds, one more time, that labor productivity may still be characterized by a bimodal
distribution, with a small yet significant number of countries at the bottom.
Overall, this article contributes to the earlier literature in three ways. First, it adds the period
between 1996 and 2010 to the analysis. Second, it characterizes disparity, mobility, and thesteady-state distribution of labor productivity using trended data to abstract from businesscycle fluctuations. Third, it presents a more comprehensive view of the world productivity
distribution in terms of its past, current, and expected trajectories.
The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 documents the main disparity and mobility factsof labor productivity across countries and over time. Section 3 evaluates the sensitivity of theworld productivity distribution to improvements in capital accumulation and technology.
Then, assuming a more distant time horizon, Sections 4 describes the distribution using
Markov methods. Finally, Section 7 offers some concluding remarks.

2. Disparity and Mobility Facts
This section characterizes the cross-section dynamics of labor productivity around theworld using a balanced sample of 92 countries for the period 1960-20101. Aiming to update
and extend previous findings in the literature, the organization and presentation of this section
follows closely the work of Duarte and Restuccia (2006).

1

The data set is constructed from the Penn World Tables V7.1. The main variable is GDP per worker in chained
2005 prices, which is also PPP adjusted. Following the criteria of Duarte and Restuccia (2006), the selection ofcountries was based on: (1) countries have complete series for the period 1960-2010, and (2) the population
size exceeds one million in 2010. For every output observation, business-cycle fluctuations are removed using the
Hodrick-Prescott filter with a smoothing parameter equal to 100.

82

Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

Figure 1: Output per Worker-Ratio of the Ten Most Productive
to the Ten Least Productive Countries

Notes: The most productive countries with the highest frequency (i.e., 51 years) include: Australia,
Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, United States. The least productive countries with the highest
frequency (i.e., 51 years) include: Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe
Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Penn World Tables V 7.1

2.1. Large and Increasing Disparities
Focusing on the top and bottom of the world productivity distribution, Figure 1 illustrates
the labor productivity gap between the ten most productive and ten least productive countries
for each year since 1960 until 2010. Over this period, the productive gap between the tails of
the distribution varied from 39 to 68 times. By 2010, the average worker from the ten mostproductive countries produced 67.6 times more output than the average worker from the least
productive group of countries. Historically, the first decade of the new millennia records thelargest disparity between the tails of distribution in the post-World War II period.
Consistent with earlier findings in the literature, Figure 1 suggests that the disparity
between the tails of the distribution has been roughly constant during the first two decadesof the sample period. Since the mid-1980s until the mid-2000s, however, there has been arapid increase in the productivity gap between the top and bottom of the distribution2.
2

As noted by Sala-i-Martin (2006), increasing differences in average income per capita or average output per
worker at the country level may not imply higher income inequality, or any other welfare measure, at the world level,
since global inequality is also a function of within country inequality. In addition, worldwide improvements in life
expectancy and other health measures are not directly captured in standard productivity and income statistics,
yet they help reducing income, welfare, and productivity differences in the world (Becker, Philipson, and Soares,
2005; Weil, 2007).

83

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

The first line drawn at 1985 represents the ending period of the first strand of the previous
literature, which emphasizes constant disparities between the tails of the distribution. That
literature includes the work of Parente and Prescott (1993), and Chari, Kehoe and McGrattan(1997). The second line drawn at 1995 represents the second strand of the earlier literature,
which emphasizes rather increasing disparities. That literature inclues the work of Duarte andRestuccia (2006).
Figure 2: Relative Output per Worker-Ten Most Productive
and Ten Least Productive Countries (1960=100)

Notes: Average output per worker relative to that in the United States for the ten most productive and least productive
countries. Both series are normalized to 100 in 1960. As reference, in 1960 the average relative output per worker of
the ten most productive countries is 85.88 percent, while for the ten least productive countries, it is 2.20 percent.
Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Penn World Tables V 7.1.

Extending the findings of the earlier literature, Figure 1 also shows that since the mid-1990s
this increasing productivity disparity has slowed down. Moreover, after 2006 the gap hasstabilized and shifted its tendency. Evaluating more extensible the nature of this trend, Figure
2 suggests that the recent stabilization of the productivity gap is driven by improvements atthe bottom of the distribution.
Figure 2 reports the relative labor productivity for the ten most productive and least
productive groups, each normalized to 100 in 1960. Overall, this figure shows that theincrease in the disparity between the tails of the distribution is mostly driven by the decline inproductivity in the least productive countries. For example, from 1977 to 2006, their relative
productivity decreased by 42%. Since 2006, however, the ten poorest countries have grown
84

Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

even faster than the ten richest countries. Although this positive growth episode ends up a 30year period of productivity divergence, disparities are still substantially large.
When considering the entire distribution, the distribution of the sampled seems consistent
with the “twin peaks” hypothesis (Quah, 1993a and 1993b, Quah, 1996 and Jones, 1997).
Gaussian kernel densities evaluated at different points in time suggests a movement in themass of countries from the middle to both right and left of the distribution. This polarization
characterizes the third fact on the cross-sectional dynamics of labor productivity: substantial
mobility within the distribution.
Table 1
Mobility Matrix 1960-2010
L2010

UL2010LM2010M2010

UM2010

LH2010H2010^ yu 1 2.5h L1960

0.86

0.14

0

0

0

0

0

^2.5 # yu 1 5h UL1960

0.27

0.40

0.07

0.27

0

0

0

^5 # yu 1 10h LM1960

0.18

0.29

0.35

0.12

0.06

0

0

^10 # yu 1 20h M1960

0

0

0.29

0.29

0.21

0.21

0

^20 # yu 1 40h UM1960

0

0

0.06

0.22

0.44

0.17

0.11

^40 # yu 1 80h LH1960

0

0

0

0

0.13

0.27

0.6

^ yu 2 80h H1960

0

0

0

0

0

0.33

0.67

Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Penn World Tables V 7.1

2.2. Substantial Mobility within the Distribution
Table 1 reports a mobility matrix based for seven groups of countries over a period of 51
years. The variable yu indicates a country’s labor productivity relativity to that in the UnitedStates. The labels for each group are somewhat arbitrary cutoffs for low (L), upper low (UL),lower middle (LM), middle (M), upper middle (UM), lower-high (LH), and high (H)productivity levels. The first element of this matrix, 0.86, for example, indicates that out of all
the low-productivity countries (L) in 1960, only 14% of those countries upgraded their status
to upper-low productivity (UL) by the year 2010.
85

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

The matrix shows higher degree of mobility in the middle of the distribution comparedto the extremes. Among all the middle-productivity countries, most improvements occurred
for the high-productivity countries. For example, from all the lower-middle (LM) countries
in 1960, 35% remained in the same interval, 47% moved backwards, and 18% moved forward
after 51 years. In contrast, from all upper-middle (UM) countries in 1960, 44% remained in
the same interval, 28% moved backwards, and 28% moved forward after 51 years. Overall,these results characterize the post-war period as having both convergence and divergence
patterns (i.e., countries moving from the middle to both right and left of the labor productivity
distribution).
Figure 3 characterizes the mobility within the distribution, yet this time the comparison is
between the relative productivity of each country in 1960 and 2010. Countries above (below)
the solid 45-degree line improved (deteriorated) their position relative to the United States.
The dashed lines indicate the median relative productivity for each year. This figure is usefulfor identifying large convergence and divergence experiences. Countries with the largest
productivity improvements include Taiwan, South Korea, China, Hong Kong, and Romania.
In contrast, countries with the largest productivity deterioration include the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Niger, Central African Republic, Nicaragua, and Madagascar.
Figure 3: Relative Output per Worker-1960 vs. 2010 (USA=1)

Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Penn World Tables V 7.1

So far this section has presented three facts about the increasing disparity and mobility of
the world productivity distribution. These facts, naturally, lead to the question: What will the86Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

distribution of labor productivity look like in the future?3 The following two sections attempt
to answer this question based on the characterization of a steady-state (long-run) equilibriumin both a determinist and a stochastic setting.

3. Labor Productivity in the Long Run
This section uses economic theory to estimate the long-run (steady-state) distribution oflabor productivity. Briefly, the following subsection describes the model suggested by Jones(1997a), which is a variation of the standard neoclassical growth model. In this frameworklabor productivity depends on the current equipment, skills, and technology available toworkers. After introducing the model, the following subsections describe the variables andparameters that will be used in the computation of a steady-state distribution of output per
worker for a sample of 85 countries4.
3.1. Model
Consider the following economy:-Y^ t h = K^ t ha ^ A^ t h H^ t hh1 a,(1)H^ t h = e zS^ t h L^ t h,(2)ko ^ t h = sK ^ t h y^ t h - ^n^ t h + dh k^ t h,(3)where Y is total output, which is produced by physical capital K, human capital H, and laboraugmenting technology (TFP5) A. Human capital or skilled labor is produced by raw labor L,
the time devoted to skill accumulation S, and the rate of return to a year of formal educationz. Letting lower case letters represent variables in per-worker terms, the accumulation ofphysical capital per worker k depends on the investment rate sK, the population growth n,
and the depreciation rate d.
3

In the recent growth literature, this question was originally posted by Jones (1997a).

4

Due to the lack of systematic educational data, this section is based on a smaller 85-country sample.

5

In the growth literature, the technology parameter A is known as Total Factor Productivity (TFP) or Solow Residual. To
avoid any source of confusion with use of the term “productivity”, I use the term technology (TFP) in the rest of thepaper.

87

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

To solve for a balanced growth path, all the variables should grow at constant rates. Then,in equilibrium, the growth rate of output per worker and the growth rate of capital per worker
should be equal to the growth rate of technology, which is denoted as gA. By construction, theexogenous variables of the model are the growth rate of technology, gA, the physical capital
investment rate, SK, the human capital investment rate, S; and the population growth rate, n.
Given this setting, output per worker along a balanced growth path for a country i is:ayi ^ t h = c

1-aSKm hi Ai ^ t hni + gA + d(4)i

Redefining per-worker variables relative to those of the United States we haveayui ^ t h = puK1 - a hui Au i ^ t h

(5)

i

ξK

sK

where yi ≡ yUSi ( t ) , ξ Ki ≡ ξ KUSi , hi ≡ hUSi , Ai ≡ AUSi ( t ) , and ξ Ki ≡ ni + g Ai +δ . Equation 5summarizes the most important prediction of the model: in a proximate sense,6 the steadystate distribution of relative output per worker is a function of (1) the investment rate inphysical capital, SK, (2) the investment rate in human capital accumulation, S, (3) the
population growth rate, n, and (4) the level of technology, A. Other more fundamental factors
such as trade, institutions, culture, geography, among others must work through one or moreof these four proximate channels (Jones, 1997a).
y (t )hA (t )

3.2. Determinants of the Steady StateTo calculate Equation 5 we need data on the parameters related to the shape of the
production function: a, z, and gA + d. By construction, those parameters are assumed to beconstant across countries and their calibration is based on standard estimates of the growth
literature (Table 2).

6

See Acemoglu (2009) for a discussion of the relationship between proximate and fundamental causes of
economic performance.

88

Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

Table 2
Calibration of Parameters
Parameter

Calibration

Sourcea

1/3Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992)

z

0.10

Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (1994)

gA + d0.075

Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992)

Equation 5 also requires variation across countries for SK, n, S, and Au . Last decade
averages for the physical investment rate, SK, and population growth rate, n, are computedfrom the Penn World Tables version 7.1. Data on average years of schooling, S, for the year
2010, are taken from Barro and Lee (2010). Finally, to estimate the relative level of technology
Au in 2010, the article follows the decomposition suggested by Jones (1997a).
3.3. The Steady-State Distribution and Alternative Scenarios
3.3.1. Base Model
Given the previous setting, two results are worth noting. First, consistent with the workof Jones (1997a), the steady-state distribution of labor productivity appears very similar to
the 2010 distribution (Figure 5), particularly for the poorer 70% of the sample. The standard
deviation raises from 34 to 35% and the median decreases from 19 to 17%. An implication ofthese results is that if current policies regarding human capital accumulation and technologicalprogress remain invariant (in relative terms across countries), divergence in labor productivity—and income— is expected to continue in the future.
Second, although the 2010 and steady-state distribution seems broadly similar, they also
exhibit some interesting differences. For example, countries which are expected to have thelargest improvement in labor productivity in the near future include China, India, South
Korea, Romania, and Taiwan. In contrast, countries which are expected to have the largest
deterioration include the Democratic Republic of Congo, Togo, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, andCentral African Republic.

89

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

Figure 4: Cumulative World Productivity Distributions:
Convergence in Technology vs. Convergence in Inputs

Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Penn World Tables V 7 and Barro and Lee (2010)

3.3.2. Inputs Convergence: The Power of Human Capital is at the Top
In this hypothetical scenario, I first equalize the physical investment rate SK (physicalcapital convergence), and then the years of schooling S (human capital convergences) of
all countries to that in the United States. Results of this experiment are somewhat mixed.
Compared to convergence in physical capital, human capital convergence has a larger effecton the world productivity distribution. This effect, however, is concentrated at the top of the
distribution. As a result, there is an increase in the disparity of labor productivity in the world.
The standard deviation of relative output per worker raises from 34% in 2010 to 40%.
Evaluating the shape of the cumulative distribution, Figure 4 suggests a potential
explanation for understanding the unsatisfactory results of physical and human capitalconvergence. Productivity at the bottom of the distribution appears sticky in spite of additional
accumulation of physical and human capital (i.e., inputs). Other countries, at the middle andtop of the distribution, get better returns with similar endowment levels. Thus, it is not only
the low level of inputs what keeps productivity stagnant in the poorest countries, but also the90Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

way in which these inputs are used. In the next scenario, I empirically test this well known
argument of the economic growth literature.
Figure 5: World Productivity Distribution: Convergencein Technology vs. Convergence in Inputs

Note: Input convergence refers to convergence in both physical and human capital.

3.3.3. Technology Convergence: The Main Determinant of Convergence
In this scenario, I allow countries with less than the United States’ level of technology toconverge to this benchmark, and the twelve countries with higher technology maintain theiradvantage.
Results in this setting are more encouraging, technology convergence both shifts (Figure4) and condenses (Figure 5) the steady-state distribution of labor productivity. Contrary toconvergence in physical or human capital, the standard deviation of relative labor productivity
falls from 34% in 2010 to 25% in steady state. The reason for this reduction is that technologicalconvergence shifts the entire cumulative distribution with larger effects on countries at thebottom 70% of the distribution.
Figure 5 summarizes the different shapes of the world productivity distribution for 1960,
2010, and the hypothetical scenarios. Note that overtime the bimodal distribution persists
91The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

even under convergence in inputs or convergence in technology. The twin-peaks hypothesis
appears in the growth literature as a potential explanation for this phenomenon. In the next
section, I use the basic tools of this literature to evaluate the probability of persistence of thesetwo peaks.

4. Labor Productivity in the Very Long Run
Markov methods are typically used to study the evolution of a system based on initialstates and transition probabilities. Mathematically, this process is described by(6)

dt M s = dt + s

where the vector dt corresponds to the productivity distribution in the year t, the transition
matrix M contains mobility frequencies from sample data, and s represents the number ofyears into the future.
The first set of columns in Table 3 reports the world productivity distribution, for theyears 1960, 1985, and 2010, based on the same seven productivity intervals (states) defined inTable 1. Using Equation 6 for s = 25, s = 50, and s " 3 , one can compute estimates ofthe very long-run productivity distribution.
Table 3
World Productivity Distribution-Using Markov Chains
Predicted
StatesInterval

1960

1985

2010

2035

2060

Steady StateL[0, 0.025)

0.08

0.09

0.14

0.17

0.14

0.12

UL

[0.025, 0.05)

0.16

0.15

0.13

0.06

0.05

0.04

LM

[0.05, 0.10)

0.18

0.12

0.13

0.04

0.03

0.03

M

[0.10, 0.20)

0.15

0.12

0.15

0.05

0.05

0.05

UM

[0.20, 0.40)

0.20

0.21

0.15

0.07

0.08

0.08

LH

[0.40, 0.80)

0.16

0.17

0.13

0.21

0.23

0.23

H

[0.80, 1.2)

0.07

0.14

0.16

0.40

0.43

0.45

Source: Author’s calculations using data from the Penn World Tables V 7.

92

Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

Section 3 ended with an open question: Are the twin peaks of the world productivity
distribution persistent? Results from Table 3 suggest that the answer of this question has
two folds. First, even in a more distant future, labor productivity may still be characterized
by a bimodal distribution. Second, although the world productivity distribution appears
bimodal, the two peaks are far from being twins; convergence dominates the process in the
more distant long run. Consider the following example. In 1960 only 7% of countries reported
a productive level higher than 80%; in the long-run, however, almost 45% of countries are
expected to report a productivity level higher than 80%.
When contrasting these results with the early findings of Jones (1997b), the maindifferences arise at the bottom of the distribution. Jones’ analysis defines the lowest interval
between 0 and 5% and finds continuous convergence in income since 1988. This article,
however, defines a narrower interval, between 0 and 2.5%, and it initially finds continuous
divergence from 1960 to 2035 (continuous convergence emerges thereafter). Table 3 also
shows that in the long-run there is a positive probability of any country spending some time inany interval. To illustrate this point, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are noticeable examples
of countries moving to the very top of the distribution. In contrast, Argentina7 and Venezuela
are drastic examples of countries moving backwards.

5. Concluding Remarks
The world productivity distribution in the post-World War II period is characterized
by four remarkable facts. First, there is a large and increasing disparity between the tails of
the distribution. Second, this disparity rapidly increased in the mid-1980s, slowed down in
the next decade, and stabilized in the 2000s. Third, there has been substantial forward andbackward mobility of countries. Forth, the upper tail of the distribution is more sensitive toimprovements in human capital, while the lower tail is more sensitive to improvements intechnology.8 Overall, the dynamic nature of these facts not only presents a challenge to theexisting theories of development, but also provides opportunities for the development of new
theories and policy initiatives.
7

Note that Argentina was one of the richest and most productive countries in the world in the early part of thetwentieth century.

8

This finding does not imply that developing countries should left aside policies that promote the accumulation ofskills. On the contrary, based on how the technology variable is constructed (i.e., as a residual) it includes someother dimensions of human capital. For instance, differences in the quality of schooling, work experience, andearly childhood development may be significant human capital factors that, by lack of systematic measures, areincluded in the residual measure of technology.

93

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

Although disparities in labor productivity across countries are large, disparities intechnology are even larger. In particular, efficiency improvements in developing countries
may drastically affect the shape of the distribution of labor productivity. However, if current
institutions and policies remain in place, the world productivity distribution may still becharacterized by additional divergence at the bottom, and further convergence and overtaking
at the top.

Fecha de recepción: 10 de agosto de 2015
Fecha de aceptación: 12 de octubre de 2015

94

Carlos Alberto Méndez-Guerra

References1.

Abramovitz, M. (1986). “Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind.” The Journalof Economic History, 46 (02): 385-406.

2.

Acemoglu, D. (2009). Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. New York: Princeton
University Press.

3.

Barro, R., and J. Lee (2010). “A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World,
1950-2010”. NBER Working Papers 15902.

4.

Becker, G., T. Philipson, and R. Soares (2005). “The Quantity and Quality of Life andthe Evolution of World Inequality.” American Economic Review, 95 (1): 277-91.

5.

Chari, V., P. Kehoe, and E. McGrattan. (1997). “The Poverty of Nations: A Quantitative
Exploration”. Staff Report 204. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. http://ideas.
repec.org/p/fip/fedmsr/204.html.

6.

Duarte, M. and D. Restuccia (2006). “The Productivity of Nations.” Economic Quarterly(Summer Issue): 195-223.

7.

Jones, C. (1997a). “On the Evolution of the World Income Distribution.” Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 11 (3): 19-36.

8.

---------- (1997b). “Convergence Revisited.” Journal of Economic Growth, 2 (2): 131-153.

9.

Mankiw, G., D. Romer, and D. Weil (1992). “A Contribution to the Empirics ofEconomic Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2): 407-437.

10.

Parente, S. and E. Prescott (1993). “Changes in the Wealth of Nations.” Quarterly Review(Spring Issue): 3-16.

11.

Psacharopoulos, G., and H. Patrinos (2004). “Returns to Investment in Education: A
Further Update.” Education Economics, 12 (2): 111-134.

12.

Quah, D. (1993a). “Empirical Cross-Section Dynamics in Economic Growth.”
European Economic Review, 37 (2-3): 426-434.

13.

---------- (1993b). “Galton’s Fallacy and Tests of the Convergence Hypothesis.”Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 95 (4): 427-443.

14.

---------- (1996). “Twin Peaks: Growth and Convergence in Models of Distribution
Dynamics.” Economic Journal, 106 (437): 1045-1055.

95

The World Productivity Distribution: Convergence and Divergence Patterns in the Postwar Era

15.

Sala-i-Martin, X. (2006). “The World Distribution of Income: Falling Poverty and ...
Convergence, Period.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121 (2): 351-397.

16.

Weil, D. (2007). “Accounting for the Effect of Health on Economic Growth.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (3): 1265-1306.

96