Skip to main content

Table 4 Cobb–Douglas production function estimates

From: The rise and fall of Argentina

 

With Solow–Swan restriction \(\left( {\alpha = 0} \right)\)

Without Solow–Swan restriction \(\left( {\alpha \ne 0} \right)\)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

ln(n + g+δ)

− 0.032* (0.019)

− 0.040* (0.022)

− 0.029 (0.019)

− 0.031 (0.023)

− 0.040*** (0.017)

− 0.037** (0.016)

− 0.035** (0.017)

− 0.030* (0.016)

ln(k/l)

0.722*** (0.023)

0.701*** (0.034)

0.723*** (0.025)

0.704*** (0.039)

0.646*** (0.050)

0.642*** (0.052)

0.646*** (0.052)

0.643*** (0.054)

ln(h/l)

      

0.190** (0.096)

0.218** (0.099)

De Jure (latent)

0.029*** (0.009)

0.033*** (0.009)

  

0.026*** (0.008)

0.028*** (0.008)

  

De Facto (latent)

  

0.002*** (0.0007)

0.002*** (0.0008)

  

0.001** (0.0006)

0.002*** (0.0006)

Latent control variables

Yes

Yes (0.719)

Yes (0.790)

Yes (0.778)

Yes (0.951)

Yes (0.988)

Yes (0.948)

Yes (0.981)

Common Technology Shocks

No

Yes (0.000)

No

Yes (0.000)

No (0.000)

Yes (0.000)

No

Yes (0.000)

# observations

1674

1674

1674

1674

1674

1674

1674

1674

R2

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.94

  1. The table presents the augmented Solow growth model with de jure and de facto institutional quality for the period 1950–2012. Standard errors are adjusted for arbitrary heteroskedasticity and serially correlated stochastic disturbances using Huber–White sandwich estimator, and are denoted in the parentheses. Asterisks denote statistically significant coefficients at 10% (*), 5% (**), and 1% (***), respectively