International Capital Flows to Emerging and Developing Countries: National and Global Determinants

This paper examines international capital flows to emerging and developing countries. We assess whether commonalities exist, the permanence of shocks to commonalities and their determinants. Also, we consider individual country coherence with global capital flows and we measure the extent of co-movements in the volatility of capital flows. Our results suggest there are commonalities in capital inflows, although aggregate or disaggregate capital flows respond differently to shocks. We find that the US long run real interest rate is an important determinant of global capital flows, and real commodity prices are relevant but to a lesser extent. We also find a role for human capital in explaining why some countries can successfully ride the wave of financial globalisation.

Productivity shocks and aggregate fluctuations in an estimated endogenous growth model with human capital

Employing an endogenous growth model with human capital, this paper explores how productivity shocks in the goods and human capital producing sectors contribute to explaining aggregate fluctuations in output, consumption, investment and hours. Given the importance of accounting for both the dynamics and the trends in the data not captured by the theoretical growth model, we introduce a vector error correction model (VECM) of the measurement errors and estimate the model’s posterior density function using Bayesian methods. To contextualize our findings with those in the literature, we also assess whether the endogenous growth model or the standard real business cycle model better explains the observed variation in these aggregates. In addressing these issues we contribute to both the methods of analysis and the ongoing debate regarding the effects of innovations to productivity on macroeconomic activity.

Debunking Mill’s “Fourth Fundamental Proposition on Capital”

J S Mill’s enigmatic "Fourth Proposition on Capital" has been brought to our notice by Steven Kates (2015). Kates takes a positive view of the proposition. Our focus is not, however, on Kates, but on the aforesaid proposition. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate, via close examination of Mill’s explanatory examples, just how unsatisfactory are its foundations. We conclude that the doubters are justified: Mill’s Fourth Proposition is, demonstrably, a muddle.