ArticleHeliyon2022
Parameter estimation of the Solow-Swan fundamental differential equation.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Solow-Swan model describes the long-term growth of the capital to labor ratio by the fundamental differential equation of Solow-Swan theory. In conventional approaches, this equation was fitted to data using additional information, such as the rates of population growth, capital depreciation, or saving. However, this was not the best possible fit. Objectives: Using the method of least squares, what is the best possible fit of the fundamental equation to the time-series of the capital to labor ratios? Are the best-fit parameters economically sound? Method: For the data, we used the Penn-World Table in its 2021 version and compared six countries and three definitions of the capital to labor ratio. For optimization, we used a custom-made variant of the method of simulated annealing. We also compared different optimization methods and calibrations. Results: When comparing different methods of optimization, our custom-made tool provided reliable parameter estimates. In terms of R-squared they improved upon the parameter estimates of the conventional approach. Except for the USA, the best-fit values of the exponent were unplausible, as they suggested a too large elasticity of output. However, using a different calibration resulted in more plausible values of the best-fit exponent also for France and Pakistan, but not for Argentina and Japan. Conclusion: Our results have shown a discrepancy between the best-fit parameters obtained from optimization and the parameter values that are deemed plausible in economy. We propose a research program to resolve this issue by investigating if suitable calibrations may generate economically plausible best-fit parameter values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.