Doug Henwood wrote:
> [speaking of Australia...]
>
> <http://papers.nber.org/papers/W8408>
>
> Australian Growth: A California Perspective
> Ian W. McLean, Alan M. Taylor
>
> NBER Working Paper No. W8408
> Issued in August 2001
>
> ---- Abstract -----
>
> Examination of special cases assists understanding of the mechanics
> of long-run economic growth more generally. Australia and California
> are two economies having the rare distinction of achieving 150 years
> of sustained high and rising living standards for rapidly expanding
> populations. They are suitable comparators since in some respects
> they are quite similar, especially in their initial conditions in the
> mid-nineteenth century, their legal and cultural inheritances, and
> with respect to some long-term performance indicators. However, their
> growth trajectories have differed markedly in some sub-periods, and
> over the longer term with respect to the growth in the size of their
> economies. Most important, the comparison of an economy that remained
> a region in a much larger national economy with one that evolved into
> an independent political unit helps identify the role of several key
> policies. California had no independent monetary policy, or exchange
> rate, or controls over immigration or capital movements, or trade
> policy. Australia did, and after 1900 pursued an increasingly
> interventionist and inward-oriented development strategy until the
> 1970s. What difference did this make to long-run growth? And what
> other factors, exogenous and endogenous, account for the differences
> that have emerged between two economies that shared such similar
> initial conditions?
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu