Oded Galor is the founder of Unified Growth Theory. He has contributed to the understanding of process of development over the entire course of human history and the role of deep-rooted factors in the transition from stagnation to growth and in the emergence of the vast inequality across the globe. Moreover, he has pioneered the exploration of the impact of human evolution, human genetic diversity, and inequality on the process of development over most of human existence. His interdisciplinary research has redirected research in the field of economic growth to the exploration of the long shadow of history and to the role of biogeographical forces in comparative economic development. It has spawned the influential literatures studying the impact of inequality on the process of development, the interaction between human evolution and economic development, the transition from stagnation to growth, and the impact of human diversity on comparative economic development.
Oded Galor has led the NBER research group on Income Distribution and Macroeconomics and he is a Research Fellow of the CEPR and IZA, and a Research Associate of the NBER and CESifo. He is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Economic Growth, and a member of the editorial board of several journals, including Economics and Human Biology, the Journal of Economic Inequality, the Journal of Population Economics and Macroeconomic Dynamics.
I. Unified Growth Theory
The evolution of economies during the major portion of human history was marked by Malthusian Stagnation. Technological progress and population growth were miniscule by modern standards and the average growth rate of income per capita in various regions of the world was even slower due to the offsetting effect of population growth on the expansion of resources per capita. In the past two centuries, in contrast, the pace of technological progress increased significantly in association with the process of industrialization. Various regions of the world departed from the Malthusian trap and experienced initially a considerable rise in the growth rates of income per capita and population. Unlike episodes of technological progress in the pre-Industrial Revolution era that failed to generate sustained economic growth, the increasing role of human capital in the production process in the second phase of industrialization ultimately prompted a demographic transition, liberating the gains in productivity from the counterbalancing effects of population growth. The decline in the growth rate of population, and the associated enhancement of technological progress and human capital formation, paved the way for the emergence of the modern state of sustained economic growth.
The transition from stagnation to growth and the associated phenomenon of the great divergence have been the subject of intensive research in the growth literature in recent years. The discrepancy between the predictions of exogenous and endogenous growth models, and the process of development over most of human history, induced growth theorists to advance an alternative theory that would capture in a single unified framework the contemporary era of sustained economic growth, the epoch of Malthusian stagnation that had characterized most of the process of development, and the fundamental driving forces of the recent transition between these distinct regimes.
The preoccupation of growth theory with empirical regularities that have characterized the growth process of developed economies in the past century and of less developed economies in the last few decades, has become harder to justify from a scientific viewpoint in light of the existence of vast evidence about qualitatively different empirical regularities that characterized the growth process over most of human existence. It has become evident that in the absence of a unified growth theory that is consistent with the entire process of development, the understanding of the contemporary growth process would be incomplete and distorted. As stated eloquently by Copernicus: "It is as though an artist were to gather the hands, feet, head and other members for his images from diverse models, each part perfectly drawn, but not related to a single body, and since they in no way match each other, the result would be monster rather than man."
The evolution of theories in older scientific disciplines suggests that theories that are founded on the basis of a subset of the existing observations and their driving forces may be attractive in the short run, but non-robust and eventually non-durable in the long run. The attempts to develop unified theories in physics have been based on the conviction that all physical phenomena should be explainable by some underlying unity. Similarly, the entire process of development and its fundamental forces ought to be captured by a unified growth theory.
The advancement of unified growth theory was fueled by the conviction that the understanding of the contemporary growth process would be limited unless growth theory was based on micro-foundations that would reflect the qualitative aspects of the growth process in its entirety. In particular, the hurdles faced by less developed economies in reaching a state of sustained economic growth would remain obscured unless the origin of the transition of the currently developed economies into a state of sustained economic growth would be identified, and its implications would be modified to account for the additional economic forces faced by less developed economies in an interdependent world.
Unified growth theory suggests that the transition from stagnation to growth is an inevitable outcome of the process of development. The inherent Malthusian interaction between the level of technology and the size and the composition of the population accelerated the pace of technological progress, and ultimately raised the importance of human capital in the production process. The rise in the demand for human capital in the second phase of industrialization, and its impact on the formation of human capital, as well as on the onset of the demographic transition, brought about significant technological advancements, along with a reduction in fertility rates and population growth, enabling economies to convert a larger share of the fruits of factor accumulation and technological progress into growth of income per capita, and paving the way for the emergence of sustained economic growth. Moreover, the theory suggests that differences in the timing of the take-off from stagnation to growth across countries contributed significantly to the Great Divergence and to the emergence of convergence clubs.
Variations in the timing of the transition from stagnation to growth, and thus in economic performance across countries (e.g., England's earlier industrialization in comparison to China), reflect initial differences in geographical factors and historical accidents and their manifestation in variations in institutional, demographic, and cultural factors, trade patterns, colonial status, and public policy. In particular, once a technologically-driven demand for human capital emerged in the second phase of industrialization, the prevalence of human capital promoting institutions determined the extensiveness of human capital formation, the timing of the demographic transition, and the pace of the transition from stagnation to growth. Thus, unified growth theory provides the natural framework of analysis in which variations in the economic performance across countries and regions could be examined based on the effect of variations in educational, institutional, geographical, and cultural factors on the pace of the transition from stagnation to growth.
The establishment of a unified growth theory has been a great intellectual challenge, requiring major methodological innovations in the construction of dynamical systems that could capture the complexity which characterized the evolution of economies from a Malthusian epoch to a state of sustained economic growth. Historical evidence suggests that the transition from the Malthusian epoch to a state of sustained economic growth, rapid as it may appear, was a gradual process and thus could not plausibly be viewed as the outcome of a major exogenous shock that shifted economies from the basin of attraction of the Malthusian epoch into the basin of attraction of the Modern Growth Regime. The simplest methodology for the generation of this phase transition -- a major shock in an environment characterized by multiple locally stable equilibria -- was, therefore, not applicable for the generation of the observed transition from stagnation to growth.
An alternative methodology for the observed phase transition was rather difficult to establish since a unified growth theory in which economies take-off gradually but swiftly from an epoch of a stable Malthusian stagnation would necessitate a gradual escape from an absorbing (stable) equilibrium -- a contradiction to the essence of a stable equilibrium. Ultimately, however, it has become apparent that the observed rapid, continuous, phase transition would be captured by a single dynamical system, if the set of steady-state equilibria and their stability would be altered qualitatively in the process of development. As proposed in unified growth theory during the Malthusian epoch the dynamical system would have to be characterized by a stable Malthusian equilibrium, but ultimately, due to the evolution of latent state variables, the dynamical system would change qualitatively, the Malthusian equilibrium would vanish endogenously, leaving the arena to the gravitational forces of the emerging Modern Growth Regime, and permitting the economy to take-off and to converge to a modern growth steady-state equilibrium.
II. Inequality and Growth
Conventional wisdom about the relationship between income distribution and economic development has been subjected to dramatic transformations in the past century. While Classical economists advanced the hypothesis that inequality is beneficial for economic development, the Neoclassical paradigm, which had subsequently dominated the field of macroeconomics, dismissed the Classical hypothesis and promoted the viewpoint that the study of income distribution has no importance for the understanding of macroeconomic activity and the growth process. A metamorphosis in these perspectives has taken place in the past two decades. Theory and subsequent empirical evidence have demonstrated that income distribution has a significant impact on the growth process.
This modern appraoch was pioneered by Galor and Zeira (RES, 1993). This research (recently selected among the 11 most path breaking papers in the Review of Economic Studies 80 years history) has marked the onset of the modern approach for the study of the effect of inequality and economic growth. "In the 1990s, the classical view that distribution (one aspect of which is measured by inequality indices) is not only a final outcome, but in fact plays a central role in determining other aspects of economic performance, has come back into fashion. While many economists often start working on a topic at the same time, much of the credit for pioneering this line of enquiry must go to Oded Galor and Joseph Zeira." The World Bank
In contrast to the representative agent approach that has dominated the field of macroeconomics for several decades, Galor and Zeira analyze the role of heterogeneity in the determination of macroeconomic behavior. The research demonstrated that in the presence of capital markets imperfections and local non-convexities in the production of human capital, income distribution affects aggregate output in the long run, as well as in the short-run. The research developed the hypothesis that equality in sufficiently wealthy economies stimulates investment in human capital and in individual specific projects, and enhances economic growth – whereas inequality promotes growth in sufficiently poor economies, a prediction that was confirmed by initial empirical studies.
The modern approach has demonstrated that in the presence of credit market imperfections, income distribution has a long-lasting effect on investment in human capital, entrepreneurial activity, aggregate income, and economic development. Moreover, in contrast to the Classical viewpoint, which underscored beneficial effects of inequality for the growth process, the modern perspective advanced the hypothesis that inequality may be detrimental for human capital formation and economic development.
The replacement of physical capital accumulation by human capital accumulation as the prime engine of economic growth has changed the qualitative impact of inequality on the process of development. In early stages of industrialization, as physical capital accumulation was a prime source of economic growth, inequality enhanced the process of development by channeling resources toward individuals whose marginal propensity to save is higher. However, in later stages of development, as human capital has become the main engine of economic growth, a more equal distribution of income, in the presence of credit constraints, has stimulated investment in human capital and economic growth (Galor and Moav, RES, 2004)
While the process of industrialization raised the importance of human capital in the production process, reflecting its complementarity with physical capital and technology, human capital accumulation has not benefited all sectors of the economy. Inequality in the ownership of factors of production has generated an incentive for some better-endowed agents to block the implementation of institutional changes and policies that promote human capital formation, resulting in a suboptimal level of investment in human capital from a growth perspective. The transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy changed the nature of the main economic conflict in society. Unlike the agrarian economy, which was characterized by a conflict of interests between the landed aristocracy and the masses, the process of industrialization has brought about an additional conflict between the entrenched landed elite and the emerging capitalist elite. In light of a lower degree of complementarity between human capital and the agricultural sector, education has increased the productivity of labor in industrial production more than in agricultural and primary good production, inducing rural-to-urban migration and a decline in the return to landowners. Thus, while industrialists have had a direct economic incentive to support education policies that would foster human capital formation, landowners, whose interests lay in the reduction of the mobility of their labor force, have favored policies that deprived the masses of education (Galor and Moav, RES 2006; Galor, Moav and Vollrath, RES 2009).
The adverse effect of the implementation of public education on landowners’ income from agricultural production has been magnified by the concentration of land ownership. As long as landowners affected the political process and thereby the implementation of growth-enhancing education policies, inequality in the distribution of land ownership has been a hurdle for human capital accumulation, slowing the process of industrialization, and the transition to modern growth. Variation in the distribution of ownership over land and other natural resources across countries has contributed to disparity in human capital formation and the industrial composition of the economy, and thus to divergent development patterns across the globe (Galor, Moav and Vollrath, RES 2009). Moreover, in some societies, geographical conditions that led to income inequality brought about oppressive institutions designed to maintain the political power of the elite and to preserve the existing inequality.
III. Human Evolution and Economic Development
This research explores the interaction between human evolution and the process of economic development, advancing the hypothesis that the forces of natural selection played a significant role in the evolution of the world economy from stagnation to growth. The theory suggests that the Malthusian pressures have acted as the key determinant of population size and conceivably, via natural selection, have shaped the composition of the population as well. Lineages of individuals whose traits were complementary to the economic environment generated higher levels of income, and thus a larger number of surviving offspring and the gradual increase in the representation of their traits in the population contributed to the process of development and the takeoff from stagnation to growth.
The Agricultural Revolution and the establishment of individual, rather than tribal, property rights expedited the selection process and gradually increased the representation of traits that were complementary to the growth process (e.g., entrepreneurial spirit, higher life expectancy, preference for child quality). It triggered a positive feedback between technological progress and education and ultimately brought about the Industrial Revolution and a period of sustained economic growth.
Subjecting hypothetical evolutionary processes to the scrutiny of evolutionary growth models, this body of research has identied several traits that may have been subjected to positive selection during the Malthusian era due to their conduciveness to human capital formation and economic development. In particular, this research advances the hypothesis that during the Malthusian epoch, natural selection brought about a gradual increase in the prevalence of traits associated with predisposition towards offspring quality (Galor and Moav, QJE 2002). The effect of this evolutionary process on investment in human capital stimulated technological progress and contributed to the reinforcing interaction between investment in human capital and technological progress that triggered the demographic transition and brought about a state of sustained economic growth.
Indeed, evidence from the genealogy of the founder population Quebec suggests that the forces of natural selection favored individuals characterized by moderate fecundity, increasing the population's predisposition towards investment in child quality. Thus, since the conditions that were faced by the founder population of Quebec may resemble the environment that anatomically modern humans confronted during their migration out of Africa, as they settled new territories where the carrying capacity of the new environment was an order of magnitude greater than the size of the founder population, the findings suggest that during the high fertility segments of the Malthusian epoch in which evolutionary forces could have made a significant impact on the composition of the population natural selection favored individuals with a larger predisposition towards child quality, contributing to human capital formation, the onset of the demographic transition, and the evolution of societies from an epoch of stagnation to sustained economic growth (Galor and Klemp, 2015).
Additional studies have highlighted the selection of resistance to infectious diseases (Galor and Moav, 2007), human body size (Lagerlof, 2007), predisposition towards entrepreneurial spirit (Galor and Michalopoulos, JET 2012), time preference (Galor and Ozak, AER forthcoming), lactase persistence (Cook, 2014), and conspicuous consumption (Collins, Baer and Weber, 2015).
IV. "Out of Africa" and Comparative Development
This research avenue has explored the persistent effect of the prehistoric exodus of Homo sapiens from Africa on the composition of genetic traits within human populations and, thus, on comparative economic development across societies from the dawn of civilization to the contemporary era. In particular, this line of research has advanced the hypothesis and empirically established that migratory distances from the cradle of mankind in East Africa to indigenous settlements across the globe adversely aected their levels of genetic diversity and, thereby, generated a persistent hump-shaped influence on development outcomes, reflecting the fundamental trade-off between the benecial and detrimental eects of diversity on productivity at the societal level (Ashraf and Galor, AER 2013; Ashraf, Galor and Klemp, 2014, Ashraf, Galor and Klemp, 2015).
Although diversity diminishes interpersonal trust, cooperation, and economic coordination, adversely aecting the productivity of society, complementarity across diverse productive traits stimulates innovations and gains from specialization, thus contributing to society's economic performance. In the presence of diminishing marginal returns to diversity and homogeneity, the aggregate productivity of ethnic groups, countries, or regions that are characterized by intermediate levels of diversity is therefore expected to be higher than that associated with excessively homogenous or heterogeneous societies.
Consistent with the fundamental elements of this hypothesis, genetic diversity has been established as a central determinant of observed ethnic and cultural heterogeneity, as reflected by the number of ethnic groups and the degree of ethnolinguistic fractionalization in a society (Ashraf and Galor, 2013, AER PP, 2013), and as a major force in the emergence of civil conflicts (Arbatl, Ashraf, Galor and Klemp, 2015). Genetic diversity has also been shown to contribute to diminished interpersonal trust and more intensive innovative activity (Ashraf and Galor, AER 2013), as well as greater occupational heterogeneity and gains from specialization (Depetris-Chauvin and Ozak, 2016). Moreover, it has been argued that genetic diversity has shaped the nature of both precolonial and contemporary political institutions. In particular, although diversity triggered the development of institutions for mitigating the adverse influence of diversity on social cohesion, the contribution of diversity to economic inequality and class stratication ultimately led to the formation and persistence of extractive and autocratic institutions (Galor and Klemp, 2015).
V. Roots of Comparative Development
Prevailing hypotheses of comparative economic development highlight various determinants of the remarkable inequality in income per capita across the globe. The significance of geographical, institutional, and cultural factors, human capital, ethnolinguistic fractionalization, colonialism, and globalization has been at the heart of a debate concerning the genesis of the astounding transformation in the pattern of comparative development over the past few centuries. While early research focused on the proximate forces that contributed to the divergence in living standards in the post–Industrial Revolution era, attention has shifted gradually toward some ultimate, deep-rooted, prehistoric factors that may have affected the course of comparative development since the emergence of human civilization.
This research establishes the persistent effect of deep-rooted factors (e.g., geographical characterisitcs, human triats, and the onset of the Neolithihc Revolution) on the global variations in the process of development. In particualr, it examines the direct effect of these deep-rooted factors as well as their indirect effect via cultural and instiutional characteristics.
VI. Determinanats of the Demographic Transition
The demographic transition has swept the world since the end of the nineteenth century. The unprecedented increase in population growth during the Post-Malthusian Regime has been ultimately reversed, bringing about signi.cant reductions in fertility rates and population growth in various regions of the world.
The demographic transition has enabled economies to convert a larger portion of the gains from factor accumulation and technological progress into growth of income per capita. It enhanced labor productivity and the growth process via three channels. First, the decline in population growth reduced the dilution of the growing stocks of capital and infrastructure, increasing the amount of resources per capita. Second, the reduction in fertility rates permitted the reallocation of resources from the quantity of children toward their quality, enhancing human capital formation and labor productivity. Third, the decline in fertility rates a.ected the age distribution of the population, temporarily increasing the fraction of the labor force in the population and thus mechanically increasing productivity per capita.
This research develops the theoretical foundations and the testable implications of the various mechanisms that have been proposed as possible triggers for the demographic transition. Moreover, it examines the empirical validity of each of the theories and their significance for the understanding of the transition from stagnation to growth. In particular, it examines various mechanisms that have been proposed as possible triggers for the demographic transition and assesses their empirical significance in understanding the transition from stagnation to growth. Was the onset of the fertility decline an outcome of the rise in income during the course of industrialization? Was it triggered by the reduction in mortality rates? Was it fueled by the rise in the relative wages of women? Or was it an outcome of the rise in the demand for human capital in the second phase of industrialization? The analysis suggests that the rise in the demand for human capital in the process of development was the main trigger for the decline in fertility and the transition to modern growth.
2013-2015, NSF Grant
"The Biogeogrpahical Origins of the Wealth of Naitions"
2009-2011, NSF Grant
"Geography, Diversity and the Origins of the Wealth of Nations"
2008 - IADB & Pan American Health Organization
"The Neolithic Origins of Variation in Life Expectancy"
2008 - Rhode Center for International Economics
"Trade and the Great Divergence"
2007 - Watson Institute of International Studies
"Culture and Comparative Development"
2006 - Salomon Research Award
"Human Evolution and Economic Development,"
2003-2005 - Israel Science Foundation
"Inequality in Land Ownership, and the Emergence of Human Capital Promoting Institutions,"
2001-2004 - National Science Foundation
"Inequality and Growth,"
2003 - Flak Institute for Economic Research
"Trading Population for Productivity,"
2003 - Pan American Health Organization
"Inequality, Health, and the Process of Development,"
2002 - Pan American Health Organization
"Food for Thoughts: Inequality and Health,"
2000 - Falk Institute for Economic Research
"Evolution and Growth,"
1999-2000 - Israel Science Foundation
"Inequality and the Process of Development,"
1997-2000 - National Science Foundation
"Technological Progress, Mobility and Growth,"
1997-1998 - Israel Science Foundation
"Inequality, Mobility and Growth,"
“The Agricultural Origins of Time Preference” (with Omer Ozak), American Economic Review (forthcoming).
“Genetic Diversity and the Origins of Cultural Fragmentation” (with Q. Ashraf), American Economic Review P&P, 102, (May 2013).
“The Out of Africa Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity and Comparative Economic Development” (with Q. Ashraf) American Economic Review, 102, 1-46 (February 2013). (Lead Article)
“Evolution and the Growth Process: Selection of Entrepreneurial Traits” (with S. Michalopolous), Journal of Economic Theory, 147, 759-780 (March 2012).
“The Demographic Transition: Causes and Consequences” Cliometrica, 6, 1-28 (January 2012).
“Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch: Theory and Evidence” (with Q. Ashraf) American Economic Review, 101, 2003-2041 (August 2011).
“Inequality, Human Capital Formation and the Process of Development,” Handbook of the Economics of Education, North Holand, 2011.
“Isolation and Development” (with Q. Asharf and O. Ozak) Journal of the European Economic Association, 8, 401-412 (April 2010).
“The 2008 Klein Lecture: “Comparative Economic Development: Insights from Unified Growth Theory” International Economic Review, 51, 1-44 (February 2010).
“Inequality in Land ownership, the Emergence of Human Capital Promoting Institutions and the Great Divergence” (with O. Moav and D. Vollrath) Review of Economic Studies, 76, 143-179 (January 2009).
"Trading Population for Productivity: Theory and Evidence," (with A. Mountford) Review of Economic Studies, 75, 1143-1179 (October 2008).
“Trade and the Great Divergence: The Family connection” (with A. Mountford) American Economic Review P&P 96, 299-303 (May 2006).
“Das Human Kapital: A Theory of the Demise of the Class Structure” (with O. Moav), Review of Economic Studies, 73, 85-117 (January 2006).
“The Transition from Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory,” Handbook of Economic Growth, North Holland, 2005, 171-293.
“The Demographic Transition and the Emergence of Sustained Economic Growth,” Journal of European Economic Association, 3, 494-504 (April-May 2005).
“From Physical to Human Capital Accumulation: Inequality in the Process of Development” (with O. Moav), Review of Economic Studies, 71, 1001-1026 (October 2004).
“Natural Selection and the Origin of Economic Growth” (with O. Moav) Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 1133-1192, (November 2002).
“Evolution and Growth” (with O. Moav) European Economic Review, 45, 718-729, (May 2001).
"Population, Technology, and Growth: From the Malthusian Regime to the Demographic Transition and Beyond," (with D. Weil). American Economic Review, 90, 806-828, (September 2000).
“Ability-Biased Technological Change, Wage Inequality and Economic Growth” (with O. Moav). Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 469-498, (May 2000).
“Inequality and the Process of Development,” European Economic Review, 44, 706-712 (May 2000).
“From Malthusian Stagnation to Modern Growth” (with David Weil) American Economic Review P&P, 89, 150-154, (May 1999).
“Technological Progress, Mobility, and Economic Growth,” (with Daniel Tsiddon) American Economic Review, 87, 363-382, (June 1997).
"The Distribution of Human Capital, Technological Progress, and Economic Growth" (with Daniel Tsiddon), Journal of Economic Growth,2, 93-124. (March 1997).
"The Gender Gap, Fertility, and Growth,” (with David Weil) American Economic Review, 86, 374-387, (June 1996).
"Convergence? Inferences from Theoretical Models" Economic Journal, 106, 1056-1069, (July 1996).
"Global Productivity Shocks and Current Account Dynamics" (with Shoukang Lin), International Economic Review, 35, 1001-1014, (November 1994).
"Tariff, Income distribution and Welfare in a Small Overlapping-Generations Economy" International Economic Review, 35, 173-192, (February, 1994).
"Income Distribution and Macroeconomics" (with Joseph Zeira), Review of Economics Studies, 60, 35-52, (January, 1993).
"Transitory Productivity Shocks and Long-run Output, (with Daniel Tsiddon), International Economic Review, 33, 921-933, (November 1992).
"A Two-Sector Overlapping-Generations Model: A Characterization of the Dynamical System", Econometrica, 60, 351-386, (November, 1992).
"Growth via External Public Debt and Capital Controls", (with Harris Dellas), International Economic Review, 33, 269-282, (May 1992).
"International Factor Movements in a Dynamic Setting," Journal of Population Economics, 5, 135-144 (May 1992).
"The Probability of Return Migration, Migrants' Work Effort, and Migrants' Performance", with Oded Stark), Journal of Development Economics, 35, 399-405, (April 1991).
"The Impact of Differences in the Levels of Technology on International Labor Migration," (with Oded Stark), Journal of Population Economics, 4, 1-12 (February 1991).
"Search Unemployment in an Overlapping-Generations Setting", (with Saul Lach), International Economic Review, 31, 409-419, (May 1990).
"Migrants' Savings, The probability of Return Migration and Migrants' Performance", (with Oded Stark), International Economic Review, 31, 463-467, (May 1990).
"A Theory of Career Mobility", (with Nachum Sicherman), Journal of Political Economy, 98, 169-192, (February 1990).
"Existence, Uniqueness and Stability of Equilibrium in an Overlapping-Generations Model with Productive Capital", (with Harl E. Ryder), Journal of Economic Theory, 49, 360-375, (December 1989).
"The Long-Run Implications of a Hicks-Neutral Technical Progress", International Economic Review, 29, 177-184, (February 1988).
"Intertemporal Equilibrium and the Transfer Paradox", (with Heracles Polemarchakis), Review of Economics Studies, 54, 147-184, (January 1987).
"Global Dynamic Inefficiency in the Absence of International Policy Coordination", Journal of International Economics, 21, 137-150, (August 1986).
"Minimum Wage in a General Equilibrium Model of International Trade and Human Capital", (with Karnit Flug), International Economic Review, 27, 149-164, (February 1986).
"Time Preference and International Labor Migration", Journal of Economic Theory, 38, 1-20, (February 1986).
2016 The Zeuthen lectures
2015 The Berglas Lecture
2012 The Maddison Lecture
2010 Web of Science, Highly Cited Researcher
2009 The Kuznets Lectures
2008 The Klein Lecture
2006 Salomon Research Award
1998 Michael Milken Award
Editor, Journal of Economic Growth, 1995 –
Co-director of the NBER research group on Income Distribution and Macroeconomics, 1995 –
Member of the Editorial Board, Economics and Human Biology, 2002 –
Member of the Editorial Board, Journal of Economic Inequality, 2003 –
Member of the Editorial Board, Italian Journal of Economics, 2014 --
Associate Editor, Macroeconomic Dynamics, 2000 -
Member of the Advisory Board, Journal of Economic Research, 1997 –
Associate Editor, Journal of Population Economics, 2007 -
Associate Editor, Economics, The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-journal, 2007 –
Research Fellow, CEPR , 1995 –
Research Associate, NBER, 1995 –
Research Associate, IZA, 2012 -
Research Fellow, CESifo, 2014 -
Core Faculty, Population and Training Center, Brown University, 2000 –
Faculty Associate, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, 2002 –
Member of the Academic Council, DEGIT, Germany, 2005 –
Member of the Scientific Committee, CRISS, Italy, 2005 –
Member, Growth Lab, CIDS, Harvard University, 2006 –
Fellow, Department of Economics, Hebrew University, 2006 –
Sackler Fellow, Tel-Aviv University, 2015 –
|ECON 1850 - Theory of Economic Growth|
|ECON 2070 - Macroeconomics I|
|ECON 2830 - Dynamic Optimization and Economic Growth|
|ECON 2960 - Workshop in Macroeconomics and Related Topics|