Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This essay suggests that the convergence controversy may reflect, in part, differences in perception regarding the viable set of competing testable hypotheses generated by existing growth theories. It argues that in contrast to the prevailing wisdom, the traditional neoclassical growth paradigm generates the club convergence hypothesis as well as the conditional convergence hypothesis. Furthermore, the inclusion of empirically significant variables such as human capital, income distribution,and fertility in conventional growth model, along with capital markets imperfections, externalities, and non-convexities, strengthens the viability of club convergence as a competing hypothesis with conditional convergence.
Oded Galor (Mon,) studied this question.