Scholarlink

<p>This study conducts the first comprehensive quantitative meta-analysis of the human capital–economic growth nexus, combining 740 effect-size estimates from 51 empirical studies published between 1991 and 2023. The aggregate evidence indicates a positive but modest relationship: on average, a 1% increase in human capital is associated with a 0.13% rise in output growth, which declines to 0.09% after correcting for publication bias. Considerable heterogeneity emerges across studies, driven primarily by measurement choices, country context, and econometric methodology. Education- and experience-based indicators yield larger effects than health proxies, while quality-oriented measures (e.g. test scores) display unexpectedly weaker associations with economic growth. The estimated impact is substantially stronger in Asia and in low- and middle-income economies, but weaker or insignificant in OECD countries, suggesting diminishing returns to human capital accumulation with development. Studies employing advanced econometric techniques (e.g. GMM, ARDL) report smaller but more robust coefficients. Overall, the findings underscore that human capital investment promotes economic growth, although its effectiveness critically depends on how it is measured, accumulated, and embedded within institutional contexts.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Human capital and economic growth: a meta-analytic reassessment

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月18日

查看全文
  • Aurora A. C. Teixeira,
  • Ana Catarina Gomes

摘要

This study conducts the first comprehensive quantitative meta-analysis of the human capital–economic growth nexus, combining 740 effect-size estimates from 51 empirical studies published between 1991 and 2023. The aggregate evidence indicates a positive but modest relationship: on average, a 1% increase in human capital is associated with a 0.13% rise in output growth, which declines to 0.09% after correcting for publication bias. Considerable heterogeneity emerges across studies, driven primarily by measurement choices, country context, and econometric methodology. Education- and experience-based indicators yield larger effects than health proxies, while quality-oriented measures (e.g. test scores) display unexpectedly weaker associations with economic growth. The estimated impact is substantially stronger in Asia and in low- and middle-income economies, but weaker or insignificant in OECD countries, suggesting diminishing returns to human capital accumulation with development. Studies employing advanced econometric techniques (e.g. GMM, ARDL) report smaller but more robust coefficients. Overall, the findings underscore that human capital investment promotes economic growth, although its effectiveness critically depends on how it is measured, accumulated, and embedded within institutional contexts.