A comment on ‘Testing Goodwin: growth cycles in ten OECD countries’
指出Harvie (2000)中部分估计参数存在报告错误，修正后得到显著不同的结论，包括更现实的菲利普斯曲线参数和误差仅为原文十分之一的均衡就业率估计。
We revisit the results of Harvie (2000) and show how correcting for a reporting mistake in some of the estimated parameter values leads to significantly different conclusions, including realistic parameter values for the Philips curve and estimated equilibrium employment rates exhibiting on average one-tenth of the relative error of those obtained in Harvie (2000).