Westling, Tatu (2011): Male organ and economic growth: does size matter?
Download (169kB) | Preview
This paper explores the link between economic development and penile length between 1960 and 1985. It estimates an augmented Solow model utilizing the Mankiw-Romer-Weil 121 country dataset. The size of male organ is found to have an inverse U-shaped relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 centimetres, and a collapse in economic development is identified as the size of male organ exceeds 16 centimetres. Economic growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations it is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country's political regime type. Controlling for male organ slows convergence and mitigates the negative effect of population growth on economic development slightly. Although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlations.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Male organ and economic growth: does size matter?|
|Keywords:||Economic growth; development; male organ; penile length; Solow model|
|Subjects:||O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O47 - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth ; Aggregate Productivity ; Cross-Country Output Convergence
O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O10 - General
|Depositing User:||Tatu Westling|
|Date Deposited:||18. Jul 2011 12:52|
|Last Modified:||12. Mar 2015 03:43|
R. Barro (1991). ‘Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(2).
R. Barro (1996). Determinants of Economic Growth: a Cross-Country Empirical Study. No. 5698. National Bureau of Economic Research.
J. Helliwell (1994). ‘Empirical Linkages Between Democracy and Economic Growth’. British Journal of Political Science 24(2).
G. Jones & J. Schneider (2006). ‘Intelligence, human capital, and economic growth: A Bayesian Averaging of Classical Estimates (BACE) approach’. Journal of Economic Growth 11(1).
G. Mankiw, et al. (1992). ‘A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(2).
J. Shah & A. Christopher (2002). ‘Can shoe size predict penile length?’. British Journal of Urology International 90(6).
K. Siminoski & J. Bain (1993). ‘The relationships among height, penile length, and foot size’. Annals of Sex Research 6(3).
R. Solow (1956). ‘A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70(1).
R. Summers & A. Heston (1988). ‘A New Set of International Comparisons of Real Product and Price Levels Estimates for 130 Countries, 1950–1985’. Review of Income & Wealth 34(1).
R. Vogel (1994). ‘Economic Growth, Population Theory, and Physiology: The Bearing of Long-Term Processes on the Making of Economic Policy’. Ameri- can Economic Review 84(3).
Available Versions of this Item
- Male organ and economic growth: does size matter? (deposited 18. Jul 2011 12:52) [Currently Displayed]