Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

Economic Growth and the Role of Human Capital

Byron Ramirez Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

September 16, 2024

Measuring economic growth allows us to determine whether an economy is expanding, remaining unchanged, or declining. Assessing economic performance, namely economic growth expressed through Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is a common method for evaluating the overall health of an economy. A healthy economy generates jobs and tends to lead to improvements in per capita income and living standards. 


In spite of the COVID-19 pandemic’s adverse effects on productivity, supply chains, and economic output worldwide, the U.S. economy has recovered relatively well during the past couple of years. In 2023, the U.S. economy grew at an average rate of 2.5 percent, indicating modest growth. Although there were some fears of economic decline (and trepidation concerning a potential recession), the U.S. economy has rebounded and created jobs, raising overall economic output. The figure below shows the percent change in real GDP (adjusted for inflation) in the United States during the past six quarters. As we can observe, throughout this time period, the U.S. economy has had positive economic growth.


Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis


Meanwhile, some countries such as Mexico and India have struggled economically, particularly on a GDP per capita basis. So, one might wonder, why has the U.S. economy been able to recover notwithstanding the difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic? What has enabled the U.S. to remain economically resilient during these past few years? We will explore this a bit later. But first, let’s discuss how the theories behind economic growth have evolved over time. 


Background on the Study of Economic Growth


Economic growth has been studied for several decades. The economist, Robert Solow, became a prominent scholar on the subject in the 1950s. Solow’s theories proposed the role of accumulation of physical capital and emphasized the importance of technological progress as the ultimate driving force behind sustained economic growth. 


Growth theorists in the 1950s argued that technological progress occurred in an unexplained manner, and thus they placed technological growth outside of their economic model. However, there was a significant shortcoming in assuming that long-run economic growth is largely determined by some unexplained rate of technological progress which, after all, could not be modeled. 


By the 1960s, growth theory was based mainly on the neoclassical model, developed by Ramsey (1928), Solow (1956), and Koopmans (1965), to name a few. The neoclassical model considered individual consumers and firms and assumed that they make rational choices to maximize their utility or profits, and it also presumed perfect information and zero transaction costs. The neoclassical growth model posited that economic growth results from capital accumulation through household savings. Over time, economists would realize that consumers and decision makers in general are not always rational, markets indeed lack perfect information, and transactions between parties certainly yield costs. 


In the 1980s, most of the research conducted by economists centered on “endogenous growth” theories, in which the long–term economic growth rate was largely assumed to be determined by government policies. As such, economists argued that government policies help to motivate businesses to invest in research and development so they can continue to drive innovation.  Several of the economic models that emerged also began to broaden the definition of capital, and included references to human capital (Lucas 1988; Rebelo 1991; Romer 1986). Moreover, another key assumption of the endogenous growth theory is that economic growth is principally the result of internal forces, rather than external ones. 


In the late 1980s and early 1990s, scholarly works began to posit that technological progress generated by the discovery of new ideas was the only way to avoid diminishing returns in the long run. Two professors from the University of Chicago, Paul Romer and Robert Lucas, introduced the notion of “ideas” and of “human capital” as variables that have influence on economic growth. From their research emerged the subfield – the economics of technology. In their ensuing models, the purposive behavior that underlay innovations hinged on the prospect of monopoly profits, which provided individual incentives to carry out costly research (Aghion and Hewitt 1992; Grossman and Helpman 1991; Romer 1990).


Economists’ earlier theories about economic growth had suggested that labor and physical capital and increased productivity from technology are the primary factors that contribute towards economic growth. Over time, however, economists recognized the challenges of achieving economic growth especially as there are diminishing returns to capital and labor, combined with the reality that some countries are not as efficient in their allocation of resources as suggested by the neoclassical growth model.  Consequently, Robert Lucas (1988) and Paul Romer (1994) as well as others (Barro 1997; Rebelo 1991; Sachs and Warner 1997) proceeded to advance ‘Endogenous Growth Theory’ by arguing that economic growth can be driven by human capital, namely by the expansion of skills and knowledge that make workers productive. Thus, they argued that human capital has increasing returns to scale (i.e., the output increases by a larger proportion than the increase in inputs).   


The Influence of Human Capital on the Economy 


For some time now, there has been growing research on the impact of human capital on the economy. A study conducted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research in 2016 indicated that human capital is nearly 2.5 times more valuable to the economy than physical assets such as technology, real estate and inventory. The study also highlighted that for every $1 invested in human capital, $11.39 is added to GDP (CEBR, 2016). This study underscored the important role human capital plays in driving economic growth. When human capital increases in a society, including in areas such as education, science, manufacturing, and management, it leads to increases in innovation, increased productivity, and improved rates of labor force participation, all of which support economic growth.


And so, we come back to the questions: Why has the U.S. economy been able to recover notwithstanding the difficulties of the pandemic? What has enabled the U.S. to remain economically resilient during these past few years? I argue that the United States has been able to withstand the adverse effects of the pandemic due to its sizable stock of human capital. Since the U.S. is a high-income country with a workforce that has relatively high levels of education and health (on average), it tends to develop human capital at a higher rate (relative to other countries), enabling it to contend with economic adversity through innovation driven by knowledge workers. Below is a graph using data from the World Bank which shows the relationship between the Human Capital Index (Note: HCI is comprised of education and health components), and GDP per capita. As we can see from the graph, the United States has a high HCI score (0.7) and a high level of GDP per capita (slightly above USD$60,000). 


Source: Our World in Data, 2024


Key Lessons 


The Human Capital Index, developed by the World Bank, conveys the productivity of the next generation of workers compared to a benchmark of complete education and full health (World Bank, 2024). The HCI measures the knowledge, skills, and health that a child can expect to accumulate during their youth, taking into account factors such as education, health, and survival rates. The index is devised to indicate how improvements in health and education outcomes can lead to considerably greater productivity of the next generation of workers. Higher values indicate higher expected human capital. The United States’ relatively high HCI index score of 0.7 as of the year 2020, indicates that the country had made investments in human capital. A country's HCI score is its distance to the “frontier” of complete education and full health. Based on this index score, a child born in the United States will be 70 percent as productive when she grows up as she could be if she enjoyed complete education and full health.  In other words, the future earnings potential of children born will be 70% of what they could have been with complete education and full health. 


Unlike physical capital, human capital has increasing rates of return. Therefore, economic growth is augmented at a larger rate as human capital accumulates (people acquire more knowledge and skills). If human capital is indeed nearly 2.5 times more valuable to the economy than physical assets, then economies (nations) ought to invest in those areas that support human capital, namely education and health. And if investing $1 in human capital yields an estimated $11.39 to GDP, then countries will benefit greatly from investing in improving the health and education of people. 

Nations that invest in human capital are more adept at developing innovations that improve efficiency, competitiveness, and productivity. Human capital is also a key input in the research sector, which develops and incubates new ideas that support technological progress and innovation. Moreover, investing in education is intricately connected with the development of human capital and economic development (Barro and Lee 1993; Romer 1993). Hence, an increase in the educational attainment level of the population will, in turn, yield knowledge spillover effects which spur innovation across different industries and sectors.  And at the aggregate level, innovation will produce the long-term effect of increasing the economic growth rate. 


Innovation led by human capital (skilled knowledge workers) provides productivity gains that allow firms to expand their size, market reach and profits. Human capital also contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations within the social and public sectors.  In all, investing in human capital is beneficial to the well-being of the economy and society in general. Enhancing the education and health of people is essential to developing human capital and economic resilience. The acquisition of skills and knowledge enable ‘knowledge workers’ to drive entrepreneurial activities and innovation, proving that human capital is indeed the most important factor to developing a resilient economy and a functioning society. 

References

Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1992). A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323-351.

Barro, R. (1997). Determinants of economic growth: a cross-country empirical study (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. (1993). International comparisons of educational attainment. Journal of monetary economics, 32(3), 363-394.

Centre for Economics and Business Research. (2016). Korn Ferry Economic Analysis: Human Capital. 

Data Page: Human Capital Index. Our World in Data (2024). Data adapted from World Bank. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-capital-index-in-2020 [online resource]

Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Koopmans, T.C. (1965). On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth. In: Johansen, J., Ed., The Econometric Approach to Development Planning, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2, 3-42.

Ramsey, F.P. (1928). A Mathematical Theory of Saving. Economic Journal, 38, 543-559.

Rebelo, S. (1991). Long-run policy analysis and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy. IC, 500-521.

Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Growth and Technical Change, Journal of Political Economy, 99, pp. 807-827.

Romer, P. M. (1993). Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 543-573.

Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3-22.

Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (1997). Fundamental sources of long-run growth. The American Economic Review, 184-188.

Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2024). Gross Domestic Product. Retrieved from: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product [online resource]

World Bank. (2024) World Bank Group launches Human Capital Index (HCI). Retrieved from: https://timeline.worldbank.org/en/timeline/eventdetail/3336  [online resource]

The Future of Knowledge Work: What Drucker can teach us

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • November 19, 2024
Interview with Karen Linkletter at the 16th Global Peter Drucker Forum 2024  Video Interview

The Specifics of Management of the Knowledge Worker

By Ryan Lee • November 7, 2024
Nowhere is management theory demanded more than in managing the knowledge worker, and yet nowhere is management theory more inadequate in addressing a field’s issues than in knowledge work. This is the point Peter Drucker posited in his work Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1991), and to resolve it he came up with six factors that determine the productivity of the management worker. Among these, his final point that management workers “must be treated as an ‘asset’ rather than a ‘cost’” by any given organization is an important concept1. While it only gradually emerged within management theory over the century, it is crucial for any employer and any government to understand and apply if they are to retain a competitive advantage going into the future. Historically, management theory has been about improving the output of the worker through banal efficiency: how to increase the production of steel per head, how to increase the production of cars per hour, how to minimize deficient products, etc. In all these considerations, the worker is a disposable resource. When he is hired, he is set to a particular task that is typically repetitive and thus easily taught, and when he is not needed because of shortcomings in his work, company difficulties, or automation, he is laid off. Referred to as “dumb oxen”, workers were seen in management theory as machines to have productivity squeezed out of. The shift from a majority manufacturing to service-based economy during the first half of the twentieth century changed this dynamic to some extent. The American postwar economic boom introduced the office worker as a common source of employment. This trend continued throughout the conglomerate era of the 1960s and was helped by the decline of the American manufacturing industry in the 1970s. Now in a stage dominated by service and knowledge work, the American economy must approach management differently. The aforementioned cost-asset shift is a demonstration of why this is so, as Drucker’s emphasis on the knowledge worker’s autonomy means that they wield control, not only within their job but over who they should work for as well. This in addition to the high-capital nature of knowledge workers means that the old management theory approach to labor as disposable will backfire catastrophically for any company that tries it with their knowledge workers. It is also important to remember the demographic trends of the United States, and more so the world, in considering why the cost-asset shift is vital. For all of human history until some fifty years ago, population was considered to be in tandem with economic power, given larger populations yielded larger labor forces and consumer markets. Economic growth was thus also correlated with population growth, demonstrated by the historic development of Europe and the United States and the more recent examples of the developing world. Consequently, the worldwide decline in fertility rates, and the decline in population numbers in some developed countries, signals economic decline for the future. In the labor market, smaller populations mean fewer jobs that produce for and service fewer people. Although the knowledge worker has grown in proportion to the total labor market, these demographic declines will affect knowledge workers as well, meaning employers will have a vested interest in retaining their high-capital labor. To enforce this, the cost-asset shift will have to come into play. The wants and needs of the knowledge worker pose a unique challenge in the field of management. Autonomy, for the first time, can be regarded as a significant factor affecting all other aspects of this labor base. What good does a large salary provide a knowledge worker if they don’t feel that they are welcome at an institution? How would they perceive that their work is not being directed towards productive pursuits at their corporation, especially given the brain work and dedication given to it? Of course, the fruits of one’s labor has been a contentious issue in management ever since compensation and workers’ rights became a universal constant with the Industrial Revolution, but this is augmented by the knowledge worker’s particular method of generating value. Given that Drucker poses their largest asset and source of value as their own mind, they will intrinsically have a special attachment to their work almost as their brainchild. Incentivizing the knowledge worker is also only one part of this picture. Per Drucker, the knowledge worker’s labor does not follow the linear relationship between quantity invested and returned. The elaborate nature of knowledge work makes it heavily dependent upon synergy: the right combination of talent can grow an organization by leaps and bounds, while virtually incompatible teams or partnerships can render all potential talent useless. And the human capital cost of the knowledge worker, both in their parents and the state educating them and in cost to their employers, is astronomical compared to all previous kinds of labor. In conclusion, the needs and wants of the knowledge worker must be met adequately, especially in the field of management. Management must almost undergo a revolution to adapt to this novel challenge, for the knowledge worker is the future of economic productivity in the developed world. Those employers that successfully accommodate the demands of this class of talent will eventually reign over those that do not accept that this is the direction economic productivity is headed.  References Drucker, P. F. (1991) Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Harper Business.

The Wisdom and Continuing Relevance of Peter Drucker

By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. • November 7, 2024
What is wisdom? The dictionary says it is knowledge of what is true and right coupled with just judgment as to action. Jennifer Rowley reports that it is the “ability to act critically or practically in a given situation. It is based on ethical judgment related to an individual's belief system.” (Rowley 2006 p. 255). So, wisdom seems to be about deciding on or doing an action based on moral or ethical belief in helping other people. This clearly describes Peter Drucker and his often prescient ideas For the 100 th anniversary of Peter Drucker’s birth, Harvard Business Review dedicated its November 2009 magazine to Drucker. In one of the articles about Drucker by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2009 p. 1), What Would Peter Say? Kanter posits that, Heeding Peter Drucker's wisdom might have helped us avoid—and will help us solve numerous challenges, from restoring trust in business to tackling climate change. He issued early warnings about excessive executive pay, the auto industry’s failure to adapt and innovate, competitive threats from emerging markets, and the perils of neglecting nonprofit organizations and other agents of societal reform. Meynhardt (2010) calls Drucker a towering figure in Twentieth Century management. He says no other writer has had such an impact. He is well-known to practitioners and scholars for his practical wisdom and common sense approach to management as a liberal art. Drucker believed that there is no how-to solution for management practice and education. Doing more of “this” and less of “that” and vice versa is not how Drucker suggests managers do their work. Rather, Drucker relies more on morality and the virtue of practical wisdom to solve problems related to organizations. The virtue that Drucker talks about cannot be taught. It must be experienced and self-developed over time. A good example of this is Drucker’s Management by Objectives (MBO). Drucker does not give technical advice on how to initiate MBO. Rather he wisdomizes his moral convictions that integrating personal needs for autonomy with the quest of submitting one’s efforts to a higher principle (helping people) ensures performance by converting objective needs into personal goals. (Meynhardt, 2010). Peter Drucker published thirty-eight articles in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) and seven times won the McKinsey Award presented annually to the author of the best article published during the previous year in HBR. No other person has won as many McKinsey awards as Drucker The former editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review, Thomas A. Stewart, quotes Peter Drucker; “The few of us who talked of management forty years ago were considered more or less deranged.” Stewart says that this was essentially correct. Harvard Business Review's very mission is to improve management practice. Stewart says this mission is inconceivable without Drucker’s work. Drucker’s work in management planted ideas that are as fruitful today as they ever were. Stewart posits that each year, managers discover extraordinary and immediate relevance in articles and books that were written before they were born or even before their parents were born. Stewart (2016) tries to answer the questions: Why does Drucker’s work endure? and Why is Drucker still relevant? First, was Drucker’s talent for asking the right questions. He had an instinct for being able to not let the urgent drive out the important, for seeing the trees, not just the forest. This allowed him to calmly ask pertinent questions that encouraged clients to find the proper course to take. Secondly, Drucker was able to see whole organizations. Instead of focusing on small particular problems. Ducker had the ability to find the overarching problem as well. Stewart uses Drucker’s 1994 HBR article, The Theory of the Business to make this point. Many people were trying to analyze the problems of IBM and General Motors by looking for root causes and trying to fix the blame. Drucker, on the other hand, argued correctly that the theories and assumptions on which they had managed successfully for many years were outdated. This article is as relevant today as it was in 1994 because Drucker took the “big picture view.” And no one else has ever been so skillful at describing it. Thirdly, starting in 1934, Drucker spent two years at General Motors with the legendary Alfred P. Sloan, immersed in the workings of the automaker and learning the business from within. This allowed him to talk with authority, but he has always stayed “street smart and wise.” This mentoring helped give Drucker the gift of being able to reason inductively and deductively. He could infer a new principle or a theory from a set of data or being confronted with a particular problem; he could find the right principle to apply to solve it. Drucker’s first article published in HBR, Management Must Manage, challenged managers to learn their profession not in terms of prerogatives but in terms of their responsibilities, to assume the burden of leadership rather than the mantle of privilege. Many in the management/leadership field probably found Drucker to be “deranged,” but in 2024, this is important advice for leader (Stewart 2006). Just a few more of Drucker’s ideas that seemed well outside the mainstream when he proposed them but are standard practice today include: Managing Oneself, Privatization, Decentralization, Knowledge Workers, Management by Objectives, Charismatic Leadership Being Overrated, CEO Outsize Pay Packages, and Enthusiasm of the Work of the Salvation Army (Rees, 2014). Clearly, Drucker remains relevant! References: Kanter, R. 2009. What would Peter say? Harvard Business Review. November, 2009. Meynhardt, T. 2010. The practical wisdom of Peter Drucker: Roots in the Christian tradition. Journal of Management Development Vol. 29. No. 7/8. Rees, M. 2014 The wisdom of Peter Drucker. Wall Street Journal. Dec. 12, 2014. Rowley, J. 2006. Where is the knowledge that we have lost in knowledge? Journal of Documentation. Vol. 62, Iss. 2. 251-270. Stewart, T. 2006. Classic Drucker. Editor Thomas A. Stewart. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Show More
Share by: