A comment on 'Testing Goodwin: growth cycles in ten OECD countries'. (arXiv:1803.01527v1 [econ.EM])

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).