Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Hopf Bifurcation in a Generalized Goodwin Model with Delay

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Introducing a time delay in the wage-setting curve of a generalized Goodwin model destabilizes the employment–wage equilibrium and produces a Hopf bifurcation into periodic oscillations.

desk verdict Routine but competent Hopf analysis of two delayed Goodwin subsystems; the abstract overreaches to the full 4D system, and in the second case the advertised claim is actually false. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16383 v1 pith:Y3PG4OII submitted 2024-11-25 math.DS

Eysan Sans , Melisa Akdemir , Ayse Tiryakioglu , Ayse Peker-Dobie , Cihangir Ozemir This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DS MSC 34K1834K2037G1591B62
keywords generalizedGoodwinmodeldelaydifferentialequationsHopfbifurcationeconomiccycleswage-employmentdynamicsstabilityanalysiscriticalLotka-Volterrasystem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Introducing a time delay in the wage-setting curve of a generalized growth-cycle model can turn a stable employment–wage equilibrium into a source of periodic oscillations. The paper analyzes two two-dimensional subsystems of the four-dimensional model in which employment ratio and wage share decouple, and derives the critical delay $\tau_0$ at which a Hopf bifurcation occurs, along with the stability of the equilibrium before and after that threshold. For a representative parameter set, $\tau_0 = 0.0348488$ and the bifurcation is subcritical, meaning the bifurcating periodic orbits are unstable. If the result holds, even small lags in wage adjustment could explain why observed employment–wage cycles appear, disappear, or change character over time, without needing a change in the underlying parameters.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the transcendental characteristic equation $P(x)=x^2+p_0x+r_0+q_0e^{-x\tau}=0$ and the auxiliary quartic $h(z)=z^2+(p_0^2-2r_0)z+r_0^2-q_0^2$, whose positive roots $z_0$ give the purely imaginary eigenvalues $i\omega_0$. A standard lemma on the zeros of exponential polynomials guarantees that stability can change only when a characteristic root crosses the imaginary axis, and the condition $h'(z_0)\neq0$ yields the transversality condition that makes $\tau_0$ a genuine Hopf point. The direction and stability of the bifurcating periodic solutions are extracted from the first Lyapunov coefficient $c_1(0)$, computed via center-manifold reduction with the bilinear form and eigenvectors of the linearized delay equation.

What would settle it

At the parameter values used in the paper, compute the Jacobian of the full four-dimensional system (1.1) — including the $\theta$ and $v$ equations — and find the eigenvalues for $\tau$ just below and just above $\tau_0=0.0348488$. If no eigenvalue crosses the imaginary axis, or if numerical simulation of the full system keeps the equilibrium stable for $\tau>\tau_0$, the claim that the generalized model bifurcates would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for the decoupled employment–wage subsystem (2.5), the characteristic equation $x^2+p_0x+r_0+q_0e^{-x\tau}=0$ has a purely imaginary root $i\omega_0$ at the critical delay $\tau_0$, with a nonzero transversality condition, so the positive equilibrium $E(\beta_e,\lambda_e)$ is asymptotically stable for $\tau\in[0,\tau_0)$, becomes unstable for $\tau>\tau_0$, and a Hopf bifurcation occurs exactly at $\tau=\tau_0$. For the chosen parameters, $\tau_0=0.0348488$, $z_0=\omega_0^2=0.501343$, and the first Lyapunov coefficient $c_1(0)=0.00132164-0.0136561i$ indicates a subcritical bifurcation with unstable periodic solutions. An analogous result is proved for the second subsystem (2.51), with critical delay $\tilde{\tau}_0=0.0196383$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire bifurcation analysis is done on the two-dimensional decoupled employment–wage subsystem; the remaining capacity-utilization and capital-coefficient variables are never included, so the conclusion that the generalized four-dimensional model undergoes the Hopf bifurcation rests on the unstated assumption that those extra dimensions do not change the eigenvalue picture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the employment–wage subsystem, the equilibrium is asymptotically stable for all $\tau\in[0,\tau_0)$ and unstable immediately after $\tau_0$, so the delay threshold is the bifurcation point.
  • At $\tau=\tau_0$, a Hopf bifurcation creates periodic orbits; with the representative parameters the bifurcation is subcritical and the orbits are unstable, so small disturbances near threshold cause the system to leave the equilibrium rather than settle onto a nearby cycle.
  • An analogous critical delay $\tilde{\tau}_0=0.0196383$ exists for the non-neutral technical progress subsystem, giving a second parameter regime where delay alone destabilizes a previously stable equilibrium.
  • These results offer a mechanism, independent of parameter shifts, for the appearance or restructuring of employment–wage cycles in empirical data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not analyze the full four-dimensional system; a natural next step is to test whether the delay-induced instability persists when the $\theta$ and $v$ equations are included.
  • Because the bifurcation is subcritical, the model predicts hysteresis or large excursions near the threshold; this could be checked against business-cycle data for economies whose wage-setting lag is near the critical value.
  • The same delay-bifurcation argument could be applied to other economic coupling terms, such as delayed investment or delayed capacity utilization, with potentially different critical delays.
  • A quantitative prediction of the model is that the ratio of wage-share to employment-rate oscillation frequency at onset is set by $\omega_0=0.708056$; time-series spectra of employment and wage data could be compared with this value.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies delay-induced Hopf bifurcation in two two-dimensional subsystems derived from a four-dimensional generalized Goodwin model. In Section 2.1, the authors analyze the delayed (β,λ) subsystem (2.5), compute its characteristic equation, locate critical delays τ0 via the Ruan-Wei criterion, verify a transversality condition, and compute the first Lyapunov coefficient for one numerical parameter set, reporting a subcritical Hopf bifurcation with unstable periodic orbits. Section 2.2 repeats the analysis for the subsystem (2.51) arising from the non-neutral technical progress case. Theorems 1 and 2 assert asymptotic stability below the critical delay, instability above it, and a Hopf bifurcation at the critical delay. The abstract and conclusion present these results as properties of the generalized four-dimensional Goodwin system.

Significance. If restricted to the decoupled two-dimensional subsystems, the analysis is competently executed and follows standard methods: the characteristic equation, root-location cases, transversality computation, and the center-manifold calculation are structurally correct, and the paper gives explicit numerical values for a critical delay and for the direction of bifurcation. The main weakness is scope: the theorems are proved only for the subsystems, while the advertised conclusion concerns the four-dimensional generalized system. For the non-neutral technical progress case this is not a harmless omission because the full system has a zero eigenvalue for every delay, so it is never asymptotically stable. The paper therefore overclaims its central result, and the abstract and conclusion need substantial revision. The two-dimensional results themselves are modest but publishable as a technical contribution, provided the claims are honestly restricted to the subsystems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.44a)–(2.44d), Theorem 2] The theorem is proved only for the two-dimensional subsystem (2.51), not for the full non-neutral technical progress system (2.44). At any nonzero equilibrium, Eq. (2.44c) forces z(λ_e, v_e) = f(λ_e), and then Eq. (2.44d) forces ψ(λ_e) = 0. Consequently the linearization of (2.44) has a zero eigenvalue in the θ direction for every τ ≥ 0, including τ = 0. System (2.44) is therefore never asymptotically stable, and the destabilization at τ = τ0 is not a Hopf bifurcation of the full system. This directly invalidates the abstract's and conclusion's claim that the equilibrium of the generalized system remains stable and that delay induces a Hopf bifurcation.
  2. [Section 2.1, Remark 1, and Conclusion] The claims about the 'generalized system' are also unsupported in the variable-speed technical progress case. The analysis covers only the decoupled (β,λ) subsystem (2.5), while the full system (2.3) includes the v equation (2.3c) and the algebraic relation (2.3d). The omitted v-direction eigenvalue is −f(λ_e) and is negative when f(λ_e) > 0, so this omission may be repairable, but as written Theorem 1 and Remark 1 do not prove asymptotic stability of the full four-dimensional system. The manuscript should either analyze the omitted v direction or explicitly state that all results are for the two-dimensional subsystems.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.32), (A.50)–(A.52)] The direction-and-stability result for the numerical example is not reproducible from the manuscript. The final expressions for W20(θ) and W11(θ) that enter g21 are not written out, and the reported value c1(0) = 0.00132164 − 0.0136561i is asserted without an explicit intermediate numerical evaluation. Since the subcriticality claim (μ2 < 0) and the instability of the bifurcating periodic orbits are stated results of Section 2.1.1, the authors should provide the full simplified formulas or a reproducible computation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.46b)] The formula for ψ(λ) is printed as ψ(λ) = ν1 − µ1 − µ2ν1(1 − µ2)λ, which does not match Eq. (2.1f); it should be ψ(λ) = ν1 − µ1 − µ2ν1 + ν2(1 − µ2)λ. As printed, the equilibrium condition (2.47) is inconsistent with the earlier definition.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.61a)] There is a typographical error: the equation reads 'p0ω = = q0 sin(ωτ)' with a duplicated equals sign.
  3. [Section 2.1.1, after Eq. (2.41)] The notation τk in the formulas for c1(0), μ2, and β2 is introduced without defining k or relating τk to the critical value τ0 from Eq. (2.23). This should be clarified.
  4. [Figures 5–6 and 11–12] For τ > τ0, the plotted trajectories leave the economically meaningful unit interval and in Figure 12 reach values near 8. The text describes this as periodic oscillation; the authors should distinguish between the predicted unstable periodic orbit near the equilibrium and the transient behavior of trajectories that leave the local bifurcation picture.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion repeatedly refer to the stability and Hopf bifurcation of the 'generalized system'. These statements should be replaced by precise references to the decoupled two-dimensional subsystems, since that is what Theorems 1–2 actually establish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the stability and Hopf bifurcation analysis is a self-contained application of external standard results to the delayed 2D subsystems.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the delayed subsystem (2.4)/(2.5), its characteristic equation (2.13), Ruan and Wei's zero-crossing lemma (Lemma 3, reference [23]), the transversality computation (Lemma 4), and the Hassard et al. and Song-Wei normal-form formulas (2.41)-(2.43, references [24] and [26]). Each claimed output, including the critical delay tau0 = 0.0348488, the stability intervals, and the subcritical direction with unstable periodic orbits, is computed from stated parameters rather than fitted to a target prediction; the numerical example is illustrative and not used to infer the model or the theorems. Theorems 1 and 2 are stated explicitly for the decoupled subsystems (2.5) and (2.51), and the cited external results do not depend on the present authors' conclusions, so there is no self-citation chain supporting the central claim. The abstract and conclusion wording that attributes the result to the generalized 4D system is broader than the proved 2D statements and, for system (2.44), may be false because the theta equation contributes a zero eigenvalue; that is a correctness or scope gap, not a circular derivation, since the 2D analysis does not presuppose the 4D conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the model reduction in [2], on standard DDE root-crossing and Hopf theorems, and on several hand-chosen parameter examples. No data, code, or independent falsifiable predictions are provided, so the ledger consists mainly of domain assumptions and one set of illustrative free parameters per subsystem.

free parameters (2)
  • Numerical example parameter set for Theorem 1 (nu1,nu2,gamma1,gamma2,delta,c,n,spi,sw,a1,a2,a3,b1,b2,b3) = (0.02, 0.04, 0.01, 0.012, 4.2, 0.38, 0.01, 0.24, 0.04, 0.9, 1, 0.99, 1.9, 0, 0.6)
    Chosen by hand to make the Hopf conditions hold and to produce the illustrative figures; they are not fitted to economic data.
  • Numerical example parameter set for Theorem 2 (mu1,mu2,nu1,nu2,delta,c,n,spi,sw,a1,a2,a3,b1,b2,b3) = (0.0186145, 0.5, 0.015, 0.03, 4, 0.4, 0.01, 0.24, 0.04, 0.9, 1, 1, 1.9, 0, 0.6)
    Chosen by hand to satisfy the lambda~*_e = lambda~_e constraint and to produce Figures 7-12; not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-equation subsystem (2.3a)-(2.3b) decouples from the rest of system (2.3), so stability/bifurcation of the whole system may be inferred from the subsystem.
    Invoked in Section 2.1: 'Since the first two equations, (2.3a) and (2.3b), form a decoupled model, our analysis will focus on this subsystem.' The theorems are only proved for the 2D system; the abstract's claim about the 'generalized system' relies on this unproven transfer.
  • domain assumption The delay appears only in phi1(beta(t-tau)) in the Phillips curve; no other delays are introduced.
    Stated in Problem Setup (Section 1.2): 'incorporating a time delay in the Phillips curve requires considering the function phi1(beta(t)) with a delay.' Whether other delays matter is not addressed.
  • domain assumption For system (2.51), the parameter restriction lambda~*_e = lambda~_e holds, derived from the full system's consistency condition in [2].
    Stated in Section 2.2: 'Clearly, lambda~*_e and lambda~_e must be identical. Assuming that the parameters satisfy lambda~*_e = lambda~_e...' The analysis depends on this equality.
  • domain assumption The nonzero equilibrium lies in the unit box (0,1) and the stability-at-tau=0 conditions p0>0, r0+q0>0 (resp. p~0>0, q~0>0) hold.
    Assumed in Lemmas 1 and 5 and in the numerical examples; the abstract's empirical relevance requires beta_e, lambda_e in (0,1).
  • standard math Ruan-Wei Lemma 3 on the crossing of characteristic roots, and the Hopf bifurcation theorem of Hassard et al.
    Used in Lemma 3 and in the center manifold reduction (Appendix A); these are external standard results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hopf Bifurcation in a Generalized Goodwin Model with Delay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3PG4OII

@misc{pith2026241116383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hopf Bifurcation in a Generalized Goodwin Model with Delay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3PG4OII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16383}
}
read the original abstract

Goodwin's model is a cornerstone in the study of dynamical systems within macroeconomics, explaining the interaction between employment ratio and wage share in a closed economy. Analogous to predator-prey dynamics in mathematical economics, the Goodwin model, despite its simplicity, effectively captures the periodic behavior of state variables over specific time intervals. By relaxing the initial assumptions, the model can be adapted to account for more complex economic scenarios. In this article, we study a higher-dimensional extension of the Goodwin model that incorporates variable capacity utilization and capital coefficient alongside employment ratio and wage share. In particular instances, the wage share and employment rate equations decouple from the overall system. For these cases, by incorporating a delay effect in the Phillips curve, we demonstrate that while the equilibrium of the generalized system remains stable within certain parameter domains in the absence of delay, the introduction of delay can induce a Hopf bifurcation, leading to periodic oscillations. We analytically derive the critical delay parameter value that destabilizes the equilibrium point via a Hopf bifurcation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. τ = 0 < τ0 = 0.0348488, t ∈ [0, 100]. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 t 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 (t), (t) (t) (t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. τ = 0 < τ0 = 0.0348488, t ∈ [0, 500]. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. τ = τ0 = 0.0348488, t ∈ [0, 100]. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 t 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 (t), (t) (t) (t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: τ = τ0 = 0.0348488, t ∈ [0, 500]. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: τ = 0.05 > τ0 = 0.0348488, t ∈ [0, 100]. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 t 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 (t), (t) (t) (t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: τ = 0.05 > τ0 = 0.0348488, t ∈ [0, 100]. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: τ = 0 < τ˜0 = 0.0196383, t ∈ [0, 100]. 0 100 200 300 400 500 t 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 (t), (t) (t) (t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: τ = 0 < τ˜0 = 0.0196383, t ∈ [0, 500]. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: τ = ˜τ0 = 0.0196383, t ∈ [0, 100]. 0 100 200 300 400 500 t 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 (t), (t) (t) (t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: τ = ˜τ0 = 0.0196383, t ∈ [0, 500]. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: τ = 0.05 > τ˜0 = 0.0196383, t ∈ [0, 100]. 0 100 200 300 400 500 t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (t), (t) (t) (t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: τ = 0.05 > τ˜0 = 0.0196383, t ∈ [0, 500]. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Local Hopf bifurcation and global periodic solutions in a de- layed predator–prey system

    Yongli Song and Junjie Wei. Local Hopf bifurcation and global periodic solutions in a de- layed predator–prey system. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 301(1):1– 21, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [1]

    A Growth Cycle: Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth

    Richard M Goodwin. A Growth Cycle: Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth. In C. H. Feinstein, Editor,Essays in Economic Dynamics, pages 165–170. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, 1967

    work page 1967

  3. [2]

    Generalizations of Goodwin’s growth cycle model

    J¨ org Glombowski and Michael Kr¨ uger. Generalizations of Goodwin’s growth cycle model. In Economic Evolution and Structural Adjustment: Proceedings of Invited Sessions on Economic Evolution and Structural Change Held at the 5th International Conference on Mathematical Modelling at the University of California, Berkeley, California, USA July 29–31, 1985 ...

    work page 1985

  4. [3]

    A clarification of the Goodwin model of the growth cycle

    Meghnad Desai, Brian Henry, Alexander Mosley, and Malcolm Pemberton. A clarification of the Goodwin model of the growth cycle. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 30(12):2661–2670, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [4]

    A dynamical model of business- cycle asymmetries: Extending Goodwin

    David Harvie, Mark A Kelmanson, and David G Knapp. A dynamical model of business- cycle asymmetries: Extending Goodwin. Economic Issues, 12(1), 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [5]

    On the generalizations of the Goodwin model

    Marcellino Gaudenzi, Matteo Madotto, and Fabio Zanolin. On the generalizations of the Goodwin model. 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Growth cycles when workers save

    Serena Sordi. Growth cycles when workers save. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 9, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Can “it” happen again? A reprise

    Hyman P Minsky. Can “it” happen again? A reprise. Challenge, 25(3):5–13, 1982

    work page 1982

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    financial instability hypothesis

    Steve Keen. Finance and economic breakdown: Modeling Minsky’s “financial instability hypothesis”. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics , 17(4):607–635, 1995

    1995

  2. [9]

    An analysis of the Keen model for credit expansion, asset price bubbles and financial fragility

    Matheus R Grasselli and B Costa Lima. An analysis of the Keen model for credit expansion, asset price bubbles and financial fragility. Mathematics and Financial Economics , 6:191– 210, 2012

    2012

  3. [10]

    Inflation and speculation in a dynamic macroeconomic model

    Matheus R Grasselli and Adrien Nguyen Huu. Inflation and speculation in a dynamic macroeconomic model. Journal of Risk and Financial Management , 8(3):285–310, 2015

    2015

  4. [11]

    Chaotic behavior in a modified Goodwin’s growth cycle model

    Claudio Tebaldi and Giorgio Colacchio. Chaotic behavior in a modified Goodwin’s growth cycle model. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 50th Anniversary Celebration. System Dynamics Society , 2007

    2007

  5. [12]

    A Goodwin type cyclical growth model with two-time delays

    Mario Sportelli and Luigi De Cesare. A Goodwin type cyclical growth model with two-time delays. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics , 61:95–102, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Growth cycles and inflation in a model of the class struggle

    Meghnad Desai. Growth cycles and inflation in a model of the class struggle. Journal of economic theory, 6(6):527–545, 1973

    1973

  7. [14]

    Implications of workers’ savings for economic growth and the class struggle

    Frederick van der Ploeg. Implications of workers’ savings for economic growth and the class struggle. In Nonlinear Models of Fluctuating Growth: An International Symposium Siena, Italy, March 24–27, 1983 , pages 1–13. Springer, 1984

    1983

  8. [15]

    A generalization of R

    Renato Balducci, Guido Candela, and Gianni Ricci. A generalization of R. Goodwin model with rational behavior of economic agents. In Nonlinear Models of Fluctuating Growth: An International Symposium Siena, Italy, March 24–27, 1983 , pages 47–66. Springer, 1984

    1983

  9. [16]

    The Goodwin growth cycle model as solution to a variational problem

    Gerhard Michael Ambrosi. The Goodwin growth cycle model as solution to a variational problem. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 39(6):1645–1658, 2015

    2015

  10. [17]

    Testing Goodwin: Growth cycles in ten OECD countries

    David Harvie. Testing Goodwin: Growth cycles in ten OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 24(3):349–376, 2000

    2000

  11. [18]

    A comment on ‘Testing Goodwin: growth cycles in ten OECD countries’

    Matheus R Grasselli and Aditya Maheshwari. A comment on ‘Testing Goodwin: growth cycles in ten OECD countries’. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 41(6):1761–1766, 05 2017. 23

    2017

  12. [19]

    Testing a Goodwin model with general capital accumulation rate

    Matheus R Grasselli and Aditya Maheshwari. Testing a Goodwin model with general capital accumulation rate. Metroeconomica, 69(3):619–643, 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    Testing a Goodwin’s model with capacity utilization to the us economy

    Ricardo Azevedo Araujo and Helmar Nunes Moreira. Testing a Goodwin’s model with capacity utilization to the us economy. Nonlinearities in Economics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Economic Dynamics, Growth and Cycles , pages 295–313, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Dynamic analysis of policy lag in a Keynes–Goodwin model: stability, instability, cycles and chaos

    Hiroyuki Yoshida and Toichiro Asada. Dynamic analysis of policy lag in a Keynes–Goodwin model: stability, instability, cycles and chaos. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organiza- tion, 62(3):441–469, 2007

    2007

  15. [22]

    The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957

    Alban W Phillips. The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957. Economica, 25(100):283–299, 1958

    1957

  16. [23]

    On the zeros of transcendental functions with applications to stability of delay differential equations with two delays

    Shigui Ruan and Junjie Wei. On the zeros of transcendental functions with applications to stability of delay differential equations with two delays. Dynamics of Continuous Discrete and Impulsive Systems Series A , 10:863–874, 2003

    2003

  17. [24]

    Theory and applications of Hopf bifurcation

    Brian D Hassard, Nicholas D Kazarinoff, and Yieh-Hei Wan. Theory and applications of Hopf bifurcation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981

    1981

  18. [25]

    Springer, New York, 2009

    Balakumar Balachandran, Tam´ as Kalm´ ar-Nagy, and David E Gilsinn.Delay differential equations. Springer, New York, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Hopf bifurcation analysis of a system of coupled delayed- differential equations

    Canan C ¸ elik and H¨ useyin Merdan. Hopf bifurcation analysis of a system of coupled delayed- differential equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation , 219(12):6605–6617, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Stability and bifurcation analysis of a Lotka- Volterra time delayed system

    Sreelakshmi Manjunath and Gaurav Raina. Stability and bifurcation analysis of a Lotka- Volterra time delayed system. In The 26th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2014 CCDC), pages 2056–2063. IEEE, 2014. 24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 t 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.