0
The main positive of Rostow’s growth model is that it provides a clear and concise framework for understanding how economies develop over time. The model is easy to understand and can be applied to a wide range of historical and contemporary cases. Additionally, the model offers a number of policy implications that can help policy-makers to promote economic growth. The main negatives of Rostow’s growth model are that it is overly simplistic and does not adequately take into account the complexities of real-world economies. Additionally, the model has been critiqued for its Eurocentric perspective and for its lack of attention to the role of gender in economic development.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Vivi
Judy
LaoAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is arithmetic growth a slow or rapid growth model?
slow
Is the equation P500(1.03) with an exponent of n a model of Growth or Exponential Decay?
It can be growth or decay - it depends on whether n is positive (growth) or negative (decay).
What is the difference between capital asset pricing model and constant growth difference between capital asset pricing model and constant growth approach?
The Constant growth model does not address risk; it uses the current market price, as the reflection of the expected risk return preference of investor in marketplace, whereas CAPM consider the firm's risk, as reflected by beta, in determining required return or cost of ordinary share equity.Another difference is that when constant growth model is used to find the cost of ordinary share equity, it can easily be adjusted with flotation cost to find the cost of new ordinary share capital. whereas CAPM does not provide simple adjustment.Although CAPM Model has strong theoretical foundation, the ease of the calculation of the constant growth model justifies it use.
Why use Gordon growth model?
Because it's the most ballinest means of perpetual valuation.
What are the drawbacks for using Gordon growth model in dividend pricing?
Although the model's simplicity can be regarded as one of its major strengths, in another sense this is its major drawback, as the purely quantitative model takes no account of qualitative factors such as industry trends or management strategy. For example, even in a highly cash-generative company, near-future dividend payouts could be capped by management's strategy of retaining cash to fund a likely future investment. The simplicity of the model affords no flexibility to take into account projected changes in the rate of future dividend growth. The calculation relies on the assumption that future dividends will grow at a constant rate in perpetuity, taking no account of the possibility that rapid near-term growth could be offset by slower growth further into the future. This limitation makes the Gordon growth model less suitable for use in rapidly growing industries with less predictable dividend patterns, such as software or mobile telecommunications. Its use is typically more appropriate in relatively mature industries or stock-market indices where companies demonstrate more stable and predictable dividend growth patterns.
