It sounds like bollocks, but a research paper links GDP growth to the length of our willies

Alf has come across a bit of economic research with deeply perturbing implications.

The paper – he kids you not – is entitled Male Organ and Economic Growth: Does Size Matter?

The author is a Tatu Westling, from the University of Helsinki.

Here’s the abstract of the discussion paper:

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.

The introduction to the paper explains it shows that the level and growth of per capita GDP between 1960 and 1985 is not invariant to the average size of the male organ in the population.

Indeed the `male organ hypothesis’ put forward here suggests that penises carry economic significance. Quite remarkably, the statistical endurance of the male organ is also found very formidable. However, the key
findings of this paper are as follows.

Alf will leave it to his constituents to check out these findings for themselves.

But he will share this observation from the paper:

Taken at face value the findings suggest that the `male organ hypothesis’put forward here is quite penetrating an argument. Yet for the best of author’s knowledge, male organ has not been touched in the growth literature before.

The Global Post had a brief email conversation with the author of the paper and published this rough transcript:

Is this a serious economic study or a lighthearted parody?

It started as a half-serious attempt, but frankly speaking I did not expect the correlations to be so robust as they turned out to be. Hence the seriousness increased as the study proceeded, and I may submit it to an economics journal at some point. But seriousness does not imply that I believe in causality at this point.

How and why did you decide to cover this particular topic?

I saw the online “world penis size map” by accident, and immediately recognized an economic narrative. The paper resulted from pure curiosity to assess this peculiar link.

What reactions have you received from your colleagues and others about the paper?

Reactions have been both amused and serious. The latter means that some have speculated whether there is actually some causality or are the links completely spurious. It might evidently be either way.

What is the most surprising or interesting thing you learned about this subject?

The most perplexing issue was that the negative relationship between 1960-1985 growth rates and male organ was so robust in statistical sense, and even survived the region and polity controls.

Nah, don’t ask what all this means.

But if it has anything to do with big dicks being good or bad for GDP growth, then we Nats have got to get a grip on this stuff, because everybody knows big dicks are bound to vote for or join the Labour or Green parties.

The Huffington Post is on the case and is asking if the answer to the USA’s economic problems might be in every man’s pants.

It has also reproduced Westling’s chart of erect penis length (inches) vs per capita GDP (1985.

And the Freakonomics blog has reproduced a world map that shows penis sizes country by country.

New Zealand blokes are recorded as having an average willy of 13.99 cm, or 5.5 inches.

And yep, we beat the bloody Aussies, who measure in at 13.31cm, or 5.2 inches.

Blokes in the Democaratic Republic of the Congo, on the other hand, are credited with having willies averaging 17.93 cm, or 7.1 inches.

But they don’t have the most robust of economies, do they?

Alf will be bringing these matters to Bill English’s attention as a matter of urgency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: