1. Findings of examined articles
Barro 1992
Bils and Klenow 2000

2. Human Capital and Economic Growth Concluding observations
Economic theory suggests that human capital would be an important determinant of growth, and empirical evidence for a broad group of countries confirms this linkage. Countries that start with a higher level of educational attainment grow faster for a given level of initial per capita GDP and for given values of policy-related variables.
The channels of effect involve
the positive effect of human capital on physical investment,
the negative effect of human capital on fertility,
and an additional positive effect on growth for given values of investment and fertility.

3. Concluding observations/2
Ongoing research is considering the possibilities for improving the measures of educational attainment, especially by using better data on enrollment ratios and more information about school dropouts.
The possibilities for measuring the quality of school input, in addition to the quantity, are also being considered.
School attainment is, in any event, only one aspect of human capital. Another dimension is health status.
Measures of life expectancy-a proxy for health status-turn out to have substantial explanatory value for economic growth and fertility;
life expectancy at birth enters in a way similar to educational attainment in the models
The interplay between health capital and educational capital is currently being investigated.

4. Does Schooling Cause Growth. By Mark Bils And Peter J
Does Schooling Cause Growth? By Mark Bils And Peter J. Klenow Conclusion
Barro (1991) and others find a strong positive correlation between initial schooling enrollment and the subsequent growth rate of per capita GDP across countries. Using evidence from the labor literature and historical attainment data from UNESCO (1977, 1983).
We calibrate a model to determine how much of this relationship reflects causality running from schooling to growth. We find that the channel from schooling to growth is too weak to plausibly explain more than one-third of the observed relation between schooling and growth.
This remains true even when we take into consideration the effect of schooling on technology adoption.
Thus our primary conclusion is that the bulk of the empirical relationship documented by Barro and others should not be interpreted as reflecting the impact of schooling on growth.

5. Conclusion/2
We also calibrate a model channel from expected growth to schooling. We find that
This channel is capable of generating much of the empirical coefficient (even assuming most of realized growth is unexpected).
Another important consideration, however, is that part of the relation between schooling and growth may reflect omitted factors that are related both
to schooling rates in 1960 and
to growth rates for the period 1960 to 1990.
Identifying the nature and importance of any such factors is a subject for further study.