This essay suggests that the convergence controversy may reflect, in p
art, differences in perception regarding the viable set of competing t
estable hypotheses generated by existing growth theories. It argues th
at in contrast to the prevailing wisdom, the traditional neoclassical
growth paradigm generates the club convergence hypothesis as well as t
he conditional convergence hypothesis. Furthermore, the inclusion of e
mpirically significant variables such as human capital, income distrib
ution, and fertility in conventional growth models, along with capital
markets imperfections, externalities, and non-convexities: strengthen
s the viability of club convergence as a competing hypothesis with con
ditional convergence.