Not to suggest I think that the "success" of Shah's economic policies justifies his disgusting regime, Simfan really needs to take this into consideration:
I'm not afraid to admit that while slightly familiar with the Solow growth model, I'm not entirely sure how this pertains to my argument.
The rapid Iranian growth rates weren't miraculous by any means and mirrored those seen around the world. Increasing capital investments in technologies that would yield far higher rates of production leads to rapid gains in standards of living. This rule is uniform and suggests that the rapid worldwide growth that occurred between 1950 and 2000 is due to optimization of easily applicable/currently existing technologies. Do you support Park Chung-Hee, the PRI and Brazil's military rule simply because they managed to sustain high levels of growth in their respective countries? Seeing as its you, I wouldn't be surprised but my general point is that as long that civil society was maintained, some degree of foreign investment was allowed and basic investments in modern infrastructure were made; rapid growth was inevitable in this era.
The Solow growth model illustrates this concept of convergence. My basic point is that it isn't remarkable by any means that Iran sustained a high level of growth during the Shah's reign. Then again, you also think that Stiglitz and Krugman are "dangerous" so your understanding of economics must be pretty shallow.