I have never been able to figure out why Romer's work has made such a
buzz. The only thing different between his an Solow's is that he
emphasizes that the supposed key source of growth has no marginal cost.
Whereas Solow's idea of growth would be technology embodied in machines,
Romer's is information, which can be infinitely re-used.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:12:49AM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
> I've never been impressed by the so-called "new" growth theory, a version
> of neoclassical (Solow) growth theory pushed by David Romer and others.
> Moses Abramowitz -- a leader of "old" growth theory -- had a article in
> CHALLENGE awhile back in which he argued that there's nothing really new
> about "new growth theory." Then I read David Colander's definition of this
> field: "New growth theory emphasizes technology as the primary source of
> growth." Isn't that what Solow said, decades ago?
>
> Is there anything new to "new growth theory"? why does it get so much
> attention?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
