well i think colander's definition is not very good. it would be endogenous, and
that would be different than Solow, right?
what is good about "new" growth theory is not new. it is in Adam Smith (capital
accumulation leads to technical change and technical change leads to capital
accumulation, and this is not a mere tautology); Marx (endogenous technical
change "General Law of K'ist Accumulation"); Allyn Young ("Increasing Returns
and Economic Progress"); Kaldor's cumulative causation theory (which was the
first to wed (dynamic version of) Keynes's principle of effective demand to the
Smith-Young insight about technical change and economic growth). Also,
Schumpeter could be brought in I'm sure. Even Marshall (Appendix H? was it on
returns and scale). Then there is the Brian Arthur/Paul David stuff on lock-in,
path dependence, etc. Heinz Kurz (and Kurz and Neri Salvadori) has some good
articles on this "Old Wine in New bottles" and how there are problems with the
squeezing of it into the neoclassical framework, capital controversy problems,
etc.
Forbes Jr. (or Fortune Jr.) whatever their special college edition is had Paul
Romer on the cover a few years ago, asking if he would be a future Nobel winner
for his new growth theory. In it he does a couple paragraphs each on I think
Smith, Keynes, Marshall, and Schumpeter. Unbelievable, both in its substance (or
lack thereof) and tone.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8142] new growth theory
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
