I think it is a little more complex than that. There are two or perhaps three basic theories of long 'waves'. Initially, in the work of Kondratieff, they were empiricist being based on long period analysis of commodity price movements. But later economists, particular a school of Dutch economists, began to advance alternative theories to explain what appears to be 45-60 year fluctuations in economic activity -- approximately 25 years of robust expansion followed by a similar period of stagnation and weak economic performance. There was no strict periodicity and the major debate began as to whether there was any endogenous causes for the upturns and downturns or whether (particularly the upturns) were exogenous. Within the endogenous school there were those who thought the long waves were indeed endogenous cycles caused by such things as the capital life of infrastructure (an endogenous accelerator). Others suggested that it was major technological changes in infrastructure (steam engine, railways, internal combustion/electricity, automobile/aircraft, electronics) based on a Schumpeterian kind of model. Others suggest a sort of invention/innovation cycle where a steady increase in invention eventually produced a critical mass for major economic innovation -- the so-called septic tank model. All these groups of theories were based on sinisoidal wave where turning points were endogenously generated although the Schumpeterian model could also be interpreted as a sigmoidal wave where each expansion was caused by some exogenous event or events which had no specific periodicity. Perhaps the most interesting is that associated with the late Ernst Mendel who argued that the peak and subsequent decline was associated with the falling rate of profit while the upturns were exogenous in the sense that they were not generated by economic forces but by political forces resulting in wars that destroyed capital and set off a new wave of accumulation. Finally we have the long wave hypotheses suggested by the French regulation school and the US Social Structures of Accumulation school. In both cases institutional change was an integral part in the wave like motion.
Paul Phillips
Devine, James wrote:
usually, the theoretical reason why the economy (or whatever) moves in regular waves isn't explained very well. Wave theory typically is totally empiricist (showing neat charts) but the existence of waves in the data is a matter of opinion.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
________________________________
From: PEN-L list on behalf of michael perelman Sent: Tue 12/7/2004 7:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] question from michael yates.
Someone has asked me about critiques of what he calls "wave theory", i.e. that capitalist economies develop along predictable waves (Kondratief waves, for example). Can you offer any help here?
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/04
