RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
Seriously, they have like ten papers on this topic from every angle. The one I have doesn't do any of the history, just mentions Smith and Young once, and then the bit on Arrow. I'd love to see the one you have. I never even heard of the jl your talking about. Does your school subsc. to these? I have drafts from several conference versions around somewhere. Growth and technical change is of interest to them, as is the capital critiques, so when the 'new' g.t. and new technological change stuff and 'endogenous' stuff started getting thrown around they had to jump in. This one was summarizing is just by Heinz. By the way, Heinz knew Lowe well. He and Hagemann were young profs at Bremen when he returned to Germany, and they were looking for their own forerunners so to speak. The Italians had Sraffa, etc. It turned out that there was some interesting relationships between Lowe's growth stuff and Sraffa's framework. So they were working on Sraffa-Lowe-Keynes synthesis. Me the young brat got intersted in Lowe but I started complaining that Lowe's methodological work contained an implicit critique of the long period method. (actually I ended up finding an explicit critique of it in Lowe from the thirties). This was a minor annoyance to them, though later Heinz went strongly in the direction of Sraffa and Harald cooled on the Sraffian line of things. In any case, what do you think of Heinz and Neri's Theory of Production? Pretty impressive blurb from Samuelson on it, dont you think? -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8212] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory Mat, The one you have may be either an earlier version or some variation. Mine starts with the Lowe quote also. It took awhile for this paper to get published. Among the earlier economists discussed at length in the version I have are Smith, Ricardo, Torrens, Marx, Charasoff, von Neumann, Kaldor, Young, Marshall, Wicksell, Cassel, and Ramsey, all prior to Solow et al, much less Arrow, Uzawa, Lucas, or Romer. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:43 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8197] RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory >Jim says: > >>so what, in short, is the substance of their critique? > >I don't know that particular paper, but I have another one by Kurz. > >First, Kurz begins by quoting Adolph Lowe from a must-read 1954 article called >"The Classical Theory of Economic Growth" that of course I can't help but >including here. Writing two years before Solow's famous article and thirty years >before Romer's dissertation, Lowe, with reference to some of the then-recent >contributions to mainstream growth theory writes that: > >"it is only fair to say that this modern notion of 'endogeneity' is but a dim >reflection of a much more ambitious method of analysis that dominated an earlier >epoch of theoretical economics. As a matter of fact, upon this issue of >endogeneity versus exogeneity, rather than upon conflicting theories of value, >hinges the main difference between genuine classical theory and post-Millian >economic reasoning, including all versions of neoclassical analysis." > >Of course, Lowe considers Marx in this respect the zenith of 'classical >political economy.' > >Kurz's article shows that Romer and 'new growth theory' are still but 'dim >reflections', not adding anything substantively to our understanding of >processes of growth and development. > >Kurz starts with Solow's model, relating it to new growth theory (NGT). >Interestingly, Kurz shows that while one of the common views is that the novelty >of NGT is incorporation of increasing returns, IR is not an essential >ingredient--if this assumption is abandoned, growth is no less 'endogenous' in >these models. He then shows that in NG models that start with intertemporal >utility maximization, in order to get 'endogenous growth' the rate of profit ( = >mpk in competitive eq.) must exceed the rate of time preference. He breezes >through a whole series of variations, but I will skip ahead to a later section >that contain the main argument. > >In my earlier post where I argued that NGT is not new, I mentioned Smith, Young, >Kaldor, but I did not mention Arrow's 1962 contribution on learning by doing. >This is the starting point of Romer's 1986 argument. > >Arrow related the state variable 'level of technology' of a single firm to >another state variable, the amount of capital accumulated in the economy as a >whole. In simplified form, output of firm i can be written as: > >Yi = A(K)F(Ki, Li) > >where the i's are subscripts, K aggregate stock of capital, Ki and Li capital >and labor employed in firm i. The increase in A is the unintended by-product of >the experience accumulated producing new capital goods. This learning by doing >is tak
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
> Barkley wrote: > > Basically they do a very careful review of past > >approaches to growth theory and show that many > >of the classical writers, starting with Adam Smith, > >had essentially fully developed models of growth > >that incorporate the essential ideas of "new > >endogenous growth theory." > > The new guys just fool around with coefficients > >on production functions, kind of like the way you did > >in that technical appendix on "salience" (aka "social > >capital effect"), :-). > > Barkley, people on pen-l don't know what you're talking about, so why are > you posting this? It's okay to rib me, but why do it to an audience that > doesn't comprehend? *** This is extremely patronizing. Just because people aren't responding doesn't mean they don't know... > If anyone cares, "salience" does not refer to anything to do with "social > capital." Rather, it refers to the relative importance of external effects. > I assume that one person's production has an external effect on other > people's production. I have one coefficient which determines whether it's a > beneficial externality or a detrimental one (it can't be both, by > assumption) and another coefficient -- the salience -- which determines the > degree of the external effect, whether positive or negative. Different > resources differ in these two ways. It's purely a technical relationship, > not a social one, though it has societal effects. > > When I do talk about "social capital," it's when I talk about Smithian > theories of "fellow feeling" (or Rousseauean public spiritedness) as > shoring up an individualistic society's stability, avoiding rampant > free-riding. I don't actually use the phrase "social capital," which seems > unduly obfuscatory. I also talk about forces -- such as social inequality > arising from Lockean unlimited accumulation of (private) capital -- that > undermine fellow feeling and public spiritedness. One of my conclusions is > that the latter-day "communitarians" who wish to wed Lockean capitalism > with Rousseauean or Smithian community feelings are fooling themselves. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Social inequality is force? Mmm Ian
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
Mat, What's a "jl"? I am aware of this paper because I saw it originally presented at the 11th World Congress of the IEA (in Tunis in 1995). I have a paper on the prehistory of chaos theory in economics in the same volume. There were a lot of hassles in getting that volume published. Heinz is very proud of their paper, and I think he and Neri have good reason to be. I think the Kurz and Salvadori volume is probably the peak of the Sraffian-neo-Ricardian approach, excellent for anybody who likes that sort of thing, which many do not. It is excellent on long-period analysis, but I think one needs to do more than that. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8226] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory >Seriously, they have like ten papers on this topic from every angle. The one I >have doesn't do any of the history, just mentions Smith and Young once, and then >the bit on Arrow. I'd love to see the one you have. I never even heard of the >jl your talking about. Does your school subsc. to these? > >I have drafts from several conference versions around somewhere. Growth and >technical change is of interest to them, as is the capital critiques, so when >the 'new' g.t. and new technological change stuff and 'endogenous' stuff started >getting thrown around they had to jump in. This one was summarizing is just by >Heinz. > >By the way, Heinz knew Lowe well. He and Hagemann were young profs at Bremen >when he returned to Germany, and they were looking for their own forerunners so >to speak. The Italians had Sraffa, etc. It turned out that there was some >interesting relationships between Lowe's growth stuff and Sraffa's framework. So >they were working on Sraffa-Lowe-Keynes synthesis. Me the young brat got >intersted in Lowe but I started complaining that Lowe's methodological work >contained an implicit critique of the long period method. (actually I ended up >finding an explicit critique of it in Lowe from the thirties). This was a minor >annoyance to them, though later Heinz went strongly in the direction of Sraffa >and Harald cooled on the Sraffian line of things. In any case, what do you think >of Heinz and Neri's Theory of Production? Pretty impressive blurb from Samuelson >on it, dont you think? > > >-Original Message- >From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:45 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:8212] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory > > >Mat, > The one you have may be either an earlier version >or some variation. Mine starts with the Lowe quote also. >It took awhile for this paper to get published. > Among the earlier economists discussed at length >in the version I have are Smith, Ricardo, Torrens, Marx, >Charasoff, von Neumann, Kaldor, Young, Marshall, Wicksell, >Cassel, and Ramsey, all prior to Solow et al, much less >Arrow, Uzawa, Lucas, or Romer. >Barkley Rosser >-Original Message- >From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:43 PM >Subject: [PEN-L:8197] RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory > > >>Jim says: >> >>>so what, in short, is the substance of their critique? >> >>I don't know that particular paper, but I have another one by Kurz. >> >>First, Kurz begins by quoting Adolph Lowe from a must-read 1954 article >called >>"The Classical Theory of Economic Growth" that of course I can't help but >>including here. Writing two years before Solow's famous article and thirty >years >>before Romer's dissertation, Lowe, with reference to some of the >then-recent >>contributions to mainstream growth theory writes that: >> >>"it is only fair to say that this modern notion of 'endogeneity' is but a >dim >>reflection of a much more ambitious method of analysis that dominated an >earlier >>epoch of theoretical economics. As a matter of fact, upon this issue of >>endogeneity versus exogeneity, rather than upon conflicting theories of >value, >>hinges the main difference between genuine classical theory and >post-Millian >>economic reasoning, including all versions of neoclassical analysis." >> >>Of course, Lowe considers Marx in this respect the zenith of 'classical >>political economy.' >> >>Kurz's article shows that Romer and 'new growth theory' are still but 'dim >>reflections', not adding
