Ben Fine wrote an excellent critique of new growth
theory, far more comprehensive than just an emphasis
on conceptual cum measurement problems associated with
knowledge or human capital.
--- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Abramovitz was critical of new grow
Michael Perelmany writes:
> I don't think that Abramovitz wrote such an article. Also, I think that
it is unfair to tar him as a neoclassical economist. He was much broader.<
you're right. The article I was thinking of was:
Nelson, Richard, "How New Is New Growth Theor
Abramovitz was critical of new growth theory.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
> Goatskins".<
>
> Didn't Moses Abramowitz have an article in the prestigious JOURNAL OF
> ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES (edited by pen-l alumnus, Brad de Long, though maybe
> not at that time) about new growth theory which included "old wine in new
> bottles" in i
d "Old Wine in New
Goatskins".<
Didn't Moses Abramowitz have an article in the prestigious JOURNAL OF
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES (edited by pen-l alumnus, Brad de Long, though maybe
not at that time) about new growth theory which included "old wine in new
bottles" in its titl
< http://growthconf.ec.unipi.it/papers/Steedman1.pdf >
short piece.
Christian wrote:
>What do you mean by this, though? Was it not able to predict the growth
>rates of postwar Japan?
Are you familiar with Shaikh's HUMBUG production function?
Mat
Anwar Shaikh, 1974, "Laws of algebra and laws of production" Review of Economics
and Statistics, 51, 1, pp. 115-20.
>
> As far as what prompted it, I would say the fact that before it came
along,
> neoclassical growth theory was dead dead dead!!!
>
What do you mean by this, though? Was it not able to predict the growth
rates of postwar Japan? Or was the fashion for it over? It had no more
explanatory power? (I
I think the purpose of all this is a search for a
means to offset limitations of a formal approach to
growth theory. Diminishing returns of capital and
labour
set in quickly in a Cobb Douglas setting, then you
need human capital to offset diminishing returns. i
have done something like that for ea
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 the
> 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 gro
> I'm sorry, I missed what TFP stood for?
Total factor productivity. Is Arrow's A really TFP?
>
> As far as what prompted it, I would say the fact that before it came
along,
> neoclassical growth theory was dead dead dead!!!
>
What do you mean by this, though? Was it not able to predict the gr
EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8213] Re: new growth theory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kurz starts with Solow's model, relating it to new growth theory NGT).
Interestingly, Kurz shows that while one of
ty 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
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."
>
My cup runneth over! Thank you very much, Mat! I hope that those who don't
know growth theory as well as I to shun the "newness" of Romer _et al_.
This should encourage me to dig up the chapter on growth theory of my
dissertation (which treats growth as a disequilibrium process)... but it
won'
One of the things I'm curious about is what prompted the development of NGT.
>From what people have said, it sounds like a minor contribution (if any
meaningful contribution at all) to growth theory. I'm wondering: what was the
impasse (perceived or real) that prompted development NGT, a theory th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 aban
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 1
] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8167] Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
>At 03:42 PM 2/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
>> The best critique I have seen is
>>Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori, "Theories of 'Endogenous
>>Growth&
etween 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&#
We are in agreement. I only said that the zero marginal costs was the
major difference between the two approaches.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:33:06PM -0800, Christian Gregory wrote:
> Sure, but how is this cost of information different than the cost of
> training an employee how to use a complex
Sure, but how is this cost of information different than the cost of
training an employee how to use a complex machine? It costs time and money
to do so, but once you do, the info can be used over and over at no cost to
run the machine .
Would this also not just be a variation on the Solow model
The difference is that once the marginal cost is spent, the information
can be used over and over. A machine cannot do the same thing.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:32:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've never understood, given a certain set of assumptions, why endogenous growth
>theory wa
At 03:42 PM 2/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
> The best critique I have seen is
>Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori, "Theories of 'Endogenous
>Growth' in Historical Perspective," in _Contemporary
>Economic Issues: Economic Behaviour and Design, vol. 4,
>IEA Conference Volume No. 124, Proceedings of the
>
I've never understood, given a certain set of assumptions, why endogenous growth
theory was more satisfactory than neoclassical theory. In the textbooks I've read, the
difference comes down to the role of technology (NCt doesn't really explain why this
is the limit of growth, or where it comes
15, 2001 2:36 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8143] Re: new growth theory
>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.
>Whe
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 capit
nes,
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.
>
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 t
30 matches
Mail list logo
