The ‘New’ Growth Theory: Old Wine in New Goatskins

  • Heinz D. Kurz
  • Neri Salvadori

Abstract

With the inception of systematic economic analysis in the time of the classical economists the problem of what determines the dynamism and growth performance of the economy became a major focus of research in social sciences. Since that time it has always been felt that in order to understand the nature and causes of the wealth of nations and its growth one ought to study first and foremost the ‘causes of improvement in the productive powers of labour’, as Adam Smith put it, or the factors affecting the development of the ‘productive powers of society’, to use Karl Marx’s concept. It has also always been understood that there is an endogenous side to this process of improvement in social productivity. Reading authors such as Smith, Charles Babbage, Marx or Alfred Marshall one indeed gets the impression that there is no such thing as a purely exogenous change in productive powers. These are seen to rather depend on the actions of individuals and the impact these actions have in fostering economic growth. These actions and their ‘growth effectiveness’ are envisaged as being shaped by a variety of factors including cultural norms, social institutions, and a nation’s policy.1 In these authors’ works, technological and organisational change is portrayed consistently as being essentially endogenous. For example, in Smith’s concept of the division of labour, the pace at which capital accumulates (and thus markets expand) is singled out as the factor that is most important for the growth in labour productivity and income per capita (see Smith (1976) bk I, chs i— III; see also Negishi, 1993). The endogeneity of technological progress was also stressed in more recent times by authors such as Allyn Young and, particularly, Nicholas Kaldor, who even attempted — albeit with only limited success — to put the relationship between productivity growth and capital accumulation into algebraic form, in his so-called ‘technical progress function’. It was clear to these authors that ‘human capital’ and ‘technological knowledge’ do matter, and that improvements in the ‘skill, dexterity, and judgment with which labour is applied in any nation’ (Smith) are favourable to growth.

Keywords

Corn Propen Income Rium Defend 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1951) ‘Alternative Proof of the Substitution Theorem for Leontief Models in the General Case’, in Koopmans (1951b), pp. 155–64.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1962) ‘The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 29, pp. 155–73.Google Scholar
  3. Bertola, G. (1993) ‘Factor Shares and Savings in Endogenous Growth’, American Economic Review, vol. 83, pp. 1184–98.Google Scholar
  4. Cole, H., G. Mailath and A. Postlewaite (1992) ‘ Social Norms, Savings Behavior, and Growth’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 100, pp. 1092–125.Google Scholar
  5. Dewey, D. (1965) Modern Capital Theory (New York and London: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, A. (1793) An Essay on the History of Civil Society, 6th edn (1st edn 1767), reprinted 1966 (Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, F. M. (1971) ‘Aggregate Production Functions and the Explanation of Wages: A Simulation Experiment’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 53, pp. 305–25; reprinted in Fisher (1993).Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, F. M. (1993) Aggregation: Aggregate Production Functions and Related Topics. Collected Papers by Franklin M. Fisher, J. Monz (ed.) (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, I. (1977) The Theory of Interest (Philadelphia); originally published 1930.Google Scholar
  10. Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman (1994) ‘Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
  11. Hicks, J. R. (1969) A Theory of Economic History (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  12. Jevons, W. S. (1871) The Theory of Political Economy (London: Macmillan) reprinted 1965 (New York: Kelley).Google Scholar
  13. Kaldor, N. (1955–6) ‘Alternative Theories of Distribution’, Review of Econ-omic Studies, vol. 23, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
  14. King, R. G. and S. Rebelo (1990) ‘Public Policy and Economic Growth: Developing Neoclassical Implications’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, pp. 126–50.Google Scholar
  15. Knight, F. H. (1944) ‘Diminishing Returns from Investment’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 52, pp. 26–47.Google Scholar
  16. Koopmans, T. C. (1951a) ‘Alternative Proof of the Substitution Theorem for Leontief Models in the Case of Three Industries’, in Koopmans (1951b), pp. 147–54.Google Scholar
  17. Koopmans, T. C. (ed.) (1951b) Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (New York: John Wiley).Google Scholar
  18. Kurz, H. D. (1991) ‘ Technical Change, Growth and Distribution: A Steadystate Approach to “Unsteady” Growth on Kaldorian Lines’, in E. J. Nell and W. Semmler (eds), Nicholas Kaldor and Mainstream Economics, Confrontation or Convergence? (London: Macmillan) pp. 421–48.Google Scholar
  19. Kurz, H. D. and N. Salvadori (1994) ‘The Non-Substitution Theorem: Making Good a Lacuna’, Zeitschrift für Nationalokonomie, vol. 59, pp. 97–103.Google Scholar
  20. Kurz, H. D. and N. Salvadori (1995) Theory of Production. A Long-period Analysis (Cambridge, Melbourne and New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Kurz, H. D. and N. Salvadori (1996) ‘A Multisector “AK Model” of Endogenous Growth’, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  22. Lancaster, K. (1969) Introduction to Modern Microeconomics (Chicago: Rand McNally).Google Scholar
  23. Lucas, R. E. (1988) ‘On the Mechanics of Economic Development’, Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 22, pp. 3–42.Google Scholar
  24. Malinvaud, E. (1983) ‘Notes on Growth Theory with Imperfectly Flexible Prices’, in J.—P. Fitoussi (ed.), Modern Macroeconomic Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). no. 93–114.Google Scholar
  25. Meade, J. E. (1961) A Neoclassical Theory of Economic Growth (London: Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
  26. Negishi, T. (1993) ‘A Smithian Growth Model and Malthus’s Optimal Propensity to Save’, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, pp. 115–27.Google Scholar
  27. Neumann, J. von (1945) ‘A Model of General Economic Equilibrium’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 13, pp. 1–9. English translation of John von Neumann (1937) ‘Uber ein ökonomisches Gleichungssystem und eine Verallgemeinerung des Brouwerschen Fixpunktsatzes’, Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, vol. 8, pp. 73–83.Google Scholar
  28. Panico, C. and N. Salvadori (eds) (1993) Post Keynesian Theory of Growth and Distribution (Aldershot: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  29. Pasinetti, L. L. (1962) ‘Rate of Profit and Income Distribution in Relation to the Rate of Economic Growth’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 29, pp. 267–79.Google Scholar
  30. Pasinetti, L. L. (1994) ‘The Structure of Long-Term Development’, in L. L. Pasinetti and R. M. Solow (eds), Economic Growth and the Structure of Long-Tenn Development, Proceedings of the IEA Conference held in Varenna, Italy (London: Macmillan), pp. 353–62.Google Scholar
  31. Rebelo, S. (1991) ‘Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 99, on. 500–21.Google Scholar
  32. Ricardo, D. (1951 ff.) The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vols I and VI (referred to as WorksI and VI), ed. Piero Sraffa with Maurice H. Dobb (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, J. V. (1956) The Accumulation of Capital (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  34. Romer, P. M. (1986) ‘Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 94, pp. 1002–37.Google Scholar
  35. Romer, P. M. (1994) ‘The Origins of Endogenous Growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
  36. Samuelson, P. A. (1951) ‘Abstract of a Theorem Concerning Substitutability in Open Leontief Models’, in Koopmans (1951b), pp. 142–6.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, M. F. (1989) A New View of Economic Growth (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  38. Sen, A. (1970) ‘Introduction’, in A. Sen (ed.), Growth Economics (Harmonds-worth: Penguin), pp. 9–40.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, A. (1976) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, first published 1776, The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. I (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  40. Solow, R. (1963) Capital Theory and the Rate of Return (Amsterdam: North-Holland).Google Scholar
  41. Solow, R. M. (1956) ‘A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 70, pp. 65–94.Google Scholar
  42. Solow, R. M. (1988) ‘Growth Theory and After’, American Economic Review, vol. 78, pp. 307–17.Google Scholar
  43. Solow, R. M. (1992) Siena Lectures on Endogenous Growth Theory (Siena: Collana del Dipartimento di Economia Politicà, No. 6, Università degli Studi di Siena).Google Scholar
  44. Solow, R. M. (1994) ‘Perspectives on Growth Theory’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
  45. Steedman, I. (1981) ‘ Time Preference, the Rate of Interest and Abstinence from Accumulation’, Australian Economic Papers, vol. 20, pp. 219–34, reprinted in I. Steedman (1989) From Exploitation to Altruism (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  46. Swan, T. W. (1956) ‘Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation’, Economic Record, vol. 32, pp. 334–61.Google Scholar
  47. Uzawa, H. (1965) ‘Optimum Technical Change in an Aggregate Model of Economic Growth’, International Economic Review, vol. 6, pp. 18–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinz D. Kurz
  • Neri Salvadori

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations