Search results

This chapter is a radical critique of the neoclassical growth theory, justifying ways out of mainstream economics. It has three parts. The first one analyzes growth theories from the Classical representation to the endogenous growth models. The second part demonstrates that the “new growth theory” is not a break with Solow's formalization. To prove it, we build an original Solowian endogenous growth model. Then, this neoclassical macrodynamic framework is technically, deeply critized in a third part. We show that both exogenous and endogenous neoclassical models prove to be incapable to explain growth in the long period. We concentrate on the ambiguities surrounding the hypothesis of single agent, as well as on the role of the state, in particular when it is considered as a “planner” by the neoclassicals. Endogenous growth models do not correspond to macrodynamization of the Walrasian general equilibrium, nor have solid microeconomic bases. We advocate in favor of rehabilitating state's intervention in social areas and of reactivating Marxist theoretical reflections regarding social planning and class analysis in the current time of structural crisis of the capitalist world system.

The current chapter proposes a theoretical framework to assess the sustainability of economic growth in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States. The authors integrate insights from endogenous growth models and consider the unique socioeconomic characteristics of the GCC region to provide a comprehensive and tailored approach to understanding the determinants of economic growth and formulating effective policy measures to foster sustainable development and growth. This chapter highlights the environmental challenges faced by GCC; based on this, the authors suggested indicators to construct a theoretical framework (Economic Growth, Climatic Indicators, Energy Indicators, Social Indicators, and Economic Resources Indicators). The authors propose that policymakers and researchers in GCC States should take these factors into account when devising policies or conducting research aimed at fostering sustainable economic growth. Overall, this chapter presents significant insights for policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders involved in promoting the sustainable economic advancement of the GCC States.

The aim of this chapter is to challenge the assumption that top-down approaches to economic development and growth are the best way forward for rural areas. Looking at the work of the current LEADER programme and LEADER project examples, the chapter measures the impacts of small-scale, bottom-up approaches to foster rural development. It considers the importance of the LEADER approach as a key component of the current rural policy framework.

The chapter provides a discussion of top-down versus neo-endogenous approaches to rural growth, drawing on policy and practitioner literature. Four case studies from the current LEADER programme are used to demonstrate how the LEADER approach brings about growth at a local level, and how this can be measured using a Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach.

LEADER, as a programme, can deliver sustainable and effective economic growth through a series of small-scale interventions by stimulating entrepreneurial activity in the context of neo-endogenous growth. This forms a useful complementary strand to the top-down policy of major sectoral interventions profiled in this chapter in the context of current England-wide policy approaches to economic development. The SROI approach provides an effective tool for capturing the longer term effects of LEADER.

Considering the broader SROI and sustainable credentials of LEADER-stimulated business development provides a new and more robust means of both communicating the achievements of the programme and a rationale for giving it greater prominence.

The chapter establishes a new place-based approach to considering the wider impact of LEADER projects through an SROI approach. The insights help provide new insights into the contribution of this programme to economic development in rural communities.

The present study deals with the growth performance of export (X), ­import (M), and economic growth (Y) in India over the period 1970–1971 to 2016–2017 as well as tariff (TR) for the period 1990–2017 by employing the methodology of one-time endogenous structural break suggested by Zivot and Andrews (1992). Also, an attempt has been taken to examine the direction of causality between the above-mentioned trade-related variables and economic growth using Granger Causality Test. Results of estimation reveal that all the variables converge toward a stationarity process having constant variability overtime. There exists structural break in the year 1996, 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively, for economic growth, tariff, imports, and exports. Bidirectional causality is found running from economic growth to tariff and from tariff to economic growth. But there is unidirectional causality from imports to tariff, imports to exports and from exports to tariff.

The relative size of the State in industrialized economies has increased dramatically during the past century giving rise to legitimate fears that such a trend might end up having an adverse impact on growth. This chapter explores the relationship between the development of government activities and economic growth. It starts by evoking problems related to the measurement of the public sector before reviewing statistical evidence on the long-term growth of the share of the State in the economy. It then provides a number of explanations for this phenomenon including those pertaining to the functioning of the political system itself thereby pointing toward inefficiencies. The next step is to explore the principal avenues along which government interventions can positively or negatively interfere with the growth potential of the economy. It turns out that while public expenditures – especially those responding to market failures – tend to be favorable to growth, most taxes are growth-hindering. The final part of the chapter singles out some pitfalls in the empirical investigation of this relationship. The conjecture is that the nonlinear and possibly endogenous nature of the hypothesized nexus can explain the lack of consensus in empirical studies conducted so far.