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.

Societies highly value economic growth because economic growth results in increase in societal standards of living. This paper addresses the issue of why economies grow and what public policy makers should favor in order to increase economic growth.

This paper reviews and contrasts the two major, rival ways to account for economic growth: the neoclassical model, which maintains that growth results from increases in investment, and the dynamic competition model, which maintains that growth results from the innovations that stem from the process of competition.

The paper finds that the dynamic‐competition model, as represented by resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory, best explains economic growth.

Public policy should focus on promoting R‐A competition in order to foster economic growth.

This issue of which approach best accounts for economic growth is important because the two approaches imply very different decisions in the public policy arena.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a quantitative assessment of the factors contributing to India's growth acceleration since 1970, based on the neoclassical growth model.

A feature of neoclassical growth models is that capital accumulation is induced by both productivity growth and increases in investment rates. The paper uses a growth decomposition method based on that of Robertson. The method reconstructs India's actual growth path exactly, then decomposes the growth using counterfactual simulations, holding investment rates constant and productivity growth constant. The role of human capital is also discussed.

An increase in the productivity growth rate from 1970 accounts for 68per cent of India's post 1970s growth and the rise in the investment rate accounts for 30 per cent. Hence an upward trend in productivity growth has been more than twice as important as the doubling of the investment rate. A similar conclusion applies for the post 2000 era, where a rise in investment from 25 per cent to 37 per cent of GDP, only adds about 0.7 percentage points of growth to the 4.5 per cent annual growth rate over this period.

The paper provides quantitative estimates of the role of investment and productivity to India's growth based on the neoclassical growth model. It thus improves upon existing growth accounting studies by allowing for the induced effect of productivity growth on capital accumulation. It also improves upon existing development accounting techniques that rely on steady state restrictions, and which would therefore be inappropriate for evaluating India's recent transitional growth.

This study aims to examine dynamic interactions among economic growth, geography and the housing market with public goods financed by the government. A general dynamic equilibrium model of an isolated economy with economic geography, local public goods and capital accumulation is to be constructed. The economy has three sectors, supplying industrial goods, housing, and local public goods. The model synthesizes the main ideas in neoclassical growth theory, the Alonso urban model, and the Muth housing model in an alternative framework to the traditional growth theory.

The model is based on the neoclassical growth theory with an alternative approach to household behavior. The paper shows how to solve the dynamics of the economic system and simulate the model to demonstrate dynamic interactions among economic growth, housing market, residential distribution and public goods over time and space.

The paper simulates equilibrium and motion of the spatial economy with Cobb‐Douglas production and utility functions. The simulation demonstrates, for example, that, as the tax rate on the land income is increased, the total capital stocks and the stocks employed by the three sectors are increased, the rate of interest falls and the output of the industrial sector and the wage rate are increased, the land devoted to local public goods falls and the land rent and housing rent rise over space, the consumption level of the industrial goods and the total expenditures on the public goods are increased.

The paper provides some possible implications of the model for complicated consequences of government policy over time and space. In particular, the paper shows that a change in government policy not only has a macroeconomic impact over time, but also affects the economic geography of the national economy.

The paper offers insights into the linkage among growth, national public policies and economic geography.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

To overcome the errors of the exogenous growth theories of the past, the new growth theories, currently in vogue, attempt to incorporate technological change as endogenous to the growth process. While making a commendable effort to see into that black box of technological change, these so‐called new growth theories are also subject to question and critique on a variety of grounds. One of these is that the new growth theories are not really that new. Another area of concern relates to their empirical relevancy. This is especially evident in assessing the practical use of the new growth theories in terms of problem identification and policy resolution. Other problem areas relate to issues of conceptual clarity and underlying assumptions. By assuming the process of economic growth to be synonymous with that of economic development the result is to avoid the prerequisite structural transformation inherent in the dynamics of culture evolution. Culture evolution in turn is predicated upon technological advance conceptualized as both material and social technology. It is argued in this paper that an explanation as to why technology is endogenous to the processes of growth and economic development is best served vis‐à‐vis an analysis of the dynamics of culture evolution.

The literature on growth economics mostly covers the studies on growth trajectory, convergence, issues of sustainability, etc., which are related to the so-called developed economies of the world. But the emergence of a few economies such as the members of the BRICS group in the recent past has provoked the theoreticians to shift their focus from the developed economies to these highly emerging economies as they are now chasing the countries of the developed world at least in terms of gross domestic products. But there may be differences in the roles of different factors in explaining the growth trajectories of the so-called developed economies vis-á-vis the highly emerging economies. This chapter thus aims to investigate the factors responsible for economic growth in the BRICS nations under the neoclassical growth framework for 1991–2020. The study finds that savings rate identified as the driving force behind the huge growth trends of the member countries in the group with a major contribution by China and India in the entire period, however, the results differ across sub-periods.