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 title? Abramowitz is an old-fashioned neoclassical.
On efficiency wages as an explanation of wage
not at that time) about new growth theory which included old wine in new
bottles in its title? Abramowitz is an old-fashioned neoclassical.
On efficiency wages as an explanation of wage differentials by race and
gender, both Darity and Rhonda Williams have some pretty severe criticisms.
what
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
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 Theory? Challenge v40, n5
(Sept
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 growth theory.
--
Michael
http://growthconf.ec.unipi.it/papers/Steedman1.pdf
short piece.
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
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? (If
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.
d 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
nd 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
MAIL 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' in Historical Perspective," in _Contempo
: [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 Eco
[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 abandoned
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
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
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."
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
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 the common
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 growth
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."
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 there'
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.
Moses Abramowitz -- a leader of &q
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 capital
ac
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.
Whereas Solow's idea of growth would be technology embodied i
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
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
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 was
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
