Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Endogenous growth theory twenty years on: a critical assessment

Contents:

Author Info

  • Sergio Cesaratto

    ()

Abstract

Endogenous growth literature emerged from dissatisfaction with one result of the neoclassical growth model: the independence of the growth rate from the saving ratio, which is seen as a variable subject to policy influence. There are at least three generations of EGT models: the old one of the sixties; the new one of the late eighties; and the most recent one, from the second half of the nineties. EGT models of any vintage fall into one of two fields: neo-Solowian (or semi-endogenous models) or fully endogenous models. Models from the sixties would generally fall into the first class and for good reasons. Indeed, most of the early generation of fully endogenous models from the late eighties fell under the ‘Jones critique’ (Jones 1995b), which pointed out some of the difficulties of these models. The most recent models have found various ways to avoid those problems. It is shown that these stratagems were anticipated by Marvin Frankel in the sixties and by Lucas in the eighties. One suspects that these devices arose in order to fix the theory rather than from, say, some ex-ante empirical observation (which is often provided ex post). More importantly, this paper indicates some problems common to all vintages of EGT models, beginning with the Cambridge capital theory critique, and suggests some alternative routes for growth analysis outside neoclassical theory.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/quaderni/559.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of Siena in its series Department of Economics University of Siena with number 559.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Mar 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:usi:wpaper:559

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Piazza S.Francesco,7 - 53100 Siena
Phone: (39)(0577)298645
Fax: (39)(0577)298661
Email:
Web page: http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," DELTA Working Papers 90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  2. King, R.G. & Rebelo, S.T., 1989. "Transitional Dynamics And Economic Growth In The Neoclassical Model," RCER Working Papers 206, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  3. Cesaratto, Sergio, 1999. "Savings and Economic Growth in Neoclassical Theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(6), pages 771-93, November.
  4. Christopher Laincz & Pietro Peretto, 2006. "Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: an error of aggregation not specification," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 263-288, September.
  5. De Long, J Bradford & Summers, Lawrence H, 1991. "Equipment Investment and Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(2), pages 445-502, May.
  6. Gregory Mankiw, 1995. "The Growth of Nations," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 275-326.
  7. Charles I. Jones, 2004. "Growth and Ideas," NBER Working Papers 10767, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Kenny, Charles & Williams, David, 2001. "What Do We Know About Economic Growth? Or, Why Don't We Know Very Much?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-22, January.
  9. Ben S. Bernanke & Refet S. Gürkaynak, 2002. "Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil Seriously," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2001, Volume 16, pages 11-72 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Peretto, Pietro F., 1996. "Technological Change and Population Growth," Working Papers 96-28, Duke University, Department of Economics.
  11. J. Bradford DeLong & Lawrence H. Summers, 1992. "Equipment Investment and Economic Growth: How Strong Is the Nexus?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 23(2), pages 157-212.
  12. Mankiw, N Gregory & Romer, David & Weil, David N, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-37, May.
  13. Antonella Palumbo & Attilio Trezzini, 2003. "Growth without normal capacity utilization," European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 109-135.
  14. Sergio T. Rebelo, 1992. "Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth," NBER Working Papers 3325, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Blomström, Magnus & Lipsey, Robert E & Zejan, Mario, 1993. "Is Fixed Investment the Key to Economic Growth?," CEPR Discussion Papers 870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  16. Orazio P. Attanasio & Lucio Picci & Antonello E. Scorcu, 2000. "Saving, Growth, and Investment: A Macroeconomic Analysis Using a Panel of Countries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(2), pages 182-211, May.
  17. Feldstein, Martin & Horioka, Charles, 1980. "Domestic Saving and International Capital Flows," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 314-29, June.
  18. Temple, Jonathan, 1998. "Equipment Investment and the Solow Model," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 39-62, January.
  19. Dajin Li, 2002. "Is the AK model still alive? The long-run relation between growth and investment re-examined," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 92-114, February.
  20. Edmund S. Cannon, 2000. "Economies of Scale and Constant Returns to Capital: A Neglected Early Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 292-295, March.
  21. Sergio Cesaratto & Franklin Serrano & Antonella Stirati, 2003. "Technical Change, Effective Demand and Employment," Review of Political Economy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-52.
  22. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(2), pages 495-525, May.
  23. Edmund S. Phelps, 1968. "Population Increase," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 1(3), pages 497-518, August.
  24. Vanhoudt, Patrick, 1998. "A fallacy in causality research on growth and capital accumulation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 77-81, July.
  25. Elena Podrecca & Gaetano Carmeci, 2001. "Fixed investment and economic growth: new results on causality," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 177-182.
  26. Dinopoulos, Elias & Thompson, Peter, 1998. " Schumpeterian Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 313-35, December.
  27. Madsen, Jakob B., 2002. "The causality between investment and economic growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 157-163, January.
  28. Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2005. "WHY ARE SOME COUNTRIES RICHER THAN OTHERS? A SKEPTICAL VIEW OF MANKIW-ROMER-WEIL's TEST OF THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH MODEL," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 360-392, 07.
  29. Garegnani, P, 1970. "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 407-36, July.
  30. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Sergio Cesaratto, 2012. "Neo-Kaleckian and Sraffian controversies on accumulation theory," Department of Economics University of Siena 650, Department of Economics, University of Siena.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:usi:wpaper:559

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fabrizio Becatti).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.