Growth theory after Keynes, part I: the unfortunate suppression of the Harrod-Domar model
After Harrod and Domar independently developed a dynamic Keynesian circular flow model to illustrate the instability of a growing economy, mainstream economists quickly reduced their model to a supply side-only growth model, which they subsequently rejected as too simplistic and replaced with Solow’...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | DE EN FR |
| Publicado: |
Editura ASE Bucuresti
2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/1dcf178978514718abbde0ef34c2a6cc |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | After Harrod and Domar independently developed a dynamic Keynesian circular flow model to illustrate the instability of a growing economy, mainstream economists quickly reduced their model to a supply side-only growth model, which they subsequently rejected as too simplistic and replaced with Solow’s neoclassical growth model. The rejection process of first diminishing the model and then replaced it with a neoclassical alternative was similar to how the full Keynesian macroeconomic paradigm was diminished into IS-LM analysis and then replaced by a simplistic neoclassical framework that largely ignored the demand side of the economy. Furthermore, subsequent work by mainstream economists has resulted in a logically inconsistent framework for analyzing economic growth; the popular endogenous growth models, which use Schumpeter’s concept of profit-driven creative destruction to explain the technological change that Solow left as exogenous, are not logically compatible with the Solow model. |
|---|