Many people have accepted the existence of the classical business cycle of seven to ten years in length, sometimes also referred to as the ‘Juglar cycle’. The idea, however, that there may be a (regular) long-term variation in the speed of economic growth of some 50 years, with 20–25 ‘good’ years being followed by 20–25 ‘bad’ years (the so-called Kondratieff wave) has always remained controversial among economists and economic historians. It is tempting to give some credit to the concept of Kondratieff waves, as it could explain why the dark period between 1929 and World War II has been followed by an unprecedented ‘Golden Age’ of capitalism, lasting up to the early 1970s. After the mid-1970s, there was a growing perception that the good times were passé, but after the mid-1990s, with an upward shift in US productivity growth, we suddenly had euphoria about a ‘new economy’. It is surprising to note that many adherents of the ‘new economy’ did not seem to be aware that many of their observations fitted nicely into the old-fashioned concept of the Kondratieff wave. Ignorance of history can be misleading. Once the hype was over (after the crash of the NASDAQ index in spring of 2000), many believed that the ‘new economy’ story was fake. From the viewpoint of a possible long wave in economic life, however, one tends towards a more positive evaluation.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.