Growth and Economic Development
Show Less

Growth and Economic Development

Essays in Honour of A.P. Thirlwall

Edited by Philip Arestis, John S.L. McCombie and Roger Vickerman

This valuable and engaging new book bears eloquent testimony to A.P. Thirlwall’s substantial contribution to economics over the last 40 years. The volume does not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of such a prolific figure, but rather demonstrates the considerable influence that his work on economic theory has had on his contemporaries, and the profession as a whole.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 8: The Nature of Economic Growth and the Neoclassical Approach: More Questions than Answers?

John McCombie


John McCombie Introduction The study of economic growth is back in fashion. Mankiw (1995, p. 275) has commented ‘after many years of neglect, these questions [about economic growth] are again at the centre of macroeconomic research and teaching. […] Moreover, growth is not just important. It is also a topic which macroeconomists, with their crude aggregate models, have something useful to say’. Of course, concern with the determinants of economic growth, and why some countries are rich and others poor, goes back a long time; at least to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), if not before. Concern with problems of development has never has really been off the economists’ agenda. But Mankiw is referring here solely to neoclassical growth theory and there has indeed been a revival since the mid-1980s, with renewed emphasis on the augmented Solow growth model and also the development of endogenous growth models. Parallel with this has been the rapid increase in Barro-type regression analyses drawing on the greater availability of data, such as the Penn World Tables. Whether or not neoclassical growth theory has led to a greater understanding of the nature of economic growth is the question that I shall address in this chapter. While there have been disagreements within the neoclassical framework (such as the convergence debate), Mankiw’s comments accurately represent the consensus amongst neoclassical economists. Expositions of neoclassical growth theory are now central to many macroeconomic textbooks as a theory of the long run (e.g., Romer, 2001; Mankiw, 2002) rather than being...

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.

Further information

or login to access all content.