Economic Growth Theories – Orthodox and Heterodox

Economic Growth Theories – Orthodox and Heterodox

My humble  attempt to make sense of Economic Growth Theories.

 

Economic Growth (Trend) and Business Cycles ( Fluctuations)

Growth- Cycles

Economists distinguish between short-run economic changes in production and long-run economic growth. Short-run variation in economic growth is termed the business cycle. Generally, economists attribute the ups and downs in the business cycle to fluctuations in aggregate demand. In contrast, economic growth is concerned with the long-run trend in production due to structural causes such as technological growth and factor accumulation.

 

economic-growth-5

Types of Models

  • Economic Cycles Vs Business Cycles Vs Financial Cycles
  • Economic Growth , Business Growth, Financial Growth
  • Equilibrium Vs. Non Equilibrium
  • Deterministic vs Stochastic
  • Linear Vs Non Linear Models

 

From Introduction to Post Keynesian Economics / Lavoie

economic-schools

 

Classical and Neo Classical Growth Models

(Equilibrium Models) – Supply Side / No aggregate demand -Say Law

  • Wassily Leontief – Input-Output Linear Models
  • John Von Neumann
  • Cass – T Koopmans
  • Solow Swan Growth Model
  • Ramsey Model
  • Endogenous Growth Theory
    • Robelo – AK Model
    • Uzawa – Lucas Model
    • Romer Model
    • Jones Model
    • Grossman Helpman
    • Aghion and Howitt
    • Barro
  • DSGE Models
  • Real Business Cycles

 

Classical/Neo Classical /Monetarists/Neo Keynesian  Economists

  • Alfred Marshall
  • Leon Walrus
  • Irving Fisher
  • Paul Samuelson – Multiplier Accelerator
  • John Maynard Keynes
  • Alvin Hansen – IS-LM Framework
  • AW Phillips
  • Robert M Solow – Neo Classical Growth Model
  • Trevor W Swan
  • Paul Romer – Endogenous Growth Theory
  • Robert Lucas, Jr.
  • Milton Friedman
  • James Tobin
  • John G Gurley
  • Edward S Shaw
  • Knut Wicksell 
  • Franco Modigliani
  • James Meade
  • Luigi Pasinetti
  • Piero Sraffa

 

Keynesian Growth Models

Role of Aggregate Demand

  • John M Keynes Model
  • Harrod Domar Model
  • Hicks – Hansen IS-LM Model
  • AD-AS
  • Tobin’s Model
  • New Keynesian Models
  • Non Walrasion Equilibrium models
  • Phillips Curve

 

economic-growth-2economic-growth-3economic-growth-theory

 

economic-growth-4

 

Heterodox Schools

  • Institutionalist
  • Cambridge Keynesians
  • American Post Keynesians
  • Evolutionary Economics
  • Complexity School/Santa Fe
  • System Dynamics
  • Behavioral Economics
  • Austrian Economics
  • Ecological Economics

 

Cambridge/Oxford Keynesians

(Dynamic/Business Cycles/Non Linear Models)

  • N. Kaldor
  • J Robinson
  • M. Kalecki
  • John Hicks
  • Roy Harrod

 

Post Keynesians

  • Evsey Domar
  • Hyman Minsky
  • Steve Keen
  • Marc Lavoie
  • Richard Werner
  • Perry Mehrling
  • Morris Copeland
  • Wynn Godley
  • Dirk Bezemer
  • Paul Davidson
  • Mark Setterfield
  • Steve Pressman
  • Basil Moore
  • Tom Palley
  • LP Rochon
  • L Randall Ray
  • Eckhard Hein
  • G C Harcourt
  • G Fontana
  • J King
  • AK Dutt
  • Stephanie Kelton
  • Scott Fullwiler
  • Lance Taylor
  • Geoffrey Hodgson
  • Alfred Eichner

     

Evolutionary School / Institutionalist School

(Increasing Returns/Circular and Cumulative Causation)

  • Karl Marx
  • R M Goodwin
  • J Schumpeter
  • Ken Boulding
  • T Veblen
  • Gunnar Myrdal

 

Complexity/Santa Fe

  • Scott Page
  • W Brian Arthur
  • Doyne Farmer

 

System Dynamics

  • John Sterman
  • Jay Forrester
  • Khalid Saeed
  • M Radzicki
  • K Yamaguchi
  • N Forrester
  • Tom Fiddaman
  • David Wheat
  • Peter Senge

 

Austrian Economics

  • F Hayak
  • Ludwig Von Mises
  • Murray Rothbard

 

 

Heterodox Growth Models

  • Kaldor
    • Dixen and Thirlwall
  • Kalecki
    • AK DUTT
    • Marglin
    • Rawthorn
  • Harris
  • Sweezy

 

Heterodox / Post Keynesian School – Ideas

  • Debt Deflation of Irving Fisher
  • Financial Stability Hypothesis of Hyman Minsky
  • Credit/Debt Cycles of Steve Keen
  • Stock Flow Consistent (Accounting) Models of Marc Lavoie and Wynn Godley
  • Joseph Schumpeter – Innovation/Creative Destruction
  • Richard Werner – Disaggregated Credit – Financial vs Real 
  • Perry Mehrling / Zoltan Pozsar – Money View
  • Morris Copeland – Flow of Funds
  • Austrian School – Hayak / Von Mises / Rothberg
  • Dirk Bezemer – Money as Credit / Accounting Models
  • Richard Koo – Balance sheet Recession
  • Quadruple Accounting / Interlocking Balance sheets
  • Asset Liability Matrix Analysis – K Tsujimura
  • Financial Social Accounting Matrix (F-SAM)
  • Monetary Circuit
  • Banks as Payment System
  • Banks as Market Makers (Dealers)
  • Liquidity – Solvency Nexus
  • Central Banks as Lender and Dealer of Last Resort
  • Focus on Disaggregated / Operational/Horizontal View of Banks and Central Banks and Financial Markets.

 

 

From 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’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.

 

From Institutional Economics, Post Keynesian Economics, and System Dynamics: Three Strands of a Heterodox Economics Braid

A. Lineage of Institutional Economics

In Figure 1, the intellectual lineage leading to the present-day school of institutional economics begins with Quesnay and Smith and follows two principal routes. The first runs through Ricardo and Marx and then through the “American institutionalists” Veblen, Commons, and Mitchell. The last link in this route passes through Clarence Ayres, Galbraith, and Myrdal. The second or “thermodynamics/general systems” route runs through Ricardo and Marx, passes through Schumpeter (1976), and links with Boulding (1970, 1978, 1991), Georgescu-Roegen (1971), and Robert Ayres (1978). This route has also been influenced by the cybernetics of Norbert Wiener (1948). Figure 1 also shows, via two-way arrows, four schools of thought that directly complement institutional economics: Post Keynesian economics, behavioral economics, ecological economics, and evolutionary economics. An argument can be made, however, that a two-way arrow between agent-based computational economics and institutional economics should be included as well.

 

B. Lineage of Post Keynesian Economics

Figure 1 presents one direct route and two main “directions of flow,” each incorporating several routes, that lead to the modern Post Keynesian school of economics. The direct route simply runs from Quesnay and Marx to Leontieff and then to the Post Keynesian school because input-output analysis is frequently used by Post Keynesian economists. On the other hand, the first main direction of flow runs through the Cambridge Post Keynesians (e.g., Robinson, Kaldor, Passinetti) and the founders of American Post Keynesian school (e.g., Weintraub, Davidson, Eichner, Minsky). This direction is traversed by way of Quesnay, Marx, and Kalecki or via Smith, Malthus, Keynes, Harrod, and Domar. The second main direction of flow runs through those economists who pioneered the “engineering systems” approach to economics such as Tustin (1953), Phillips (1950, 1954,1957), Allen (1955), Goodwin,10 and Leijonhufvud (1968).11 This direction is traversed via: (1) Keynes directly, (2) early Keynesian business cycle theorists such as Harrod, Hicks and Samuelson, (3) Hayek, because Post Keynesians such as Kaldor had their thinking influenced to some degree by Austrian economics, and (4) Schumpeter, because Goodwin both taught, and was taught by, Schumpeter [see Goodwin (1993, p. 305)].

 

C. Lineage of Ecological Economics

 

In Figure 1, the intellectual lineage leading to the present-day school of ecological economics begins with Quesnay and Smith and follows three principal routes. The first runs through Malthus and then directly to Costanza and Daly (1992). The second runs through Quesnay and then through Leontieff. The third runs through Ricardo and Marx and then passes through Schumpeter. In terms of complementary schools of thought, both evolutionary economics and institutional economics are linked to ecological economics with a two- way arrow. An argument can be made, however, that a two-way arrow between ecological economics and agent- based computational economics should be added because the emergence and evolution of social structures such as property rights and environmental valuations and norms, that are crucial to avoiding “tragedy of the commons” and other non-sustainable dynamics, can be identified and studied.

 

D.  Agent Based Computational Economics/Complexity/Santa Fe Institute

In Figure 1, there are several routes that lead to the present -day school of agent -based computational economics. The main route runs from John von Neumann and his work on self-replicating machines during the nineteen forties directly to the agent-based school; via John Nash and then Thomas Schelling [due to Schelling’s (1978) path-breaking agent-based work on the emergence of racially segregated neighborhoods]; or via some of von Neumann’s present-day followers such as John Holland [Holland and Miller (1991)], Stuart Koffman, John Miller (1998), W. Brian Arthur (1993, 1994), and Christopher Langton (1989).20 Leigh Tesfatsion (1997, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002), Robert Axtell, Joshua Epstein, Robert Axelrod and David Lane (1993) would also be legitimately included in this group. Most of these modern day researchers have ties to the Santa Fe Institute, an organization specializing in the study of complex systems.21  One of the leaders of the Sante Fe Institute, W. Brian Arthur (1988, 1990), has written extensively about being influenced by economists who emphasized the importance of positive feedback loops, increasing returns, and path dependency, in explaining evolutionary economic behavior. As a result, in Figure 1 links to Arthur run from Nicholas Kaldor (1981), Gunnar Myrdal, Paul David (1985), and Ilya Progogine (1993).

 

E.  Lineage of Behavioral Economics

In Figure 1, the intellectual lineage leading to the present-day school of behavioral economics begins with Quesnay, Smith, and Ricardo and follows three principal routes. The first runs through Marx, to Dobb, Baran, Sweezy and Mandel, and then through some more modern-day radical political economists such as Sherman, Weiskopf, Bowles [Bowles, Ginits and Osborne (2001)], Foley (1997), and Marglin (1984). The second runs through Marx and then through Schumpeter, passes through Richard Day (1975) [see also Day and Eliasson (1986) and Day and Chen (1993)], and then through George Akerlof, Richard Thayler, and Robert Frank. The third runs through Veblen, Commons and Mitchell and then through Duesenberry and Simon (1957, 1979, 1984). It continues directly through Ackerlof, Thayler and Frank and also takes a side branch through Cyert and March (1963). This last route emphasizes the contributions to behavioral economics of the “Carnegie School” and the work of Herbert Simon. Indeed, Simon is considered to be the father of the field and frequently wrote that his thinking on bounded rationality was influenced by the work of John Commons [e.g., Simon (1979, p. 499; 1991, p. 87)].

 

F.  Lineage of Austrian Economics

In Figure 1, the intellectual lineage leading to the present-day school of Austrian economics begins with Quesnay, Smith and Ricardo and works its way to Carl Menger via Say and Mill. This route continues via Menger’s most prominent disciples Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser to Mises and then to his student Hayek.27 From Hayek, the route extends to the more modern-day Austrians such as Israel Kirzner (1987, 1997) and Murray Rothbard and finally to the school itself. A two-way arrow is shown between the Austrians and agent-based computational economics because many of Mises’ and Hayek’s beliefs are in harmony with central tenets of agent-based modeling. Indeed, Vriend (2002) lays out a strong case that Hayek was essentially an agent-based computational economist.

 

G.  Lineage of Evolutionary Economics

In Figure 1, the intellectual lineage leading to the present-day school of evolutionary economics begins with Quesnay and Smith and follows several routes. The first runs through both Marx and Schumpeter and then through economic historians such as David (1985) and Rostow (1990). The second runs through Schumpeter and the neo-Schumpeterians such as Nelson (1995), Winter (1964), Witt (1992, 1993), Iawi (1984a, 1984b), Eliasson, Silverberg (1988), and Dosi [and Nelson (1994)]. The third runs through Schumpeter and then the far-from-equilibrium thermodynamicists [Prigogine (1993), Nicolis, Allen (1988)] and the punctuated equilibrium theorists [Tushman and Romanelli (1985)], and finally through England (1994), who notes that he was inspired by Boulding (1970, 1978, 1991), Georgescu-Roegen (1971), and Prigogine (1993). The fourth runs through Schumpeter and the classical thermodynamicists [Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Ayres (1978)], and then through England (1994), or directly to the school. Two-way arrows indicating complementary schools of thought are drawn between all of the other evolutionary schools except the Austrians.

 

 

Key sources of Research:

 

A Contribution to Theory of Economic Growth

Robert Solow

1956

https://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Courses/Readings/Solow.pdf

 

 

On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth

T Coopmans

 

http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d01/d0163.pdf

 

Interactions between the Multiplier Analysis and the Principle of Acceleration

Paul A. Samuelson

The Review of Economics and Statistics
Vol. 21, No. 2 (May, 1939), pp. 75-78

 

 

ON THE MECHANICS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Robert E. LUCAS, Jr.

 

http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/darcillon-thibault/lucasmechanicseconomicgrowth.pdf

 

 

Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth

Paul M. Romer

 

http://ihome.ust.hk/~dxie/OnlineMacro/romerjpe1986.pdf

 

 

‘Growth theory after Keynes, part I: the unfortunate suppression of the Harrod-Domar model’

Van den Berg, Hendrik

(2013)

The Journal of Philosophical Economics, VII:1

 

http://www.jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=4995

 

 

‘Growth theory after Keynes, part II: 75 years of obstruction by the mainstream economics culture’

Van den Berg, Hendrik

(2014)

The Journal of Philosophical Economics, VII:2

 

http://jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=6300

 

 

The Neoclassical Growth Model and Twentieth-Century Economics

Mauro Boianovsky and Kevin D. Hoover

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~kdh9/Source%20Materials/Research/Boianovsky-HooverIntroductionGrowth.pdf

 

 

TREVOR SWAN AND THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH MODEL

Robert W. Dimand and Barbara J. Spencer (née Swan)

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13950.pdf

 

 

The History of Macroeconomics from Keynes’s General Theory to the Present

Michel De Vroey and Pierre Malgrange

June 2011

 

http://sites.uclouvain.be/econ/DP/IRES/2011028.pdf

 

 

Keynes and the Cambridge School

G. C. Harcourt and Prue Kerr

 

https://historiadelamacroeconomia.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chapter22.pdf

 

 

NEW GROWTH THEORY, EFFECTIVE DEMAND, AND POST-KEYNESIAN DYNAMICS

Amitava Krishna Dutt

September 2001

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.871&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

 

A Brief Introduction to Post Keynesian Macroeconomics

J. E. King

2013

 

http://wug.akwien.at/WUG_Archiv/2013_39_4/2013_39_4_0485.pdf

 

 

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC GROWTH MODELS AND THEORIES: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Ilkhom SHARIPOV

 

http://www.ceswp.uaic.ro/articles/CESWP2015_VII3_SHA.pdf

 

 

The structure of growth models: A comparative survey

Antonio D’Agata

Giuseppe Freni

 

http://growthconf.ec.unipi.it/papers/DAgataFreni.pdf

 

 

Major Schools of Economic Theory

 

http://www.tamut.edu/Walter-Casey/DOCUMENTS/CV-and-papers/Economic%20Theory.pdf

 

 

Getting rid of Keynes? A survey of the history of macroeconomics from Keynes to Lucas and beyond

 

Michel De Vroey

2010

 

https://www.nbb.be/doc/oc/repec/reswpp/wp187en.pdf

 

 

Neoclassical Growth Theory and Heterodox Growth Theory: Opportunities For and Obstacles To Greater Engagement

Mark Setterfield

December 2009

 

http://internet2.trincoll.edu/repec/WorkingPapers2009/wp09-01.pdf

 

 

Endogenous Growth: A Kaldorian Approach

Mark Setterfield

2010

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bea6/c7a330e8859a2fd6bf09043e864ac71bbe92.pdf

 

 

Financialization in Kaleckian economies with and without labor constraints

Soon Ryoo and Peter Skotty

18th March 2008

 

https://www.umass.edu/economics/publications/2008-05.pdf

 

 

Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid-1990s – main developments

Eckhard Hein

Working Paper, No. 75/2016

Institute for International Political Economy Berlin

 

 

Aggregate Demand, Aggregate Supply and Economic Growth

AMITAVA KRISHNA DUTT

2006

 

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Dutt2006.pdf

 

 

A dynamic synthesis of basic macroeconomic theory: implications for stabilization policy analysis

Forrester, N. B.

(1982).

(Doctoral dissertation, M. I. T., Alfred P. Sloan School of Management).

 

 

The System Dynamics National Model

Jay Forrester

http://systemsmodelbook.org/uploadedfile/1470_0a924c5b-b909-42fa-be9b-932588278f36_forre004.pdf

 

 

Understanding Recent Developments in Growth Theory

Lars Weber

 

https://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/WEBER326.pdf

 

 

Linking Economic Modeling and System Dynamics: A Basic Model for Monetary Policy and Macroprudential Regulation

 

Klaus Dieter John

 

https://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2012/proceed/papers/P1396.pdf

 

 

System Dynamics and Its Contribution to Economics and Economic Modeling

M Radzicki

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227167378_System_Dynamics_and_Its_Contribution_to_Economics_and_Economic_Modeling

 

 

Evolutionary Economics and System Dynamics

M Radzicki

J Sterman

http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1993/proceed/radzi338.pdf

 

 

A Post Keynesian Model of Macroeconomic Growth, Instability, and Income Distribution

M Radzicki and K Saeed

http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1993/proceed/saeed435.pdf

 

 

Institutional Economics, Post Keynesian Economics, and System Dynamics: Three Strands of a Heterodox Economics Braid

M Radzicki

2008

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237138677_Institutional_Economics_Post_Keynesian_Economics_and_System_Dynamics_Three_Strands_of_a_Heterodox_Economics_Braid

 

 

Was Alfred Eichner a System Dynamicist?

M Radzicki

2006

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239920399_Was_Alfred_Eichner_a_System_Dynamicist

 

 

Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester and a Foundation for Evolutionary Economics

Michael J. Radzicki

2004

 

http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2003/proceed/PAPERS/923.pdf

 

 

Disequilibrium Systems Representation of Growth Models—Harrod-Domar, Solow, Leontief, Minsky, and Why the U.S. Fed Opened the Discount Window to Money-Market Funds

Frederick Betz

 

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ME_2015120814432915.pdf

 

 

An Institutional Dynamics Model of the Euro zone crisis: Greece as an Illustrative Example

Domen Zavrl
Miroljub Kljajić

2010

 

http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2010/proceed/papers/P1144.pdf

 

 

“Deterministic chaos in an experimental economic system.”

Sterman, John D.

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 12.1 (1989): 1-28.

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/47164/deterministicchax00ster.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

NONLINEAR MODE-INTERACTION IN THE MACROECONOMY

Erik MOSEKILDE, Erik REIMER LARSEN, John D. STERMAN

and Jesper SKOVHUS THOMSEN

1992

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Sterman2/publication/225978240_Nonlinear_Mode-Interaction_in_the_Macroeconomy/links/5733372708ae298602dce4ba.pdf

 

 

Devil’s staircase and chaos from macroeconomic mode interaction

Larsen, Erik Reimer, et al.

Article in Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control ·

February 1993

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erik_Mosekilde/publication/4830250_Devil’s_staircase_and_chaos_from_macroeconomic_mode_interaction/links/5789dd4908ae59aa6676bfe6.pdf

 

 

Mode‐locking and entrainment of endogenous economic cycles.

Haxholdt, C., Kampmann, C., Mosekilde, E., & Sterman, J. D.

System Dynamics Review, 11(3), 177-198.

(1995).

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/48535/modelockingentra00haxh.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

Advertisements

Author: Mayank Chaturvedi

You can contact me using this email mchatur at the rate of AOL.COM. My professional profile is on Linkedin.com.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s