Abstract
This article comments on a recent article by Kuipers on Keynesian and neoclassical theories of economic growth. It is argued that Kuipers' analysis of his Harrodian variant is too restrictive to answer the question of stability of the full-capacity steady growth path. An alternative Harrodian variant, which, in contrast to Kuipers' model, includes the possibility of unfulfilled demand growth expectations, is specified, and it is shown that this model is unstable. This result has important consequences for Kuipers' ranking of Keynesian and neoclassical theories in a general theory of economic growth according to their respectively medium-term and long-term character.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
