Abstract
The endogenous growth models are generally presented as (1) a macrodynamic version of Walras's general equilibrium, with microeconomic bases; (2) a break with Solow's representation, which proved incapable of explaining growth; (3) identifying present motors of technical progress and growth by mobilizing notions of knowledge, externalities, and increasing returns; (4) rehabilitating state intervention, particularly in social areas (research, education, etc.); and (5) closing the gap between neoclassical authors and heterodox issues. These positions, on which a consensus has been built, are erroneous. The aim of this article is to contribute to the critique of these models by throwing light on their hidden face, especially on the ambiguities surrounding the state's role in the era of neoliberal globalization.
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.
