EVOLUTIONARY AND NEW GROWTH THEORIES. ARE THEY CONVERGING?
Fulvio Castellacci
Journal of Economic Surveys, 2007, vol. 21, issue 3, 585-627
Abstract:
Abstract This paper presents a critical review of evolutionary and new growth theories. The purpose is to discuss the often‐made claim that the two approaches, both inspired by Schumpeter's seminal work, are becoming more and more similar in terms of the sources and mechanisms of the growth process on which they focus. According to this argument, some kind of theoretical convergence between the two paradigms is taking place. Differently from previous surveys of the field, this paper compares evolutionary and new growth theories by focusing on their major theoretical foundations. The discussion leads to the conclusion that the two approaches greatly differ with respect to all of their main theoretical building blocks, and that no convergence between the two paradigms is therefore taking place. This finding should be welcomed by both evolutionary and new growth scholars, because it is the process of interaction and the fruitful exchange of ideas between different approaches that lead to advances in growth theory, not their convergence to a common paradigm.
Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (49)
Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00515.x
Related works:
Working Paper: Evolutionary and new growth theories: are they converging? (2006) 
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jecsur:v:21:y:2007:i:3:p:585-627
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0950-0804
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Journal of Economic Surveys from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().