The Solow-Pasinetti debate on the measurement of productivity in the light of modern growth theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643/18492Keywords:
Solow, Pasinetti, production function, productivity measurementAbstract
This article aims to study the Solow-Pasinetti debate on the aggregate production function and technical progress as an event that anticipated a divide in the subsequent theories of economic growth and technical change. Ultimately, the debate manifests two completely different approaches, not only to the particular question of technical change but also to political economy tout court.
Pasinetti gave paramount importance to the fact that the factors of production could not be treated as symmetrical, as the neoclassical theory treated them. Related to this is Pasinetti’s dismissal of the distinction neoclassical economics made between shifts in the production function to evaluate technical change and movements along it. In fact, he dismissed the neoclassical production function altogether.
References
Domar E.D. (1946), “Capital Expansion, Rate of Growth, and Employment”, Econometrica, 14 (2), pp. 137-147.
Garbellini N., Wirkierman A. (2023), “The Solow-Pasinetti debate on productivity measurement: Review and reformulation”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, n. 65 (april). Available online.
Halevi J. (2016), “Luigi Pasinetti and the Political Economy of Growth and Distribution”, INET Working Paper Series, n. 40, New York: Institute for New Economic Thinking. Available online.
Harrod R.F. (1939), “An Essay in Dynamic Theory”. The Economic Journal, 49 (193), pp. 14-33.
Kaldor N. (1957), “A Model of Economic Growth”, The Economic Journal, 67 (268), pp. 591-624.
Kalecki M. (1942), “A Theory of Profits”, The Economic Journal, 52 (206/207), pp. 258-267.
Kalecki M. (1947), “Three Ways to Full Employment”, in Oxford Institute of Statistics (ed.), The Economics of Full Employment: Six Studies in Applied Economics (pp. 39-58), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pasinetti L.L. (1959), “On Concepts and Measures of Changes in Productivity”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 41 (3), pp. 270-286.
Pasinetti L.L. (1962), “Rate of Profit and Income Distribution in Relation to the Rate of Economic Growth”, The Review of Economic Studies, 29 (4), pp. 267-279.
Pasinetti L.L. (1977), Lectures on the Theory of Production, London: Macmillan.
Pasinetti L.L (1981), Structural Change and Economic Growth: A Theoretical Essay on the Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations, Cambridge (UK) and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pasinetti L.L (1998), “A note on Richard Stone’s paper on changes in productivity”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9 (2), pp. 233-235.
Pasinetti L.L (2000), “Critique of the Neoclassical Theory of Growth and Distribution”, PSL Quarterly Review, 53 (215), pp. 383-431. Available online.
Pasinetti L.L (2007), Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A «Revolution in Economics» to Be Accomplished, Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Ricardo D. (1981), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in Sraffa P. and Dobb M. (eds.), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 1, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robbins L. (1932), An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, London: Macmillan.
Robinson J. (1945), “Review of The Economics of Full Employment”, The Economic Journal, 55 (217), pp. 77-82.
Solow R.M. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70 (1), pp. 65-94.
Solow R.M. (1957), “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3), pp. 312-320.
Solow R.M. (1959), “Comment”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 41(3), pp. 282-285.
Solow R.M. (1998), “Comment”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9 (2), pp. 237-238.
Stone R. (1998), “Changes in productivity”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9 (2), pp. 229-231.
Swan T.W. (1956), “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation”, Economic Record, 32 (2), pp. 334-361.
Sylos Labini P. (1995), “Why the interpretation of the Cobb-Douglas production function must be radically changed”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 6 (4), pp. 485-504.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Florencia Romina Sember
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
