Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Setterfield, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cambridge Journal of Economics 25:107-112 (2001)
Copyright © 2001 Cambridge Political Economy Society

Article

Notes and comments. Cumulative causation, interrelatedness and the theory of economic growth: a reply to Argyrous and Toner

M Setterfield

Department of Economics, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 06106, USA
E-mail: mark.setterfield@trincoll.edu

Abstract

In responding to the comments of George Argyrous and Phillip Toner, this reply focuses on four areas of contention between myself and my critics. First, it is suggested that my original model places more weight on the growth-enhancing characteristics of increasing specialisation in production than either Argyrous or Toner acknowledge. Secondly, it is demonstrated that both 'formal' and 'verbal' models of cumulative growth typically place unwarranted emphasis on the importance of initial conditions. Thirdly, the evolutionary properties of my original model are defended against the claim that lock-in renders it mechanical and deterministic. Finally, it is argued that mathematically modelling open but structured social processes (such as economic growth) should not be rejected as redundant in principle.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ECON GEOGRHome page
R. Martin and P. Sunley
Path dependence and regional economic evolution
J. Econ. Geogr., August 1, 2006; 6(4): 395 - 437.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.