Skip Navigation

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005 29(1):141-170; doi:10.1093/cje/bei003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Darity, W.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, L. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
Right arrow F11 - Neoclassical Models of Trade
Right arrow F43 - Economic Growth of Open Economies
Right arrow O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
Right arrow O47 - Measurement of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 29, No. 1, © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2005; all rights reserved

Critical Survey

This is the latest in our series of Critical Survey articles. The aim of the series is to report on recent developments, to provide an assessment of alternative approaches and to suggest lines of further inquiry. The intention is that the articles should be accessible not only to other academic researchers but also to students and others more practically involved in the economy. Recent Survey articles include Ron Martin on ‘The New "Geographical Turn in Economics"’, Sergio Cesaratto on ‘Saving and Economic Growth in Neoclassical Theory’, Ben Fine on ‘Endogenous Growth Theory’ and Sonali Deraniyagala and Ben Fine on ‘New trade theory versus old trade policy: a continuing enigma’

Growth, trade and uneven development

William Darity, Jr and Lewis S. Davis*

* University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (William Darity, Jr) and Smith College (Lewis S. Davis)

Address for correspondence: L. S. Davis, Pierce Hall 107, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA; email: lsdavis{at}smith.edu

Abstract

Theories of growth and international trade are reviewed critically from the perspective of understanding persistent inter-country and inter-regional income inequality. Three separate literatures are considered for the insights they offer about international disparity: Classical political economy, the North–South trade models, and the ‘new’ growth and trade theories that incorporate increasing returns and/or product differentiation. Classical antecedents of the more recent theories are identified, and contrasts are drawn between structuralist and neoclassical approaches to explaining the income gap between rich and poor nations.

Key Words: Growth • International trade • Uneven development • Classical political economy • Increasing returns

JEL classifications: B12, F12, F43, O4

Manuscript received February 22, 1999; final version received April 23, 2004.


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
Cambridge J EconHome page
A. Bhattacharjea
Did Kaldor anticipate the New Economic Geography? Yes, but ...
Camb. J. Econ., November 18, 2009; (2009) bep069v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cambridge J EconHome page
A. V. Mollick, J. R. Faria, P. H. Albuquerque, and M. A. Leon-Ledesma
Can globalisation stop the decline in commodities' terms of trade?
Camb. J. Econ., September 1, 2008; 32(5): 683 - 701.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ind Corp ChangeHome page
F. Castellacci
Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth
Ind. Corp. Change, December 1, 2007; 16(6): 1105 - 1145.
[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.