Skip Navigation


Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access originally published online on January 10, 2005
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005 29(3):463-473; doi:10.1093/cje/bei005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
29/3/463    most recent
bei005v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chandra, R.
Right arrow Articles by Sandilands, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B12 - Classical
Right arrow B22 - Macroeconomics
Right arrow B31 - Individuals
Right arrow O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
Right arrow O40 - General
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Does modern endogenous growth theory adequately represent Allyn Young?

Ramesh Chandra and Roger J. Sandilands*

* Department of Economics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. The authors are grateful to two anonymous referees for helpful comments and constructive criticisms

Address for correspondence: Ramesh Chandra, Department of Economics, University of Strathclyde, Sir William Duncan Building, 130 Rottenrow, Glasgow G4 0GE, UK; email: ramesh.chandra{at}strath.ac.uk.

Endogenous growth theory is now fashionable. It seeks to explain why per capita income growth in capital abundant countries is often faster than in capital poor countries and defies the operation of diminishing returns. This theory, which took off with Romer and Lucas, often makes Allyn Young's concept of increasing returns and Marshall's distinction between internal and external economies its starting point but considers their treatment of the subject as not sufficiently rigorous. The modern endogenous growth theorists then claim to explain what they had in mind with greater clarity, rigour and depth. This paper argues that this is not the case as these theorists actually misrepresent Young in important ways.

Key Words: Endogenous growth • Increasing returns • Cumulative causation • Classical growth theory • Allyn Young

JEL classifications: B12, B 22, O11, O40

Manuscript received October 28, 2002; final version received October 13, 2003.


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




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.