Thank you very much for the links. As an economist, I have always find growth the most important fact of economics, and growth theory the less interesting economic discipline.
What do we get out of this? Perhaps a better functional form for production functions?
But production functions are the most defective part of economic modelling. A way to allow economists to avoid the complexity of intersectoral linkages and explicit technology modelling [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-75751-1]? I am a great fan of market clearing, and rational expectations are a tolerable simplification. But production functions are a form of surrender.
Most of the models in growth theory look to me far away from both policy recommendations, or econometric forecasting. They are “explanatory”, and mostly removed from observables. The Von Neumann criticism of complex models (“give me 4 parameters and I can draw an elephant, with 5 it can move its tail”) was the first I thought when I was taught the Romer model.
Thank you very much for the links. As an economist, I have always find growth the most important fact of economics, and growth theory the less interesting economic discipline.
What do we get out of this? Perhaps a better functional form for production functions?
But production functions are the most defective part of economic modelling. A way to allow economists to avoid the complexity of intersectoral linkages and explicit technology modelling [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-75751-1]? I am a great fan of market clearing, and rational expectations are a tolerable simplification. But production functions are a form of surrender.
Most of the models in growth theory look to me far away from both policy recommendations, or econometric forecasting. They are “explanatory”, and mostly removed from observables. The Von Neumann criticism of complex models (“give me 4 parameters and I can draw an elephant, with 5 it can move its tail”) was the first I thought when I was taught the Romer model.