The possibility of technical progress in an open economy
More details
Hide details
Politechnika Warszawska Wydział Administracji i Nauk Społecznych
Publication date: 2017-11-16
JoMS 2017;34(3):105–123
The adoption of Lisbon Strategy proves that European Commission and Council realised the importance of innovation. Lisbon Strategy: a) aimed at achieving very ambition target – developing the European economy to the most technologically advanced region in the world, b) especially, the amended version of the Strategy – Europe 2020, was the guideline for the programming of structural fund, which in turn aimed at increasing the social-economic cohesion among the regions and countries, c) should not be analized in separation of single market regulation (competition policy), state aid aquis and the rules of fiscal and monetary stability. The optimisic belief, that the less developed countries can grow faster and catch up the leaders due to intense technical progress, arised from the neoclassical theory of growth based on the aggregate production function. But neither statistical data nor heterodox theory of growth supports this belief. In post-keynesian models the demand side of the open economy must regard the Thirlwall’s law. The balance of payments influence the technology through the Verdoorn-Kaldor law. Basically, this is the reason of uneven development among the member states: in European Union there is “club” consist of countries with high income and high technology but the rest tends to create a group with income lower than average. This supports the Quah’s divergence hypothesis. It seems that the european regulations and policies, including cohesion policy, are not sufficient to counter the negative consequences of common market. Economic integration calls for demand policy (i.e. another distribution of income), especially – investment and industrial policy in the Southern and Eastern Europe.
Amsden, A. (2001). The rise of „The Rest”: Challenges to the west from late-industrializing economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Araujo, R.A., Lima, G.T. (2007). A structural economic dynamics approach to balance-of-payments-constrained growth, „Cambridge Journal of Economics” nr 31(5), s. 755–774, doi:10.1093/cje/bem006.
Araujo, R.A., Teixeira, J.R. (2004). A Pasinettian approach to international economic relations: the pure labor case, „Review of Political Economy” nr 16(1), s. 117–129, doi:10.1080/0953825032000145490.
Barro, R. (1997). Makroekonomia, Warszawa: PWE.
Bhaduri, A. (1994). Makroekonomiczna teoria dynamiki produkcji towarowej, Warszawa: WN PWN.
Blecker, R. (1996). The new economic integration: Structuralist models of north-south trade and investment liberalization, „Structural Change and Economic Dynamics” nr 7(3), s. 321–345.
Domar, E. (1962). Szkice z teorii wzrostu gospodarczego, Warszawa: WN PWN.
Dutt, A.K. (1992). The NICs, global accumulation and uneven development: Implications of a simple three-region model, „World Development” nr 20(8), s. 1159–1171.
Esteban, J.-M., Ray, D. (1994). On the measurement of polarization, „Econometrica” nr 62, s. 819–851.
Felipe, J., McCombie, J. (2013). Aggregate production function and the measurement of technical change. ‘Not Even Wrong’, E. Elgar.
Fisher, F., Felipe, J. (2003). Aggregation in production functions: What applied economists should know, „Metroeconomica” nr 54(2), s. 208–262.
Fredholm, T., Zambelli, S. (2013). Production functions behaving badly – Reconsidering fisher and shaikh, „Global and Local Economic Review” nr 17(1).
Furtado, C. (1982). Mit rozwoju gospodarczego, Warszawa: PWE.
Holko, M. (2016a). Dezintegracja Unii Europejskiej, „Journal of Modern Science” nr 2(29), s. 199–236.
Holko, M. (2016b). Polityka ekonomiczna w warunkach integracji europejskiej: w świetle teorii Kaleckiego i Pasinettiego, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej.
Jasiński, L.J. (2016). Dezindustrializacja a bezpieczeństwo ekonomiczne, „Journal of Modern Science” nr 2(29), s. 131–152.
Lakner, C., Milanovic, B. (2013). Global income distribution. From the fall of the Berlin wall to the great recession, The World Bank Development Research Group, Poverty and Inequality Team, Policy Research Working Paper 6719.
Łaski, K. (2015). Wykłady z makroekonomii. Gospodarka kapitalistyczna bez bezrobocia, Łódź: Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne.
Pasinetti, L. (1981). Structural change and economic growth, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pasinetti, L. (2000). Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution, „BNL Quarterly Review” nr 215.
Prebisch, R. (1986). Ameryka Łacińska jako peryferie globalnego kapitalizmu, [w:] Zasoby ludzkie, zatrudnienie i rozwój, Warszawa: WN PWN.
Quah, D. (1997). Empirics for growth and distribution: Stratification, polarization, and convergence clubs, „Journal of Economic Growth” nr 2, s. 27–59.
Sala-i-Martin, X. (1996). Regional cohesion: Evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence, „European Economic Review” nr 40, s. 1325–1352.
Sawyer, M. (2013). Alternative economic policies for the economic and monetary union, „Contributions to Political Economy” nr 32(1), s. 11–27, doi:10.1093/cpe/bzt005.
Shaikh, A. (1974). Laws of production and laws of algebra: The humbug production function, „Review of Economics and Statistics” nr 51(1), s. 115–120.
Sraffa, P. (1965). Produkcja towarów za pomocą towarów, Warszawa: WN PWN.
Taylor, L. (1986). Trade and growth, „The Review of Black Political Economy” nr 14(4), s. 17–36, doi:10.1007/BF02903789.
Thirlwall, A.P. (1979). The balance of payments constraint as an explanation of international growth rate differences, „Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review” nr 32(128), s. 45–53.
Tomczak, A. (2015). Problem deflacji jako zagrożenia dla bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego, „Journal of Modern Science” nr 1(24), s. 169–187.
Tomczak, A. (2016). Branding narodowy Polski na tle wybranych krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, „Journal of Modern Science” nr 2(29), s. 153–174.