What have we learned on growth cycles analysis ? Qu'a-t-on appris sur la croissance cyclique ?

Description

Au sommaire de ce numéro : What have we learned on growth cycles analysis ? / Man and machine in macroeconomics / Cycles "versus" growth in Schumpeter - A graphical interpretation of some core theoretical remarks / Modeling the interaction of cycles and growth in the fifties : two Schumpeterian attempts / Kuznets versus Kondratieff. An essay in historical macroeconometrics / Circulation du capital et explication du changement économique chez Marschak, Frisch et Leontief / The law of diminishing elasticity of demand in Harrod's Trade Cycle (1936) / Growth as an objective of economic policy in the early 1960s : the role of aggregate demand / Stabilization policies and banking behaviors : a rereading of Minsky's conception of business cycles

Sujets

• Science politique
• Économie

Informations

• Publié par: L'Harmattan
• Date de parution: 15 janvier 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 20
• EAN13: 9782336367576
• Langue: Français
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 19 Mo

Extrait

CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE CAHIERS
Michaël ASSOUS What have we learned on growth cycles analysis?
Muriel DAL-PONT LEGRAND Qu’a-t-on appris sur la croissance cyclique ? D’ÉCONOMIE POLITIQUE
Kevin D. HOOVER Man and machine in macroeconomics
L’homme et la machine dans la macroéconomie
Niels GEIGER Cycles « versus » growth in Schumpeter – A graphical
interpretation of some core theoretical remarks PAPERS
Cycles vs croissance chez Schumpeter. Une interprétation
graphique de quelques remarques théoriques centrales
IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
Alain RAYBAUT Modeling the interaction of cycles and growth
in the fifties: two Schumpeterian attempts
Modélisation de l’articulation cycles croissance dans Histoire de la pensée et théories
les années 1950 : deux tentatives schumpétériennes 67History of Thought and Theories
Claude DIEBOLT Kuznets versus Kondratieff.
An essay in historical macroeconometrics
Kuznets vs Kondratieff
Un essai de macroéconométrie historique
Amanar AKHABBAR Circulation du capital et explication du changement What Have We Learned on Growth Cycles Analysis?
économique chez Marschak, Frisch et Leontief
Capital circulation and the explanation of economic
Qu’a-t-on appris sur la croissance cyclique ?change by Marschak, Frisch and Leontief
Michaël ASSOUS The law of diminishing elasticity of demand
Olivier BRUNO in Harrod’s Trade Cycle (1936)
Muriel DAL-PONT LEGRAND La loi de l’élasticité de la demande décroissante
dans le Trade Cycle (1936) 67
Johannes A. SCHWARZER Growth as an objective of economic policy in the
early 1960s: the role of aggregate demand
La croissance, objectif de la politique économique au
début des années 1960 : le rôle de la demande agrégée
Eric NASICA Stabilization policies and banking behaviors:
2014a rereading of Minsky’s conception of business cycles
Politiques de stabilisation et comportements bancaires :
Publié avec le soutien du CNRS, de l’université de Paris Ouest2014une relecture des cycles d’affaires chez Minsky
et de l’Institut d’études politiques de Lille
ISBN : 978-2-343-05340-0
24 e
C A H I E R S D’ÉCONOMIE POLITIQUE
PAPERS IN POLITICAL ECONOMYC A H I E R S
D’ÉCONOMIE POLITIQUE
PAPERS
IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
Histoire de la pensée et théories 67History of Thought and Theories
What Have We Learned on Growth Cycles Analysis?
Qu’a-t-on appris sur la croissance cyclique ?
2014
Publié avec le soutien du CNRS, de l’université de Paris Ouest
et de l’Institut d’études politiques de Lille




































© L’Harmattan, 2014
5-7, rue de l’Ecole-Polytechnique, 75005 Paris

http://www.harmattan.fr
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

ISBN : 978-2-343-05340-0
EAN : 978234305340 SOMMAIRE
Michaël Assous, What have we learned on growth cycles analysis? .........7
Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand
Kevin D. Hoover Man and machine in macroeconomics ......................15
Niels Geiger Cycles « versus » growth in Schumpeter – A graphical
interpretation of some core theoretical r emarks .........35
Alain Raybaut Modeling the interaction of cycles and growth
in the ffties: two Schumpeterian attemps ..................55
Claude Diebolt Kuznets versus Kondratief.
An essay in historical macroeconometrics ..................81
Amanar Akhabbar Circulation du capital et explication du changement
économique chez Marschak, Frisch et Leontief ........ 119
Michaël Assous,
Olivier Bruno, Te law of diminishing elasticity of demand
Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand in Harrod’s Trade Cycle (1936) ................................... 159
Johannes A. Schwarzer Growth as an objective of economic policy
in the early 1960s: the role of aggregate demand ..... 175
Eric Nasica Stabilization policies and banking behaviors:
a rereading of Minsky ’s conception
of business cycles .......................................................... 207CONTENTS
Michaël Assous, Qu’a-t-on appris sur la croissance cyclique ? ................7
Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand
Kevin D. Hoover L’homme et la machine dans la macroéconomie ........15
Niels Geiger Cycles vs croissance chez Schumpeter.
Une interprétation graphique de quelques
remarques théoriques centrales ..................................35
Alain Raybaut Modélisation de l’articulation cycles croissance dans
les années 1950 : deux tentatives schumpétériennes ...55
Claude Diebolt Kuznets vs Kondratief.
Un essai de macroéconométrie historique ..................81
Amanar Akhabbar Capital circulation and the explanation of economic
change by Marschak, Frisch and Leontief ................. 119
Michaël Assous,
Olivier Bruno, La loi de l’élasticité de la demande décroissante
Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand dans le Trade Cycle (1936) de Harrod ........................ 159
Johannes A. Schwarzer La croissance, obsjectif de la politique
économique au début des années 1960 :
le rôle de la demande agrégée ...................................... 175
Eric Nasica Politiques de stabilisation et comportements bancaires :
une relecture des cycles d’afaires chez Minsky .........207What have we learned on growth cycles analysis?
what have we learned on growth
1cycles analysis?
Michaël Assous
2Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand
Business cycles and growth are considered as independent felds for decades.
indeed, after the s econd w orld w ar, when macroeconomics began to develop
through an increased use of mathematical models, the problem of analyzing
growth-cycles dynamics appeared as a real (and certainly also mathematical)
challenge. s ome economists accepted that dichotomy, concentrating their
attention on specifc questions which they considered as better addressed
in models specifcally built in order to capture either long-run or short-run
issues. t wo subfelds appeared: on the one side were business cycle theories
which focused on understanding detrended data movements; on the other
side was long-run growth theory which analyzed the existence and the
stability of stationary paths. e ven if one can identify an increasing tendency
among economists to accept such a ‘division of labor’ between cycle and
growth theories, there were also economists who never ceased to consider
this dichotomy only as a pedagogical organization. o ne can indeed identify
economists who were fully aware of the restrictions imposed by such a
dichotomy and then proposed to explore the various lines of research which
could analyze how cycles and growth dynamics can intertwine. a lthough
the intensity of research in that feld fuctuated sometimes, interest of
macroeconomists for that question never fully disappeared.
a t least two major episodes exist for which the idea of cycles – and
consequently of the interaction between cycles and growth dynamics
th1. Te present issue contains a selection of the papers presented at the 14 international c onference of
the c harles g ide a ssociation for the s tudy of e conomic Tought, at the University n ice s ophia a
ntipolis and gredeg cnrs , May 2012, in a revised version after having been submitted to the usual
refereeing process.
Te authors of this introduction benefted a lot from earlier discussions with h arald h agemann, and
which are developed in a ssous, d al Pont l egrand and h agemann [2015] in an extended version.
2. d epartment of e conomics, University of Paris i, Pantheon-s orbonne, Phare . e -mail: Michael.a
[e-mail]
University of l ille 1 and c lersé cnrs . e -mail: [e-mail]
7Michaël a ssous & Muriel d al-Pont l egrand
– ceased to be in the priorities of the agenda: (i) in the late 1960s, when
Bronfenbrenner [1969] emphasized the lack of interest of macroeconomists
for cycle analysis and (ii) more recently, when leading economists spread the
idea that the central problem of depression / prevention has been solved (cf.
3l ucas [2003]) and that such a statement was also confrmed by practitioners
for whom “[o]ne of the most striking features of the economic landscape over
the past twenty years or so has been a substantial decline in macroeconomic
4volatility.” [Bernanke, 2004]
5a fter the obvious return of instability and depression, interest for growth
6– cycle’s analysis is emerging again, and though one cannot still say that this
question has been solved, it becomes more and more difcult to consider
this (artifcial) division as a scientifc choice. indeed, more than “just” the
unsatisfactory understanding of economic fuctuations, this dichotomy has a
second consequence: the two subf