Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/277486 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Citation: 
[Journal:] European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (EJEEP) [ISSN:] 2052-7772 [Volume:] 17 [Issue:] 3 [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] 295-306
Publisher: 
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Abstract: 
Emiliano Libman's constructive comments on our recent book, Heterodox Macroeconomics: Models of Demand, Distribution and Growth (HM), raise three main points of contention: the suitability of single-sector/single-technique (as opposed to multi-sector/multi-technique) models; the appropriate choice of production function; and the distinction between limit cycles and closed orbits as representations of Goodwinian dynamics. In this reply, we respond to Libman's critique in a manner that is designed to develop his arguments into a useful addendum to our book. In so doing, we hope that this exchange will engage interested students and other readers in issues and avenues of inquiry that lie beyond some of the first-pass simplifications in HM.
Subjects: 
choice of technique
production functions
Goodwin cycles
multi-sectoral models
technological change
factor substitution
JEL: 
E11
E12
O33
O41
B51
D24
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.