Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/277486 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2020
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (EJEEP) [ISSN:] 2052-7772 [Volume:] 17 [Issue:] 3 [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] 295-306
Verlag: 
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Zusammenfassung: 
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.
Schlagwörter: 
choice of technique
production functions
Goodwin cycles
multi-sectoral models
technological change
factor substitution
JEL: 
E11
E12
O33
O41
B51
D24
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.