Similarities and differences between the theories of economic growth

Abstract

Economics has received scientific recognition for the theoretical formalization through mathematical formulation. The Theory of Economic Growth’s postulates emerge from Economics. However, many economists have expressed their disillusion and dissatisfaction about progress and the current state of Economics in the society.
Generating a philosophical base within different postulates, on this handbook is given a journey towards some authors of The Economic Growth. That base allows to analyze economic politics. The first model is Harrod’s Model (1939) – Domar (1946), which enlarges the Keynes’ ideas through The Dynamic Macroeconomics; The Solow Model (1956) considers that the accumulation of the capital assets as central axis, and that human capital appears as main variant because of its capacity to generate new knowledge creating endogenous growth. Also, Kaldor, with his Laws of Growth, explains the differences that could appear in a country’s economic cycles.
Looking from liberal theory’s view, Hayek defends the Neoclassical Postulates and the market functionality generating economic growth; and from Neokeynesianism view, Robinson criticized Neoclassical Models. The criticism was made about unreal neoclassical postulates and about the empiric shortcomings. Besides, analyzing the growth on new variables, endogenous growth and human capital appear as categories, which have theoretical reach.

On the document, the theories and factors related to the economic growth are studied keeping in mind the different Schools and their focuses. Also, it is  recognized that the scientific production is plentiful, and some theories have been considered analyzing the economic truth; the problem is that the context, the structural heterogeneity and economic systems’ divergences are not kept in mind.