Through exploring the limitation of the neoclassical theory of economic growth,which classifies growth as a homogenous process,this paper reconciles various theories of economic development and explains the rises and ...Through exploring the limitation of the neoclassical theory of economic growth,which classifies growth as a homogenous process,this paper reconciles various theories of economic development and explains the rises and falls of economic growth under a unified framework,focusing on incentives of the accumulation of physical and human capital.This paper classifies instances of economic growth into four categories—the Malthusian poverty trap,the Lewis dual model of economic development,the Lewis turning point,and Solow neoclassical growth model.This paper conducts empirical analysis of these categories of economic development as they are relevant to Chinese economic growth and discusses policy implications therein.展开更多
In the last few years, different sources pointed to a same message： industrial civilization had entered into an overshoot mode; the natural limits to growth had been already surpassed. This frontier does not wait for...In the last few years, different sources pointed to a same message： industrial civilization had entered into an overshoot mode; the natural limits to growth had been already surpassed. This frontier does not wait for us in the future; it already belongs to our past. If population and the economy are truly beyond the limits, then current visions and theories of social change would be deeply perturbed. If the development era is approaching its end, then many sociological theories on current societies will share the same destiny： sustainable development doctrines between them. It is worth to examine theories that explicitly look at the social world which at least are not incompatible with it. Four different approaches are discussed in this context： governance of complexity, post-development and alternative local development, utopian sceneries of a prosperous waydown, visions of collapse and the die-off. As a conclusion, the paper accepts an evolutionary perspective supports that there are some potentials for conscious social change, but it does not justify the belief in a particular only line of history. This conclusion does not satisfy the desire of knowing the future; nevertheless it may be the only one possible. The future is not written. Neither in history nor in evolution; not even in the mixture of history and evolution that conforms us as inhabitants of the Earth.展开更多
文摘Through exploring the limitation of the neoclassical theory of economic growth,which classifies growth as a homogenous process,this paper reconciles various theories of economic development and explains the rises and falls of economic growth under a unified framework,focusing on incentives of the accumulation of physical and human capital.This paper classifies instances of economic growth into four categories—the Malthusian poverty trap,the Lewis dual model of economic development,the Lewis turning point,and Solow neoclassical growth model.This paper conducts empirical analysis of these categories of economic development as they are relevant to Chinese economic growth and discusses policy implications therein.
文摘In the last few years, different sources pointed to a same message： industrial civilization had entered into an overshoot mode; the natural limits to growth had been already surpassed. This frontier does not wait for us in the future; it already belongs to our past. If population and the economy are truly beyond the limits, then current visions and theories of social change would be deeply perturbed. If the development era is approaching its end, then many sociological theories on current societies will share the same destiny： sustainable development doctrines between them. It is worth to examine theories that explicitly look at the social world which at least are not incompatible with it. Four different approaches are discussed in this context： governance of complexity, post-development and alternative local development, utopian sceneries of a prosperous waydown, visions of collapse and the die-off. As a conclusion, the paper accepts an evolutionary perspective supports that there are some potentials for conscious social change, but it does not justify the belief in a particular only line of history. This conclusion does not satisfy the desire of knowing the future; nevertheless it may be the only one possible. The future is not written. Neither in history nor in evolution; not even in the mixture of history and evolution that conforms us as inhabitants of the Earth.
