Epistemological analysis of the Solow model
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Since the late eighties, economic growth has been considered as the main objective of governments worldwide to project their public policies in favor of society, which has been related to employment, investment, poverty reduction and improvement of social welfare, despite the fact that, in reality, the discourse is far from what the poor people live in day to day. The Solow model is a model that originates from the neoclassical school, published in 1956 by Robert Solow in the article “A contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, whose foundation lies in the growth of the capital stock, together with the growth population and accompanied by advances in technology, a model that in turn analyzes their influence on the level of production, under the assumptions of the neoclassical school (Morettini, 2009). The Solow model, despite being useful in explaining economic growth, presents its respective epistemological and methodological limitations. This model was successful at the time, but when opening the range of variables to consider, it does not enjoy intertemporal and interspatial validity, using microeconomic information to describe macroeconomic phenomena, as in the neoclassical assumptions, the variables are limited and said model is outdated before the expansion of knowledge, not picking up some transcendental aspects. The objective of this study is to explain the Solow model with their respective assumptions, present their respective limitations and the respective conclusions
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
Authors retain copyright.
The authors give the journal the right of the first publication, with the work registered with the Creative Commons attribution license.
This license allows third parties to use what is published whenever they mention the authorship of the work and the first publication in this journal.
Future publications should not be used for commercial purposes.
The existence and specifications of this license must be mentioned.
Authors can make other independent and additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article published in this journal (e.g., include it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book) as long as they indicate that the work was published for the first time in this magazine.
References
Cano, C., Zuluaga, F., & Gómez, C. (Agosto de 2004). DIFERENCIAS Y SIMILITUDES EN LAS TEORÍAS DEL CRECIMIENTO ECONÓMICO. Recuperado el 20 de septiembre de 2019, de UNIVERSIDAD EAFIT: file:///C:/Users/TEMP.LAPTOP-3BIVSF1D.000.001.002/Downloads/1321-Texto%20del%20art%C3%ADculo-4302-1-10-20120803.pdf
Enríquez, I. (mayo de 2016). Las teorías del crecimiento económico: notas críticas para incursionar en un debate inconcluso. Revista Latinoamericana de Desarrollo Económico, 73-125. Recuperado el 20 de septiembre de 2019, de http://www.scielo.org.bo/pdf/rlde/n25/n25_a04.pdf
Morettini, M. (Abril de 2009). Portal de Promoción y Difusión Pública del Conocimiento Académico y Científico. Recuperado el 12 de septiembre de 2019, de El modelo de Crecimiento de Solow: nulan.mdp.edu.ar/1854/1/01466.pdf
Rincón, I., Arango-Buelvas, L., & Torres, R. (2015). Análisis a las teorías económicas de Solow y el modelo IS - LM: Entre Hayek y Keynes. Panorama Económico, 22, 109-116. Recuperado el 12 de septiembre de 2019, de file:///C:/Users/TEMP.LAPTOP-3BIVSF1D.000.001.002/Downloads/Dialnet-AnalisisALasTeoriasEconomicasDeSolowYElModeloISLM-5671119.pdf
Sánchez, A. (junio de 2006). Problemas del desarrollo. Scielo Analytics, 37(145). Recuperado el 21 de mayo de 2019, de Scielo: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0301-70362006000200002.