Das Ende Einer Wachstumstheorie

The formal brilliance of the neoclassical theory of economic growth cannot compensate the fact that its definition of capital is not convincing. The objections Joan Robinson already made in 1953 have never been definitely cleared, whether by operating with a homogenous good to avoid the index number problem, nor with the surrogate production function Samuelson derivated from the neoclassical original production function. Joan Robinson's argument that the definition of capital is already presupposing the distribution of income which should be derivated thereof, is not covered by the index number problem; Samuelson's surrogate production function is only applicable with limited suppositions. Thus, two corner‐stones fall out of the neoclassical structure: (1) capital is no given amount of a factor but its value depends on wage‐rate, labour input and gestation period of investment. This will withdraw the basis of the neoclassical axiom, i.e. that supply of factors determines the growth over the system of relative prices. The choice of the most profitable technique will be the key instrument of growth theory. (2) Distribution of income cannot be derivated from a production theoretical context, either of the factor prices must be determined exogenously. How this is done, will be a problem of political economy.