REVIEW ESSAY: DID THE (RETURNS TO) SCALES FALL FROM THEIR EYES?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹All subsequent references to Warsh (2006) will appear in the text as (KWN, page).

²For that, see Mirowski (forthcoming).

³See, for instance, Jones (1976), Harcourt (1972), Snowdon and Vane (2005), Solow (1994), Foss (1998), and Aghion and Durlauf (2005).

⁴“One of the defining characteristics of growth theory as a branch of macroeconomics is that it tends to ignore all the difficult economics that is papered over by that sentence” (Solow 1994, p. 46). One thing it does is simply identify growth of the economy with growth of the capital stock. Another is that it banishes all the macroeconomic problems Keynesians generally used to worry about.

⁵See, for instance, Foss (1998); Park (2007). But Romer knew enough to realize where his true allegiances lay: “Solow and Samuelson had to engage in vicious trench warfare about this time with Cambridge England to make the world safe for those of us who wanted to use the concept of the production function” (Snowdon and Vane 2005, p. 681).

⁶See Jones (1995a and 1995b, and the commentary and overview in Cavusoglu and Tebaldi 2006).

⁷See, for instance Rosenberg (1982), Georgescu-Roegen (1976), Robinson (1953/54).

⁸On this return to the good old days, see Jones (2005).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Philip Mirowski

Department of Economics and Policy Studies, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. This review is an excerpt from a larger manuscript entitled SciMart™ forthcoming fom Harvard University Press.