Search

Abstract: This article develops an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Moreover, it is argued that under the neoclassical paradigm there are no elements with which to foresee the long-term existence of this phenomenon. The objective of these arguments is to demonstrate that the Jevons effect can be used to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economics describing the social appropriation of nature. This is elaborated in two steps. First, we show the importance of the thesis that the economy cannot be cut off from the biophysical materiality of what is produced to give consistency to the so-called Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. It is made clear that this supposition is exogenous to the neoclassical paradigm. Second, the supposition of the biophysical materiality of what is produced is utilized to make an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Afterwards, a comparison is made between the neoclassical and the ecological economic perspectives. This comparison leads to the following conclusions: (i) the persistent presence of the Jevons effect in the long run is an anomaly in the neoclassical paradigm; (ii) the observation of the non-existence of the Jevons effect is a refutation of the supposition that economic growth and biophysical materiality are not separable, a central thesis defended by ecological economists. This situation makes possible to use the Jevons effect as a ‘laboratory test’ to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economic paradigms to describe the social appropriation of nature. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Although industrialization first occurred in England, it is thought that China, not England, may have been the world leader in technology at the time. Yet, China did not industrialize until 150 yr after England and nearly a century after less advanced European countries. This represents a puzzle because two-sector neoclassical growth models, such as Hansen and Prescott (2002) , that accurately match industrialization, require that more technologically advanced countries industrialize at an earlier date. I find that a model that accounts for cross-country heterogeneities in population density accurately predicts the timing of industrialization in China. ( JEL F43, N10, N30, O11, O14, O41) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the definition used by the World Bank's 1996 World Development Report, over 4.5 billion of the world's 5.6 billion people live in developing countries, and so a better understanding of what generates economic growth could make a huge contribution to human welfare. Thus, the article tends to study various aspects of growth at aggregate level. The article explains the original 1950s-style neoclassical models. It examines why this crucial area of economic investigation is regarded with such widespread distrust. The focus of the paper is predominantly the cross-country empirical work carried out by macroeconomists. This work has three distinguishing features. First, researchers have often tried to integrate developing and developed countries in a single empirical framework; as we shall see, this endeavor is not without its problems. Second, the research makes intensive use of the cross-section variation in growth rates and other variables. Finally, the research questions are often inspired at least in part by recent growth theory. There is a renewed emphasis on human capital, and to a lesser extent, research and development, as important variables in explaining differing growth experiences.