Dear Stefan

Keynes theory of economic growth is based on models that are developed by Harrod-Domar and Kaldor for instance, while the Post-Keynesian theory is based on models that deal mostly with Sectors or Department such as developed by Marx and Sraffa. Both are different from the Neoclassical theory which took off with Robert Solow model. People who work on the Keynesian and Post-Keynesian models are at swords-point with Neoclassical theory as in the case of the "Cambridge Controversy on the Theory of Capital". Another difference is that Post-Keynesians and Keynesians are steep in Distribution and not only Growth theories. I think that you should keep them separate.

Dear Stefan,

Your approach would be ok if you want to go by the names and schools of thought. I think you would need to add a model for the Physiocrats at the beginning, a model for Karl Marx sectorial growth, and one for John von Neuman proportional growth. There are many other suggestions for growth and development such as by Joseph Schumpeter--creative destruction, Arthur Lewis--dual sector, and Adolph Lowe--path to growth.

Dear Stefan,

it also depends whether your thesis is in the field of economic history or economic growth/macroeconomics. In the 2nd case sometimes it is not required to know all works before the 20th century, but it is very important to refer to different models of the last years, especially on endogenous growth. I recommend you to see the book by R.Barro and X.Sala-i-Martin (1995) "Economic growth".

Thank you both for your kind answers.

My thesis is on economic growth, not on economic history. I am trying to write an introduction chapter regarding the existing growth models. As for the other chapters they are about the impact of education on growth, the role of agriculture on growth etc.

You can classify the growth models in two categories - models that assumed different sectors as similar and the models that assumed different sectors such as Agri, industry, service as structurally different. In recent time some new growth models tried to relate different growth models in one theory. These models are known an unified growth theory (UGT).

If I were you I would look at the papers I have used to develop the model and see what paper/author they cite

Thank you all for your answers.

I have another question. Shouldn't I place 2. Keynes theory of economic growth and 3. Post-keynes theories of economic growth into 4. Neoclassical theories of economic growth category ? Isn't it more logical ?

Dear Stefan

Keynes theory of economic growth is based on models that are developed by Harrod-Domar and Kaldor for instance, while the Post-Keynesian theory is based on models that deal mostly with Sectors or Department such as developed by Marx and Sraffa. Both are different from the Neoclassical theory which took off with Robert Solow model. People who work on the Keynesian and Post-Keynesian models are at swords-point with Neoclassical theory as in the case of the "Cambridge Controversy on the Theory of Capital". Another difference is that Post-Keynesians and Keynesians are steep in Distribution and not only Growth theories. I think that you should keep them separate.

Dear Stefan,

I would not go through the whole economic history (for example: Malthus cannot be termed a growth theorist), but only include contributions which are called growth theory or model (or similar) by the authors themselves. Keynes and most Post-Keynesians are quite far from Neoclassics, whereas Neokeynesians use (almost) neoclassical models and are far from Keynes.

Dear Stefan,

I sharply disagree with Mr. Ramrattan. You should look into Marc Lavoie and his "Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations". Keynes NEVER writted on economic growth, that's why some of his most famous disciples (like Joan Robinson) criticised him.

The correct periodization would be: 

3. Harrod-Domar model

4. Neoclassical Models

 a. Solow-Swan

 b. Extension by Mankiw et al.

5. Post Keynesian models.

 a. Joan's Robinson "Accumulation of capital" 

 b. Kaldor "A model of economic growth" 

 c. Pasinetti "On the rate of profit and income distribution in relation to economic growth"

 d. Neo-Kaleckian models (Lavoie, 1992 contains the standard references.)

You should also mention that both Neoclassical and Post-Keynsian school's tried to solve Harrod's knife-edge problem: Neoclassicals by positing a smooth production function (allowing th output-capital ratio to vary), and Post-Keynsians proposing a model of macroeconomic distribution (allowing the average propensity to save to vay throught redistribution.)

I would stay out of the development literature (Prebisch, Hirschman, Lewis, etc); because their concernos outstripped only growth theory. The Von-Neumman model it's definitly important, but doe to it's idiysoncracy, it's hard to classify. Historically, it goes along the same time that Harrod and Domar's contribution.

Hope to have helped. I strongly reccomend you to see Lavoie's book, and the paper by Neri and Salvadori (What's really new about endogenous growth?)

Hope to have helped!

Thank you all for your answers. I now have a lot of things to think about and hopefully I will accomplish my analysis.

Please refer my research paper on' A Study on Trends India's Economic Growth..' published in ReaserchGate.

You may want to consider including "Rostow's stages of growth" to the list. Circa 1960. It is a strong advocate of the idea that some countries have "arrived", while others have not.  Despite its many weaknesses, and the many arguments thrown against it, it continues to have an influence on the public discourse about economic trajectory. One feature which is still pertinent is the idea of critical mass. Overall it is one of many qualitative rework of the logistic function in economic theorizing.

Endogenous Growth Models/Theories and Exogenous Growth Models/Theories is the broad classification of economic growth theories/models.

It would be a good way that you read three survey papers by Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori that I cite below. 

By these three survey papers, they cover almost all trends from classical economics to the beginning of the 21 century. Alejandro González seems to have cited the same papers, but has wrongly cited Neri Salvadori as Neri and Salvadori. There are some small oversights as I have pointed it in my comment paper on Kurz and Salvadori's two survey papers (the fourth paper below; section 2, pp.3-4; my comments do not includes post Keynesian growth theory survey).

Debajit Jha's comment is important. In my humble opinion, the models which assume only one sector or product do not analyze the true problems of economic growth. They are only mathematical exercises.

As for Unified Growth Theory, Debajit may be misinformed. Please read my comment paper (section 2, p.4; section 14, p.38).

Kurz and Salvadori's survey papers are intended to present the development of various growth theories. The authors refrain from advancing criticisms on the existing growth theories. However, they have many common defects. My comments paper is a kind of critical review of the state of the present growth theories. It may give Stefan Ciucu a different viewpoint on the history of growth theories.

References

(Priority is given to the papers in RG. I have given a full reference in my paper)

Kurz, H.D., and N. Salvadori (2003) Theories of Economic Growth: Old and New, in Neri Salvadori (Ed.) The Theory of Economic Growth: a “Classical” Perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, May 2003. Chapter 1, pp.1－22.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heinz_Kurz/publication/252313772_Theories_of_Economic_Growth_-_Old_and_New/links/0c9605297363aaf2df000000.pdf

Kurz, H.D., and N. Salvadori (2008) New Growth Theory and Development Economics, in Amitava Krishna Dutt and Jaime Ros (Eds.) International Handbook of Development Economics, Volumes 1 and 2. September 2008. Chapter 15, pp.207-222.

https://static.uni-graz.at/fileadmin/sowi-zentren/Schumpeter-Centre/Download/Paper/Kurz/2008_New_Growth_Theory_and_Development_Economics__in_International_Handbook_of_Development_Economics_.pdf

Kurz, H., and N. Salvadori 2010 The post-Keynesian theories of growth and distribution: A survey. in M. Shetterfield, Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254330372_The_post-Keynesian_theories_of_growth_and_distribution_A_survey

Shiozawa, Y. 2016 Growth Theory As It Ought to Be: Comments on Kurz and Salvadori's Two Survey Papers on Old and New Growth Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311439320_Growth_Theory_As_It_Ought_to_Be_Comments_on_Kurz_and_Salvadori%27s_Two_Survey_Papers_on_Old_and_New_Growth_Theory

Article Theories of Economic Growth - Old and New

Article The post-Keynesian theories of growth and distribution: A survey

Working Paper Growth Theory As It Ought to Be: Comments on Kurz and Salvad...

http://www.ceswp.uaic.ro/articles/CESWP2015_VII3_SHA.pdf

http://www.strategiimanageriale.ro/papers/140467.pdf

http://www.bcu.gub.uy/Comunicaciones/Jornadas%20de%20Economa/CAYSSIALS_GASTON_2017_4770.pdf