The Secular Stagnation Hypothesis in the theories of economic growth: a maze of theoretical inconsistencies

Abstract The purpose of this study is to show that, in both the Hansen and Summers versions, the secular stagnation hypothesis is based on questionable theoretical foundations that seem inconsistent both with the neoclassical approach to growth and with the heterodox models of demand-led growth. We build on F. Petri´s recent critique of the incoherent use of the neoclassical investment function in situations with persistent labor unemployment, and show that the recent debate is directly connected with the old debate about the two problems raised by R. Harrod. The analysis allows us to understand some questions related to the current debate, such as the Gordon-Summers controversy on whether the causes of the recent stagnation tendencies in developed countries should be attributed to supply or demand factors.

摘要 本研究旨在阐明：无论是汉森（Hansen）还是萨默斯（Summers）版本的长期停滞假说（secular stagnation hypothesis），其理论基础均存在争议，且既与新古典增长理论（neoclassical approach to growth）相悖，也与需求主导型增长的非正统模型（heterodox models of demand-led growth）不符。本研究依托F.佩特里（F. Petri）近期对持续性劳动力失业场景下新古典投资函数（neoclassical investment function）误用的批判，阐明当前这场争论与罗伊·哈罗德（R. Harrod）提出的两大经典议题的传统争论直接相关。通过本分析，我们可厘清当前争论中的若干问题，例如戈登-萨默斯争论（Gordon-Summers controversy）：发达国家近期的停滞态势究竟应归因于供给因素还是需求因素。