An Economist's Model of
Modern Industrial Growth
I have claimed that the dualistic‐ imbalance model represents a new way of viewing socioeconomic phenomena. Yet many elements of the system are familiar features in a number of specialist literatures; so in a sense the overall scheme can be thought of as an eclectic compilation. The cost-pressure mechanism in unbalanced growth derives from Baumol's work; the treatment of corporate technostructure activity, from Galbraith and Marris; the treatment of poverty, from the dual-labor market theorists; the basic production and growth concepts, from the Cambridge school; the human-capital, individual-decision model, from Becker's school; while the scheme as a whole recalls themes in development economics. Each of these elements is controversial to a greater or lesser degree and each has gained both a constituency of support and a substantial fund of opposition and antagonism.
Unfortunately, however, the constituencies do not coincide; and we could take the pessimistic view that opposition accumulates and the union of economists who object to one or more elements in the scheme would make up to the entire profession. Neoclassical economists would object to theories based on market barriers and the neo-Keynesian coloring of the growth mechanism; while neo-Keynesians might object to the choice mechanism and tolerance of an (inferential) productivity basis for compensation. The right would object to the dual-labor market treatment of poverty; the radical left, to the departure from Marxian class categories.