Why is so much of macroeconomic theory dedicated to economic growth? I'm an economics PhD student and throughout my macroeconomics education I've found the topic of economic growth always being discussed at great length. From an Naive perspective id expect that one of the main topics should be around the distribution of income and inequality (i.e. Bewley models) as these seem to be some of the more policy driven discussions these days (at least in the first world hemisphere).

With this in mind, why is economic growth such a core part of macroeconomic analysis?
Have you read:


Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004, 2e), Introduction
Acemoğlu (2009), Introduction
Paul Romer (2016), "The Deep Structure of Economic Growth"
Robert Lucas (1988), "On the mechanics of economic development", Introduction:



  I do not see how one can look at figures like these without seeing them as representing possibilities. Is there some action a government of India could take that would lead the Indian economy to grow like Indonesia's or Egypt's? If so, what, exactly? If not, what is it about the 'nature of India' that makes it so? The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: Once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.


Ultimately what one believes is the most important topic is a subjective/normative question, but I think the above pieces make a strong case that economic growth should be it.