Until recently, the neoclassical growth theory and the neoclassical labour market theory have independently evolved over time without communicating to each other. The neoclassical growth theory (Solow, 1956), born after the second world war, assumes full employment. On the other hand, the unemployment theory (Friedman, 1968) turned the attention to the problem of inflation, ignoring that one of growth. In this paper I present recent contributions suggesting that such a sharp division may be unjustified from a theoretical viewpoint.