Retrospectives - Whatever happened to the Cambridge capital theory controversies?

被引:207
作者
Cohen, AJ [1 ]
Harcourt, GC
机构
[1] York Univ, Toronto, ON M3J 2R7, Canada
[2] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England
[3] Univ Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.1257/089533003321165010
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We argue that the Cambridge capital theory controversies of the 1950s to 1970s were the latest in a series of still-unresolved controversies over three deep issues: explaining and justifying the return to capital; Joan Robinson's complaint that, due to path dependence, equilibrium is not an outcome of an economic process and therefore an inadequate tool for analyzing accumulation and growth; and the role of ideology and vision in fuelling controversy when results of simple models are not robust. We predict these important and relevant issues, latent in endogenous growth and real business cycle theories, will erupt in future controversy.
引用
收藏
页码:199 / 214
页数:16
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1978, CLASSICAL POLITICAL
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1975, CAMBRIDGE REVOLUTION
[3]  
[Anonymous], BANCA NAZL LAVORO Q
[4]  
Bliss C.J, 1975, Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income
[5]  
BLISS CJ, CRITICAL IDEAS EC
[6]   CAPITAL AND INTEREST ONCE MORE: II. A RELAPSE TO THE PRODUCTIVITY THEORY [J].
Boehm-Bawerk, E. .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1907, 21 (02) :247-282
[7]  
Burmeister E., 2000, Critical Essays on Piero Sraffa's Legacy in Economics, P305
[8]  
CARAVALE G, 1976, CAMBRIDGE DEBATE THE
[9]   The Production Function and the Theory of Capital: A Comment [J].
Champernowne, D. G. .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1953, 21 :112-135
[10]  
CLARK JB, 1991, Q J ECON, V3, P289