Book contents
- Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital
- Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Foreword
- Preface to the First Edition
- Preface to the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
- Introduction
- 1 Search for a Will-O’-The-Wisp: Capital As a Unit Independent of Distribution and Prices
- 2 Treacle, Fossils and Technical Progress
- 3 Solow on the Rate of Return: Tease and Counter-Tease
- 4 A Child’s Guide to the Double-Switching Debate
- 5 The Rate of Profits in Capitalist Society: Whose Finest Hour?
- Introduction to the Afterwords
- References: Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital
- Index
- References
Preface to the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2022
Book contents
- Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital
- Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Foreword
- Preface to the First Edition
- Preface to the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
- Introduction
- 1 Search for a Will-O’-The-Wisp: Capital As a Unit Independent of Distribution and Prices
- 2 Treacle, Fossils and Technical Progress
- 3 Solow on the Rate of Return: Tease and Counter-Tease
- 4 A Child’s Guide to the Double-Switching Debate
- 5 The Rate of Profits in Capitalist Society: Whose Finest Hour?
- Introduction to the Afterwords
- References: Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of CapitalFiftieth Anniversary Edition, pp. xv - xxiiPublisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Asimakopulos, A. and Harcourt, G. C. (1974). Proportionality and the Neoclassical Parables. Southern Economic Journal, 40(3): 481–3. https://doi.org/10.2307/1056023Google Scholar
Bharadwaj, K. (1978). Classical Political Economy and Rise to Dominance of Supply and Demand Theories. Centre for Studies in Social Sciences; Sole distributors, Orient Longman.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. J. (1970). Comment on Garegnani. The Review of Economic Studies, 37(3): 437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296730Google Scholar
Bliss, C. J., Cohen, A. J. and Harcourt, G. C. (eds) (2005). Capital Theory (Vol. 1–3). An Elgar Reference Collection.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1983). ‘The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions’: Progress in Microeconomics since Sraffa (1926)? Eastern Economic Journal, 9(3): 213–20.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1984). The Methodological Resolution of the Cambridge Controversies. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 6(4): 614–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.1984.11489471Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1985). Issues in the Cambridge Controversies. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 7(4): 612–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.1985.11489536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1989). Prices, Capital, and the One-Commodity Model in Neoclassical and Classical Theories. History of Political Economy, 21(2): 231–51. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-21-2-231Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1993a). Does Joan Robinson’s Critique of Equilibrium Entail Theoretical Nihilism? In Mongiovi, G. and Rühl, C. (eds), Macroeconomic Theory: Diversity and Convergence (pp. 222–39). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1993b). Samuelson and the 93% Scarcity Theory of Value. In Baranzini, M., Pasinetti, L. and Harcourt, G. C. (eds), Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations: Growth, Distribution and Structural Change: Essays in Honor of Luigi Pasinetti (pp. 149–71). Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22728-0Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1993). What Was Abandoned Following the Cambridge Capital Controversies? Samuelson, Substance, Scarcity, and Value. History of Political Economy, 25(supplement 1): 202–20. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-1993-suppl_1016Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (1998). Frank Knight’s Position on Capital and Interest: Foundation of the Hayek/Knight/Kaldor Debate. In Rutherford, M. (ed.), The Economic Mind in America: Essays in the History of American Economics (pp. 145–63). Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (2003). The Hayek/Knight Capital Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time? History of Political Economy, 35(3): 469–90. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-35-3-469Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (2006). The Kaldor/Knight Controversy: Is Capital a Distinct and Quantifiable Factor of Production? The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13(1): 141–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672560500522801Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (2008). The Mythology of Capital or of Static Equilibrium? The Böhm-Bawerk/Clark Controversy. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 30(2): 151–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1042771608000161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (2010). Capital Controversy from Böhm-Bawerk to Bliss: Badly Posed or Very Deep Questions? Or What ‘We’ Can Learn from Capital Controversy Even If You Don’t Care Who Won. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 32(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S105383720999040XGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. J. (2014). Veblen Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt Lineages in Capital Controversies and Beyond. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(6): 1493–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet047Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. and Cohen, J. S. (1983). Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium. Australian Economic Papers, 22(40): 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1983.tb00417.xGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. J. and Drost, H. (1996). Böhm-Bawerk’s Letters to J. B. Clark: A Pre-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital. In Arestis, P., Palma, G. and Sawyer, M. (eds), Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Volume One (pp. 75–87). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203983294Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. and Harcourt, G. C. (2003a). Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1): 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003321165010Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. and Harcourt, G. C. (2003b). [Cambridge Capital Controversies]: Response from Avi J. Cohen and G. C. Harcourt. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(4): 232–3.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. and Harcourt, G. C. (2005). Introduction on Capital Theory Controversy: Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium and Time. In Bliss, C, Cohen, A and Harcourt, G. C. (eds), Capital Theory, Vol. 1 (pp. xxvii–lx). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. and Harcourt, G. C. (2010). Reswitching and reversing in capital theory. In Blaug, M. and Lloyd, P. (eds), Famous Figures and Diagrams in Economics (pp. 191–8). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. (1969). The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fratini, S. M. (2019). On The Second Stage of the Cambridge Capital Controversy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(4): 1073–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, P. (1970a). Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution. The Review of Economic Studies, 37(3): 407–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, P. (1970b). [Comment on Garegnani]: A Reply. The Review of Economic Studies, 37(3): 439. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296731Google Scholar
Gram, H. and Harcourt, G. C. (2017). Joan Robinson and MIT. History of Political Economy, 49(3): 437–50. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-4193020Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (1969). Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital. Journal of Economic Literature, 7(2): 369–405.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (1975). Capital Theory: Much Ado About Something. Thames Papers in Political Economy, 1–16.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (1976). The Cambridge Controversies: Old Ways and New Horizons-Or Dead End? Oxford Economic Papers, 28(1): 25–65.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (1977). The Theoretical and Social Significance of the Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital: An Evaluation. Revue d’économie Politique, 87(2) : 351–75.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (1979). Non-Neoclassical Capital Theory. World Development, 7(10): 923–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(79)90047-0Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (1994). The Capital Theory Controversies. In Arestis, P. and Sawyer, M. C. (eds), The Elgar Companion to Radical Political Economy (pp. 29–34). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (2007). The Relevance of the Cambridge–Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory for Econometric Practice. In Arestis, P., Baddeley, M. and McCombie, J. S. L. (eds), Economic Growth. New Directions in Theory and Policy (pp. 117–35). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (2011). The Results of the Capital Theory Controversies and General Equilibrium Theory: Some Reflections on Concepts and History. In Ciccone, R., Gehrke, C. and Mongiovi, G. (eds), Sraffa and Modern Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 199–205). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203815748Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (2013). The Importance of Humbug in the Cambridge–Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory. Global and Local Economic Review, 17(1): 11–21.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. (2015). On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution. Review of Radical Political Economics, 47(2): 243–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613414557915Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. and Laing, N. F. (1971). Capital and Growth: Selected Readings. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. and Tribe, K. (2016). Capital and Wealth. In Hudson, P. and Tribe, K. (eds), The Contradictions of Capital in the Twenty-First Century: The Piketty Opportunity (pp. 13–28). Agenda Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv5cg95cGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. and Whittington, G. (1990). Income and Capital. In Creedy, J. (ed.), Foundations of Economic Thought. (pp. 186–211). Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lavoie, M. (2013). Sraffians, other Post-Keynesians, and the Controversy over Centres of Gravitation. In Levrero, E. S., Palumbo, A. and Stirati, A. (eds), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory. Volume Three, (pp. 34–54). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mata, T. (2004). Constructing Identity: The Post Keynesians and the Capital Controversies. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26(2): 241–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1042771042000219055Google Scholar
Pasinetti, L. L. (1966). Paradoxes in Capital Theory: A Symposium: Changes in the Rate of Profit and Switches of Techniques. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(4): 503–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882911Google Scholar
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674369542Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (1953–4). The Production Function and the Theory of Capital. The Review of Economic Studies, 21(2): 81–106.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. (1962). Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3): 193–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295954Google Scholar
Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar