Retrospectives Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?
- 1 February 2003
- journal article
- Published by American Economic Association in Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Vol. 17 (1), 199-214
- https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003321165010
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Neoclassical Advent: American Economics at the Dawn of the 20th CenturyJournal of Economic Perspectives, 2000
- Reswitching: ReplyThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1975
- The Unimportance of ReswitchingThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1975
- Again on Capital Theory and Solow's "Rate of Return"The Economic Journal, 1970
- On the Rate of Return: Reply to PasinettiThe Economic Journal, 1970
- Switches of Technique and the "Rate of Return" in Capital TheoryThe Economic Journal, 1969
- Production of Commodities: A CommentThe Economic Journal, 1962
- A Contribution to the Theory of Economic GrowthThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1956
- Imperfect Competition RevisitedThe Economic Journal, 1953
- Capital and Interest Once More: II. A Relapse to the Productivity TheoryThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1907