Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:10:00.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2010

AVI J. COHEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author's path from heterodoxy to economic history to the history of economics is used as a case study to explore tensions between “doing economics” and “doing the history of economics,” between the ideological vision (Schumpeter) motivating a research agenda and the even-handed execution of research. These same tensions appear in the history of capital controversy, which contains deep questions of history and path dependence versus equilibrium models, limitations of aggregate production functions, and the roles of vision and ideology in the reluctance to abandon insights of one-commodity models when results are not robust.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, Roger E. 2004. The Ordinary Business of Life: A History of Economics from the Ancient World to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baran, Paul A. and Sweezy, Paul M. 1968. Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Modern Reader Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Besomi, Daniele, ed. 2003. The Collected Interwar Papers and Correspondence of Roy Harrod, 3 vols. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1975. The Cambridge Revolution: Success or Failure? A Critical Analysis of Cambridge Theories of Value and Distribution, Revised Edition. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 2000. “Competition as an End-State and Competition as a Process.” In Walker, Donald A., ed., Equilibrium, Vol I. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 272–296.Google Scholar
Bliss, Christopher. 1975. Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bliss, Christopher. 2005. “Introduction on the Theory of Capital: A Personal Overview.” In Bliss, Christopher, Cohen, Avi J., and Harcourt, Geoff C., eds., Capital Theory. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. xi–xxvi.Google Scholar
Bliss, Christopher, Cohen, Avi J., and Harcourt, Geoff C., eds. 2005. Capital Theory. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugene von. 1895. “The Positive Theory of Capital and its Critics I.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9 (January): 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugene von. 1906. “Capital and Interest Once More: I, Capital vs. Capital Goods.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 21 (November): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. 1977. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Charles, Loic. 2009. “History of Economics As a Trading Space Between Disciplines With Special Emphasis on the History of 17–18th Century Economics.” Paper presented at the HES Annual Conference, University of Colorado at Denver, June 2009.Google Scholar
Clark, John Bates. 1891. “Distribution as Determined by a Law of Rent.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 5 (April): 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John Bates. 1899. The Distribution of Wealth. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1984a. “The Methodological Resolution of the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 6 (Summer): 614–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1984b. “Technological Change as Historical Process: The Case of the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry, 1915–1940.” Journal of Economic History 44 (September): 775–799.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1987. “Factor Substitution and Induced Innovation in North American Kraft Pulping: 1914–1940.” Explorations in Economic History 24 (April): 197–217.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1989. “Prices, Capital and the One-Commodity Model in Neoclassical and Classical Theories.” History of Political Economy 21 (Summer): 231–51.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1993a. “Samuelson and the 93% Scarcity Theory of Value.” In Baranzini, Mauro and Harcourt, Geoff, eds., The Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations: Growth, Distribution and Structural Change, Essays in Honour of Luigi Pasinetti. London: Macmillan, pp. 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1993b. “Does Joan Robinson's Critique of Equilibrium Entail Theoretical Nihilism?” In Mongiovi, Gary and Ruhl, Christof, eds., Macroeconomic Theory: Diversity and Convergence. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 222–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1993c. “What Was Abandoned Following the Cambridge Capital Controversies?: Samuelson, Substance, Scarcity and Value.” History of Political Economy 25 (Annual Supplement): 202–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 1998. “Frank Knight's Position on Capital and Interest: Foundation of the Hayek/Knight/Kaldor Debate.” In Rutherford, Malcolm, ed., The Economic Mind in America: Essays in the History of American Economics (Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought). London: Routledge, pp. 145–163.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 2003. “The Hayek/Knight Capital Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?” History of Political Economy 35 (Fall): 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 2006. “The Kaldor/Knight Controversy: Is Capital a Distinct and Quantifiable Factor of Production?” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13 (March): 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. 2008. “The Mythology of Capital or of Static Equilibrium?: The Böhm-Bawerk/Clark Controversy.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 20 (June): 151–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. and Cohen, Jon S. 1983. “Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium.” Australian Economic Papers 22 (June): 180–200. Reprinted in Mark Blaug, ed. Pioneers in Economics: Vol. 25 Leon Walras. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. & Drost, Helmar. 1996. “Böhm-Bawerk's Letters to J.B. Clark: A Pre-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital.” In Arestis, Philip, Palma, Gabriel and Sawyer, Malcolm, eds. Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Theory: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Vol, 1. London: Routledge, pp. 82–94.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. & Harcourt, Geoff C. 2003. “Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (Winter): 199–214.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. & Harcourt, Geoff C. 2005. “Introduction on Capital Theory Controversy: Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium and Time.” In Bliss, Christopher, Cohen, Avi J., and Harcourt, Geoff C., eds., Capital Theory. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. xxvii–lx.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi J. & Harcourt, Geoff C. 2008. “A Response to F. Petri.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 15 (June): 388–393.Google Scholar
Dow, Sheila C. 1980. “Methodological Morality in the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 2 (Spring): 368–380.Google Scholar
Fisher, Franklin M. 1971. “Aggregate Production Functions and the Explanation of Wages: A Simulation Experiment.” Review of Economics and Statistics 53 (November): 305–25.Google Scholar
Fisher, Franklin M. 1989. “Adjustment Processes and Stability.” In Milgate, Murray, Eatwell., John and Newman, Peter, eds., The New Palgrave: General Equilibrium. New York: Norton, pp. 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Franklin M. 1992. Aggregation: Aggregate Production Functions and Related Topics. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1930. The Theory of Interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Felipe, Jesus and Fisher, Franklin M. 2003. “Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists Should Know.” Metroeconomica 54 (May): 208–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felipe, Jesus and McCombie, J. S. L. 2001. “The CES Production Function, the Accounting Identity and Occam's Razor.” Applied Economics 33 (August): 1221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Craufurd D. 2000. “Comment: It's the Homogeneity, Stupid!” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (June): 179 – 183Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank H. 1972. The Share of Wages in the National Income. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank H. 1984. Equilibrium and Macroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. PressGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. Forthcoming. “Stabilizing Consumer Choice: The Role of ‘True Dynamic Stability’ and Related Concepts in the History of Consumer Choice Theory.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought.Google Scholar
Harris, Donald. 1978. Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrod, Roy F. 1938. “Scope and Method of Economics.” Economic Journal 48 (September): 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1934. “On the Relationship between Investment and Output.” Economic Journal 44 (June): 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingrao, Bruna and Israel, Giorgio. 1990. The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1937. “Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The Recent Controversy on the Theory of Capital.” Econometrica 5 (July): 201–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1938. “On the Theory of Capital: A Rejoinder to Professor Knight.” Econometrica 6 (April): 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Frank N. 1931. “Professor Fisher's Interest Theory: A Case in Point.” Journal of Political Economy 39 (April): 176 – 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, David P. 1978. Economic Studies: Contributions to the Critique of Economic Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Levine, David P. 1979. Economic Theory, Volume I: The Elementary Relations of Economic Life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Levine, David P. 1981. Economic Theory, Volume II: The System of Economic Relations as a Whole. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Marglin, S. 1974. “What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economy 6 (July): 60–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNulty, Paul J. 1967. “A Note on the History of Perfect Competition.” Journal of Political Economy 75 (August): 395–399.Google Scholar
McNulty, Paul J. 1968. “Economic Theory and the Meaning of Competition.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 82 (November): 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps Brown, E. H. 1957. “The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb-Douglas Function.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 71 (November): 546–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, Edith. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Petri, Fabio. 2007. “Review of Capital Theory.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14 (September): 597–607.Google Scholar
Rizvi, Abu. 2001. “Philip Mirowski as a Historian of Economic Thought.” In Medema, Steven G. and Samuels, Warren J., eds., Historians of Economics and Economic Thought: The Construction of Disciplinary Memory. London: Routledge, pp. 214–226.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1970. “Thinking about Thinking.” In Collected Economic Papers, Volume 5. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1980, pp. 110–119.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1974. “History versus Equilibrium.” In Collected Economic Papers, Volume 5. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1980, pp. 48–58.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1976. Perspective on Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salter, W. E. G. 1965. “Productivity, Growth and Accumulation as Historical Processes.” In Robinson, E. A. G., ed., Problems in Economic Development. London: Macmillan, pp. 266–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, W. E. G. 1966. Productivity and Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1962. “Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function.” Review of Economic Studies 29 (June): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1966a. “Rejoinder: Agreements, Disagreements, Doubts and the Case of Induced Harrod-Neutral Technical Change.” Review of Economics and Statistics 48 (August): 444–448.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1966b. “A Summing Up.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 80 (November): 568– 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schefold, Bertram. 2000. “Paradoxes of Capital and Counterintuitive Changes of Distribution in an Intertemporal Equilibrium Models.” In Kurz, Heinz, ed., Critical Essays on Piero Sraffa's Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–91.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1961. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shaikh, Anwar. 1974. “Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics 56 (February): 115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaikh, Anwar. 1980. “Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: Humbug II.” In Nell, Edward J., ed., Growth, Profits and Property. Essays in the Revival of Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80 –95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1979. “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations.” American Economic Review 69 (September): 493–513.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1963. Capital Theory and the Rate of Return. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Vaughn, Karen I. 1993. “Why Teach the History of Economics?” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 15 (Fall): 174–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. “The Preconceptions of Economic Science, I.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 13 (January): 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Donald. 1988. “Ten Major Problems in the Study of the History of Economic Thought.” HES Bulletin 10 (Fall): 99–115.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 2002. How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 2005. “Review of Roy F. Harrod and the Interwar Years.” History of Political Economy 37 (Spring): 133–155.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1911 [1934]. Lectures on Political Economy, Volume I. London: George Routledge & Sons.Google Scholar