 The Relevance of the Cambridge–Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory for Econometric Practice (2007)Chapter 6 in The Making of a Post-Keynesian Economist: Cambridge Harvest, 2012, pp 131-151 from Palgrave Macmillan Abstract: Abstract There is a well-known tale of the mathematician who used to burst into tears at the sight of the binomial theorem ‘because it was so beautiful’.† I have had occasion to remark that, for the same reason, economists at least get lumps in their throats at the sight of the Cobb–Douglas production function because it has such beautiful properties: the exponents of K and L measure the respective shares of profits and wages in the national income; the marginal products of K and L measure the return to capital and the wage-rate; the marginal products themselves relate in a very simple way – proportionally, where the factors of proportionality have clear economic meaning – to their respective average products.1 Moreover, in growth theory the Cobb–Douglas allows simple measures of the contributions to growth in income per head of the respective growth in capital and labour. That is why, apart from Australian chauvinism/patriotism, I prefer Swan (1956) to Solow (1956). Keywords: Production Function; Technical Change; Marginal Product; Economic Journal; Production Frontier (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-0-230-34865-3_7 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.