Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?

Avi Cohen

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2003, vol. 17, issue 1, 199-214

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.

Date: 2003
Note: DOI: 10.1257/089533003321165010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (186)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/089533003321165010 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aea:jecper:v:17:y:2003:i:1:p:199-214

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/subscriptions

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economic Perspectives is currently edited by Enrico Moretti

More articles in Journal of Economic Perspectives from American Economic Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Michael P. Albert ().