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

Avi Cohen

Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2010, vol. 32, issue 1, 1-21

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.

Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

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:cup:jhisec:v:32:y:2010:i:01:p:1-21_99

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the History of Economic Thought from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().