Revisiting the two Cambridge schools for the current controversy

  1. José Domingo Portero Lameiro 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Journal:
Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought

ISSN: 2386-5768

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 6

Issue: 2

Pages: 213-216

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/IJHE.66197 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought

Abstract

The measurement of capital has generated great controversy between the University of Cambridge (Great Britain) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of Cambridge (United States of America). The debate took place mainly during the golden age of capitalism and was not fully resolved, although, certainly, today it is frequent to study Economics without paying attention to it. In short, it is an unfinished question, where it does not even seem that there is currently a consensus to admit what its main results were. The problem arises when we accept that investments allow future consumption and, therefore, we equate these capital assets with goods/products. For its part, the British school argued that capital should be understood as an instrument that attempts to safeguard economic value. On the other hand, the North American side considered that capital should be an instrument of economic value that varies according to the laws of the free market.

Bibliographic References

  • Citas Baranzini, Mauro & Mirante, Amalia (2018) Luigi Pasinetti: An Intellectual Biography. Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought. Palgrave McMillan. Hampshire.
  • Bhaduri, Amit (1966) “The concept of the marginal productivity of capital and the Wicksell effect” [pp. 284-288] in Oxford Economic Papers, nº 18.
  • Fiorito, Alejandro (2007) Piero Sraffa. La implosión de la economía neoclásica. Ediciones Cooperativas. Buenos Aires.
  • Harcourt, Geoffrey (1972) Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Cambridge University Press. London.
  • Harcourt, Geoffrey (1969) “Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital” [pp. 369-405] in Journal of Economic Literature, nº 7.
  • Pasinetti, Luigi (1966) “Changes in the Rate of Profit and Switches of Techniques” [pp. 503-517] in Quarterly Journal of Economics, nº 80.
  • Robinson, Joan (1971) “The Measurement of Capital: The End of the Controversy” [pp. 597-602] in Economic Journal, nº 81.
  • Robinson, Joan (1953-54) “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital” [pp. 81-106] in Review of Economic Studies, nº 21.
  • Samuelson, Paul (1962) “Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function” [pp. 193-206] in Review of Economic Studies, nº 29.
Data source: Dialnet