What remains of the Cambridge critique of capital theory, if reswitching and reverse capital deepening are empirically rare and theoretically unlikely?

Bibliographic Data

ID23209386
AuthorsBertram Schefold (0000-0002-0532-7358, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume17
Issue2
Pages220-240
Publication date2020-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEuropean Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2052-7764 • E-ISSN: 2052-7772
PublisherEdward Elgar Publishing (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.4337/ejeep.2020.0066
OpenAlexW3073542985
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited6

The paper summarises the main results of the Cambridge controversy on capital theory and discusses its actual relevance. The paradoxes that had first been regarded as most relevant (reswitching and reverse capital deepening) have turned out to be empirically rare, and this can be explained theoretically, but both neoclassical and anti-neoclassical Wicksell effects are ubiquitous. The number of efficient techniques that turn up on the envelope of the wage curves of a spectrum of techniques can be shown to be quite small both empirically and theoretically, which constitutes a new critique. It has implications for employment policies.

Capital (architecture) · Capital deepening · Capital formation · Capital good · Economics · Financial capital · Keynesian economics · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Positive economics · Relevance (law) · Economic Theory and Institutions · Economic Theory and Policy · History · Law · Political Economy and Marxism

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access