IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/copoec/v41y2022i1p110-129..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Remains of the Cambridge Critique? A New Proposal1
[Regularity in price changes as an effect of changes in distribution]

Author

Listed:
  • Bertram Schefold

Abstract

The debate on capital theory is no more about the historical formation of neoclassical ideas in their original, most abstract form, but about the tools—certainly influenced by those ideas—which are used in teaching applied economics. One focus still is on the economy’s aggregate production function, almost 70 years after Joan Robinson attacked this concept. It has turned out that reswitching—once the most effective argument against the production function—is rare, and that an approximate surrogate production function can be constructed, using random matrices. This seems to weaken the critique, but a new one has emerged, which shows that the number of effective techniques on the wage curve is small and that the possibilities of substitution between capital and labour are quite restricted in the relevant range.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertram Schefold, 2022. "What Remains of the Cambridge Critique? A New Proposal1 [Regularity in price changes as an effect of changes in distribution]," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(1), pages 110-129.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:copoec:v:41:y:2022:i:1:p:110-129.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cpe/bzac008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schefold, Bertram, 2022. "The Rarity of Reswitching Explained," Centro Sraffa Working Papers CSWP58, Centro di Ricerche e Documentazione "Piero Sraffa".

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:copoec:v:41:y:2022:i:1:p:110-129.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cpe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.