The Kaldor/Knight controversy: Is capital a distinct and quantifiable factor of production?
AbstractControversy focuses on three questions: Is capital a distinct factor of production? Is capital quantifiable in a theoretically consistent manner? Are process stories necessary around convergence to, or changes in, equilibrium interest rates? To all, Kaldor answers 'yes' to Knight's 'no'. The controversy is historically important in: 1) shifting issues in recurring twentieth century capital theory controversies from periods of production to production functions, from roundaboutness to diminishing returns; 2) revealing Knight's position on increasing knowledge offsetting diminishing returns over time as an unacknowledged 'precursor' of new growth theory; 3) marking the turning point for Kaldor's attachment to Austrian theory.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought.
Volume (Year): 13 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJH20
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Harcourt,G. C., 1972.
"Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720, April.
- Harcourt, G C, 1969. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 369-405, June.
- Peter Boettke & Karen Vaughn, 2002. "Knight and the Austrians on Capital, and the Problem of Socialism," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 155-176, Spring.
- A. Cohen & G. Harcourt., 2009. "Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 8.
- Romer, Paul M, 1986.
"Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-37, October.
- Milgate, Murray, 1979. "On the Origin of the Notion of "Intertemporal Equilibrium"," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 46(181), pages 1-10, February.
- Christian Gehrke, 2003. "The Ricardo Effect: Its Meaning and Validity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 70(277), pages 143-158, February.
- Harald Hagemann & Hans-Michael Trautwein, 1998. "Cantillon and Ricardo effects: Hayek's contributions to business cycle theory," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 292-316.
- Targetti, Ferdinando, 1992. "Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283485, Octomber.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.