IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/swe/wpaper/2013-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The importance of HUMBUG in the Cambridge - Cambridge controversies in capital theory

Author

Listed:
  • Geoff C Harcourt

    (School of Economics, the University of New South Wales)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoff C Harcourt, 2013. "The importance of HUMBUG in the Cambridge - Cambridge controversies in capital theory," Discussion Papers 2013-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    • Handle: RePEc:swe:wpaper:2013-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://research.economics.unsw.edu.au/RePEc/papers/2013-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhaduri, Amit, 1969. "On the Significance of Recent Controversies on Capital Theory: A Marxian View," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 79(315), pages 532-539, September.
    2. Joan Robinson, 1962. "Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-00626-7.
    3. Fisher, Franklin M, 1971. "Aggregate Production Functions and the Explanation of Wages: A Simulation Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 53(4), pages 305-325, November.
    4. Shaikh, Anwar, 1974. "Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 115-120, February.
    5. Harcourt,G. C., 1972. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720.
    6. Harcourt, G C, 1976. "The Cambridge Controversies: Old Ways and New Horizons-Or Dead End?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 25-65, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. G. C. Harcourt, 2015. "On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 243-255, June.
    2. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    3. Yara Zeineddine, 2021. "Institutional Aspects of Capital in Joan Robinson's 'Rules of the Game': Rentier versus Entrepreneurs in Managerial Capitalism," Working Papers hal-03230146, HAL.
    4. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    5. Jesus Felipe & Franklin M. Fisher, 2003. "Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2‐3), pages 208-262, May.
    6. G.C. Harcourt, 1995. "Recollections and reflections of an australian patriot and a cambridge economist," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 48(194), pages 225-254.
    7. Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2002. "A Problem with Some Estimations and Interpretations of the Mark-up in Manufacturing Industry," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 187-215.
    8. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2005. "Technology as Problem-Solving Procedures and Technology as Input-Output Relations: Some Perspectives on the Theory of Production," LEM Papers Series 2005/26, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2006. "Technologies as problem-solving procedures and technologies as input--output relations: some perspectives on the theory of production," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(1), pages 173-202, February.
    10. Villar Otálora, Juan Camilo, 2021. "Una revisión sobre los métodos convencionales de la contabilidad del crecimiento: La tiranía de la identidad [A review of the conventional methods of growth accounting: The tyranny of identity]," MPRA Paper 106683, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Daniele Tavani, 2023. "The Classical Model of Growth and Distribution," Working Papers 2311, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.
    12. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.
    13. Fabrizio Ferretti, 2008. "Patterns of technical change: a geometrical analysis using the wage-profit rate schedule," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 565-583.
    14. Geoffrey Harcourt & Peter Kriesler, 2012. "Introduction [to Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics: Oxford University Press: USA]," Discussion Papers 2012-33, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    15. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    16. Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2005. "How Sound are the Foundations of the Aggregate Production Function?," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 467-488, Summer.
    17. Passas, Costas, 2023. "Standardized capital stock estimates for the Greek economy 1948–2020," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 236-244.
    18. John S.L. McCombie, 2011. "'Cantabrigian Economics' and the aggregate production function," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 8(1), pages 165-182.
    19. Eckhard Hein, 2016. "Secular stagnation or stagnation policy? Steindl after Summers," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 69(276), pages 3-47.
    20. Giuseppe Fontana & Bill Gerrard, 2006. "The future of Post Keynesian economics," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 59(236), pages 49-80.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:swe:wpaper:2013-20. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Hongyi Li (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/senswau.html .

    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.