IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/swe/wpaper/2014-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution

Author

Listed:
  • Geoff C. Harcourt

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

Abstract

The Cambridge critique of the marginal productivity theory of distribution is entwined with the critics’ theories of value, price, distribution, capital, growth, and methodology that occurred alongside it. The article first discusses these dimensions, then the inescapable need to explain the origin and size and rate of profits in any approach to the theory of distribution. The need in the neoclassical approach to have a unit in which to measure capital that is independent of distribution and prices is examined. The alternative classical/Marxian alternative and the relationship of pricing and market structures to systemic relationships in Post-Keynesian theory are analysed. Unresolved debates among the critics of the mainstream are outlined including those between Garegnani and Hahn. Ways forward are suggested in the concluding section.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Geoff C. Harcourt, 2014. "On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution," Discussion Papers 2014-37, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    • Handle: RePEc:swe:wpaper:2014-37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://research.economics.unsw.edu.au/RePEc/papers/2014-37.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. K. Velupillai, 1975. "Irving Fisher on "Switches of Techniques": A Historical Note," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 89(4), pages 679-680.
    3. G. C. Harcourt, 1981. "Marshall, Sraffa and Keynes: Incompatible Bedfellows," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 39-50, Jan-Mar.
    4. Nicholas Kaldor, 1955. "Alternative Theories of Distribution," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(2), pages 83-100.
    5. G. C. Harcourt, 2008. "The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Mathew Forstater & L. Randall Wray (ed.), Keynes for the Twenty-First Century, chapter 0, pages 185-197, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Pasinetti, Luigi L, 1969. "Switches of Technique and the "Rate of Return" in Capital Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 79(315), pages 508-531, September.
    7. Harcourt,G. C., 1972. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720.
    8. P. Garegnani, 1970. "A Reply," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 37(3), pages 439-439.
    9. Pierangelo Garegnani, 2005. "Capital And Intertemporal Equilibria: A Reply To Mandler," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 411-437, November.
    10. Andrés Lazzarini, 2015. "Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 256-273, June.
    11. Bertram Schefold, 2013. "Approximate surrogate production functions," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(5), pages 1161-1184.
    12. Harris, Donald J, 1975. "The Theory of Economic Growth: A Critique and Reformulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 329-337, May.
    13. F. H. Hahn, 1975. "Revival of Political Economy: The Wrong Issues and the Wrong Argument," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 51(3), pages 360-364, September.
    14. Joan Robinson, 1953. "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 21(2), pages 81-106.
    15. N. Kaldor & J. A. Mirrlees, 1971. "A New Model of Economic Growth," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 13, pages 165-183, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Mandler, Michael, 2001. "Dilemmas in Economic Theory: Persisting Foundational Problems of Microeconomics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195145755, Decembrie.
    17. Michael Mandler, 2002. "Classical and Neoclassical Indeterminacy in One-shot Versus Ongoing Equilibria," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 203-222, August.
    18. P. Garegnani, 1970. "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 37(3), pages 407-436.
    19. G. C. Harcourt, 2013. "Ronald Meek's “Magnificent” Review Article of Piero Sraffa's 1960 Classic: Top Hit in Decade 1954–63 in the Scottish Journal of Political Economy," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 60(5), pages 478-480, November.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Solow, Robert M, 1974. "Law of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function: A Comment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 121-121, February.
    23. Hahn, F H, 1975. "Revival of Political Economy: The Wrong Issues and the Wrong Argument," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 51(135), pages 360-364, September.
    24. Dougherty, C R S, 1972. "On the Rate of Return and the Rate of Profit," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 82(328), pages 1324-1350, December.
    25. Hahn, Frank, 1982. "The Neo-Ricardians," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 6(4), pages 353-374, December.
    26. Joan Robinson, 1975. "The Unimportance of Reswitching," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 89(1), pages 32-39.
    27. E. H. Phelps Brown, 1957. "The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb-Douglas Function," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 71(4), pages 546-560.
    28. Herbert A. Simon & Ferdinand K. Levy, 1963. "A Note on the Cobb-Douglas Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 30(2), pages 93-94.
    29. 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.
    30. Fisher, Irving, 1907. "The Rate of Interest," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number fisher1907.
    31. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    32. Paul A. Samuelson, 1975. "Steady-State and Transient Relations: A Reply on Reswitching," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 89(1), pages 40-47.
    33. Ronald L. Meek, 1961. "Mr. Sraffa'S Rehabilitation Of Classical Economics1," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 8(2), pages 119-136, June.
    34. Paul A. Samuelson, 1962. "Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 29(3), pages 193-206.
    35. Pierangelo Garegnani, 2013. "On the Present State of the Capital Controversy," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Enrico Sergio Levrero & Antonella Palumbo & Antonella Stirati (ed.), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory: Volume One, chapter 1, pages 15-37, Palgrave Macmillan.
    36. Bhaduri, Amit & Robinson, Joan, 1980. "Accumulation and Exploitation: An Analysis in the Tradition of Marx, Sraffa and Kalecki," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 4(2), pages 103-115, June.
    37. D. G. Champernowne, 1953. "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital: A Comment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 21(2), pages 112-135.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Blair Fix, 2019. "The Aggregation Problem: Implications for Ecological and Biophysical Economics," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Fix, Blair, 2019. "How the Rich Are Different: Hierarchical Power as the Basis of Income Size and Class," SocArXiv t8muy, Center for Open Science.
    3. Fix, Blair, 2018. "Capitalist income and hierarchical power: A gradient hypothesis," Working Papers on Capital as Power 2018/06, Capital As Power - Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism.
    4. Up Sira Nukulkit, 2018. "Neutral Technical Progress and the Measure of Value: along the Kaldor-Kennedy line," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2018_05, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
    5. Harvey Gram & Geoffrey Harcourt, 2015. "Joan Robinson and MIT," Working Papers 9, City University of New York Graduate Center, Ph.D. Program in Economics.
    6. Blair Fix, 2021. "How the rich are different: hierarchical power as the basis of income size and class," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 403-454, November.
    7. Fix, Blair, 2019. "How the rich are different: Hierarchical power as the basis of income size and class," Working Papers on Capital as Power 2019/02 (v.2), Capital As Power - Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism.
    8. Fix, Blair, 2018. "Capitalist Income and Hierarchical Power," SocArXiv u8epv, Center for Open Science.
    9. Fix, Blair, 2019. "How the rich are different: Hierarchical power as the basis of income and class," Working Papers on Capital as Power 2019/02, Capital As Power - Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism.
    10. Fix, Blair, 2018. "The aggregation problem: Implications for ecological economics," Working Papers on Capital as Power 2018/03, Capital As Power - Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism.

    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. Carlo Milana, 2019. "Solving the Reswitching Paradox in the Sraffian Theory of Capital," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(6), pages 97-125, November.
    2. Saverio M. Fratini, 2019. "On The Second Stage Of The Cambridge Capital Controversy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 1073-1093, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Avi J. Cohen & Geoffrey C. Harcourt, 2010. "Reswitching and Reversing in Capital Theory," Chapters, in: Mark Blaug & Peter Lloyd (ed.), Famous Figures and Diagrams in Economics, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. J. Barkley Rosser, 2020. "Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 415-431, December.
    9. Martins, Nuno Ornelas, 2021. "The economics of biodiversity: Accounting for human impact in the biosphere," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Jesus Felipe & F. Gerard Adams, 2005. ""A Theory of Production" The Estimation of the Cobb-Douglas Function: A Retrospective View," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 427-445, Summer.
    13. 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.
    14. Colacchio, Giorgio & Soci, Anna, 2003. "On the aggregate production function and its presence in modern macroeconomics," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 75-107, March.
    15. Dennis O. Kundisch & Neeraj Mittal & Barrie R. Nault, 2014. "Research Commentary —Using Income Accounting as the Theoretical Basis for Measuring IT Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 449-467, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Nadia Garbellini, 2018. "Inequality in the 21st Century:A Critical Analysis of Piketty`s Work," Working Papers Series 69, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    18. Schefold, Bertram, 2008. "C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 783-797, June.
    19. Kurose, Kazuhiro & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2016. "The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model and the Cambridge Capital Controversies," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2016-05, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • B1 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925
    • B10 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925 - - - General
    • B2 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925
    • B20 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - General
    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • B5 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches
    • B51 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
    • E1 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models
    • E10 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - General
    • E11 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Marxian; Sraffian; Kaleckian
    • E12 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian; Modern Monetary Theory

    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:2014-37. 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.