IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uta/papers/2018_05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Neutral Technical Progress and the Measure of Value: along the Kaldor-Kennedy line

Author

Listed:
  • Up Sira Nukulkit

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate the question of "the effect of progress upon distribution" based on the analyses of Hicks, Robinson, Harrod, Salter, Kaldor, Samuelson, and Kennedy. The paper aims to address a neglected and controversial theoretical argument on neutral technical progress related to the measure of value that preceded and then continued to the period of the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy. I focus on Kennedy's writings and his solutions to the complications between the measure of value and technical progress. Important intuitions behind the measure of value are crucial to the formulation of neutral technical progress in both the post-Keynesian and the neoclassical-Keynesian endogenous growth models. The paper concludes with mathematical illustrations of neutral technical progress theories.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:uta:papers:2018_05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.utah.edu/research/publications/2018-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    3. Joan Robinson, 1938. "The Classification of Inventions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 5(2), pages 139-142.
    4. Harcourt,G. C., 1972. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720.
    5. King, J. E., 1998. "“Your Position is Thoroughly Orthodox and Entirely Wrong†: Nicholas Kaldor and Joan Robinson, 1933–1983," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 411-432, December.
    6. Robert M. Solow, 2007. "The last 50 years in growth theory and the next 10," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(1), pages 3-14, Spring.
    7. Kennedy, Charles & Thirlwall, A P, 1972. "Technical Progress: A Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 82(325), pages 11-72, March.
    8. Paul A. Samuelson, 1966. "A Summing Up," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(4), pages 568-583.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Thirlwall, A P, 1999. "Charles Kennedy 1923-1997: An Appreciation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(459), pages 715-725, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Daniele Tavani & Luca Zamparelli, 2017. "Endogenous Technical Change In Alternative Theories Of Growth And Distribution," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 1272-1303, December.
    14. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "Labor- And Capital-Augmenting Technical Change," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-37, March.
    15. Nuno Ornelas Martins, 2016. "Political aspects of the capital controversies and capitalist crises," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 473-494, October.
    16. Pierangelo Garegnani, 2007. "Professor Samuelson on Sraffa and the classical economists," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 181-242.
    17. G. C. Harcourt, 1962. "Productivity And Technical Change," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 38(83), pages 388-394, September.
    18. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    19. Nicholas Kaldor, 1961. "Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth," International Economic Association Series, in: D. C. Hague (ed.), The Theory of Capital, chapter 0, pages 177-222, Palgrave Macmillan.
    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. Giuseppe Fontana & Bill Gerrard, 2006. "The future of Post Keynesian economics," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 59(236), pages 49-80.
    3. 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.
    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. Nadia Garbellini, 2018. "Inequality in the 21st Century:A Critical Analysis of Piketty`s Work," Working Papers Series 69, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Santos, João & Domingos, Tiago & Sousa, Tânia & St. Aubyn, Miguel, 2016. "Does a small cost share reflect a negligible role for energy in economic production? Testing for aggregate production functions including capital, labor, and useful exergy through a cointegration-base," MPRA Paper 70850, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Garbellini, Nadia, 2020. "Measurement without theory, and theory without measurement: What's wrong with Piketty's capital in the XXI century?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 50-62.
    12. Brendan Markey†Towler, 2017. "The Oxford Handbook of Post†Keynesian Economics, Volume 1: Theory and Origins," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(303), pages 659-661, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Marwil J. Dávila-Fernández, 2018. "Alternative Approaches to Technological Change when Growth is BoPC," Department of Economics University of Siena 795, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Harvey Gram & Geoffrey Harcourt, 2015. "Joan Robinson and MIT," Working Papers 9, City University of New York Graduate Center, Ph.D. Program in Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Fix, Blair, 2019. "How the Rich Are Different: Hierarchical Power as the Basis of Income Size and Class," SocArXiv t8muy, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Neutral balanced growth; Capital controversy; Growth and distribution JEL Classification: B22; 033; E12;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B22 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - Macroeconomics
    • 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:uta:papers:2018_05. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuutus.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.