IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v43y2019i5p1315-1332..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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, 2019. "Neutral technical progress and the measure of value: along the Kaldor–Kennedy line," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(5), pages 1315-1332.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:5:p:1315-1332.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bey050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Joan Robinson, 1938. "The Classification of Inventions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 5(2), pages 139-142.
    3. Kennedy, Charles & Thirlwall, A P, 1972. "Technical Progress: A Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 82(325), pages 11-72, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Roberto Veneziani & Luca Zamparelli & 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.
    8. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "Labor- And Capital-Augmenting Technical Change," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-37, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Harcourt,G. C. With contributions by-Name:Cohen,Avi J. With contributions by-Name:Mata,Tiago, 2022. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781009158152, Enero-Abr.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Paul A. Samuelson, 1966. "A Summing Up," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(4), pages 568-583.
    14. Thirlwall, A P, 1999. "Charles Kennedy 1923-1997: An Appreciation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(459), pages 715-725, November.
    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," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Nadia Garbellini, 2018. "Inequality in the 21st Century:A Critical Analysis of Piketty`s Work," Working Papers Series 69, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Harvey Gram & G. C. Harcourt, 2017. "Joan Robinson and MIT," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 437-450, September.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Hager, Sandy Brian, 2013. "Public Debt, Ownership and Power: The Political Economy of Distribution and Redistribution," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 157991, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Dávila-Fernández, Marwil J. & Sordi, Serena, 2019. "Distributive cycles and endogenous technical change in a BoPC growth model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 216-233.
    19. Gregor Semieniuk, 2017. "Piketty’s Elasticity of Substitution: A Critique," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 64-79, January.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    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:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:5:p:1315-1332.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.