IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Kaldor/Knight controversy: Is capital a distinct and quantifiable factor of production?

  • Avi Cohen

Controversy 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.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672560500522801
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought.

Volume (Year): 13 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 141-161

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:13:y:2006:i:1:p:141-161
DOI: 10.1080/09672560500522801
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJH20

Order Information: Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/REJH20

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Harcourt,G. C., 1972. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720, Junio.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. F. H. Knight, 1924. "Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(4), pages 582-606.
  6. Targetti, Ferdinando, 1992. "Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283485, December.
  7. 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.
  8. A. Cohen & G. Harcourt., 2009. "Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 8.
  9. Blaug,Mark, 1997. "Economic Theory in Retrospect," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521577014, Junio.
  10. 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.
  11. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "The Hayek/Knight Capital Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 469-490, Fall.
  12. D. G. Champernowne & R. F. Kahn, 1953. "The Value of Invested Capital," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 107-111.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:13:y:2006:i:1:p:141-161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.