On the Second Stage of the Cambridge Capital Controversy
Saverio M. Fratini
Abstract
Open-access reader
Saverio M. Fratini
Abstract
Open-access reader
The second stage of the Cambridge capital controversy concerns the neo-Walrasian theory of value and distribution. Since production is not understood in this theory as employing factors of production but rather commodities, i.e. goods and services with date and place of delivery, some scholars maintained that it is not affected by the problems that emerged, during the first stage of the controversy, as regards the conception of capital as a factor of production and the rate of interest as the price for its use. The reply of the ‘neo-Ricardians’ was based on two arguments. The first regarded the relevance of the new notions of equilibrium adopted in the neo-Walrasian approach, with particular reference to temporary and Arrow-Debreu equilibria, and the second the possibility that the phenomena of re-switching and reverse capital deepening, by affecting the working of the saving-investment market, could cause equilibrium multiplicity and instability also in a neo-Walrasian framework.
OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The second stage of the Cambridge capital controversy concerns the neo-Walrasian theory of value and distribution. Since production is not understood in this theory as employing factors of production but rather commodities, i.e. goods and services with date and place of delivery, some scholars maintained that it is not affected by the problems that emerged, during the first stage of the controversy, as regards the conception of capital as a factor of production and the rate of interest as the price for its use. The reply of the ‘neo-Ricardians’ was based on two arguments. The first regarded the relevance of the new notions of equilibrium adopted in the neo-Walrasian approach, with particular reference to temporary and Arrow-Debreu equilibria, and the second the possibility that the phenomena of re-switching and reverse capital deepening, by affecting the working of the saving-investment market, could cause equilibrium multiplicity and instability also in a neo-Walrasian framework.
Key concepts: Economics, Capital (architecture), Arrow, Capital good, Neoclassical economics, Production (economics), Investment (military), Factors of production