2021The Indian Economic JournalRequires access

Transformations of the Cambridge Critique

Bertram Schefold

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

The debate on capital theory has recently been revived. Reswitching had led to agnosticism regarding the substitution of capital for labour in consequence of changes in the rate or profit. The paradoxes of reswitching and reverse capital deepening now turn out to be rare for theoretical reasons, and this is confirmed empirically, but new results also show that the possibilities of substitution between capital and labour are quite limited; their ratio is given within narrow limits by technology, if the choice of techniques is efficient. This is a new critique of neoclassical theory; it confirms the complementary theories of distribution advanced by the Cambridge economists: the share of profits is influenced by effective demand (Kaldor) and by the level of interest rates as an element of cost (Sraffa). Both theories presuppose the stability of the capital-output ratio. This finding also sheds light on the options of central banks regarding the fixation of interest rates. JEL Code: B51, C67, D57, E11, E13, E44

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The debate on capital theory has recently been revived. Reswitching had led to agnosticism regarding the substitution of capital for labour in consequence of changes in the rate or profit. The paradoxes of reswitching and reverse capital deepening now turn out to be rare for theoretical reasons, and this is confirmed empirically, but new results also show that the possibilities of substitution between capital and labour are quite limited; their ratio is given within narrow limits by technology, if the choice of techniques is efficient. This is a new critique of neoclassical theory; it confirms the complementary theories of distribution advanced by the Cambridge economists: the share of profits is influenced by effective demand (Kaldor) and by the level of interest rates as an element of cost (Sraffa). Both theories presuppose the stability of the capital-output ratio. This finding also sheds light on the options of central banks regarding the fixation of interest rates. JEL Code: B51, C67, D57, E11, E13, E44

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The debate on capital theory has recently been revived. Reswitching had led to agnosticism regarding the substitution of capital for labour in consequence of changes in the rate or profit. The paradoxes of reswitching and reverse capital deepening now turn out to be rare for theoretical reasons, and this is confirmed empirically, but new results also show that the possibilities of substitution between capital and labour are quite limited; their ratio is given within narrow limits by technology, if the choice of techniques is efficient. This is a new critique of neoclassical theory; it confirms the complementary theories of distribution advanced by the Cambridge economists: the share of profits is influenced by effective demand (Kaldor) and by the level of interest rates as an element of cost (Sraffa). Both theories presuppose the stability of the capital-output ratio. This finding also sheds light on the options of central banks regarding the fixation of interest rates. JEL Code: B51, C67, D57, E11, E13, E44

Key concepts: Economics, Capital (architecture), Neoclassical economics, Agnosticism, Substitution (logic), Profit (economics), Factor shares, Rate of profit

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Transformations of the Cambridge Critique — Research Paper | ScholarLens