Joan Robinson and the three cambridge revolutions

Joan Robinson's association with three Cambridge ‘revolutions’—imperfect competition, effective demand and capital theory—is examined in the context of her personal and intellectual partnership with Richard Kahn, John Maynard Keynes and Piero Sraffa. Initially, imperfect competition appeared to have successfully extended marginal analysis to all market forms. It also allowed Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson to persuade Keynes to present the main argument of The General Theory in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply. By the early 1950s, however, Joan Robinson had rejected the Marshallian methodology and had become a strenuous censor of neoclassical theory. In this paper the origin of her critique is traced to her reading of Sraffa's Introduction to Ricardo's Principles.     

The aggregate neoclassical theory of distribution and the concept of a given value of capital: towards a more general critique

The aim of this article is to show the weakness of the neo-Ricardian critique of the aggregate neoclassical theory of distribution which affirms the intrinsic inability of this theory to describe a stable equilibrium. The article shows that within the aggregate neoclassical framework both the supply curve for capital, founded on the concept of a given value of capital, and the demand curve for capital are each, and for different reasons, without any appreciable economic meaning. The kind of equilibrium determined by these curves is economically irrelevant. The article stresses the consequence that capital reversal and reswitching are unimportant for the critique of the aggregate neoclassical theory of distribution.     

Neglected Implications of Neoclassical Capital-Labour Substitution for Investment Theory: Another Criticism of Say's Law

Abstract

Recent mainstream macroeconomic models take Say's Law for granted. This paper argues that the justification for this assumption is not found in general equilibrium theory but in the ‘neoclassical-synthesis’ (and then monetarist) criticism of Keynes, which relies in a fundamental way on a treatment of investment that turns out to depend not only on neoclassical capital-labour substitution (called into questioned by the Cambridge controversies) but also on an assumption of full labour employment that on the contrary should be a result of the analysis. This paper first criticizes the attempt to justify a negative interest-elastic investment function through adjustment costs, that is, without relying on traditional neoclassical capital-labour substitution, with special attention on the treatment in Romer's advanced textbook. Then it proceeds to its new contribution, the demonstration that an endogenous determination of labour employment raises questions about the capacity of decreases in the real wage to raise employment even accepting neoclassical capital-labour substitution, because when the latter is correctly understood the rate of interest does not suffice to determine investment; hence, there is an inevitable role for the accelerator (and Say's Law is thereby undermined). This was perceived by Dornbusch and Fischer but they did not realize that then reductions of real wages will reduce investment instead of raising it. Thus, the ‘neoclassical synthesis’ reply to Keynes is undermined even apart from the inconsistencies of neoclassical capital theory. So the paper exposes a deficiency of the neoclassical arguments in support of a tendency toward full employment, additional to the inconsistencies revealed by the capital critique.     

An unpleasant dilemma for contemporary general equilibrium theory

By examining the contributions of two prominent contemporary neoclassical economists, i.e. Lucas and Hahn, the article attempts to shed light on the problematic relationship between neoclassical theory and observation. It is argued that this approach must face the unpleasant dilemma of having to choose between endowing general equilibrium theory with an explanatory role that is marred by its illegitimate notion of capital as a single factor of variable form (Lucas); or alternatively, to consistently treat each capital good as a distinct factor of production, with the bitter implication that the theory must simply renounce to have a correspondence with observation (Hahn).     

Capital,the State,and the Monetary Mode of Power: A Review of Nitzan and Bichler's Capital as Power

In their recent book Capital as Power, Jonathan Nitzan & Shimshon Bichler depict capitalism as a mode of power rather than a mode of production, in which political and economic power are no longer distinct. In addition, they argue, contrary to neoclassical theory, that capital has nothing to do with productivity but instead represents power. I make three broad criticisms: first, their elimination of the distinction between economics and politics renders any empirical test of their ostensible integration impossible; second, they do not adequately define their main concepts, including capital, capitalization, capitalism, and power; and third, they do not acknowledge the possibility that the patterns they attribute to power may in fact be self-organized. This paper argues that money is a claim to wealth, not wealth itself, that it measures and distributes the power of payment, and that payments redistribute the power of ownership, including the ownership of money. Finally, I suggest that, in light of the global debt crisis, a theory of capital-as-power should examine the power of finance, which entails the privatization and concentration of the power to create money as debt.     

LONG-RUN GROWTH PROJECTIONS AND THE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION: A SURVEY OF MODELS USED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

This paper examines the theory and method behind the long-run growth projections of four prominent models used within the U.S. government. The growth models of the Congressional Budget Ofice, the Social Security Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and the General Accounting Office are all firmly based on the neoclassical framework of an aggregate production function, but several practical dfferences exist. Most notably, the CBO and GAO models endogenize capital accumulation, while the SSA and OMB simply assume that labor productivity growth will continue at historical rates. Although recent endogenous growth theory and the expanding empirical literature on cross-sectional variation emphasize alternative factors, the US. government agencies remain appropriately committed to the traditional, neoclassical framework as a tool for projecting long-run growth.     

Sraffa: the theoretical world of the ‘old classical economists’ *

Sraffa's mature work is seen here as a re-discovery and resumption of the ‘submerged and forgotten’ approach of the ‘old classical economists from Adam Smith to Ricardo’. Wages determined by broad economic and social forces entail there product prices determined independently of demand and supply functions. Some main questions raised for the modern economists by this radical reorientation of economic theory are then considered in order to conclude that it is aginst that background that Sraffa's mature work should be set with its three main contributions, of a rediscovery of the approach, of a complete and transparent solution of the problems of price determination it raises, and of its application to the critique of neoclassical theory. Among several developments originating from Sraffa's seminal work, two are singled out for mention: (i) the possibility of deficiencies of aggregate demand in the long period no less than in the short one; this follows naturally from the abandonment of the neoclassical theory of distribution, of which the role of the interset rate in equilibrating savings and investment is a corollary; (ii) the question of the distribution of the surplus between wages and profits in a modern economy where wages are no longer confined to subsistence.     

The Economics of Karl Marx: Analysis and Applications

Abstract

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.     

Investment rates and the aggregate production function

In this paper we consider a simple version of the neoclassical growth model, and carry out an empirical analysis of the main determinants of aggregate investment across countries. The neoclassical growth model predicts that aggregate investment may be influenced by income growth, the capital income share, the relative price of capital, taxes, and other market distortions. We check these investment patterns for both OECD and non-OECD countries. We also decompose investment data into equipment and structures, and explore major factors affecting their relative prices. These empirical exercises shed light into the shape of the neoclassical production function.     

Australian Business Investment: A New Look at the Neoclassical Approach*

This paper attempts to reconcile neoclassical theory with Australian investment data. We argue that, by focusing almost exclusively on the demand for capital services, neoclassical investment theory neglects two related decisions: the decision to own the existing capital stock, and the decision to produce new capital goods. We propose a simple model of investment behaviour that integrates production decisions with portfolio decisions. Careful consideration is given to the determination of the price of capital, the rental price of capital, and the return on capital. The model is estimated by FIML, and a number of simulation results are reported.     

The New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts

Abstract

Until the emergence of the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) in the 1980s, migration scholars were largely divided into two main theoretical camps, viz. the neoclassical and historical-structural approaches to migration. Against this background, the NELM presented itself as a theoretical ‘third way’ between the two latter approaches, and purported to reconcile agency and structure in a way previously unachieved by either of them. While those pretensions gained a fair amount of acceptance and popularity, this paper argues that they are fundamentally misleading, and that the NELM is little more than a slightly more sophisticated avatar of the neoclassical approach to migration, whose fundamental weaknesses it has not, and cannot, shed. This paper further argues that, in so doing, the NELM effectively constitutes migration theory's own instance of economics imperialism, i.e. the attempt to advance the fundamental tenets of neoclassical economics (methodological individualism and the assumption of optimizing rationality) within the context of the study and interpretation of various social phenomena. In order to put forth these arguments, this paper provides a summary presentation of the standard neoclassical theory of migration, the historical-structural heterodoxy and the NELM; highlights why it is that the NELM should be regarded as a ‘reworked’ version of the neoclassical theoretical framework and discusses its inception in the context of the ‘information-theoretic revolution’ in economics; and argues for a new and improved ‘historical-structural synthesis’ as a more satisfactory alternative to both the NELM and the standard neoclassical theory.     

The Dynamic Harrod Foreign Trade Multiplier and the Demand-orientated Approach to Economic Growth: an Evaluation

This paper puts forward a demand-orientated model of economic growth, as an alternative to the supply-orientated approach of neoclassical theory, and evaluates the extensive research testing the dynamic Harrod trade multiplier model developed by Thirlwall and extended by McCombie. It is critical of the continued dismissal of demand constraints as an explanation of inter-country growth rate differences in the models of McGregor & Swales, Crafts, Krugman, etc., and in the ‘new’ growth theory literature, although it is sympathetic to the rehabilitation of the role increasing returns for an understanding of cumulative processes which make for divisions in the world economy.     

Reading Sraffa's Indices – a note *

Piero Sraffa took thirteen years to publish the General Indexto The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo.The Index is compared to others and is shown to be exceptional in that it leads the way to specific interpretations of Ricardo's life and theory. The choice of entries referring to theory is based on Ricardo's own concepts and carefully avoids neoricardian, Marxian and neoclassical terms. Examples discussed concern ‘comparative advantage’ and ‘value’ The entries referring to Ricardo's life are proof of Sraffa's broad historical interests and focus on certain characteristics of Ricardo.     

Land,technical progress and the falling rate of profit

The paper sets out a one sector growth model with a neoclassical production function in land and a capital–labour aggregate. If the elasticity of substitution between land and the capital–labour aggregate is less than one and if the rate of capital augmenting technical progress is strictly positive, then the rate of profit will fall to zero. This result holds regardless of the rate of land augmenting technical progress: no amount of technical advance in agriculture can stop the fall in the rate of profit. The paper also discusses the relation of this result to the classical and Marxist literature.     

Logic,rationality and knowledge in Ramsey's thought: reassessing ‘human logic’

This paper reconsiders Frank Ramsey's essay on subjective probability (1926) as a consistent way to articulate logic, rationality and knowledge. The first part of the essay builds an axiomatic theory of subjective probability based on ‘formal logic’, defining rationality as choice-consistency. The second part seems to open up different horizons: the evaluation of degrees of belief by ‘human logic’. Because of the interest Keynes (1931) had taken in ‘human logic’, it was considered to be a possible alternative to the formal logic underlying the neoclassical theory of individual behaviour. The analysis of Ramsey's method in the entire paper, the relation between logic and rationality it constructs and the conception of uncertainty it reveals, lead me to note on the contrary that Ramsey's human logic was a complementary logic rather than an alternative to formal logic. Defining a standard to evaluate beliefs formation according to a frequentist criterion, it completes a normative representation of rationality which supports an original theory of knowledge that appears more in line with further developments of neoclassical methodology than with Keynesian economics.     

A Note on Aggregate Investment in Australia*

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of Tobin's ‘q theory’ of investment in explaining aggregate investment in Australia, over the period from December 1966 to December 1986. Using standard capital stock data, the q theory performs poorly. However, the cost of adjustment model implies that the conventional capital stock data need to be revised to allow for these adjustment costs. Once this is done, it is found that the q theory explains a statistically significant (although small) proportion of the movements in aggregate investment The residual behaviour of investment is well explained by an accelerator model     

C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique

The Cambridge debate of the 1960s showed conclusively that the aggregation of capital, so as to obtain a surrogate production function according to Samuelson, is not possible in general, with critical implications also for other variants of neoclassical theory. The framework for the demonstration is that of linear activity analysis.There is an individual wage curve in function of the rate of profit for each technique. If these individual wage curves were straight lines, their envelope would define a wage curve resulting from all techniques, from which a surrogate production function could be derived, but all wage curves are straight only, if there is only one industry. And if wage curves are not straight, phenomena such as reswitching show that essential neoclassical hypotheses need not hold. A recent empirical investigation by Han and Schefold has found one empirical example for reswitching and several for reverse capital deepening.A rigorous derivation of surrogate production functions thus is ruled out also on empirical grounds, but the paradoxes seem not to be as frequent as the critics once thought, so that the question arises whether approximate surrogate production functions could be derived, with individual wage curves which would be sufficiently linear to construct approximate surrogate production functions, indicating a relationship between the intensity of capital and output per head which would be sufficiently precise to work with.The paper is part of a wider investigation, in which conditions for the existence of quasi-linear wage curves and the possibility of the construction of approximate surrogate production functions are given. The emphasis here is on the special hypotheses needed to obtain C.E.S. production functions.     

Human capital,innovation capability and economic growth in Portugal, 1960-2001

In maintaining that the main flaw in empirical studies on economic growth derives from the fact that they employ Solow-style neoclassical growth models, rather than testing actual endogenous growth theory, we examine the human capital-innovation-growth nexus, thus testing new growth theory more directly. We test its insights against the economic evolution of an individual country, Portugal, using time series data from 1960 to 2001. Estimates based on vector autoregressive and cointegration analysis seem to confirm that human capital and indigenous innovation efforts were enormously important to the economic growth process in Portugal during the period of study. In particular, the indirect effect of human capital through innovation, emerges here as being critical, showing that a reasonably high stock of human capital is necessary to enable a country to reap the benefits of its indigenous innovation efforts.Received: November 2003, Accepted: November 2004, JEL Classification: C22, J24, O30, O40 Correspondence to: Aurora A.C. TeixeiraThe authors are grateful to two anonymous referees, Paulo Brito and the participants of the 2003 Portuguese Society for Economics Research (SPiE) in Lisbon, Portugal for helpful comments and suggestions. CEMPRE - Centro de Estudos Macroeconómicos e Previsão - is supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal, through the Programa Operacional Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (POCTI) of the Quadro Comunitário de Apoio III, which is financed by FEDER and Portuguese funds.     

The Aggregate Production Function: ‘Not Even Wrong’

The foundations of the aggregate production function were long ago thrown into doubt by problems of aggregation and the Cambridge capital theory controversies. Yet the aggregate production function, whether in the familiar form of the Cobb-Douglas, the CES, or the translog, continues to be widely used in both theoretical and applied analysis. The reason for its continued use rests on the instrumental position that ‘it works’. The aggregate production function sometimes yields good statistical fits with plausible estimates of the coefficients. However, for some time, it has been realised that the existence of an underlying accounting identity can explain the regression results, even if the aggregate production function does not exist. This argument has been widely ignored. This paper, drawing on a rhetorical approach, assesses why this is the case. It shows that the few criticisms that have been made of the critique involve fundamental misunderstandings that represent a failure of the economic method.     

Why Do the Rich Save More? A Theory and Australian Evidence*

We provide a theory to explain the existence of inequality in an economy where agents have identical preferences and have access to the same production technology. Agents consume a ‘health’ good which determines their subjective discount factor. Depending on initial distribution of capital the economy gets separated into different permanent‐income groups. This leads to a testable hypothesis: ‘The rich save a larger proportion of their permanent‐income’. We test this implication for savings behaviour in Australia. We find that even after controlling for lifecycle and health characteristics, higher permanent income is positively related with higher savings rates and better saving habits.