CAPITAL CONTROVERSY FROM BÖHM-BAWERK TO BLISS: BADLY POSED OR VERY DEEP QUESTIONS? OR WHAT “WE” CAN LEARN FROM CAPITAL CONTROVERSY EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE WHO WON

Abstract

The author's path from heterodoxy to economic history to the history of economics is used as a case study to explore tensions between “doing economics” and “doing the history of economics,” between the ideological vision (Schumpeter) motivating a research agenda and the even-handed execution of research. These same tensions appear in the history of capital controversy, which contains deep questions of history and path dependence versus equilibrium models, limitations of aggregate production functions, and the roles of vision and ideology in the reluctance to abandon insights of one-commodity models when results are not robust.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.