What remains of the Cambridge critique of capital theory, if reswitching and reverse capital deepening are empirically rare and theoretically unlikely?

Abstract

The paper summarises the main results of the Cambridge controversy on capital theory and discusses its actual relevance. The paradoxes that had first been regarded as most relevant (reswitching and reverse capital deepening) have turned out to be empirically rare, and this can be explained theoretically, but both neoclassical and anti-neoclassical Wicksell effects are ubiquitous. The number of efficient techniques that turn up on the envelope of the wage curves of a spectrum of techniques can be shown to be quite small both empirically and theoretically, which constitutes a new critique. It has implications for employment policies.

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 — 15 citations exist upstream.

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