Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies

  • Published:
The Review of Austrian Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While Austrian economists and their models were only indirectly involved in the Cambridge capital theory controversies that came to a dramatic head in 1966, certain ideas argued for by the Cambridge, UK side were prefigured in some work by Austrian economists, especially F.A. Hayek in his 1941, The Pure Theory of Capital, which he wote largely as a result of earlier debates with both Sraffa and Keynes. This paper recounts the roots of the capital theory debates coming out of the nineteenth century, the arguments among Keynes, Sraffa, and Hayek, Hayek’s analysis that undermined traditional Austrian views of capital, the Cambridge controversies themselves, and then how various groups followed up in the aftermath, including neoclassicals, neo-Ricardians and Post Keynesians, and various groups of Austrians, who were themselves slow to recognize the full implications of Hayek’s work and its relation to the Cambridge capital theory controversies. A final point is that among both those following Sraffa and Joan Robinson more as well as those following Hayek more, some have seen the issues leading to broader complexity approaches to capital theory and economic dynamics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Petri (2016) provides a good discussion of the development of these ideas from Senior to Böhm-Bawerk through Jevons and Menger. Menger’s views on capital went through various stages with him at times emphasizing aggregate capital.

  2. While Sraffa was thinking through these ideas from the 1920s on, he would not publish his main argument until his famous 1960Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: A Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. The record of the development of these ideas is kept in his papers, with Kurz (2013, pp. 59–60)) providing the citations from Sraffa’s papers for these key insights.

  3. Later Cowen (1983) would argue that Lachmann’s point held only in a monetary economy where there would be a common rate of return, whereas Sraffa’s point would hold in a strictly barter general equilibrium.

  4. It must be noted that Irving Fisher (1930) was also aware that irregular time patterns of net returns could complicate his analysis of the “rate of return” as such irregularities, notably negative net returns in future periods, could lead to “multiple roots” in his analysis and thus ambiguity.

  5. Steele (2014) notes that Hayek (1941) recognized priority of Frank Knight (1936) in making a similar argument. Among the first in the Sraffian camp to recognize what Hayek had done was Steedman (1994).

  6. Robinson would label this “the Ruth Cohen curiosum” after an actual student of hers, although it appears that the student did not have much to do with developing the idea, if any at all.

  7. That these phenomena generally involve comparing steady-state equilibria would later lead Robinson to dismiss the whole exercise as only mattering in “logical time” rather than the more important “historical time,” thus rendering reswitching to be “unimportant” (Robinson 1975).

  8. It must be noted that many neo-Ricardian Sraffians accept that they follow a classical approach (Kurz 2013), while still maintaining links to the British-based post-Keynesian group, who did not follow the Americans in this dispute.

  9. This paper received an award for being the best paper published in 1976 in Economic Inquiry. The editor (Robert Clower) was not pleased when it was discovered that the paper contained an error (Rosser 1978).

  10. While it was meant to apply to the making of obvious and unrealistic assumptions, Joan Robinson’s wisecrack made in numerous talks although never appearing in print about “a magician who put a rabbit into a hat in full view of the audience, and then expected great applause when he pulled it out again.”

  11. While at the time Rosser was unaware of it, Garegnani (1970) had previously constructed a different example that also exhibited the same phenomenon.

  12. While Lachmann and Shackle saw the subjectivity of heterogeneous capital in plans as crucial and also as drawing on both Hayekian and Keynesian traditions, some later Austrian followers of this strong subjectivism would reject Keynes as retaining an emphasis on aggregate capital (Horwitz 2011).

  13. Rosser (2006) shows that complexity based on nonlinear dynamics is central to the immediate post-Keynesian macroeconomics modeling done by Kaldor (1940), Goodwin (1951), and others, with this providing a possible unifying element across the contending schools of Post Keynesian thought.

  14. Samuelson (1966) noted that Solow showed both sides of this contradiction, accepting the critique of aggregate capital in theory, the “red wine” Solow, while using it in his empirical work, the “white wine” Solow. Samuelson said that he preferred the “red wine” Solow of theory, and that when Solow did his “white wine” empirical work he was on a “busman’s holiday,” even as most current neoclassical macroeconomists who rely on Solow’s empirical aggregate production functions are not even aware of his own acceptance of the theoretical critiques of this work.

References

  • Albin, P. S. (1975). Reswitching: An empirical observation, a theoretical note, and an environmental conjecture. Kyklos, 28, 149–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, G. B. (2008). Paradoxical consumption behavior when economic activity has environmental effects. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 529–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, C. J. (1975). Capital theory and the distribution of income. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., Kirman, A., & Sethi, R. (2017). Retrospectives: Friedrich Hayek and the market algorithm. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 215–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister, E., & van Long, N. (1977). On some unresolved questions in capital theory: An application of Samuelson’s correspondence principle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 289–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, B. (2004). Hayek’s challenge: An intellectual biography of F.A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, F. (1983-84). Time in Shacklean and Sraffian economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 6, 265–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champernowne, D. G. (1953-54). The production function and the theory of capital: A comment. Review of Economic Studies, 21, 289–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. B. (1891). Distribution as determined by a law of rent. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 5, 289–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. J., & Harcourt, G. C. (2003). Whatever happened to the Cambridge capital theory controversies? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T. (1983). The rate of return. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5, 608–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, P. A. (1978). Money and the real world. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, P. A. (1982-83). Rational expectations: A fallacious foundation for crucial decision-making processes. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5, 289–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dvoskin, A., & Petri, F. (2017). Again on the relevance of reverse capital deepening and reswitching. Metroeconomica, 68, 625–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichner, A. S. (1978). A guide to post-Keynesian economics. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, I. (1930). The theory of interest. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garegnani, P. (1966). Switching of techniques. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 554–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garegnani, P. (1970). Heterogeneous capital, the production function and the theory of distribution. Review of Economic Studies, 37, 407–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garegnani, P. (1978). Notes on consumption, investment, and effective demand I. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3, 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R. W. (2001). Time and money: The macroeconomics of capital structures. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R. W. (2006). Reflections on reswitching and roundaboutness. In R. Koppl (Ed.), Money and markets: Essays in honor of Leland B. Yeager (pp. 186–206). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, C., & Kurz, H. D. (2006). Sraffa and von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the classical theory of value and distribution. History of Political Economy, 38, 98–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, R. M. (1951). The nonlinear accelerator and the persistence of business cycles. Econometrica, 19(1), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, F. H. (1984). Equilibrium and macroeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Z., & Schefold, B. (2006). An empirical investigation of paradoxes: Reswitching and reverse capital deepening in capital theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 737–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, G. C. (1969). Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Journal of Economic Literature, 7, 369–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, G. C. (1972). Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. A., & Endres, A. M. (2010). Capital as a layer cake: A systems approach to capital and its multi-level structure. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 74, 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. A., & Endres, A. M. (2012). The anatomy of emergence with a focus upon capital formation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 82, 352–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1931a). Reflections on the pure theory of money of Mr. J.M. Keynes, part I. Economica, 11, 270–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F.A. (1931b). Prices and production. London: Routledge and Sons.

  • Hayek, F. A. (1932). Money and capital: A reply. Economic Journal, 42, 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1937). Economics and knowledge. Economica, 4, 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1941). The pure theory of capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and economic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F.A. (1952).The sensory order: An inquiry into the foundations of theoretical psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Hayek, F.A. (1967). The theory of complex phenomena, in Studies in philosophy, politics, and economics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 22–47.

  • Hicks, J.R. (1977). Economic perspectives: Further essays on money and growth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Holt, R. P. F., & Pressman, S. (2001). A new guide to post Keynesian economics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. G. (2008). Analogous models of complexity: The Austrian theory of capital and Hayek’s theory of cognition as adaptive classifying systems. Advances in Austrian Economics, 11, 143–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. G. (2011). Contrasting concepts of capital: Another look at the Hayek-Keynes debate. Journal of Private Enterprise, 27, 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jevons, W. S. (1866). Brief account of a general mathematical theory of political economy. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 29, 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, N. (1940). A model of the trade cycle. Economic Journal, 50, 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1930). A treatise on money. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1966). An essay on capital. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. M. (1936). The quantity of capital and the rate of interest. Journal of Political Economy, 44, 433–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppl, R. (2009). Complexity in Austrian economics. In J. B. Rosser Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of complexity research (pp. 393–408). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppl, R. (2014). From crisis to confidence: Macroeconomics after the crash. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppl, R., & Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2002). All that I have to say has already crossed your mind. Metroeconomica, 53, 339–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, H. D. (2013). Sraffa, Keynes, and post-Keynesianism. In G. C. Harcourt & P. Kreisler (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of post-Keynesian economics, volume 1: Theory and origins (pp. 74–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, H. D., & Salvadori, N. (1995). Theory of production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, L. M. (1956). Capital and its structure. Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews, and McMeel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, L. M. (1986). The market as an economic process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, D. (1989). Economic chaos or spontaneous order? Implications for political economy of the new view of science. Cato Journal, 8, 613–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levhari, D. (1965). A nonsubstitution theorem and the switching of techniques. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79, 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, P. (1999). Capital in disequilibrium: The role of capital in a changing world. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, P. (2014). Hayek and Lachmann. In R. W. Garrison & N. Barry (Eds.), (pp. 165–194). Cheltenham: Elgar companion to Hayekian economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, P., & Cachanasky, N. (2018). Value and capital: Austrian capital theory, retrospect and prospect. Review of Austrian Economics, 31, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P. (2012). Emergent properties in the work of Friedrich Hayek. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 82, 368–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P., & Runde, J. (2007). Subjectivism, social structure and the possibility of socio-economic order: The case of Ludwig Lachmann. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62, 167–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, F. B. (1938). The movement of interest rates, bond yields and stock prices in the United States since 1856. New York: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menger, C. (1888). Zur theorie des kapitals. Jahrbuch für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 1–49.

  • Morishima, M. (1966). Refutation of the nonsubstitution theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 520–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L. (1966). Paradoxes in capital theory: A symposium: Changes in the rate of profit and switches of techniques. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 503–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L. (1969). Switches of technique and the ‘rate of return’ in capital theory. Economic Journal, 79, 503–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L. (1981). Structural change and economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Pasinetti, L. (1993). Structural economic dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Petri, F. (2016). Capital theory, in Faccarello, G. and Kurz, H.D (eds), History of economic analysis, volume III: developments in major fields of economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 40–69.

  • Prince, R., & Rosser, J. B. Jr. (1985). Some implications of delayed environmental costs for benefit-cost analysis: A study of reswitching in the western coal lands. Growth and Change, 16, 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J.V. (1953-54). The production function and the theory of capital, Review of Economic Studies, 21, 81=106.

  • Robinson, J. V. (1956). The accumulation of capital. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. V. (1975). The unimportance of reswitching. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J. B. Jr. (1978). Continuity and capital-reversal: Comment. Economic Inquiry, 16, 143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J. B. Jr. (1983). Reswitching as a cusp catastrophe. Journal of Economic Theory, 31, 182–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J.B., Jr. (1991). From catastrophe to chaos: A general theory of economic discontinuities. Boston: Kluwer.

  • Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2006). Complex dynamics and post Keynesian economics. In M. Setterfield (Ed.), Complexity, endogenous money and macroeconomics: Essays in honour of Basil J. Moore (pp. 74–98). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2012). Emergence and complexity in Austrian economics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81, 122–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2015). Complexity and Austrian economics. In P. J. Boettke & C. J. Coyne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Austrian economics (pp. 594–611). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1962). Parable and realism in capital theory: The surrogate production function. Review of Economic Studies, 29, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1966). A summing up. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 568–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senior, N.W. (1836). An outline of the science of political economy. London: W. Clowes & Sons.

  • Shackle, G. L. S. (1967). The years of high theory: Invention and tradition in economic thought, 1926–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackle, G. L. S. (1972). Epistemics and economics: A critique of economic doctrines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1955-56). The production function and the theory of capital. Review of Economic Studies, 23, 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1962). Capital theory and the rate of return. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sraffa, P. (1932a). Dr. Hayek on money and capital. Economic Journal, 42, 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sraffa, P. (1932b). A rejoinder. Economic Journal, 42, 249–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sraffa, P. (1936). Letter to Joan Robinson. October 1936. Archives: King’s College, Cambridge.

  • Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of commodities by commodities: Prelude to a critique of economic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, I. (1977). Marx after Sraffa. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, I. (1994). The pure theory of capital of F.A. Hayek. In M. Colonna, H. Hagemann, & O. Hamouda (Eds.), Capitalism, socialism and knowledge. The economics of F.A. Hayek, vol. II (pp. 3–25). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, G. R. (2014). Hayek’s pure theory of capital. In R. W. Garrison & N. Barry (Eds.), Elgar companion to Hayekian economics (pp. 71–93). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, K. I. (1999). Hayek’s thought and market order as an instance of the theory of complex adaptive systems. Journal des économistes et des études humaines, 9, 241–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. (1908). Professor Clark’s economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 22, 147–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1889). Positive theorie des kapitales. Innsbruck: Wagner.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bortkiewicz, L. (1906–07). Wertrechnung und preisrechnung im Marxschen system, Archhiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 23, 1–50; 25, 10–51, 455–488.

  • von Mises, L. (1912). Theorie des geldes und der umlaufsmittel. Munich: Verlag von. Duncker & Humblot.

  • Vriend, N. J. (2002). Was Hayek an ace? Southern Economic Journal, 68, 811–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicksell, G.K. (1898). Geldzins und güterpreise: eine studie über die den tauschwert des geldes bestimenden uraschen. Heidelberg: Heidelberg Universitatbibliothek.

  • Wicksell, G. K. (1911). Föreläsninger: nationalekonomi: I. Lund: Berlingska.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeager, L. B. (1976). Toward understanding some paradoxes in capital theory. Economic Inquiry, 14, 313–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeager, L. B., & Burmeister, E. (1978). Continuity and capital-reversal: Reply. Economic Inquiry, 16, 147–149.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

    J. Barkley Rosser Jr

Authors
  1. J. Barkley Rosser Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Barkley Rosser Jr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosser, J.B. Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies. Rev Austrian Econ 33, 415–431 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-018-0431-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-018-0431-6

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation