Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T16:09:57.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

C.E. FERGUSON’S LOST REPLY TO JOAN ROBINSON ON THE THEORY OF CAPITAL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2012

SCOTT CARTER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1971, Joan Robinson entered into a debate with the American neoclassical economist C.E. Ferguson in the Canadian Journal of Economics over the efficacy of the neoclassical theory of capital in light of the Cambridge Controversies raging at the time. Recent archival evidence from the Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers at Duke Archive has uncovered a heretofore lost reply Ferguson wrote to Robinson on or around September 1971, three months before his death. That reply is published for the first time as an Appendix to this article. Uncovering this reply, as well as correspondence between Ferguson, Bronfenbrenner, and Solow, shines a light into the American neoclassical camp of the late 1960s and early 1970s as the early phase in the Cambridge Controversies was drawing to a close.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 21 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Robert Solow Papers (RSP) , Economics Papers Project at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers (MBP) , Economics Papers Project at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Micahael . 1985. “The Methodological Resolution of the Cambridge Controversies: A Comment.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 7 (Summer): 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark . 1974. The Cambridge Revolution: Success or Failure? London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Bliss, Christopher . 1970. “Comment of Garegnani.” Review of Economic Studies 37: 437–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Christopher . 1975. Capital Theory and Income Distribution. London: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. J. 2005. “Introduction: The theory of Capital: A Personal Overview.” In Cohen, Avi, Harcourt, G. C., and Bliss, Christopher, eds., Capital Theory. Three volumes. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. xi–xxvi.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin . 1968. “Neo-Classical Macro-Distribution Theory.” In Marchal, Jean and Ducros, Bernard, eds., The Distribution of National Income. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin . 1971. Income Distribution Theory. New York: Aldine Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Murray . 1967. “Substitution-Composition Effects, Capital Intensity Uniqueness, and Growth.” Discussion Paper Number 2, Economics Research Group, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Brown, M. 1969. “Substitution-Composition Effects, Capital Intensity Uniqueness, and Growth.” Economic Journal 79: 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Scott . 2011a. “C.E. Ferguson and the Neoclassical Theory of Capital: A Matter of Faith.” Review of Political Economy 23: 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Scott . 2011b. “‘On the Cobb–Douglas and all that…’: The Solow–Simon Correspondence over the Neoclassical Aggregate Production Function.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, winter 2011-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, G. C.. 2003a. “Retrospectives: What Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, G. C.. 2003b. “Cambridge Capital Controversies: Response.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 232–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, G. C.. 2005. “Introduction: Capital theory Controversy: Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium, and Time.” In Cohen, Avi, Harcourt, G. C., and Bliss, Christopher, eds., Capital Theory., Three volumes. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. xxvii–lx.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1984. “The Methodological Resolution of the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 6: 614–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1985. “Issues in the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 7: 612–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1989. “Prices, Capital, and the One-Commodity Model in Neoclassical and Classical Theories.” History of Political Economy 21: 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1993. “Does Joan Robinson’s Critique of Equilibrium Entail Theoretical Nihilism?” In Mongiovi, Gary and Ruhl, C., eds., Macroeconomic Theory: Diversity and Convergence. Aldereshot: Edward Elgar: 222–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, Sheila . 1980. “Methodological Morality in the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 2: 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, Sheila . 1982. “Neoclassical Tautologies and the Cambridge Controversies: A Reply.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5: 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiwel, George . 1989. Issues in Contemporary Macroeconomics and Distribution. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1969. The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1971. “Capital Theory up to Date: A Comment on Mrs. Robinson’s Article.” Canadian Journal of Economics 4 (May): 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1972. “The Current State of Capital Theory: A Tale of Two Paradigms.” Southern Economic Journal 39: 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1973. “The Specialization Gap: Barton, Ricardo, and Hollander.” History of Political Economy 5: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E., and Allen, Robert. 1970. “Factor Prices, Commodity Prices, and Switches of Technique.” Western Economic Journal 8: 95–109.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E., and Hooks, Donald. 1971. “Wicksell Effects in Wicksell and in Modern Capital Theory.” History of Political Economy 3: 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E., and Nell, Edward. 1972. “Two Books on Income Distribution: A Review Article.” Journal of Economic Literature 10: 437–453.Google Scholar
Fisher, Franklin . 1969. “The Existence of Aggregate Production Functions.” Econometrica 37: 553–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallaway, Lowell, and Shukla, Vishwa. 1974. “The Neoclassical Production Function.” American Economic Review 64 (June): 348–358.Google Scholar
Gallaway, Lowell, and Shukla, Vishwa. 1976. “The Neoclassical Production Function: Reply.” American Economic Review 66 (June): 434–436.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo . 1970. “Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function, and the Theory of Distribution.” Review of Economic Studies 37: 407–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo . 1976a. “On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent work on Value and Distribution: A Comment on Samuelson.” In Brown, Murray, Sato, Kazuo, and Zarembka, Paul, eds., Essays in Modern Capital Theory. New York: North Holland: 25–45.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo . 1976b. “The Neoclassical Production Function: A Comment.” American Economic Review 66 (June): 424–427.Google Scholar
Hagemann, Harold . 1997. “The Rate of Return Debate: An Afterglow.” In Arestis, Philip, Palma, Gabriel, and Sawyer, Malcolm, eds., Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics, and the History of Economic Thought: Essay in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Volume One. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank . 1975. “Revival of Political Economy: The Wrong Issues and the Wrong Argument.” Economic Record 51: 360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. and Schefold, Bertram. 2006. “An Empirical Investigation of Paradoxes: Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening in Capital Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 30: 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1969. “Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital.” Journal of Economic Literature 7: 369–405.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1970. “Review of Ferguson’s The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.” Journal of Economic Literature 8: 809–811.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1976. “The Cambridge Controversies: Old Ways and New Horizons—Or Dead End?” Oxford Economics Papers 28: 25–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1986. “On the Influence of Piero Sraffa on the Contributions of Joan Robinson to Economic Theory.” Economic Journal 96: 96—108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1995. “Some Reflections on Joan Robinson’s Changes of Mind and the Relationship of Them to Post-Keynesianism and the Economics Profession.” In Harcourt, Geoff , ed., Capitalism, Socialism, and Post-Keynesianism. Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt. Aldershot: Edward Elgar: 317–29.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C., and Kerr, Prue. 2009. Joan Robinson. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Ronald . 1965. “The Structure of Simple General Equilibrium Models.” Journal of Political Economy 7 (June): 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazzarini, Andrés . 2010. “A Looking-Glass of the Cambridge Capital Controversy: Notes on a Reconsideration of its Relevance.” Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Levhari, David . 1965. “A Nonsubstitution Theorem and the Switching of Techniques.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 79: 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip . 1989. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics: Physics as Nature’s Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasinetti, Luigi . 1969. “Switches in Techniques and the ‘Rate of Return’ in Capital Theory.” Economic Journal 79: 508–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps Brown, E. H. 1957. “The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb–Douglas.” American Economic Review 71: 546–560.Google Scholar
Rima, Ingrid . 1989. The Joan Robinson Legacy. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1970a. “Capital Theory Up to Date.” Canadian Journal of Economics 3 (May): 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1970b. “Review of The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.” Economic Journal 80 (June): 336–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1971a. “Capital Theory Up to Date: A Reply.” Canadian Journal of Economics 4: 254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1971b. “The Measure of Capital: The End of the Controversy.” Economic Journal of Economics 81: 597–602.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1972. “The Second Crisis in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 62: 1–9.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1975a. “The Unimportance of Reswitching.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1975b. “Reply.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1985. “The Theory of Normal Prices and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory.” In Feiwel, George , ed., Issues in Contemporary Macroeconomics and Distribution. London: MacMillan: 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan, and Naqvi, K. A.. 1967. “The Badly Behaved Production Function.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 81: 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanti, Andrea . 1982. “Neoclassical Tautologies and the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5 (Autumn): 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul . 1975. “Steady-State and Transient Relations: A Reply on Reswitching.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Kazuo . 1974. “The Neoclassical Postulate and the Technology Frontier in Capital Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 88: 353–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaikh, Anwar . 1974. “Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics 56: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1963. Capital Theory and the Rate of Return. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1967. “The Interest Rate and Transition between Techniques.” In Feinstein, C. H. , ed., Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 30–9Google Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1968. “Distribution in the Long and Short Run.” In Marchal, Jean and Ducros, Bernard, eds., The Distribution of National Income. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 476–501.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1970. “On the Rate of Return: Reply to Pasinetti.” Economic Journal 80: 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1975. “Brief Comments.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph . 1974. “The Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital: A View from New Haven.” Journal of Political Economy 82: 893–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Marjorie . 1989. Joan Robinson and the Americans. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Robert Solow Papers (RSP) , Economics Papers Project at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers (MBP) , Economics Papers Project at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Micahael . 1985. “The Methodological Resolution of the Cambridge Controversies: A Comment.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 7 (Summer): 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark . 1974. The Cambridge Revolution: Success or Failure? London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Bliss, Christopher . 1970. “Comment of Garegnani.” Review of Economic Studies 37: 437–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Christopher . 1975. Capital Theory and Income Distribution. London: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. J. 2005. “Introduction: The theory of Capital: A Personal Overview.” In Cohen, Avi, Harcourt, G. C., and Bliss, Christopher, eds., Capital Theory. Three volumes. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. xi–xxvi.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin . 1968. “Neo-Classical Macro-Distribution Theory.” In Marchal, Jean and Ducros, Bernard, eds., The Distribution of National Income. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin . 1971. Income Distribution Theory. New York: Aldine Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Murray . 1967. “Substitution-Composition Effects, Capital Intensity Uniqueness, and Growth.” Discussion Paper Number 2, Economics Research Group, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Brown, M. 1969. “Substitution-Composition Effects, Capital Intensity Uniqueness, and Growth.” Economic Journal 79: 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Scott . 2011a. “C.E. Ferguson and the Neoclassical Theory of Capital: A Matter of Faith.” Review of Political Economy 23: 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Scott . 2011b. “‘On the Cobb–Douglas and all that…’: The Solow–Simon Correspondence over the Neoclassical Aggregate Production Function.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, winter 2011-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, G. C.. 2003a. “Retrospectives: What Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, G. C.. 2003b. “Cambridge Capital Controversies: Response.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 232–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, G. C.. 2005. “Introduction: Capital theory Controversy: Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium, and Time.” In Cohen, Avi, Harcourt, G. C., and Bliss, Christopher, eds., Capital Theory., Three volumes. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. xxvii–lx.Google Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1984. “The Methodological Resolution of the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 6: 614–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1985. “Issues in the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 7: 612–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1989. “Prices, Capital, and the One-Commodity Model in Neoclassical and Classical Theories.” History of Political Economy 21: 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi . 1993. “Does Joan Robinson’s Critique of Equilibrium Entail Theoretical Nihilism?” In Mongiovi, Gary and Ruhl, C., eds., Macroeconomic Theory: Diversity and Convergence. Aldereshot: Edward Elgar: 222–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, Sheila . 1980. “Methodological Morality in the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 2: 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, Sheila . 1982. “Neoclassical Tautologies and the Cambridge Controversies: A Reply.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5: 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiwel, George . 1989. Issues in Contemporary Macroeconomics and Distribution. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1969. The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1971. “Capital Theory up to Date: A Comment on Mrs. Robinson’s Article.” Canadian Journal of Economics 4 (May): 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1972. “The Current State of Capital Theory: A Tale of Two Paradigms.” Southern Economic Journal 39: 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1973. “The Specialization Gap: Barton, Ricardo, and Hollander.” History of Political Economy 5: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E., and Allen, Robert. 1970. “Factor Prices, Commodity Prices, and Switches of Technique.” Western Economic Journal 8: 95–109.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E., and Hooks, Donald. 1971. “Wicksell Effects in Wicksell and in Modern Capital Theory.” History of Political Economy 3: 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E., and Nell, Edward. 1972. “Two Books on Income Distribution: A Review Article.” Journal of Economic Literature 10: 437–453.Google Scholar
Fisher, Franklin . 1969. “The Existence of Aggregate Production Functions.” Econometrica 37: 553–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallaway, Lowell, and Shukla, Vishwa. 1974. “The Neoclassical Production Function.” American Economic Review 64 (June): 348–358.Google Scholar
Gallaway, Lowell, and Shukla, Vishwa. 1976. “The Neoclassical Production Function: Reply.” American Economic Review 66 (June): 434–436.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo . 1970. “Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function, and the Theory of Distribution.” Review of Economic Studies 37: 407–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo . 1976a. “On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent work on Value and Distribution: A Comment on Samuelson.” In Brown, Murray, Sato, Kazuo, and Zarembka, Paul, eds., Essays in Modern Capital Theory. New York: North Holland: 25–45.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo . 1976b. “The Neoclassical Production Function: A Comment.” American Economic Review 66 (June): 424–427.Google Scholar
Hagemann, Harold . 1997. “The Rate of Return Debate: An Afterglow.” In Arestis, Philip, Palma, Gabriel, and Sawyer, Malcolm, eds., Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics, and the History of Economic Thought: Essay in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Volume One. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank . 1975. “Revival of Political Economy: The Wrong Issues and the Wrong Argument.” Economic Record 51: 360–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. and Schefold, Bertram. 2006. “An Empirical Investigation of Paradoxes: Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening in Capital Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 30: 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1969. “Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital.” Journal of Economic Literature 7: 369–405.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1970. “Review of Ferguson’s The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.” Journal of Economic Literature 8: 809–811.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1976. “The Cambridge Controversies: Old Ways and New Horizons—Or Dead End?” Oxford Economics Papers 28: 25–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1986. “On the Influence of Piero Sraffa on the Contributions of Joan Robinson to Economic Theory.” Economic Journal 96: 96—108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1995. “Some Reflections on Joan Robinson’s Changes of Mind and the Relationship of Them to Post-Keynesianism and the Economics Profession.” In Harcourt, Geoff , ed., Capitalism, Socialism, and Post-Keynesianism. Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt. Aldershot: Edward Elgar: 317–29.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C., and Kerr, Prue. 2009. Joan Robinson. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Ronald . 1965. “The Structure of Simple General Equilibrium Models.” Journal of Political Economy 7 (June): 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazzarini, Andrés . 2010. “A Looking-Glass of the Cambridge Capital Controversy: Notes on a Reconsideration of its Relevance.” Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Levhari, David . 1965. “A Nonsubstitution Theorem and the Switching of Techniques.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 79: 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip . 1989. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics: Physics as Nature’s Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasinetti, Luigi . 1969. “Switches in Techniques and the ‘Rate of Return’ in Capital Theory.” Economic Journal 79: 508–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps Brown, E. H. 1957. “The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb–Douglas.” American Economic Review 71: 546–560.Google Scholar
Rima, Ingrid . 1989. The Joan Robinson Legacy. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1970a. “Capital Theory Up to Date.” Canadian Journal of Economics 3 (May): 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1970b. “Review of The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.” Economic Journal 80 (June): 336–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1971a. “Capital Theory Up to Date: A Reply.” Canadian Journal of Economics 4: 254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1971b. “The Measure of Capital: The End of the Controversy.” Economic Journal of Economics 81: 597–602.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1972. “The Second Crisis in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 62: 1–9.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1975a. “The Unimportance of Reswitching.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1975b. “Reply.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan . 1985. “The Theory of Normal Prices and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory.” In Feiwel, George , ed., Issues in Contemporary Macroeconomics and Distribution. London: MacMillan: 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan, and Naqvi, K. A.. 1967. “The Badly Behaved Production Function.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 81: 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanti, Andrea . 1982. “Neoclassical Tautologies and the Cambridge Controversies.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 5 (Autumn): 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul . 1975. “Steady-State and Transient Relations: A Reply on Reswitching.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Kazuo . 1974. “The Neoclassical Postulate and the Technology Frontier in Capital Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 88: 353–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaikh, Anwar . 1974. “Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics 56: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1963. Capital Theory and the Rate of Return. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1967. “The Interest Rate and Transition between Techniques.” In Feinstein, C. H. , ed., Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 30–9Google Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1968. “Distribution in the Long and Short Run.” In Marchal, Jean and Ducros, Bernard, eds., The Distribution of National Income. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 476–501.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1970. “On the Rate of Return: Reply to Pasinetti.” Economic Journal 80: 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, Robert . 1975. “Brief Comments.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph . 1974. “The Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital: A View from New Haven.” Journal of Political Economy 82: 893–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Marjorie . 1989. Joan Robinson and the Americans. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar