Capital Theory 1873–2019 and the State of Macroeconomics

References

• Ackley, G. 1978. Macroeconomics: Theory and Policy. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, R. A. 2008. ‘Capital Theory.’ In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 2nd ed., edited by S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume, vol. I, 658–675. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bewley, T. 1999. Why Wages Don’t Fall During a Recession. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Birner, J. 2002. The Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory: A Study in the Logic of Theory Development. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bliss, C. J. 1975. Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Bliss, C. J. 2005. ‘Introduction. The Theory of Capital: A Personal Overview.’ In Capital Theory, edited by C. Bliss, A. Cohen, and G. Harcourt, vol. I, xi–xxvi. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Burmeister, E. 1980. Capital Theory and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., and G. C. Harcourt. 2005. ‘Introduction. Capital Theory Controversy: Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium and Time.’ In Capital Theory, edited by C. Bliss, A. Cohen, and G. Harcourt, vol. I, xxvii–lx. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Dougherty, C. 1980. Interest and Profit. London: Methuen and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Dvoskin, A. 2016. ‘An Unpleasant Dilemma for Contemporary General Equilibrium Theory.’ The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (2): 198–225. doi:10.1080/09672567.2014.881898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvoskin, A., and F. Petri. 2017. ‘Again on the Relevance of Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening.’ Metroeconomica 68 (4): 625–669. doi:10.1111/meca.12137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garegnani, P. 1976 (1983). ‘On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value and Distribution.’ In Essays in Modern Capital Theory, edited by M. Brown, K. Sato, and P. Zarembka, 25–45. Amsterdam: North-Holland. As reprinted in John Eatwell and Murray Milgate, eds. 1983. Keynes’s Economics and the Theory of Value and Distribution, 129–145. London: Duckworth, and New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garegnani, P. 1978. ‘Notes on Consumption, Investment and Effective Demand: I.’ Cambridge Journal of Economics 2: 335–353. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garegnani, P. 1990. ‘Quantity of Capital.’ In The New Palgrave: Capital Theory, edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman, 1–73. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Garegnani, P. 2012. ‘On the Present State of the Capital Controversy.’ Cambridge Journal of Economics 36 (6): 1417–1432. doi:10.1093/cje/bes063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, F. H. 1982. ‘The Neo-Ricardians.’ Cambridge Journal of Economics 6 (4): 353–374. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harcourt, G. C. 1972. Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, J. R. 1939. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, F. H. 1946. ‘Capital and Interest.’ In Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 4, 779–801. Chicago and London: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. As reprinted in American Economic Association. 1946. Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution. Toronto: American Economic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Mandler, M. 2005. ‘Well-Behaved Production Economies.’ Metroeconomica 56 (4): 477–494. doi:10.1111/j.1467-999X.2005.00225.x.
   Google Scholar
• Mankiw, N. G. 2003. Macroeconomics. 5th ed. New York: Worth.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 1978. ‘The Difference between Long-Period and Short-Period General Equilibrium and the Capital Theory Controversy.’ Australian Economic Papers 17 (31): 246–260. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8454.1978.tb00629.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 1991. ‘Hicks’s Recantation of the Temporary Equilibrium Method.’ Review of Political Economy 3 (3): 268–288. doi:10.1080/09538259100000012.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 1999. ‘Professor Hahn on the “Neo-Ricardian” Criticism of Neoclassical Economics.’ In Value, Distribution and Capital: Essays in Honour of Pierangelo Garegnani, edited by G. Mongiovi and F. Petri, 19–68. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2004. General Equilibrium, Capital and Macroeconomics: A Key to Recent Controversies in Equilibrium Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2011. ‘On the Likelihood and Relevance of Reswitching and Reverse Capital Deepening.’ In Keynes, Sraffa and the Criticism of Neoclassical Theory. Essays in Honour of Heinz D. Kurz, edited by C. Gehrke and N. Salvadori, 380–418. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2014. ‘Blaug versus Garegnani on the “Formalist Revolution” and the Evolution of Neoclassical Capital Theory.’ Journal of the History of Economic Thought 36 (4): 455–478. doi:10.1017/S105383721400056X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2015. ‘Neglected Implications of Neoclassical Capital-Labour Substitution for Investment Theory: Another Criticism of Say’s Law.’ Review of Political Economy 27 (3): 308–340. doi:10.1080/09538259.2015.1067367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2016a. ‘Capital Theory.’ In Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis, edited by Gilbert Faccarello and Heinz D. Kurz, vol. III, 40–69. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2016b. ‘Walras on Capital. Interpretative Insights from a Review by Bortkiewicz.’ Contributions to Political Economy 35 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1093/cpe/bzw007.
   Google Scholar
• Petri, F. 2017. ‘The Passage of Time, Capital and Investment in Traditional and in Recent Neoclassical Value Theory.’ Oeconomia 7 (1): 111–140. doi:10.4000/oeconomia.2596.
   Google Scholar
• Pigou, A. C. 1935. ‘Net Income and Capital Depletion.’ The Economic Journal 45 (178): 235–241. doi:10.2307/2224616.
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, L. 1930. ‘On a Certain Ambiguity in the Conception of Stationary Equilibrium.’ The Economic Journal 40 (158): 194–214. doi:10.2307/2223932.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. V. 1953–54. ‘The Production Function and the Theory of Capital.’ The Review of Economic Studies 21 (2): 81–106. doi:10.2307/2296002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. A. 1962. ‘Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function.’ The Review of Economic Studies 29 (3): 193–206. doi:10.2307/2295954.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, R. M. 1955–56. ‘The Production Function and the Theory of Capital.’ The Review of Economic Studies 23 (2): 101–108. doi:10.2307/2296293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, R. M. 1956. ‘A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 101–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, J. E. 1974. ‘The Cambridge–Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital: A View from New Haven: A Review Article.’ Journal of Political Economy 82 (4): 893–903. doi:10.1086/260245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, D. A. 1987. Classical and Neoclassical Economic Thought. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Walras, L. 1954. Elements of Political Economy (Jaffé translation). Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin. Reprinted, 1977, by Augustus M. Kelley, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Walras, L., P. Dockès, et al., eds. 1988. Éléments d’économie politique pure: ou théorie de la richesse sociale, variorum ed. Paris: Economica.
   Google Scholar
• Woodford, M. 2009. ‘Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis.’ American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 1 (1): 267–279. doi:10.1257/mac.1.1.267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar