Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy
The aim of this paper is to clear up some issues in a second phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge capital theory controversies, when the neoclassical argument was chiefly conducted in terms of the Walrasian specification of capital in intertemporal and temporary general equilibrium models. It is held th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Review of radical political economics 2015-06, Vol.47 (2), p.256-273 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 273 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 256 |
| container_title | The Review of radical political economics |
| container_volume | 47 |
| creator | Lazzarini, Andrés |
| description | The aim of this paper is to clear up some issues in a second phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge capital theory controversies, when the neoclassical argument was chiefly conducted in terms of the Walrasian specification of capital in intertemporal and temporary general equilibrium models. It is held that the response by the neoclassical side in that phase has not been as satisfactory to rebut the implications of reswitching and capital reversing as some neoclassical scholars have argued. The reason for this can be traced in the overlooking of the implications of the redefinition of equilibrium implied in those models. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0486613414557916 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1690396534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0486613414557916</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3707587311</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-7f95d90a8e7fd92e8d66eb18c964b3dbc621fd6c351bdf7fbea4b9957e25d2f83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1Lw0AUxBdRsFbvHhe8eInuJvt5lOBHoahQew6b7Ns2JcnW3VTof29KRKTg6T2Y3wzDIHRNyR2lUt4TpoSgGaOMc6mpOEETynmaKE7SUzQ5yMlBP0cXMW4IoZJKNkGvC98CXnYR-r4Bi2cx7iDiusMGL6DyncXvaxMBe4f7NeDctGWo7QqS3w_nvuuD_4IQ95fozJkmwtXPnaLl0-NH_pLM355n-cM8qRhTfSKd5lYTo0A6q1NQVggoqaq0YGVmy0qk1FlRZZyW1klXgmGl1lxCym3qVDZFt2PuNvjPoXBftHWsoGlMB34XCyo0ybTgGRvQmyN043ehG9oNlBKMCZXpgSIjVQUfYwBXbEPdmrAvKCkOAxfHAw-WZLREs4I_of_x34vreeI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1686446839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Lazzarini, Andrés</creator><creatorcontrib>Lazzarini, Andrés</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this paper is to clear up some issues in a second phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge capital theory controversies, when the neoclassical argument was chiefly conducted in terms of the Walrasian specification of capital in intertemporal and temporary general equilibrium models. It is held that the response by the neoclassical side in that phase has not been as satisfactory to rebut the implications of reswitching and capital reversing as some neoclassical scholars have argued. The reason for this can be traced in the overlooking of the implications of the redefinition of equilibrium implied in those models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0486-6134</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-8502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0486613414557916</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Capital ; Capital goods ; Capital theory ; Debates ; Economic models ; Economic theory ; Economists ; Equilibrium ; Equilibrium models ; Massachusetts ; Neoclassical economics ; Political economy ; Studies ; U.S.A</subject><ispartof>The Review of radical political economics, 2015-06, Vol.47 (2), p.256-273</ispartof><rights>2015 Union for Radical Political Economics</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Jun 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-7f95d90a8e7fd92e8d66eb18c964b3dbc621fd6c351bdf7fbea4b9957e25d2f83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-7f95d90a8e7fd92e8d66eb18c964b3dbc621fd6c351bdf7fbea4b9957e25d2f83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0486613414557916$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0486613414557916$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lazzarini, Andrés</creatorcontrib><title>Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy</title><title>The Review of radical political economics</title><description>The aim of this paper is to clear up some issues in a second phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge capital theory controversies, when the neoclassical argument was chiefly conducted in terms of the Walrasian specification of capital in intertemporal and temporary general equilibrium models. It is held that the response by the neoclassical side in that phase has not been as satisfactory to rebut the implications of reswitching and capital reversing as some neoclassical scholars have argued. The reason for this can be traced in the overlooking of the implications of the redefinition of equilibrium implied in those models.</description><subject>Capital</subject><subject>Capital goods</subject><subject>Capital theory</subject><subject>Debates</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Economists</subject><subject>Equilibrium</subject><subject>Equilibrium models</subject><subject>Massachusetts</subject><subject>Neoclassical economics</subject><subject>Political economy</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><issn>0486-6134</issn><issn>1552-8502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1Lw0AUxBdRsFbvHhe8eInuJvt5lOBHoahQew6b7Ns2JcnW3VTof29KRKTg6T2Y3wzDIHRNyR2lUt4TpoSgGaOMc6mpOEETynmaKE7SUzQ5yMlBP0cXMW4IoZJKNkGvC98CXnYR-r4Bi2cx7iDiusMGL6DyncXvaxMBe4f7NeDctGWo7QqS3w_nvuuD_4IQ95fozJkmwtXPnaLl0-NH_pLM355n-cM8qRhTfSKd5lYTo0A6q1NQVggoqaq0YGVmy0qk1FlRZZyW1klXgmGl1lxCym3qVDZFt2PuNvjPoXBftHWsoGlMB34XCyo0ybTgGRvQmyN043ehG9oNlBKMCZXpgSIjVQUfYwBXbEPdmrAvKCkOAxfHAw-WZLREs4I_of_x34vreeI</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Lazzarini, Andrés</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy</title><author>Lazzarini, Andrés</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-7f95d90a8e7fd92e8d66eb18c964b3dbc621fd6c351bdf7fbea4b9957e25d2f83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Capital</topic><topic>Capital goods</topic><topic>Capital theory</topic><topic>Debates</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Economists</topic><topic>Equilibrium</topic><topic>Equilibrium models</topic><topic>Massachusetts</topic><topic>Neoclassical economics</topic><topic>Political economy</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lazzarini, Andrés</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The Review of radical political economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lazzarini, Andrés</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy</atitle><jtitle>The Review of radical political economics</jtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>256</spage><epage>273</epage><pages>256-273</pages><issn>0486-6134</issn><eissn>1552-8502</eissn><abstract>The aim of this paper is to clear up some issues in a second phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge capital theory controversies, when the neoclassical argument was chiefly conducted in terms of the Walrasian specification of capital in intertemporal and temporary general equilibrium models. It is held that the response by the neoclassical side in that phase has not been as satisfactory to rebut the implications of reswitching and capital reversing as some neoclassical scholars have argued. The reason for this can be traced in the overlooking of the implications of the redefinition of equilibrium implied in those models.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0486613414557916</doi><tpages>18</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0486-6134 |
| ispartof | The Review of radical political economics, 2015-06, Vol.47 (2), p.256-273 |
| issn | 0486-6134 1552-8502 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1690396534 |
| source | Access via SAGE; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts |
| subjects | Capital Capital goods Capital theory Debates Economic models Economic theory Economists Equilibrium Equilibrium models Massachusetts Neoclassical economics Political economy Studies U.S.A |
| title | Some Unsettled Issues in a Second Phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T05%3A40%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Some%20Unsettled%20Issues%20in%20a%20Second%20Phase%20of%20the%20Cambridge-Cambridge%20Controversy&rft.jtitle=The%20Review%20of%20radical%20political%20economics&rft.au=Lazzarini,%20Andr%C3%A9s&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=256&rft.epage=273&rft.pages=256-273&rft.issn=0486-6134&rft.eissn=1552-8502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0486613414557916&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3707587311%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1686446839&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0486613414557916&rfr_iscdi=true |