Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:25:38.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE MYTHOLOGY OF CAPITAL OR OF STATIC EQUILIBRIUM? THE BÖHM-BAWERK/CLARK CONTROVERSY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

AVI J. COHEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 151 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2008

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

Ahmad, S. 1991. Capital in Economic Theory: Neoclassical, Cambridge, and Chaos. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Beach, W. and Bostaph, S. 1982. “The Mystery of the Mislaid Mss. Or Raiders of the Lost Arc(hives).” The History of Economics Society Bulletin 3 (Winter): 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. 1997. Economic Theory in Retrospect, Fifth edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1889. Kapital und Kapitalzins. Zweite Abteilung: Positive Theorie des Kapitals. Innsbruck: Wagner.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1890. Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economic Theory, translated by Smart, William. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1891. Capital and Interest: Positive Theory of Capital, translated by Smart, William. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1895a. “The Positive Theory of Capital and Its Critics I.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9 (January): 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1895b. “The Origin of Interest.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9 (July): 380–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1906. “Capital and Interest Once More: I. Capital vs. Capital Goods.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 21 (November): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1907a. “Capital and Interest Once More: II: A Relapse to the Productivity Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 21 (February): 247–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1907b. “The Nature of Capital: A Rejoinder.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 22 (November): 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. 1959. Capital and Interest, Vols. I–III, translated by Huncke, George D.. South Holland, IL.: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1888. Capital and Its Earnings. Publication of the American Economic Association, Monographs, Vol. 3, No. 2. Baltimore, MD: American Economic Association.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1889a. “Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages.” Publications of the American Economic Association 4 (March): 39–63.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1889b. “Review of Kapital und Kapitalzins.” Political Science Quarterly 4 (June): 342–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1890a. “The Law of Wages and Interest.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1 (July): 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1890b. “Book Note on Capital and Interest (Vol. 1, Smart translation).” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1 (October): 310–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1891a. “Distribution as Determined by a Law of Rent.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 5 (April): 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1891b. “The Statics and Dynamics of Distribution.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 6 (October): 111–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1892. “The Ultimate Standard of Value.” Yale Review 1 (November): 258–74.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1893. “The Genesis of Capital.” Yale Review 2 (November): 302–15.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1895a. “The Origin of Interest.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9 (April): 257–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1895b. “Real Issues Concerning Interest.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 10 (October): 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1899. The Distribution of Wealth. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1907a. “Concerning the Nature of Capital: A Reply.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 21 (May): 351–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1907b. Essentials of Economic Theory as Applied to Modern Problems of Industry and Public Policy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.J. 1989. “Prices, Capital and the One-Commodity Model in Neoclassical and Classical Theories.” History of Political Economy 21 (Summer): 231–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.J. 1994. “Is Equilibrium Enough? The Böhm-Bawerk / Fisher Controversy.” Unpublished paper presented at the 1994 History of Economics Society meeting, Babson College.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.J. 1998. “Frank Knight's Position on Capital and Interest: Foundation of the Hayek/Knight/Kaldor Debate.” In Rutherford, M., ed., The Economic Mind in America: Essays in the History of American Economics (Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought). London: Routledge, pp. 145–63.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.J. 2003. “The Hayek/Knight Capital Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?” History of Political Economy 35 (Fall): 469–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.J. 2006. “The Kaldor/Knight Controversy: Is Capital a Distinct and Quantifiable Factor of Production?” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13 (March): 141-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.J. and Drost, H. 1996. “Böhm-Bawerk's Letters to J.B. Clark: A Pre-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital.” In Arestis, P., Palma, G., and Sawyer, M., eds. Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Theory: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Vol, 1. London: Routledge, pp. 82–94.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.J. and Harcourt, G.C. 2003. “Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (Winter): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.J. and Harcourt, G.C..2005. “Introduction on Capital Theory Controversy: Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium and Time.” In Bliss, C., Cohen, A., and Harcourt, G.C., eds., Capital Theory. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. xxvii–lx.Google Scholar
Fisher, I. 1907. The Rate of Interest: Its Nature, Determination and Relation to Economic Phenomena. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayek, F.A. 1936. “The Mythology of Capital.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 50 (February): 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennings, K.H. 1997. The Austrian Theory of Value and Capital: Studies in the Life and Work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.R. 1974. “Capital Controversies, Ancient and Modern.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 64 (May): 307–16.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.R. 1976. “Some Questions of Time in Economics.” In Tang, A.M., Westfield, F.M., and Worley, J.S., eds., Evolution, Welfare and Time in Economics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 135–51.Google Scholar
Kurz, H.D. 1987. “Capital Theory: Debates.” In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P., eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Vol. I. New York: Norton, pp. 357–63.Google Scholar
Lutz, F.A. 1967. The Theory of Interest. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. 1848. Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J.M., Vols. 2-3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Niehans, J. 1991. “Böhm-Bawerk versus John Doe: The Interest Controversies.” History of Political Economy 23 (Winter): 567–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M. 1991. “Early Capital Theory in the Economics Journals: A Study of Imputed Induced Demand.” Economic Notes 20 (1): 58–88.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. 1974. “History versus Equilibrium.”In Collected Economic Papers, Volume 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980, pp. 48–58.Google Scholar
Salter, W.E.G. 1965. “Productivity, Growth and Accumulation as Historical Processes.” In Robinson, E.A.G., ed., Problems in Economic Development. London: Macmillan, pp. 266–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1962. “Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function.” Review of Economic Studies 29 (June): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senior, N.W. 1836. An Outline of the Science of Political Economy. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1938.Google Scholar
Skousen, M. 1990. The Structure of Production. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Solow, R.M. 1963. Capital Theory and the Rate of Return. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T., ed. 2000a. “The Correspondence of John Bates Clark Written to Franklin Henry Giddings, 1886-1930.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 18 (B): 1–245.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T. 2000b. “Introductory Essay to the Correspondence: The Development of John Bates Clark's Economic Thought and Franklin Henry Giddings.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 18 (B): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taussig, F.W. 1908. “Capital, Interest, and Diminishing Returns.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 22 (May): 333–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valiente, W. 1980. “Is Frank Knight The Victor In The Controversy Between The Two Cambridges?” History of Political Economy 12 (Spring): 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, J.F. 1951. Some Perspectives on Capital Theory. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 41 (May): 129–44.Google Scholar
Zuidema, R.P. 1988. “On the Austrian Contribution to Capital Theory.” Journal of Economic Studies 15(3/4): 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar