Heterodox
For the purposes of this very simplified and schematic post, I present the CCC as having two sides. Views and achievements of Cambridge (UK) critics: Joan Robinson's argument for models set in historical time, not logical time. Mathematical results in comparing long-run positions: Reswitching. Capital reversing. Empirical results and applications. Rediscovery of the logic of the Classical theory of value and distribution. Arguments about the role that a given quantity of capital plays in disaggregated neoclassical economic theory between 1870 and 1930. Arguments that neoclassical models of intertemporal and temporary equilibrium do not escape the capital critique. A critique of Keynes' marginal efficiency of capital and of other aspects of The General Theory. The recognition of
Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important: Methodology of Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Duncan Foley On Why General Equilibrium Maybe Is Not Neoclassical Economics
Robert Vienneau writes Gunnar Myrdal Sounding Like Tony Lawson?
Robert Vienneau writes Why Is Marginalist Economics Wrong?
Robert Vienneau writes Givens For Two Approaches To The Theory Of Value And Distribution
For the purposes of this very simplified and schematic post, I present the CCC as having two sides.
- Views and achievements of Cambridge (UK) critics:
- Joan Robinson's argument for models set in historical time, not logical time.
- Mathematical results in comparing long-run positions:
- Reswitching.
- Capital reversing.
- Empirical results and applications.
- Rediscovery of the logic of the Classical theory of value and distribution.
- Arguments about the role that a given quantity of capital plays in disaggregated neoclassical economic theory between 1870 and 1930.
- Arguments that neoclassical models of intertemporal and temporary equilibrium do not escape the capital critique.
- A critique of Keynes' marginal efficiency of capital and of other aspects of The General Theory.
- The recognition of precursors in Thorstein Veblen and in earlier capital controversies in neoclassical economics.
- Views of neoclassical defenders:
- Paul Samuelson and Frank Hahn's, for example, acceptance and recognition of logical difficulties in aggregate production functions.
- Recognition that equilibrium prices in disaggregate models are not scarcity indices; rejection of the principle of substitution.
- Edwin Burmeister's championing of David Champerowne's chain index measure of aggregate capital, useful for aggregate theory when, by happenstance, no positive real Wicksell effects exist.
- Adoption of models of inter temporal and temporary general equilibrium.
- Assertion that such General Equilibrium models are not meant to be descriptive and, besides, have their own problems of stability, uniqueness, and determinateness, with no need for Cambridge critiques.
- Samuel Hollander's argument for more continuity between classical and neoclassical economics than Sraffians see.
I think I am still ignoring large aspects of the vast literature on the CCC. This post was inspired by Noah Smith's anti-intellectualism. Barkley Rosser brings up the CCC in his response to Smith. I could list references for each point above. I am not sure I could even find a survey article that covered all those points, maybe not even a single book.
So the CCC presents, to me, a convincing demonstration, through a counter-example to Smith's argument. In the comments to his post, Robert Waldmann brings up old, paleo-Keynesian as an interesting rebuttal to a specific point.