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 Why Is Marginalist Economics Wrong?
Robert Vienneau writes Givens For Two Approaches To The Theory Of Value And Distribution
Robert Vienneau writes Utility Maximization A Tautology?
Robert Vienneau writes Jeremy Rudd: “Why I hate economics”
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.