The Cambridge capital controversy – sometimes called "the capital controversy" or "the two Cambridges debate" – refers to a theoretical and mathematical debate during the 1960s among economists concerning the nature and role of capital goods (or means of production) and the critique of the dominant neoclassical vision of aggregate production and distribution. The name arises because of the location of the principals involved in the controversy: the debate was largely between economists such as Joan Robinson and Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge in England and economists such as Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The two schools are often labeled "Sraffian" or "neo-Ricardian" and "neoclassical", respectively.
Most of the debate is mathematical, but some major elements can be explained in simple terms and as part of the 'aggregation problem'. That is, the critique of neoclassical capital theory might be summed up as saying that it suffers from the fallacy of composition, i.e., that we cannot simply jump from microeconomic conceptions to an understanding of production by society as a whole. The resolution of the debate, particularly how broad its implications are, has not been agreed upon by economists.
Read more about Cambridge Capital Controversy: Ideological Issues, The Aggregation Problem, Reswitching, Conclusions?, Conclusion
Famous quotes containing the words cambridge, capital and/or controversy:
“If we help an educated man’s daughter to go to Cambridge are we not forcing her to think not about education but about war?—not how she can learn, but how she can fight in order that she might win the same advantages as her brothers?”
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“We saw the machinery where murderers are now executed. Seven have been executed. The plan is better than the old one. It is quietly done. Only a few, at the most about thirty or forty, can witness [an execution]. It excites nobody outside of the list permitted to attend. I think the time for capital punishment has passed. I would abolish it. But while it lasts this is the best mode.”
—Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)
“And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence, they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever.”
—Thomas Hobbes (1579–1688)