Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:20:44.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BLAUG VERSUS GAREGNANI ON THE ‘FORMALIST REVOLUTION’ AND THE EVOLUTION OF NEOCLASSICAL CAPITAL THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2014

Fabio Petri
Fabio Petri*
Affiliation:
Università di Siena, Dipartimento di Economia. I thank two anonymous referees and Christian Bidard for useful comments. Correspondence can be addressed [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a series of papers, Mark Blaug has accused modern, mainstream economic theory of sterility because of the abandonment of “competition as a process,” tracing the cause to the Formalist Revolution of the 1950s. The paper agrees with the criticism but disagrees on the cause, which is, rather, to be found in the shift from the treatment of capital as a single factor of variable ‘form’ to a Walrasian specification of the capital endowment as a given vector, a datum incompatible with the role of equilibrium as a center of gravitation of time-consuming adjustments. The shift was due, as shown by Pierangelo Garegnani, to unease in the 1930s with the conception of capital as a single factor, a fact neglected by Blaug but historically evident and a cause of great uncertainty in capital theory in subsequent decades. The conclusion is that, to avoid the sterility of neo-Walrasian equilibria, one cannot return to Alfred Marshall with his inconsistent notion of capital as a single factor, but Blaug himself indicates another possible direction.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 455 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2014 

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

Allais, Maurice. [1943] 1994. Traité d'Economie Pure. Third edition. Paris: Clément Juglar.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Philip, Glyn, Andrew, and Harrison, John. 1991. Capitalism since 1945. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J., and Debreu, Gérard. 1954. “Existence of Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy.” Econometrica 22: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J., and Hahn, Frank H.. 1971. General Competitive Analysis. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1968. Economic Theory in Retrospect. Second edition. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1974. The Cambridge Revolution. Success or Failure? London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1997. “Competition as an End-state and Competition as a Process.” In Curtis Eaton, B. and Harris, R. G., eds., Trade, Technology and Economics, Essays in Honour of Richard G. Lipsey. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 241–262.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1998. “Disturbing Currents in Modern Economics.” Challenge 41 (3): 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1999a. “Misunderstanding Classical Economics: The Sraffian Interpretation of the Surplus Approach.” History of Political Economy 31 (2): 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1999b. “The Formalist Revolution or What Happened to Orthodox Economics after World War II?” In Backhouse, R. E. and Creedy, J., eds., From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm, Essays in Honour of D. P. O’Brien. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 257–280.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 2002a. “Ugly Currents in Modern Economics.” In Mäki, Uskali, ed., Fact and Fiction in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 2002b. “Is There Really Progress in Economics?” In Boehm, S., Gehrke, C., Kurz, H. D., and Sturn, R., eds., Is There Progress in Economics? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 2003a. “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25 (2): 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 2003b. “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s.” In Samuels, W. J., Biddle, J. F., and Davis, J. B., eds., A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 2009. “The Trade-off between Rigor and Relevance: Sraffian Economics as a Case in Point.” History of Political Economy 41 (2): 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Christopher. 1975. Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income. Amsterdam and New York: North-Holland/American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, Edwards, Richard, and Roosevelt, Frank. 2005. Understanding Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Debreu, Gérard. 1959. Theory of Value. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Christopher. 1980. Interest and Profit. London: Methuen and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Franklin M. 1983. Disequilibrium Foundations of Equilibrium Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 1960. Il capitale nelle teorie della distribuzione. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 1976. “On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value and Distribution.” In Brown, Murray, Sato, Kazuo, and Zarembka, Paul, eds., Essays in Modern Capital Theory. Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 1978. “Notes on Consumption, Investment and Effective Demand. Part I.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 2 (4): 335–353.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 1990. “Quantity of Capital.” In Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray, and Newman, Peter, eds., Capital Theory. London: Macmillan, pp. 1–78.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 2000. “Savings, Investment and Capital in a System of General Intertemporal Equilibrium.” In Kurz, H. D., ed., Critical Essays on Piero Sraffa’s Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 392–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. [1962] 2008. “On Walras’s Theory of Capital.” Journal of the History of Political Economy 30 (3): 366–383.Google Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 2011. “On Blaug Ten Years Later.” History of Political Economy 43 (3): 591–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 2012. “On the Present State of the Capital Controversy.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 36: 1417–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehrke, Christian. 2003. “On the Transition from Long-period to Short-period Equilibria.” Review of Political Economy 15 (1): 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Frank H. 1982. “The Neo-Ricardians.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 6 (4): 353–374.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrik A. 1936. “The Mythology of Capital.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, I (February): 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1935. “Wages and Interest: The Dynamic Problem.” Economic Journal 45 (4): 456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John R. [1939] 1946. Value and Capital. Second edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. [1932] 1963. The Theory of Wages. Second edition. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1980–81. “IS–LM: An Explanation.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 3 (Winter): 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuenne, Robert E. 1963. The Theory of General Economic Equilibrium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kurz, Heinz D., and Salvadori, Neri. 1995. Theory of Production. A Long-Period Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Heinz D., and Salvadori, Neri. 2011. “In Favor of Rigor and Relevance: A Reply to Mark Blaug.” History of Political Economy 43:3: 607–616. DOI 10.1215/00182702-1346851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindahl, Erik. [1939] 1970. Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital. London: George Allen and Unwin. Reprinted 1970. New York: Augustus Kelley.Google Scholar
Lutz, Friedrich A. 1967. The Theory of Interest. Dordrecht: Reidel. Translation of Zinstheorie, Tubingen: Mohr, 1956.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, Edmond. 1969. Leçons de théorie microéconomique. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Marglin, Stephen A., and Schor, Juliet B.. 1990. The Golden Age of Capitalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1970. Principles of Economics. Eighth edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Milgate, Murray. 1979. “On the Origin of the Notion of ‘Intertemporal Equilibrium.’” Economica 46 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgate, Murray. 1982. Capital and Employment. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pareto, Vilfredo. [1909] 1963. Manuel d'Economie Politique. Second edition, reprinted. Paris: R. Picon and R. Durand Auzias.Google Scholar
Petri, Fabio. 1999. “Professor Hahn on the Neo-Ricardian Criticism of Neoclassical Economics.” In Mongiovi, Gary and Petri, Fabio, eds., Value, Distribution and Capital. Essays in Honour of Pierangelo Garegnani. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 19–68.Google Scholar
Petri, Fabio. 2004. General Equilibrium, Capital and Macroeconomics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petri, Fabio. 2011. “On the Recent Debate on Capital Theory and General Equilibrium.” In Caspari, Victor, ed., The Evolution of Economic Theory. Essays in Honour of Bertram Schefold. London: Routledge, pp. 55–99.Google Scholar
Ravagnani, Fabio. 2010. “A Simple Critical Introduction to Temporary General Equilibrium Theory.” Università di Roma La Sapienza, Dipartimento di Economia Pubblica, Working Paper no. 136.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1955–56. “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital.” Review of Economic Studies 23: 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1952. The Theory of Price. Revised edition. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Trabucchi, Paolo. 2011. “Capital as a Single Magnitude and the Orthodox Theory of Distribution in Some Writings of the Early 1930s.” Review of Political Economy 25 (2): 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Abraham. [1936] 1951. “On Some Systems of Equations of Mathematical Economics.” Econometrica 19 (October): 368–403. Translation of “Uber einige Gleichungssysteme der mathematischen Okonomie,” Zeitschrift fur Nationalokonomie 7 (1936): 637–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walras, Léon. 1954. Elements of Political Economy. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Walras, Léon. 1988. Éléments d’économie politique pure. Edited by Mouchot, Claude. Vol. VIII of Auguste et Léon Walras, Oeuvres économiques complètes. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy, and Gayer, T.. 2001. “Equilibrium Proofmaking.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (4): 421–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1934. Lectures on Political Economy. Volume I.London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar