Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/277213 
Year of Publication: 
2011
Citation: 
[Journal:] Intervention. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies [ISSN:] 2195-3376 [Volume:] 08 [Issue:] 1 [Year:] 2011 [Pages:] 183-200
Publisher: 
Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg
Abstract: 
The paper explores the implications of the 1920s 'cost controversy' for heterodox economic theory (here limited to post-Keynesian and Sraffian analysis). It argues that neither neoclassical nor heterodox theories have found viable solutions to the basic dilemma posed by the 'cost controversy', namely how to reconcile a general theory of price with that of growth and accumulation. The a priori commitment of neoclassical theory to a symmetric theory of exchange and production means that the impasses met by Walrasian general equilibrium theory and by the New Endogenous Growth Theory cannot be resolved, while also preserving explanatory power. For the case of post-Keynesian and Sraffian theory, it is suggested that, while a claim to "a general theory of everything" is also unsustainable, a reconsideration of the methodological roots of Sraffa's own analysis and of core aspects of classical theories of competition, might open an avenue to providing an empirically relevant heterodox theory of contemporary corporate capitalism.
Subjects: 
cost controversy
Sraffa
post-Keynesian theory of pricing
classical theory of competition
JEL: 
B20
B50
L0
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.