Abstract:Paul A. Samuelson's (1966) capitulation during the so-called Cambridge controversy on the re-switching of techniques in capital theory had implications not only in pointing at supposed internal contradiction of the marginal theory of production and distribution, but also in preserving vested interests in the academic and political world. Based on a new non-switching theorem, the present paper demonstrates that Samuelson's capitulation was logically groundless from the point of view of the economic theory of production.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether the "technological reswitching" phenomenon in capital theory indeed constitutes an internal contradiction to the marginal productivity theory. Specifically, in 1966, Paul A. Samuelson admitted the so - called "technological reswitching" phenomenon. That is, in some cases, as the interest rate changes, the cost - minimizing production technology will switch from one technology to another and then switch back to the original technology. This phenomenon is regarded as a challenge to the monotonicity of technology choice in neoclassical production theory and, further, as an internal contradiction to the marginal productivity theory.
However, based on a new non - switching theorem, the author Carlo Milana believes that Samuelson's concession is logically unfounded. The author believes that, according to the marginal productivity theory, in the space of real factor prices, the so - called "technological reswitching" phenomenon will never occur. This is because, when observed in the space of real factor prices, each cost - ratio level corresponds to a unique real - factor - price vector, and these vectors correspond to multiple interest - rate levels. Therefore, the so - called "technological reswitching" is actually a visual mislead in the graph of the relationship between the interest rate and the wage, and this situation will not occur in the actual factor - price space.
By re - analyzing Samuelson's examples and examples in other literature, the author reveals the misunderstandings in Sraffian criticism, especially the error in regarding the interest rate as the price of capital input. The author points out that this misunderstanding has led to the wrong conclusion that there seems to be an internal inconsistency in the marginal productivity theory. Through these analyses, the author aims to prove that Samuelson's concession is based on a wrong premise, that is, not correctly understanding the relationship between the interest rate and the real price of capital input.
In conclusion, the core problem of this paper is to re - evaluate and refute Samuelson's position in the capital - theory controversy by proposing a new non - switching theorem, thereby clarifying the nature of the "technological reswitching" phenomenon and maintaining the consistency of the marginal productivity theory.