THE NEOCLASSICAL AND THE NEO‐MARXIST‐KEYNESIAN THEORIES OF INCOME DISTRIBUTION: A NON‐CAMBRIDGE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMBRIDGE CONTROVERSY IN CAPITAL THEORY*
YK NG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1974.tb00877.x
1974-01-01
Australian Economic Papers
Abstract:Australian Economic PapersVolume 13, Issue 22 p. 124-132 THE NEOCLASSICAL AND THE NEO-MARXIST-KEYNESIAN THEORIES OF INCOME DISTRIBUTION: A NON-CAMBRIDGE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMBRIDGE CONTROVERSY IN CAPITAL THEORY* NG YEW-KWANG, NG YEW-KWANG University of New EnglandSearch for more papers by this author NG YEW-KWANG, NG YEW-KWANG University of New EnglandSearch for more papers by this author First published: June 1974 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1974.tb00877.xCitations: 2 † *I am grateful to Geoff Harcourt, Mendel Weisser, and a referee for commenting on the first draft of this paper, and to the University of New England for a research grant. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES 1 Y. Akyüz, “Income D'istribution, Value of Capital, and Two Notions of the Wage-Profit Trade Off’, Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 24, 1972. Web of Science®Google Scholar 2 A. Bhaduri, “On the Significance of Recent Controversies on Capital Theory: A Marxian View”, Economic Journal, vol. 79, 1969. 10.2307/2230380 Web of Science®Google Scholar 3 J. B. Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York: Kelly, 1968—reprint of 1893 edition.). Google Scholar 4 C. E. Ferguson, The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). 10.1017/CBO9780511896255 Google Scholar 5 F. M. Fisher, “The Existence of Aggregate Production Functions Economeirica, vol. 37, 1969. Google Scholar 6 P. Garegnani, “Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function, and the Theory of Distribution”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37, 1970. 10.2307/2296729 Web of Science®Google Scholar 7 G. C. Harcourt, “Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital Journal of Economic Literature, vol. VII, 1969. Google Scholar 8 G. C. Harcourt, “Reply to Nell”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. VIII, 1970. Google Scholar 9 G. C. Harcourt, “Reply to Ng. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. IX, 1971. Google Scholar 10 G. C. Hurcourt, Sonic Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 10.1017/CBO9780511560026 Google Scholar 11 J. R. Hicks, Capital and Growth (London: Oxford University Press, 1965). Google Scholar 12 J. Hirshleifer, investment. Interest, and Capital (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970). Google Scholar 13 N. Kaldor, “Alternative Theories of Distribution”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 23, 1956. Google Scholar 14 N. Kaldor. Economic Growth and the Problems of Inflation”, Economica. vol. 26. 1959. 10.2307/2550866 Web of Science®Google Scholar 15 N. Kaldor, “Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Kaldor”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37, 1970. 10.2307/2296492 Web of Science®Google Scholar 16 N. Kaldor. and J. A. Mirrlees. A New Model of Economic Growth. Review of Economic Studies, vol. 29. 1962. 10.2307/2295953 Web of Science®Google Scholar 17 J. S. Metcalfe, and I. Steedman. Reswitching and Primary Input Use”, Economic Journal, vol. 82, 1972. 10.2307/2230211 Web of Science®Google Scholar 18 A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control New York: Macmillan. 1947). Google Scholar 19 A. P. Lerner, “On Some Recent Developments on Capital Theory”, American Economic Review vol. 55, 1965. Google Scholar 20 E. J. Neil, “A Note on Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. VIII, 1970. Google Scholar 21 Y. K. Ng, “A Note on Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital””, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. IX, 1971. Google Scholar 22 L. L. Pasinetti, “Switches of Techniques and the ‘Rate of Return’ in Capital Theory”, Economic Journal, vol. 79, 1969. 10.2307/2230379 Web of Science®Google Scholar 23 L. L. Pasineiti, “Again on Capital Theory and Solow's ‘Rate of Return’”, Economic Journal, vol. 80, 1970. Google Scholar 24 Joan Robinson, “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 21, 1953. 10.2307/2296002 Web of Science®Google Scholar 25 Joan Robinson. Capital Theory Up to Date”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 3, 1970. 10.2307/133680 Web of Science®Google Scholar 26 P. A. Samuelson, “Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 39. 1962. Web of Science®Google Scholar 27 R. M. Solow, Capital Theory and the Rate of Return (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1963). Web of Science®Google Scholar 28 R. M. Solow, “ The Interest Rate and Transition Between Techniques” in C. H. Feinstein, ed., Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth. Essays presented to Maurice Dobb. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). Google Scholar 29 R. M. Solow, “ Distribution in Long and Short-Run” in J. Marchal and B. Ducros, eds., The Distribution of National Income (London: Macmillan, 1968). Google Scholar 30 L. Spaventa, “Rate of Profit, Rate of Growth, and Capital intensity in A Simple Production Model”, Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 22, 1970. Web of Science®Google Scholar 31 T. W. Swan, “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation”, Economic Record, vol. 32, 1956. 10.1111/j.1475-4932.1956.tb00434.x Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume13, Issue22June 1974Pages 124-132 ReferencesRelatedInformation