The Cambridge controversies in capital theory

the long version

"A controversy in capital theory dominated economics in the 1960s and 1970s. Economists based in Cambridge, England detected flaws in the production model of neoclassical economics, associated with Cambridge, America. This debate established that the aggregate measure K for capital could not be used except in very special cases despite its still common usage in real business cycle theory today." "The Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory discusses the main contributions to the controversy in a series of case studies. It gradually develops a methodological model of idealizations that explains both the process of the debate and the historical ironies surrounding it, revealing that the surrounding confusion was due to the internal dynamics of the debate rather than to ideological differences. Economists were mainly engaged in attempts to solve local problems, often of a highly technical nature. This, plus the use of mathematics, led them to confuse different kinds of idealizations and to drift away from the global problems that were at stake. The main methodological result is a model describing the development of theories by a particular type of generalization: correspondence. The direction in which theories are expanded is ruled by the logical presupposition relationship between the core of a research programme and its corresponding models. This framework is used to assess Cartwright's account of scientific explanation, to solve Friedman's problem of assumptions and the problem of methodological pluralism." "This book will be of use to academics and advanced students with an interest in theoretical economics, history of economic thought, economic methodology and the philosophy of science."--Jacket.