Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
---|---|---|---|---|
587.79 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
The Cambridge controversies about the theory of capital were
ultimately underpinned by a clash between two different
visions of capitalism, the neoclassical view, according to which
distribution depends on the supply and demand curves of
capital and labor, and the post Keynesian view, according to
which distribution depends on political and institutional factors
instead. I shall argue that the distinction between
“
meritocratic
capitalism
”
and
“
patrimonial capitalism,
”
which underpins the
discussions surrounding Thomas Piketty
’
s
Capital in the Twenty-
First Century
, is also connected to those two different visions of
capitalism, which were behind the Cambridge controversies.
These two visions of capitalism have important implications for
our understanding of political power over workers, and also to
our understanding of political power over land and its natural
resources. The role of land and natural resources was not
discussed in the Cambridge controversies, but is addressed in
Piero Sraffa
’
s
Production of Commodities
, and is implied in
Piketty’
s inclusion of land in his definition of capital, which
brings in a geographical dimension to our understanding of
capitalism and capitalist crises, as I shall argue.
Description
Keywords
Capital Crises Distribution Land Marginal productivity
Pedagogical Context
Citation
Martins, N. M. O. (2016). Political Aspects of the Capital Controversies and Capitalist Crises. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 39(4), 473-494
Publisher
Taylor & Francis