Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:45:20.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Modern Post-Mortem on Böhm's Capital Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared by Presraffian Mainstream Capital Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Paul A. Samuelson
Paul A. Samuelson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Nobel Prize of Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson that Stockholm never awarded might have pleased at least one of them. Its citation would have included: “Their investigations uncovered a fatal normative flaw in Böhm-Bawerkian and modern mainstream capital theory.”

Just prior to Alfred Marshall's 1890 ascendancy as leading world economist, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1914) perhaps wore that crown thanks to his three-volume treatise on the history and fundamentals of interest theories. Böhm (1884, 1889, 1909, 1912) somewhat independently followed in the footsteps of Stanley Jevons (1871) and himself strongly stimulated Knut Wicksell (1893), Irving Fisher (1906, 1907, 1930), and Friedrich Hayek (1931, 1941). Pugnacious and somewhat incoherent, Böhm and his disciples battled cogently the competing school of John Bates Clark (1899) and Frank Knight (1934, 1935a, 1935b), which idealized a permanent scalar capital alleged to be virtually permanent and with a marginal productivity determining its interest rate in much the same way that primary labor's marginal productivity determines its real wage rate and primary land's marginal productivity determines its real rent rate(s). The Clark-Knight paradigm—and, for that matter, Frank Ramsey's 1928 mathematical clone—shares the Böhm-Hayek vital normative flaw.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 301 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1884. Kapital und Kapitalzins. Erste Abteilung: Geschichte und Kritik der Kapitalzins-Theorien. Innsbruck: Wagner. Translated by Huncke, G. D. and Sennholz, H. as Capital and Interest, Vol. I, 4th edition. South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1889. Kapital und Kapitalzins. Zweite Abteilung: Positive Theorie des Kapitales. Innsbruck: Wagner. Third edition in two volumes, 1909 and 1912. Translated as The Positive Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan, 1891. Translated as Capital and Interest, Vols. II and III, 4th edition. South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1906. “Capital and Interest Once More: I. Capital vs. Capital Goods. II. A Relapse to the Productivity Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 21: 1–21, 247–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1907. “The Nature of Capital: A Rejoinder.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 22: 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John Bates. 1899. The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Robert. 2001. “Modernizing Böhm-Bawerk's Theory of Interest.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23: 37–54.Google Scholar
Fetter, Frank. 1914. “Interest Theories Old and New.” American Economic Review 4: 68–92.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1906. The Nature of Capital and Income. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1907. The Rate of Interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1930. The Theory of Interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich. 1931. Prices and Production. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich. 1936. “The Mythology of Capital.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 50: 199–228.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge In Society.” American Economic Review 35: 519–30. Reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. Stanley. 1871. The Theory of Political Economy. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank. 1934. “Capital, Time and the Interest Rate.” Economica, N.S. 1: 257–86.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank. 1935a. “Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment.” Economic Journal 45: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Frank. 1935b. “Professor Knight and the ‘Period of Production’: Comment [and] a Final Word.” Journal of Political Economy 43: 625–27, 808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. 1917. “The State and Revolution.” In Collected Works, 45 volumes. Translation of the fourth largest Russian edition, 1960–70. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Liviatan, Nissan and Samuelson, Paul A.. 1969. “Notes on Turnpikes: Stable and Unstable.” Journal of Economic Theory 1: 454–75. Reproduced as Chapter 141 in The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Machlup, Fritz. 1935. “Professor Knight and the Period of Production'.” Journal of Political Economy 43: 577–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank. 1928. “A Mathematical Theory of Saving.” Economic Journal 38: 543–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1942. An Essay on Marxian Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1956. The Accumulation of Capital. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1948, 1951, 1955, 1958, 1961, 1964, 1967. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1966. “A Summing Up.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 80: 568–83. Reproduced as Chapter 148 in The Collected Scientiic Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1975. “Steady-State and Transient Relations: A Reply on Reswitching.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 40–47. Reproduced as Chapter 216 in The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1976. “Interest Rate Determinations and Oversimplifying Parables: A Summing Up.” In Brown, M., Sato, K., and Zarembka, P., eds., Essays in Modern Capital Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co. Reproduced as Chapter 215 in The Collected Scientiic Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, vol. 4, 1977.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1999. “The Special Thing I Learned from Sraffa.” In Mongiovi, G. and Petri, F., eds., Value, Distribution and Capital, Essays in Honour of Pierangelo Garegnani. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Senior, Nassau. 1836. An Outline of the Science of Political Economy. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1939; Kelley reprint, 1965.Google Scholar
Sraffa, Piero. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taussig, Frank. 1896. Wages and Capital. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Wicksell, K. 1893. Über Wert Kapital und Rente nach neueren national-ökonomischen Theorien. Jena: Fischer. Translated as Value, Capital and Rent. London:Allen & Unwin, 1954.Google Scholar