IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94432.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capital, technical progress and international trade

Author

Listed:
  • Rahim, Sikander

Abstract

(Abstract) CAPITAL, TECHNICAL PROGRESS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE Much has been written about the objection originally formulated by Piero Sraffa to the use of production functions and aggregate capital and of the disputes that ensued, but there seems to be no systematic explanation in one place of why this objection is crucial to the foundations of economic theory and why the various attempts to escape it fail. This paper is an attempt provide one. First, it presents the reasoning of the objection and shows how the arguments against it are either fallacious or too restricted to be useful. Second, it shows how technical progress and international trade give two more reasons for the same objection, which, though logically independent, only became apparent because of the first. From these it follows that neither technical progress nor international trade can be plausibly described or explained if capital goods are not treated as heterogeneous goods manufactured with the use of capital goods. This leads to a more realistic depiction of technical progress as the outcome of the R&D of competing firms. (For brevity, government activities are left out.) The implications for international trade are described briefly. This paper is not a survey; it is confined to the minimum needed to establish its contentions. Its discussion of the disputes has mostly been said before, but it covers some gaps that seem to have been overlooked. It adds to the discussion in that the disputes did not take up the implications of technical progress and international trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahim, Sikander, 2018. "Capital, technical progress and international trade," MPRA Paper 94432, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:94432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/94432/1/MPRA_paper_94432.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Levhari, 1965. "A Nonsubstitution Theorem and Switching of Techniques," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 79(1), pages 98-105.
    2. L. M. Read, 1968. "The Measure of Total Factor Productivity Appropriate to Wage-Price Guidelines," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 1(2), pages 349-358, May.
    3. Romer, Paul, 1994. "New goods, old theory, and the welfare costs of trade restrictions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 5-38, February.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Ethier, Wilfred, 1979. "The theorems of international trade in time-phased economies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, May.
    6. Paul A. Samuelson, 1962. "Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 29(3), pages 193-206.
    7. D. G. Champernowne, 1953. "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital: A Comment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 21(2), pages 112-135.
    8. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.
    9. P. Garegnani, 1970. "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 37(3), pages 407-436.
    10. Jesus Felipe & Franklin M. Fisher, 2003. "Aggregation in Production Functions: What Applied Economists should Know," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2‐3), pages 208-262, May.
    11. Dani Rodrik, 1994. "What Does the Political Economy Literature on Trade Policy (Not) Tell UsThat We Ought To Know?," NBER Working Papers 4870, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Stokey, Nancy L, 1988. "Learning by Doing and the Introduction of New Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 701-717, August.
    13. Alwyn Young, 1998. "Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 41-63, February.
    14. Peter Howitt, 1999. "Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R & D Inputs Growing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(4), pages 715-730, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. Barkley Rosser, 2020. "Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 415-431, December.
    2. Carlo Milana, 2019. "Solving the Reswitching Paradox in the Sraffian Theory of Capital," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(6), pages 97-125, November.
    3. Klenow, Peter J. & Rodriguez-Clare, Andres, 2005. "Externalities and Growth," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 817-861, Elsevier.
    4. Kazuhiro Kurose & Naoki Yoshihara, 2018. "The Heckscher—Ohlin—Samuelson Trade Theory and the Cambridge Capital Controversies: On the Validity of Factor Price Equalisation Theorem," Working Papers SDES-2018-17, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Nov 2018.
    5. Kurose, Kazuhiro & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2016. "The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model and the Cambridge Capital Controversies," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2016-05, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    6. G. C. Harcourt, 2015. "On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 243-255, June.
    7. Kurose, Kazuhiro & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2018. "The Heckscher—Ohlin—Samuelson Trade Theory and the Cambridge Capital Controversies: On the Validity of Factor Price Equalisation Theorem," Discussion Paper Series 686, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    8. Avi J. Cohen & Geoffrey C. Harcourt, 2010. "Reswitching and Reversing in Capital Theory," Chapters, in: Mark Blaug & Peter Lloyd (ed.), Famous Figures and Diagrams in Economics, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Saverio M. Fratini, 2019. "On The Second Stage Of The Cambridge Capital Controversy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 1073-1093, September.
    10. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    11. Schefold, Bertram, 2008. "C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 783-797, June.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & Veronica Guerrieri, 2008. "Capital Deepening and Nonbalanced Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 116(3), pages 467-498, June.
    13. Jérôme Creel & Maurizio Iacopetta, 2015. "Macroeconomic policy and potential growth," Working Papers hal-03459896, HAL.
    14. Vienneau, Robert L., 2019. "Structural economic dynamics, markups, real Wicksell effects, and the reverse substitution of labor," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 216-226.
    15. Alberto BUCCI, 2002. "Market Power, Human Capital and Growth," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2002012, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    16. Kersting, Götz & Schefold, Bertram, 2021. "Best techniques leave little room for substitution. A new critique of the production function," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 509-533.
    17. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/3d1rt55ran82d86guhaponket6 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Chris Papageorgiou, 2002. "Human Capital and Convergence in a Non-Scale R&D Growth Model," Departmental Working Papers 2002-10, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    19. Gil, Pedro Mazeda, 2010. "Stylised facts and other empirical evidence on firm dynamics, business cycle and growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 73-80, June.
    20. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    21. Nadia Garbellini, 2018. "Inequality in the 21st Century:A Critical Analysis of Piketty`s Work," Working Papers Series 69, Institute for New Economic Thinking.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Capital theory; technical progress; R&D; international trade;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B51 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:94432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.