Avi J. Cohen

Using Writing across the Curriculum in Economics: Is Taking the Plunge Worth It?.

The transition from a traditionally formatted economics course to one that emphasizes writing is described. The authors argue that, before this change, student thinking as reflected in written papers was fuzzy; after the change it was not.

Technological Change as Historical Process: The Case of the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry, 1915–1940

Technological changes in the U.S. pulp and paper industry between 1915 and 1940 are chronicled, and three patterns—evolutionary bias, output-increasing innovation in response to technological disequilibria, and differences in the timing of innovations between the 1920s and 1930s—are identified and explained by means of a theoretical framework for induced innovation. The framework conceptualizes technological change as a means for growth-seeking firms to overcome barriers to accumulation and provides a general explanation of induced innovation that is situated in historical time.

The Hayek/Knight Capital Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?

Neither changes in the durability of goods nor changes in their construction period . . . exerts an identifiable effect on a definable “period of production” in society as a whole. Moreover, they are similarly unconnected with quantity of investment, and quantity of investment is likewise unconnected with any production period. Correspondences in this field are limited and accidental, without theoretical significance for the nature and role of capital. It is extremely difficult to give any intelligible meaning to a “period of production,” and it certainly has no meaning of the sort assumed in the Bohm-Bawerk–Hayek theory of capital. —Frank Knight, “Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment” (1935)

Samuelson and the 93% Scarcity Theory of Value

In ‘Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value’, Stigler (1958) demonstrates that Ricardo’s labour theory of value cannot be defended as an analytical proposition but can be defended as an empirical proposition. Here, Stigler’s criteria for analytical and empirical value theories are used to evaluate the Cambridge capital theory controversies, particularly Samuelson’s contribution. The evaluation demonstrates that the neoclassical scarcity theory of value — the conception of price as an index of resource scarcity relative to consumption demand — cannot be defended analytically but can be defended empirically. The analytical deficiencies in both theories of value stem from capital-related problems. For neoclassical theory, which is the focus of this paper, these problems are not eliminated at the general equilibrium level. Instead, the problems are sidestepped by abandoning the scarcity theory of value as an analytical proposition.

CAPITAL CONTROVERSY FROM BOHM-BAWERK TO BLISS: BADLY POSED OR VERY DEEP QUESTIONS? OR WHAT ''WE'' CAN LEARN FROM CAPITAL CONTROVERSY EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE WHO WON

The authors path from heterodoxy to economic history to the history of economics is used as a case study to explore tensions between “doing economics” and “doing the history of economics,” between the ideological vision (Schumpeter) motivating a research agenda and the even-handed execution of research. These same tensions appear in the history of capital controversy, which contains deep questions of history and path dependence versus equilibrium models, limitations of aggregate production functions, and the roles of vision and ideology in the reluctance to abandon insights of one-commodity models when results are not robust.

The Kaldor/Knight controversy: Is capital a distinct and quantifiable factor of production?

Abstract Controversy focuses on three questions: Is capital a distinct factor of production? Is capital quantifiable in a theoretically consistent manner? Are process stories necessary around convergence to, or changes in, equilibrium interest rates? To all, Kaldor answers ‘yes’ to Knights ‘no’. The controversy is historically important in: 1) shifting issues in recurring twentieth century capital theory controversies from periods of production to production functions, from roundaboutness to diminishing returns; 2) revealing Knights position on increasing knowledge offsetting diminishing returns over time as an unacknowledged ‘precursor’ of new growth theory; 3) marking the turning point for Kaldors attachment to Austrian theory.

Factor substitution and induced innovation in north American kraft pulping: 1914–1940☆

Abstract A Rosenberg/David framework is used to explain induced pulping innovations. Rising spruce prices motivated a switch to a preexisting pulping technique that could theoretically utilize cheap southern pine. In practice, however, specific southern pine characteristics created technical problems, impeding the profitable expansion of kraft pulping. With accumulated experience, technical problems were overcome by minor chemical and mechanical improvements that nonetheless propelled the rise to dominance of kraft pulping. In addition to motivating the switch to the kraft technique, rising spruce prices induced a costly search for kraft-pulping innovations that ultimately saved on the use of more expensive factors.

Book Reviews : Neil de Marchi, ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics: Papers Presented at a Symposium in Amsterdam, December 1985. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988. Pp. xii, 280,

This strong and unusually coherent collection of papers originates from a symposium organized to mark the retirement of Professor J. J. Klant. Popper’s influence both on Klant’s work and the economics profession in general motivates the theme uniting all of the papers: a reevaluation of exactly what Popper did have to say to economists and, in the light of recent developments in the philosophy of science, how much of the original message is worth retaining. The book contains papers by Daniel Hausman, J. J. Klant, Wade Hands, Neil de Marchi, Terrence Hutchison, Mark Blaug, Mary Morgan, Roy Weintraub, Bruce Caldwell, Donald McCloskey, and Arjo Klamer, as well as an introduction by de Marchi and an illuminating edited record of the conference discussion. This review summarizes first the individual papers and then some of the shared issues, including those raised in the introduction