Veblen Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt lineages in capital controversies and beyond
梳理了凡勃伦对克拉克和费希尔资本理论的批判及回应，并探讨了凡勃伦、罗宾逊和哈考特在资本争论中的独特联系，揭示了不同经济愿景和制度视角的冲突。
In the midst of Joan Robinson’s critique of neoclassical capital theory, she remarked ‘that Thorstein Veblen had made my point, much better than I did, in 1908’. Robinson was referring to Veblen’s attacks on the capital theories of J. B. Clark and Irving Fisher. With little written on these earlier capital controversies, one purpose of this article is to fill in the historical record by providing a capital-specific examination of Veblen’s attacks and Clark’s and Fisher’s responses. The second purpose is to explore the unique connections between the Veblen/Clark/Fisher and the Cambridge capital controversies by focussing on three authors: Veblen, Robinson and Harcourt. These controversies shared clashes of fundamentally different visions of economic life, as well as differences regarding the historical contextualisation of the meaning of capital and the role of social institutions. The adequacy of equilibrium analysis and ideology also play more complex roles compared to other capital controversies conducted within a largely shared vision.