The export of capital theory
The export of capital theory
复制标题
资本输出理论
DOI：
10.1016/0022-1996(81)90023-4
复制
发表时间：
1981
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
A. Dixit
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Dixit
国际贸易理论习惯于与其他经济学分支进行思想的输出和输入。一般均衡理论一直以这种方式与贸易理论紧密联系在一起。货币经济学、福利经济学和两部门增长理论都有自己的见解。产业经济学是这种思想贸易的新来者。新李嘉图资本理论也是如此。最近的两本书给了我们关于新李嘉图贡献的非常有价值的全面陈述。其中一个(FITT)是斯蒂德曼、梅特卡夫、梅恩瓦林和帕里内洛的文章集，其中一些以前没有发表过，由伊恩·斯蒂德曼编辑。斯蒂德曼的另一本书(Tage)用一个简化的说明性模型对这种方法进行了令人钦佩的阐述。现在进行详细评估的时机似乎已经成熟。斯蒂德曼在FITT上发表的介绍性文章中明确阐述了他们的目标。他首先批评了通常的静态二乘二模型，该模型将资本视为从外部获得的固定数量的标量投入。根据斯蒂德曼的观点，正确的处理必须认识到三个特征：资本品的异质性，资本品作为生产资料的事实，以及这种生产方式所需的时间。显然，在所有三项指控中，赫克谢尔-奥林-萨缪尔森模式的小学教科书都必须认罪。然而，很少有读者愿意把这种批评留在纯粹的思想史上。对大多数人来说，斯蒂德曼等人试图提供一种建设性的替代方法，这将是人们感兴趣的焦点。我的大部分讨论也是出于这种担忧。
International trade theory is accustomed to the export and import of ideas with other branches of economics. General equilibrium theory has always been closely associated with trade theory in this way. Monetary economics, welfare economics, and two-sector growth theory have all had a look-in. Industrial economics is a newcomer to this trade in ideas. So is neo-Ricardian capital theory. Two recent books have given us a very valuable comprehensive statement of the neo-Ricardian contribution. One (FITT) is a collection of articles by Steedman, Metcalfe, Mainwaring and Parrinello, some not previously published, edited by Ian Steedman. The other book (TAGE) by Steedman gives an admirable exposition of the approach using a simplified illustrative model. The time now seems ripe for a detailed evaluation.In TAGE, and in his introductory essay in FITT, Steedman provides a clear statement of their aims. He begins by criticising the usual static two-bytwo model for treating capital as a scalar input made exogenously available in fixed quantity. According to Steedman, a proper treatment must recognise three features: the heterogeneity of capital goods, the fact of their being produced means of production, and the time needed for such production. It is clear that on all three counts the Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson model of elementary textbooks must plead guilty. However, few readers would wish to leave this criticism as an item in the pure history of thought. For most, it is the attempt of Steedman et al, to provide a constructive alternative approach that will be the focus of interest. Most of my discussion is8also motivated by that concern.