ABSTRACT
The editor of this issue has asked me to write on the characteristics of non-neoclassical capital theory, as exemplified by the contributions of the Cambridge, England, school. Like ‘capital’ itself (even in the neoclassical tradition), non-neoclassical capital theory is not a homogeneous commodity. Nevertheless, I shall try to outline approaches to the theory of capital which are shared in varying degrees by a number of prominent critics of orthodox neoclassical capital theory such as is contained in the writings of Arrow and Hahn (1971), Ferguson (1969, 1972), Samuelson, Solow and, most recently, Bliss (1975). Obviously, the emphasis which the individual authors place on certain points differs but the various strands are, I believe, recognizable in their contributions. I draw principally on the contributions of Joan Robinson, Sraffa, Dobb, Kaldor, Pasinetti, Garegnani, Mathur and Nuti, from the Cambridge school itself, and also on Hicks (in his recent neo-Austrian phase; see Hicks, 1970, 1973, 1975a), Kregel (1972, 1973, 1976a) and Lowe (1976).
