ABSTRACT
The editor has asked the contributors to discuss the theoretical and social significance of the Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. A sharp division between these two aspects logically cannot be made for, like trend and cycle, analysis and ideology and Samuelson and Solow, they are indissolubly mixed. Nevertheless, it is a convenient division for purposes of exposition so I adopt it and deal, first, with the theoretical significance, and then with the significance, if such there be, for society. I survey the various, very differing views of the controversies, indicating where I believe truth lies and what the ongoing implications for theory and practice both are likely to be and should be, for the two, unfortunately, have not as yet converged into one. I proceed by outlining what I take to be the gist of the various approaches; the references at the end of the paper provide the detailed evidence from which the interested reader may check whether I have been just in my presentation. The debate is, of course, a continuing one but I think that we have now reached a position where some broad generalisations and evaluations usefully may be made. I take it that the principal issues and results are familiar to readers. For those, however, who are either coming at them afresh or wish to refresh their memories, there are a number of convenient sources which, together, provide an exhaustive overview, from all points of view, of the whole controversy (see Blaug, 1974; Dobb, 1973; Hahn, 1972a, pp. 1-18, 1974, 1975b; Harcourt, 1972, 1976; Kregel, 1973; Ng, 1974b; Pasinetti, 1974a; Robinson, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 1975d; Rowthorn, 1974; Samuelson, 1966,1975; Solow, 1975a; Stiglitz, 1974).
