ABSTRACT
Introduction The theoretical debate between the neoclassical and neo-Ricardian schools o f economics became know n as the capital controversy because the debate falls squarely within what is know n as capital theory - the theory o f how capital is valued and measured. This debate has made it increasingly difficult for the neoclassical and political economic paradigms to live in mutual ignorance and disdain o f one another, because it established that there are areas o f overlap where the logic o f both approaches can be directly compared to one another. The origin o f this debate lies in the pioneering m onograph o f Piero Sraffa (1960), who exploited this com m on ground to scrutinize critically some central theoretical foundations o f the neoclassical school. Economic geographers concerned with developing a theoretically consistent fram ework for their own analysis should be aware o f these debates. In the spirit o f increasing this awareness, and in order to provide a com m on foundation for subsequent chapters, this chapter will review this debate over the neoclassical conception o f capital (for a fuller treatment see Harcourt, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1986; Dobb, 1973; Blaug, 1974; Harris, 1980; Moss, 1980). In Chapter 3 we shall turn our attention to labour values and the common ground between neo-Ricardian and Marxist economic theory. Readers already familiar with these debates are encouraged to skip sections 2.1 and 3.1-3.4.
