Abstract
The significance of ‘reswitching’—that great symbolic issue of the Cambridge capital debates—has sometimes been denied on the ground of a low probability. This article investigates the industry-level return, in different equilibria, of the use of one or more (or all) inputs. Such phenomena, which we call ‘recurrence’, are generically far more probable than the return of a whole economy-level technique and can be triggered, not only by a change in the interest rate, but also by a change in relative primary input prices. Since recurrence alone, without reswitching, is damaging to standard marginalist conceptions, one should not attribute too much importance to any low ‘probability of reswitching’.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
