I just finished perusing Jack Birner's "The Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory" (see
here). My brief take is that although the author provides a thorough and lucid analysis &
exposé of the debates,
I certainly do not agree with his assumption that the issues involved primarily dealt with a
fundamental difference over research programmatic technique &
methodology, with ideology being merely secondary, if not superfluous. This is
quite untrue; ideology was at the very core! For more on this, I recommend G.C. Harcourt's "Some Cambridge Controversies in The Theory of Capital" (see
here) and Andrés Lazzarini's
"Revisiting the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies: A Historical and Analytical Study" (see here).
