{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0110062893081761, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012578616352201259, 'mean_word_length': 5.009433962264151, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Capital as a Single Magnitude and the Orthodox Theory of Distribution in Some Writings of the Early 1930s

Some writings of the early 1930s by Dennis Robertson and John Hicks present, with a clarity not easily found elsewhere, the reasons why marginalist economists, who until recent decades normally treated capital as a single magnitude, were in fact compelled to do so. This paper focuses on a first reason that emerges from these writings: namely the fact that only this treatment of capital can lend plausibility to the notion of substitutability between factors of production on which the orthodox theory of distribution is built.