In [5618] Paul C wrote: > Whilst the possibility of reverse reswitching is > logically correct given the assumptions about > equal returns to capital in different branches, > it is still a matter of interest to determine whether > it actually occurs. I think that there are instances where the "less advanced" older technique is swiched back to in preference to the "more advanced" technique. One such example is in the news in the US: President Bush (boo! hiss!) has proposed that as a partial solution to the California energy shortages that wood chips be used as a source of energy. Wouldn't that be re-switching? (it would also be an environmental disaster for the nation's forests.) Consider the switch away from nuclear power caused by a variety of factors (safety issues, downtime, cost-overruns, protests) back to older technologies such as electrical generation via fossil fuels like coal. Wasn't that an empirical example of re-switching? With the failure of the "Green Revolution" in many parts of the world, there was a switch back to older technologies in preference to the newer "more advanced", more "scientific" agricultural techniques. (this was a good example of how supposed technological advances under capitalism can give rise to "externalities" and, in this case, unanticipated ecological disasters.) In some sections of Chesapeake Bay, motorized craft were not allowed to be used in the oyster-harvesting industry and sail (or oar) power was mandated. (this was caused by state action but if certain types of energy costs go up high enough in the future in other areas, then sail could again be a viable commercial option.) There are some examples in the U.S. of supposed advances in military technology which were deployed and later abandoned in preference to older, simpler military technologies. Do you remember the electric toothbrush? ... the electric carving knife? For some 'health food' products there has been a move away from the use of newer, more advanced technologies (e.g. pesticides). Older, herbal treatments are often increasingly used in health care in preference to the more advanced "modern" prescription medications. (in this case, there may be a shift back to re-capture the technologies employed thousands of years ago in certain cultures!) None of this, of course, has to do with the 70's "capital controversy" between the two Cambridges. On this point, Ajit is most assuredly correct. And he is correct that no amount of empirical evidence can rescue the neo-neo-classical theory from its logical failings. Yet -- stripped of the particular context of that debate -- I think it is pretty clear that 're-switching' can and does occur. How important it is as an empirical matter is another question. My suspicion is that from an overall, aggregate perspective, examples of re-switching are not of great empirical significance. However, I think that there are examples that have significance in individual branches of production, sectors, regions, and even individual national economies. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT