Intertemporal General Equilibrium: Role in the First Phase of the Cambridge Controversy; and Why Indefensible

ABSTRACT The existing reconstructions of the Cambridge capital controversy do not grasp the role played by cryptic references to neo‐Walrasian intertemporal general equilibrium theory in the contributions by Solow and Samuelson to the first rounds of debate; these references were not well understood by Joan Robinson or Pasinetti. This allows some clarifications concerning the Solow–Pasinetti exchange on the rate of return. Pasinetti's scarce interest in neo‐Walrasian equilibrium models appears with hindsight to have been fully justified: intertemporal general equilibrium theory is totally indefensible, as confirmed by some new criticisms that show intertemporal equilibria do not exist.