The older capital debates asked how much capital an economy has. Peter Lewin's Capital in Disequilibrium asks what an owner or entrepreneur values when calling something capital. His answer is a production plan, or a set of linked plans, whose worth depends on expectations about an uncertain future. Machines, buildings, skills and contracts count as capital because they fit together inside such plans, and the fit changes whenever plans are revised. Capital then appears as an evolving organization of complementary capabilities valued through fallible judgment, and Lewin argues that a homogeneous-stock picture hides most of its economic interest.
The book carries that idea through literatures usually read apart. It revisits the Austrian and Cambridge capital debates, reworks the time-preference theory of interest, adapts Ludwig Lachmann's account of capital structure, draws on the capabilities theory of the firm, examines how money and accounting make profit calculation possible, and closes on human capital and knowledge. The Mises Institute's 2011 second edition keeps the 1999 argument with few changes, adding a new preface and moving the notes beneath the text.
Lewin calls present-value arithmetic indispensable to individual valuation. He grants that isoquant diagrams can summarize the logic of a single plan, and that an imagined equilibrium world illuminates a changing one by contrast. His objection targets aggregation: when entrepreneurs discount incompatible futures, their net present values do not add up to one realizable productive quantity, though accounts and statistical totals remain computable and useful. Prices in such a world are disequilibrium prices, yet they remain the terms on which people trade and budget, so calculation continues while expectations diverge.
Following Lachmann, Lewin treats goods that serve the same plan as complements, with each relationship depending on that plan, on how a good is used within it and on how the plan is revised. When part of a plan fails, some goods can step in as substitutes while many complementarities persist. Lewin's delivery vans are a hypothetical illustration: vehicles working together in a delivery plan are complements, and one can stand in for another when the plan has to adjust. Heterogeneity therefore lies chiefly in an asset's function within a plan. Specificity comes in degrees, so redeployment is possible, often at a loss.
Lewin argues that accumulation ordinarily changes the structure of capital, since new technique usually arrives in new kinds of equipment and products. He borrows a schematic comparison from Axel Leijonhufvud: five craft workers each complete whole products, and then the same five people work in series, each specializing in one operation. The tools stay the same in kind, though each worker now needs only part of a set, and Lewin expects greater output from the reorganization. Sequencing and the division of labor thus count as productive organization, which a standard production function leaves out of view. Drawing on Coase, Richardson, Penrose and Langlois, Lewin argues that integration is favored when change is systemic and the needed capabilities are hard to buy. Modular products with standardized interfaces can favor disintegration and spinoffs. Established capabilities can also harden into inertia.
The calculation chapter connects theory to accounting practice. Profit measured as the residual after contractual obligations rests on market prices, which give it an objective basis from the firm's side. Splitting that residual between true profit and the user cost of owned assets requires judgment, since the firm must estimate the cost of using its own equipment. The firm, money and accounting supply conventions for that split within a private-property order, and an underestimate of user cost shows up as cash absorbed by repair and replacement. A persistent cash drain often signals trouble first. Lewin notes that start-ups routinely plan negative cash flows and that some grow into large corporations, so he suggests distinguishing a planned deficit from an unplanned drain. Projects that pass this test are viable, a weaker claim than global optimality.
On interest, Lewin criticizes the claim by Mises and Rothbard that positive time preference follows a priori from action, arguing that their proof assumes away the uncertainty that action requires. He defends a qualified time-preference theory, treated as empirical and tied to uncertainty, and allows that a later sum could be preferred when it is safer than cash held in the meantime. Lewin reads Fetter's empirical approach and an article by Kirzner as sharing some of his doubts. On monetary policy, holding expected cash flows and other conditions fixed, a lower discount rate raises a project's value, usually more for longer horizons. A policy rate cut need not lower the rate investors apply, since those who read the policy as inflationary may raise it. Lewin leaves the traditional Austrian business cycle theory unevaluated and offers his view that policy changes add risk to long projects as an unquantified argument.
The human-capital chapter builds on Becker, Schultz and Mincer and treats skill as another entrepreneurial investment. Measured returns to education are historical outcomes; they inform a choice to the extent a person trusts them as guides, while future returns stay uncertain. Lewin judges that general training will usually be regarded as more secure than specific training, a conditional observation about how people weigh risk. Much knowledge is tacit, and people learn it through practice and apprenticeship. In Lewin's account, stable shared conventions, from time units to contracts and language, let people coordinate while their specific expectations clash, much as fixed rules let a game proceed while its result stays open.
Capabilities, institutions and fallible plans give the book a framework for explaining why firm boundaries move and why accumulation alters structure. Built from conceptual analysis and illustrations, it equips a reader to interpret a given reorganization; forecasting the next boundary or the next discovery would require evidence about particular industries. Lewin concedes that the superior performance of capitalist economies cannot be logically proved, and he rests his case on the division of knowledge Hayek described. In the 2011 preface he calls the book's treatment of knowledge embodied in machines insufficient, and a footnote on the firm acknowledges the same gap and points to his later work with Howard Baetjer.
Read it to understand how capital value arises from plans and why profit calculation needs institutions alongside arithmetic. It suits an advanced reader prepared for conceptual analysis, some present-value algebra and engagement with Hayek, Lachmann, Richardson and the Cambridge debates. It is a work of theory, distant from current investment guidance. The reward is a habit of asking which plan an asset serves and which conventions make its value calculable. The Mises Institute publishes the text as a PDF: Capital in Disequilibrium, Mises Institute PDF.