C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique
AbstractThe Cambridge debate of the 1960s showed conclusively that the aggregation of capital, so as to obtain a surrogate production function according to Samuelson, is not possible in general, with critical implications also for other variants of neoclassical theory. The framework for the demonstration is that of linear activity analysis. There is an individual wage curve in function of the rate of profit for each technique. If these individual wage curves were straight lines, their envelope would define a wage curve resulting from all techniques, from which a surrogate production function could be derived, but all wage curves are straight only, if there is only one industry. And if wage curves are not straight, phenomena such as reswitching show that essential neoclassical hypotheses need not hold. A recent empirical investigation by Han and Schefold has found one empirical example for reswitching and several for reverse capital deepening. A rigorous derivation of surrogate production functions thus is ruled out also on empirical grounds, but the paradoxes seem not to be as frequent as the critics once thought, so that the question arises whether approximate surrogate production functions could be derived, with individual wage curves which would be sufficiently linear to construct approximate surrogate production functions, indicating a relationship between the intensity of capital and output per head which would be sufficiently precise to work with. The paper is part of a wider investigation, in which conditions for the existence of quasi-linear wage curves and the possibility of the construction of approximate surrogate production functions are given. The emphasis here is on the special hypotheses needed to obtain C.E.S. production functions.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Macroeconomics.
Volume (Year): 30 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622617
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bertram Schefold, 2005. "Reswitching As A Cause Of Instability Of Intertemporal Equilibrium," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 438-476, November.
- Garegnani, P, 1970. "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution: Reply," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 439, July.
- Steedman, Ian & Tomkins, Judith, 1998. "On Measuring the Deviation of Prices from Values," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 379-85, May.
- Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.
- Garegnani, P, 1970. "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 407-36, July.
- Zonghie Han & Bertram Schefold, 2006. "An empirical investigation of paradoxes: reswitching and reverse capital deepening in capital theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 737-765, September.
- Jonathan Temple, 2006. "Aggregate Production Functions and Growth Economics," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 301-317.
- Harcourt,G. C., 1972.
"Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720, December.
- Harcourt, G C, 1969. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 369-405, June.
- Iliadi, Fotoula & Mariolis, Theodore & Soklis, George & Tsoulfidis, Lefteris, 2012. "Bienenfeld’s approximation of production prices and eigenvalue distribution: some more evidence from five European economies," MPRA Paper 36282, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Fratini, Saverio M., 2009.
"Reswitching And Decreasing Demand For Capital,"
13389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Mariolis, Theodore & Tsoulfidis, Lefteris, 2010. "Eigenvalue distribution and the production price-profit rate relationship in linear single-product systems: theory and empirical evidence," MPRA Paper 43716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Miguel A. Le�n-Ledesma & Peter McAdam & Alpo Willman, 2010.
"Identifying the Elasticity of Substitution with Biased Technical Change,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1330-57, September.
- León-Ledesma, Miguel A. & McAdam, Peter & Willman, Alpo, 2009. "Identifying the elasticity of substitution with biased technical change," Working Paper Series 1001, European Central Bank.
- Saverio M. Fratini, 2009. "Reswitching and Decreasing Demand for Capital in a Model with a Continuum of Linear Techniques," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2009_26, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.