C.E.S. production functions in the light of the Cambridge critique
The 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.
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.:
- 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.
- Harcourt,G. C., 1972.
"Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720, June.
- 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.
- P. Garegnani, 1970. "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 407-436.
- P. Garegnani, 1970. "A Reply," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 439.
- Bertram Schefold, 2005. "Reswitching As A Cause Of Instability Of Intertemporal Equilibrium," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 438-476, November.
- Jonathan Temple, 2006. "Aggregate Production Functions and Growth Economics," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 301-317.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jmacro:v:30:y:2008:i:2:p:783-797. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.