Why the interpretation of the Cobb-Douglas production function must be radically changed
No abstract is available for this item.
If 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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Paul H. Douglas, 1967. "Comments on the Cobb-Douglas Production Function," NBER Chapters, in: The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production, pages 15-22 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Harcourt,G. C., 1972.
"Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720, January.
- 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.
- Simon, Herbert A, 1979. " On Parsimonious Explanations of Production Relations," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(4), pages 459-474.
- Paul M. Romer, 1987. "Crazy Explanations for the Productivity Slowdown," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1987, Volume 2, pages 163-210 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- E. H. Phelps Brown, 1957. "The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb-Douglas Function," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 71(4), pages 546-560. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)