IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lev/wrkpap/wp_940.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the "Utilization Controversy": A Rejoinder and Some Comments

Author

Listed:
  • Michalis Nikiforos

Abstract

The critique by Gahn and Gonzalez (2019) of the conclusions in Nikiforos (2016) regarding what data should be used to evaluate whether capacity utilization is endogenous to demand is weak for the following reasons: (i) The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) measure of utilization is not appropriate for measuring long-run variations of utilization because of the method and purpose of its construction. Even if its difference from the measures of the average workweek of capital (AWW) were trivial, this would still be the case; if anything, it would show that the AWW is also an inappropriate measure. (ii) Gahn and Gonzalez choose to ignore the longest available estimate of the AWW produced by Foss, which has a clear long-run trend. (iii) Their econometric results are not robust to more suitable specifications of the unit root tests. Under these specifications, the tests overwhelmingly fail to reject the unit root hypothesis. (iv) Other estimates of the AWW, which were not included in Nikiforos (2016) confirm these conclusions. v) For the comparison between the AWW series and the FRB series, they construct variables that are not meaningful because they subtract series in different units. When the comparison is done correctly, the results confirm that the difference between the AWW series and the FRB series has a unit root. (vi) A stationary utilization rate is not consistent with any theory of the determination of capacity utilization. Even if demand did not play a role, there is no reason to expect that all the other factors that determine utilization would change in a fashion that would keep utilization constant.

Suggested Citation

  • Michalis Nikiforos, 2019. "On the "Utilization Controversy": A Rejoinder and Some Comments," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_940, Levy Economics Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:lev:wrkpap:wp_940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_940.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mayshar, Joram & Solon, Gary, 1993. "Shift Work and the Business Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 224-228, May.
    2. Shapiro, Matthew D, 1986. "Capital Utilization and Capital Accumulation: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 211-234, July.
    3. Michalis Nikiforos, 2016. "On the ‘utilisation controversy’: a theoretical and empirical discussion of the Kaleckian model of growth and distribution," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 40(2), pages 437-467.
    4. Joe P. Mattey & Steven Strongin, 1997. "Factor utilization and margins for adjusting output: evidence from manufacturing plants," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, pages 3-17.
    5. James D. Hamilton, 2018. "Why You Should Never Use the Hodrick-Prescott Filter," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(5), pages 831-843, December.
    6. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Matthew Shapiro, 2011. "Using the Survey of Plant Capacity to Measure Capital Utilization," Working Papers 11-19, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. J. Beaulieu & Joe Mattey, 1998. "The Workweek of Capital and Capital Utilization in Manufacturing," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-223, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lorenzo Di Domenico, 2021. "Multiplicity and not necessarily heterogeneity: implications for the long-run degree of capacity utilization," Working Papers PKWP2116, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    2. Barrales-Ruiz, Jose & Arnim, Rudiger von, 2021. "Endogenous fluctuations in demand and distribution: An empirical investigation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 204-220.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Villa Stefania, 2012. "Capital Utilization and the Amplification Mechanism," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Michalis Nikiforos, 2021. "Notes on the accumulation and utilization of capital: Some empirical issues," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 679-695, November.
    3. Sustek, Roman, 2009. "Nonconvex Margins of Output Adjustment and Aggregate Fluctuations," MPRA Paper 17486, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Santiago J. Gahn, 2020. "Is there a decreasing trend in capacity utilisation in the US economy? Some new evidence," Working Papers PKWP2006, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    5. Michalis Nikiforos, 2020. "Notes on the Accumulation and Utilization of Capital: Some Empirical Issues," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_953, Levy Economics Institute.
    6. Santiago José Gahn & Alejandro González, 2020. "On the ‘utilisation controversy’: a comment," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(3), pages 703-707.
    7. Christopher J. Nekarda & Valerie A. Ramey, 2020. "The Cyclical Behavior of the Price‐Cost Markup," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 52(S2), pages 319-353, December.
    8. Šustek, Roman, 2011. "Plant-level nonconvex output adjustment and aggregate fluctuations," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 400-414.
    9. Mark Setterfield & Joana David Avritzer, 2020. "Hysteresis in the normal rate of capacity utilization: A behavioral explanation," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 898-919, November.
    10. Andreas Hornstein, 2002. "Towards a theory of capacity utilization: shiftwork and the workweek of capital," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Spr, pages 65-86.
    11. Susanto Basu & John Fernald, 2001. "Why Is Productivity Procyclical? Why Do We Care?," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 225-302, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Michalis Nikiforos, 2013. "The (Normal) Rate of Capacity Utilization at the Firm Level," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 513-538, July.
    13. Mark Setterfield, 2019. "Tolerable ranges of variation in the rate of capacity utilization and corridor instability: a reply to Florian Botte," Working Papers 1905, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.
    14. Chatterjee, Santanu, 2005. "Capital utilization, economic growth and convergence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 2093-2124, December.
    15. Klarl, Torben, 2022. "Fragile robots, economic growth and convergence," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Michalis Nikiforos, 2021. "The Endogeneity-to-Demand of the National Emergency Utilization Rate," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_989, Levy Economics Institute.
    17. Matthew D. Shapiro, 1996. "Macroeconomic Implications of Variation in the Workweek of Capital," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 27(2), pages 79-134.
    18. Cette Gilbert & Lecat Rémy & Ahmed Jiddou Ahmed Ould, 2016. "How do firms adjust production factors to the cycle?," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 361-394, June.
    19. Roman Sustek, 2005. "Plant-Level Nonconvexities and the Monetary Transmission Mechanism," Working Papers 2005/09, Czech National Bank.
    20. Michalis Nikiforos, 2011. "On the Desired Rate of Capacity Utilization," Working Papers 1116, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Capacity Utilization; Workweek of Capital; Stationarity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • E11 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Marxian; Sraffian; Kaleckian
    • E23 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Production

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lev:wrkpap:wp_940. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Elizabeth Dunn (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.levyinstitute.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.