IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uncertainty and capacity constraints: reconsidering the aggregate production function


  • Gracia, Eduard


The Cobb-Douglas function is today one of the most widely-adopted assumptions in economic modeling, yet both its theoretical and empirical basis have long been under question. The purpose of this paper is to build an alternative production function on neoclassical microfoundations to address these issues, and then test it empirically. An analysis of annual U.S. data from 1949 to 2008 suggest the model explains nearly 85 percent of GDP fluctuations, and a nonnested model comparison test concludes that it is empirically more robust than the Cobb-Douglas. Furthermore, both contemporary and lagged aggregate capital are rejected as explanatory variables. This lends support to the old 'Cambridge Critique', which ustained that using valueweighted capital aggregates to explain production simply made no sense, and also strengthens the model in this paper for, unlike the Cobb-Douglas, it does not model installed capacity as aggregate capital, but as a sunk cost generating economic rents. Taken at face value, these results not only pose a question on any macroeconomic model assuming a Cobb-Douglas function but also point towards an alternative interpretation of phenomena such as the way monetary policy impacts productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Gracia, Eduard, 2011. "Uncertainty and capacity constraints: reconsidering the aggregate production function," Economics Discussion Papers 2011-9, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwedp:20119

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 2012. "GHG Targets as Insurance Against Catastrophic Climate Damages," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(2), pages 221-244, March.
    2. Nordhaus, William D., 2007. "Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(01), pages 128-159, March.
    3. Stephen Newbold & Adam Daigneault, 2009. "Climate Response Uncertainty and the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 351-377, November.
    4. Detlef Vuuren & Jason Lowe & Elke Stehfest & Laila Gohar & Andries Hof & Chris Hope & Rachel Warren & Malte Meinshausen & Gian-Kasper Plattner, 2011. "How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 255-285, January.
    5. Plambeck, Erica L & Hope, Chris, 1996. "PAGE95 : An updated valuation of the impacts of global warming," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(9), pages 783-793, September.
    6. Partha Dasgupta, 2008. "Discounting climate change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 141-169, December.
    7. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 52-71, July.
    8. Martin L. Weitzman, 2009. "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Marten, Alex L. & Newbold, Stephen C., 2012. "Estimating the social cost of non-CO2 GHG emissions: Methane and nitrous oxide," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 957-972.
    10. Daiju Narita & Richard Tol & David Anthoff, 2010. "Economic costs of extratropical storms under climate change: an application of FUND," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(3), pages 371-384.
    11. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    production function; Cobb-Douglas; capital controversy;

    JEL classification:

    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • E23 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Production

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:zbw:ifwedp:20119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.