Public policies as specification errors

Treating public policies as computable dynamic general equilibrium model specification errors offers computational and conceptional advantages for comparing models with data. The set of policies calculated to rationalize observed behaviors raises the substantive economic question whether, in any particular market, actual public policies sufficiently coincide with the model's behavior-rationalizing policies, or whether the model offers correct hypotheses about the determinants of demand and supply. As illustrations, public policies are calculated to rationalize, with respect to the stochastic neoclassical growth model, capital market behavior since WWII and labor market behavior in 1929–1950. One conclusion is that capital taxation drives a wedge between consumption growth and the expected pre-tax capital return, in the direction and amount predicted by the theory, and that capital taxation is the major intertemporal distortion in the postwar capital market. Second, a good theory of the Great Depression labor market must explain why measured MRS and MPL diverged so dramatically in 1929–1933 and why the wedge persisted.     

Austrian persistence? Capital-based business cycle theory and the dynamics of investment spending

Survey data are used to investigate the very long spending lags estimated in neoclassical studies of investment expenditures. Neoclassical investment theory has trouble explaining the length of these lags. By recognizing the Austrian concept of the capital structure and applying it to the problem, the present paper explains the length of these lags as proceeding from interactions between types of capital. Austrian arguments stemming from Austrian business-cycle theory seem to be needed to explain these lags. JEL Code E3, E4, C1     

Nachfragefunktionen für die Produktionsfaktoren Arbeit und Kapital

Summary In this paper we present dynamic factor demand functions for labour and capital, and the underlying production function for the Austrian economy. Our approach is neoclassical. By definition, the production function is of the Cobb-Douglas type; experiments with a CES production function were not successful. Our empirical results look very plausible. The adjustement speeds, the output and price elasticities of both factor demand functions, as well as the parameters of the underlying production function are of a order of magnitude highly compatible with neoclassical theory.     

The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory

It is somewhat common for heterodox economists to come to the defense of neoclassical microeconomic theory. This is due to many reasons, but perhaps the commonest one is ignorance. It seems that most heterodox economists are not aware of the many critiques or that as a collective they completely undermine neoclassical theory. The objective of the article is to dispel ignorance by using the existing criticisms to delineate a systematic critique of the core components of neoclassical microeconomic theory: the supply and demand explanation of the price mechanism and its application to competitive markets. The critique starts by examining the choices, preferences, utility functions, and demand curves, followed by examining production, costs, factor input demand functions and partial equilibrium, and ending with perfect competition and the supply curve. In the conclusion, the implications of the results will be extended to the firm and imperfectly competitive markets, and then the question whether general equilibrium theory or game theory can save neoclassical microeconomic theory.     

Accumulation of knowledge and increasing returns in neoclassical models

In the mid 1980s there was a remarkable revival of interest in growth theory. A relevant strand of new literature is characterized by the departure from the assumption of diminishing returns of capital or, more generally, of the accumulated factor. In this paper we will see how the neoclassical theorists incorporated the idea of increasing returns in the formal models of economic growth, already an important question in the sixties. The central point is that the recent recognition of the importance of this notion is not new but now depends on the vision of economic growth as driven by knowledge accumulation and no longer by capital accumulation as in the Solovian tradition. I would like to thank the referee for valuable comments and suggestions.     

Does modern endogenous growth theory adequately represent Allyn Young?

Endogenous growth theory is now fashionable. It seeks to explainwhy per capita income growth in capital abundant countries isoften faster than in capital poor countries and defies the operationof diminishing returns. This theory, which took off with Romerand Lucas, often makes Allyn Young's concept of increasing returnsand Marshall's distinction between internal and external economiesits starting point but considers their treatment of the subjectas not sufficiently rigorous. The modern endogenous growth theoriststhen claim to explain what they had in mind with greater clarity,rigour and depth. This paper argues that this is not the caseas these theorists actually misrepresent Young in importantways.     

C.E. Ferguson and the Neoclassical Theory of Capital: A Matter of Faith

In 1969 the American neoclassical economist C.E. Ferguson wrote that reliance on neoclassical aggregate production and distribution theory is a ‘matter of faith’ to be sorted out (he says ‘answered’) by econometricians. Ferguson was criticized on both sides of the debate for invoking this religious metaphor. Using the methodological framework of A.J. Cohen & G.C. Harcourt (2005), Introduction: capital theory controversy: scarcity, production, equilibrium, and time, in: A. Cohen, G.C. Harcourt & C. Bliss (Eds) Capital Theory, 3 Vols. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, this paper argues that faith plays a recurring role in all capital controversies and especially in modern theories of growth that rely wholesale on the aggregate production function. Ferguson's faith proves to be much more insightful than previously recognized.     

Price dynamics in an exchange economy

The pure exchange model is the foundation of the neoclassical theory of value, yet equilibrium predictions and price adjustment dynamics for this model remained untested prior to the experiment reported in this paper. With the exchange economy replicated several times, prices and allocations in most experiment sessions adjust toward the competitive equilibrium in continuous double auction trading, though adjustment is much slower than in previous commodity flow (or perishable good) double auction market experiments. Price adjustment is evaluated by comparing its extent within each market replication (or trading period) to its extent across trading periods. More price adjustment occurs within trading periods than across trading periods, so price adjustment data are evaluated with the disequilibrium Hahn process model (Hahn and Negishi in Econometrica 30:463–469, 1962) of within-period trades. This paper introduces a stochastic version the Hahn process model and demonstrates that a linear approximation to this stochastic model yields an autoregressive process with a near unit root when the adjustment rate is low. In effect, the autoregressive price adjustment model studied extensively by time series econometricians over the past 30 years can be viewed as a reduced form of a stochastic disequilibrium exchange economy price adjustment model. Estimation of the model demonstrates that price adjustment in the exchange economy experiment is considerably slower than in economies without income effects, which suggests that the price discovery process may be a significant factor in the slow adjustment documented by applied econometricians.     

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.     

The aggregate neoclassical theory of distribution and the concept of a given value of capital: towards a more general critique

The aim of this article is to show the weakness of the neo-Ricardian critique of the aggregate neoclassical theory of distribution which affirms the intrinsic inability of this theory to describe a stable equilibrium. The article shows that within the aggregate neoclassical framework both the supply curve for capital, founded on the concept of a given value of capital, and the demand curve for capital are each, and for different reasons, without any appreciable economic meaning. The kind of equilibrium determined by these curves is economically irrelevant. The article stresses the consequence that capital reversal and reswitching are unimportant for the critique of the aggregate neoclassical theory of distribution.     

Examining the theory of capital structure: signal factor hypothesis

The aim of this study was to explore how various levels of information asymmetry affect the capital structure of listed companies in Taiwan and China. Regression results over the past few decades have indicated that the trade-off theory lacks explanatory power, bringing into question the accuracy of the static trade-off theory and the existence of an optimal capital structure. On the other hand, the financial decisions of companies do not always appear consistent with the pecking order theory. Building on the research of Chou et al. (2011), this study sought to verify the signal factor hypothesis, which combines the trade-off theory with the pecking order theory.

This study was the first one to employ the panel KPSS test with sharp drifts, developed by Chang and Ranjbar (2012), as well as the Fourier function to verify that an optimal capital structure does exist for companies with more symmetric information, thereby establishing the trade-off theory. Firms with information asymmetry show adverse selection costs, which supports the pecking order theory and rejects the existence of an optimal capital structure.     

A note on work–leisure choice, human capital accumulation, and endogenous growth

The growth model of Lucas [Lucas Jr., R.E., 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1), 3–42] is enriched with people having the opportunity to optimally allocate a fraction of their time to non-productive activities (‘leisure’). It is found that the chosen amount of leisure reduces the steady-state rate of growth of per capita output. This implies that the association between income and welfare may not be as strong as it is usually assumed to be. The optimal allocation of time among activities depends on some of the parameters and the marginal product of physical capital per capita.     

Australian Business Investment: A New Look at the Neoclassical Approach*

This paper attempts to reconcile neoclassical theory with Australian investment data. We argue that, by focusing almost exclusively on the demand for capital services, neoclassical investment theory neglects two related decisions: the decision to own the existing capital stock, and the decision to produce new capital goods. We propose a simple model of investment behaviour that integrates production decisions with portfolio decisions. Careful consideration is given to the determination of the price of capital, the rental price of capital, and the return on capital. The model is estimated by FIML, and a number of simulation results are reported.     

Does institutional quality resolve the Lucas Paradox?

The Lucas Paradox observes that capital flows predominantly to relatively rich countries, contradicting the neoclassical prediction that it should flow to poorer capital-scarce countries. In an influential study, Alfaro, Kalemli-Ozcan, and Volosovych (AKV) argue that cross-country variation in institutional quality can fully explain the Paradox, contending that if institutional quality is included in regression models explaining international capital inflows, a country’s level of economic development is no longer statistically significant. We replicate AKV’s results using their cross-sectional IFS capital flow data. Motivated by the importance of conducting inference in statistically adequate models, we focus on misspecification testing of alternative functional forms of their empirical model of capital flows. We show that their resolution of the Paradox relies on inference in a misspecified model. In models that do not fail basic misspecification tests, even though institutional quality is a significant determinant of capital inflows, a country’s level of economic development also remains a significant predictor. The same conclusions are reached using an extended dataset covering more recent IFS international capital flow data, first-differenced capital stock data and additional controls.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Resourceship</Emphasis>: An Austrian theory of mineral resources

Economists inside and outside of the Austrian-school tradition have formulated a subjectivist theory of mineral resources. While von Mises (1940) presented a rudimentary theory, institutionalist Zimmermann (1933 and after) provided an in-depth mind-centered approach distinct from the objective, neoclassical theory for minerals developed by Jevons (1865, 1866), Gray (1913), and Hotelling (1931). A full-fledged Austrian theory identifies the fixity/depletionism view of minerals as incompatible with entrepreneurship. Mineral resourceship, praxeologically akin to manufacturing, or the making of capital goods, demotes the distinction between depletable and nondepletable resources for the sciences of human action. Instead of nonreproducibility, the interplay of geography and institutions becomes the locus of mineral-resource theory, given the nonuniform distribution of deposits. An Austrian-institutional theory is more robust for explaining changes in mineral-resource scarcity than neoclassical depletionism, and offers a wide research agenda for current debates over resource production, usage, and future availability.

Adjustment costs and time-to-build in factor demand in the U.S. manufacturing industry

In order to explain cyclical behavior of factor demand, the static neoclassical model of the firm has been extended to include either adjustment costs (e.g. Lucas (1967)) or time-to-build considerations as in Kydland and Prescott (1982). This paper presents an intertemporal factor demand model which accounts for adjustment costs and gestation lags. The closed form solution of the model is a highly restricted vector ARMA-process that is estimated using quarterly data for the manufacturing industry in the U.S., 1960–1988. The main conclusion is that both sources of dynamics of factor demand are identifiable and found to be empirically of importance.     

Neglected Implications of Neoclassical Capital-Labour Substitution for Investment Theory: Another Criticism of Say's Law

Abstract

Recent mainstream macroeconomic models take Say's Law for granted. This paper argues that the justification for this assumption is not found in general equilibrium theory but in the ‘neoclassical-synthesis’ (and then monetarist) criticism of Keynes, which relies in a fundamental way on a treatment of investment that turns out to depend not only on neoclassical capital-labour substitution (called into questioned by the Cambridge controversies) but also on an assumption of full labour employment that on the contrary should be a result of the analysis. This paper first criticizes the attempt to justify a negative interest-elastic investment function through adjustment costs, that is, without relying on traditional neoclassical capital-labour substitution, with special attention on the treatment in Romer's advanced textbook. Then it proceeds to its new contribution, the demonstration that an endogenous determination of labour employment raises questions about the capacity of decreases in the real wage to raise employment even accepting neoclassical capital-labour substitution, because when the latter is correctly understood the rate of interest does not suffice to determine investment; hence, there is an inevitable role for the accelerator (and Say's Law is thereby undermined). This was perceived by Dornbusch and Fischer but they did not realize that then reductions of real wages will reduce investment instead of raising it. Thus, the ‘neoclassical synthesis’ reply to Keynes is undermined even apart from the inconsistencies of neoclassical capital theory. So the paper exposes a deficiency of the neoclassical arguments in support of a tendency toward full employment, additional to the inconsistencies revealed by the capital critique.     

Metaphors of Knowledge in Economics

"Knowledge" takes a central place in economics. This paper shows that the metaphor pervasively used in neoclassical economics to understand knowledge is that of "capital". Taking capital as a metaphor of knowledge introduces problems in neoclassical economic theory, as becomes apparent when economics addresses issues of learning and technological development. Instead, it is argued that economists could learn from what philosophers such as Gilbert Ryle and Michael Polanyi have said about how to understand knowledge.     

Intermediation costs and capital flows

In this paper, we modify the standard neoclassical model by incorporating financial intermediation in order to deliver returns consistent with the observation that capital primarily flows to middle income countries. We build a static contracting framework where costly intermediation together with an adverse selection problem have quantitatively important effects on capital flows. When intermediation costs are ignored, the model behaves like the neoclassical model in terms of capital returns. However, when intermediation costs are considered, returns to capital in middle income countries could exceed those in poor and rich countries—high costs of intermediation cause poor countries to concentrate their investments in projects with low returns, while the standard neoclassical effect lowers returns in capital-rich countries. When we embed the return function from the static analysis in a two-country dynamic model, there is capital outflow from a poor country that removes capital controls and becomes open. Even though the closed economy dominates in terms of capital employed in production, it is the open economy that dominates in terms of income, consumption and welfare.     

Capital,the State,and the Monetary Mode of Power: A Review of Nitzan and Bichler's Capital as Power

In their recent book Capital as Power, Jonathan Nitzan & Shimshon Bichler depict capitalism as a mode of power rather than a mode of production, in which political and economic power are no longer distinct. In addition, they argue, contrary to neoclassical theory, that capital has nothing to do with productivity but instead represents power. I make three broad criticisms: first, their elimination of the distinction between economics and politics renders any empirical test of their ostensible integration impossible; second, they do not adequately define their main concepts, including capital, capitalization, capitalism, and power; and third, they do not acknowledge the possibility that the patterns they attribute to power may in fact be self-organized. This paper argues that money is a claim to wealth, not wealth itself, that it measures and distributes the power of payment, and that payments redistribute the power of ownership, including the ownership of money. Finally, I suggest that, in light of the global debt crisis, a theory of capital-as-power should examine the power of finance, which entails the privatization and concentration of the power to create money as debt.