IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eej/eeconj/v14y1988i3p251-262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregation of Capital and Its Substitution with Energy

Author

Listed:
  • Gasper A. Garofalo
  • Devinder M. Malhotra

Abstract

Controversy continues over the question of whether capital and energy are substitutes or complements. The authors find that the answer to the question partly depends on the aggregation of building capital and machinery capital into an aggregate input called capital. The authors' empirical results reject this aggregation. When building and machinery capital are treated as separate inputs, they find that machinery capital and energy are substitutes, while building capital and energy are complements. For policy purposes, this result implies that a rise in the price of energy will reduce building capital formation, while it will increase machinery capital formation.

Suggested Citation

  • Gasper A. Garofalo & Devinder M. Malhotra, 1988. "Aggregation of Capital and Its Substitution with Energy," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 251-262, Jul-Sep.
    • Handle: RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:14:y:1988:i:3:p:251-262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume14/V14N3P251_262.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Binswanger, Hans P, 1974. "The Measurement of Technical Change Biases with Many Factors of Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 964-976, December.
    2. Robert M. Solow, 1955. "The Production function and the Theory of Capital," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(2), pages 101-108.
    3. Joan Robinson, 1953. "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 21(2), pages 81-106.
    4. Griffin, James M, 1981. "Engineering and Econometric Interpretations of Energy-Capital Complementarity: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1100-1104, December.
    5. Usher, Dan (ed.), 1980. "The Measurement of Capital," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226843001.
    6. Murray Brown, 1980. "The Measurement of Capital Aggregates: A Postreswitching Problem," NBER Chapters, in: The Measurement of Capital, pages 377-432, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Paul A. Samuelson, 1962. "Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 29(3), pages 193-206.
    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. Anil Markandya & Suzette Pedroso-Galinato, 2007. "How substitutable is natural capital?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 297-312, May.
    2. He, Yongda & Lin, Boqiang, 2019. "Heterogeneity and asymmetric effects in energy resources allocation of the manufacturing sectors in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1019-1035.
    3. Elena Lagomarsino & Karen Turner, 2017. "Is the production function Translog or CES? An empirical illustration using UK data," Working Papers 1713, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.
    4. Koetse, Mark J. & de Groot, Henri L.F. & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2008. "Capital-energy substitution and shifts in factor demand: A meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2236-2251, September.
    5. Kim, Jihyo & Heo, Eunnyeong, 2013. "Asymmetric substitutability between energy and capital: Evidence from the manufacturing sectors in 10 OECD countries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 81-89.
    6. Lagomarsino, Elena, 2020. "Estimating elasticities of substitution with nested CES production functions: Where do we stand?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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. Harvey Gram & Geoffrey Harcourt, 2015. "Joan Robinson and MIT," Working Papers 9, City University of New York Graduate Center, Ph.D. Program in Economics.
    2. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    3. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    4. J. Barkley Rosser, 2020. "Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 415-431, December.
    5. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    6. Garbellini, Nadia, 2020. "Measurement without theory, and theory without measurement: What's wrong with Piketty's capital in the XXI century?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 50-62.
    7. Jürgen Bitzer & Erkan Gören, 2016. "Measuring capital services by energy use: an empirical comparative study," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(53), pages 5152-5167, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Yara Zeineddine, 2021. "Institutional Aspects of Capital in Joan Robinson's 'Rules of the Game': Rentier versus Entrepreneurs in Managerial Capitalism," Working Papers hal-03230146, HAL.
    10. Nadia Garbellini, 2018. "Inequality in the 21st Century:A Critical Analysis of Piketty`s Work," Working Papers Series 69, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    11. Gopinath, Munisamy & Roe, Terry L., 1999. "Modeling inter-sectoral growth linkages: An application to U.S. agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 131-144, October.
    12. Carlo Milana, 2019. "Solving the Reswitching Paradox in the Sraffian Theory of Capital," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(6), pages 97-125, November.
    13. Bradford, D.F., 1989. "Market Value Us. Financial Accounting Measures Of National Saving," Papers 34, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
    14. Dale W. Jorgenson, 1991. "Productivity and Economic Growth," NBER Chapters, in: Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, pages 19-118, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Avi J. Cohen & Geoffrey C. Harcourt, 2010. "Reswitching and Reversing in Capital Theory," Chapters, in: Mark Blaug & Peter Lloyd (ed.), Famous Figures and Diagrams in Economics, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Salem, M., 1987. "Productivity and Technical Change in Canadian Food and Beverage Industries: 1961-1982," Working Papers 243864, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
    17. Theodore Mariolis & Lefteris Tsoulfidis, 2018. "Less Is More: Capital Theory And Almost Irregular-Uncontrollable Actual Economies," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(1), pages 65-88.
    18. Thomas Lambert, 2017. "Book Review: The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change, ‘Not Even Wrong’," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 49(1), pages 156-158, March.
    19. Edward M. Miller, 1988. "Used Capital: Implications for Isoquants, Production Functions, and Shepard's Lemma," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 141-152, Apr-Jun.
    20. repec:zbw:hohpro:351 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bitros, George C., 2009. "The Theorem of Proportionality in Mainstream Capital Theory: An Assessment of its Conceptual Foundations," MPRA Paper 17436, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    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:eej:eeconj:v:14:y:1988:i:3:p:251-262. 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: Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eeaa1ea.html .

    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.