IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v44y2020i3p709-722..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the ‘utilisation controversy’: a rejoinder and some comments

Author

Listed:
  • Michalis Nikiforos

Abstract

The conclusions of Gahn and González (2019) are weak for the following reasons: (i) The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) measure of utilisation is not appropriate for measuring long-run variations of utilisation because of the method and the purpose of its construction. Even if its difference with the measures of the average workweek of capital (AWW) was trivial, this would still be the case; if anything, it would show that the AWW is also an inappropriate measure. (ii) Gahn and González 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 Federal Reserve 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) Stationary utilisation rate is not consistent with any theory for the determination of capacity utilisation. Even if demand did not play a role, there is no reason to expect that all the other factors that determine utilisation would change in a fashion that would keep utilisation constant.

Suggested Citation

  • Michalis Nikiforos, 2020. "On the ‘utilisation controversy’: a rejoinder and some comments," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(3), pages 709-722.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:3:p:709-722.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bez058
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michalis Nikiforos, 2021. "Notes on the accumulation and utilization of capital: Some empirical issues," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 679-695, November.
    2. de Oliveira, Guilherme, 2023. "On the utilization controversy in the demand-led growth literature: A quantile unit root approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    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:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:3:p:709-722.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.