IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vuw/vuwecf/20153.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating bias of technical progress with a small dataset

Author

Listed:
  • Khaled, Mohammed S

Abstract

Economic historians frequently face the challenge of estimation and inference when only a small sample of the relevant data is available. We illustrate solutions to the challenges through a case study analysis of the Uselding and Juba (1973) data. They have only seven observations available to estimate of the bias of technical progress in United States manufacturing in the nineteenth century. They are able to offer estimates of the bias only by assuming that production technology is not Cobb-Douglas, technical progress is non-neutral and that elasticity of substitution between labour and capital is less than 0.9. These assumptions could not be tested owing to the paucity of the required historical data. This case study illustrates the use of both additional theoretical information and appropriate statistical techniques to alleviate problems of estimation and inference with small samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Khaled, Mohammed S, 2017. "Estimating bias of technical progress with a small dataset," Working Paper Series 20153, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwecf:20153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/20153
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cain, Louis P. & Paterson, Donald G., 1981. "Factor Biases and Technical Change in Manufacturing: The American System, 1850–1919," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 341-360, June.
    2. John W. Kendrick, 1961. "Productivity Trends in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number kend61-1.
    3. Schmitz, Mark, 1981. "The elasticity of substitution in 19th-century manufacturing," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 290-303, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Khaled, Mohammed S, 2017. "Estimating bias of technical progress with a small dataset," Working Paper Series 6219, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. Charles R. Hulten, 1992. "Growth Accounting When Technical Change is Embodied in Capital," NBER Working Papers 3971, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Rosés, Joan R., 2008. "Proximate causes of economic growth in Spain, 1850-2000," IFCS - Working Papers in Economic History.WH wp08-12, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Instituto Figuerola.
    4. Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1986. "Productivity Growth in Manufacturing during Early Industrialization: Evidence from the American Northeast, 1820-1860," NBER Chapters, in: Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth, pages 679-736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Shiller, Robert J., 1982. "Consumption, asset markets and macroeconomic fluctuations," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 203-238, January.
    6. Keiichiro Kobayashi, 2006. "Payment uncertainty, the division of labor, and productivity declines in great depressions," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 9(4), pages 715-741, October.
    7. Harald Edquist & Magnus Henrekson, 2006. "Technological Breakthroughs and Productivity Growth," Research in Economic History, in: Research in Economic History, pages 1-53, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    8. Hugh Rockoff, 2008. "Great Fortunes of the Gilded Age," NBER Working Papers 14555, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Crafts, Nicholas, 2004. "Productivity Growth in the Industrial Revolution: A New Growth Accounting Perspective," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 521-535, June.
    10. Eichengreen, Barry, 2017. "A two-handed approach to secular stagnation: Some thoughts based on 1930s experience," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 650-654.
    11. Giovanni Bonifati, 2002. "Produzione, investimenti e produttivitˆ. Rendimenti crescenti e cambiamento strutturale nellÕindustria manifatturiera americana (1960-1994)," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 55(217), pages 19-54.
    12. Andreas Hornstein, 2004. "(Un)balanced growth," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, vol. 90(Fall), pages 25-45.
    13. Francisco Azeredo, 2014. "The equity premium: a deeper puzzle," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 347-373, August.
    14. Robert J. Barro, 2006. "Rare Disasters and Asset Markets in the Twentieth Century," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(3), pages 823-866.
    15. Carol Corrado & Charles Hulten & Daniel Sichel, 2005. "Measuring Capital and Technology: An Expanded Framework," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 11-46, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Voxi Heinrich S Amavilah, 2004. "Human Capital: Infrastructural and Superstructural Constraints to Economic Performance across U.S. Native American Reservations and Trust Lands," GE, Growth, Math methods 0405001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Gordon, Robert J., 2005. "The 1920s and the 1990s in Mutual Reflection," CEPR Discussion Papers 5412, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Yuko Arayama & Katsuya Miyoshi, 2004. "Regional Diversity and Sources of Economic Growth in China," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(10), pages 1583-1607, November.
    19. Kevin H. O'Rourke & Jeffrey G. Williamson & T. J. Hatton, 1993. "Mass migration, commodity market integration and real wage convergence : the late nineteenth century Atlantic economy," Working Papers 199325, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    20. Yuko Aoyama, 2003. "Sociospatial Dimensions of Technology Adoption: Recent M-Commerce and E-Commerce Developments," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(7), pages 1201-1221, July.

    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:vuw:vuwecf:20153. 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: Library Technology Services (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/egvuwnz.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.