Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

BIASED TECHNICAL CHANGE, SCALE, AND FACTOR SUBSTITUTION IN U.S. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2016


Xi Chen
Affiliation:
STATEC
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Although a realistic characterization of the production function is critical to macroeconomic analysis, estimating the function's characteristics is hampered by both data limitations and methodological difficulties. In this paper, I develop a new empirical strategy for estimating the CES production function with biased technical change. The proposed method extends the control function approach to the CES specification to address endogeneity concerns and is able to retrieve sector-specific and time-varying estimates of technical change. Using data from U.S. manufacturing industries, I find evidence that (i) the production technology exhibits nonincreasing returns to scale, (ii) the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor is below unity, and (iii) technical change is generally labor-augmenting along the balanced growth path.


Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

This paper is based on Chapter 3 of my Ph.D. thesis at the University of Strasbourg. I would like to thank Bertrand Koebel, François Laisney, the Editor, and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments.

References

Acemoglu, Daron (2002) Directed technical change. Review of Economic Studies 69, 781809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, Daron (2003) Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. Journal of the European Economic Association 1, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerberg, Daniel, Caves, Kevin, and Frazer, Garth (2006) Structural Identification of Production Functions. MPRA paper 38349, University Library of Munich.Google Scholar
Antràs, Pol (2004) Is the U.S. aggregate production function Cobb–Douglas? New estimates of the elasticity of substitution. BE Journal of Macroeconomics 4, 136.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J., Chenery, Hollis B., Minhas, Bagicha S., and Solow, Robert M. (1961) Capital–labor substitution and economic efficiency. Review of Economics and Statistics 43, 225250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartelsman, Eric J. and Gray, Wayne B. (1996) The NBER Manufacturing Productivity Database. NBER technical working paper 0205, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Basu, Susanto (2008) Returns to scale measurement. In Durlauf, Steven N. and Blume, Lawrence E. (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Basu, Susanto and Fernald, John G. (1997) Returns to scale in U.S. production: Estimates and implications. Journal of Political Economy 105, 249283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Colin A. and Trivedi, Pravin K. (2005) Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirinko, Robert S. (2008) σ: The long and short of it. Journal of Macroeconomics 30, 671686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuy, Arnaud (2006) Hicks neutral technical change revisited: CES production function and information of general order. B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics 6, 126.Google Scholar
Farmer, Roger E.A. and Guo, Jang-Ting (1994) Real business cycles and the animal spirits hypothesis. Journal of Economic Theory 63, 4272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. and Helpman, Elhanan (1991) Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. and Robb, Richard (1985) Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview. Journal of Econometrics 30, 239267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. and Vytlacil, Edward J. (2007) Econometric evaluation of social programs, part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. In Heckman, James J. and Leamer, Edward E. (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 6, Chap. 70. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. (1932) The Theory of Wages. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido W. and Newey, Whitney K. (2009) Identification and estimation of triangular simultaneous equations models without additivity. Econometrica 77, 14811512.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles (2005) Growth and ideas. In Aghion, Philippe and Durlauf, Steven N. (eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (1st ed.), Vol. 1, Part B, Chap. 16, pp. 10631111. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, Dale W. (2001) Information technology and the U.S. economy. American Economic Review 91, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karabarbounis, Loukas and Neiman, Brent (2014) The global decline of the labor share. Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, 61103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Charles (1964) Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution. Economic Journal 74, 541547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klump, Rainer, McAdam, Peter, and Willman, Alpo (2007) Factor substitution and factor-augmenting technical progress in the United States: A normalized supply-side system approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 89, 183192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klump, Rainer, McAdam, Peter, and Willman, Alpo (2008) Unwrapping some euro area growth puzzles: Factor substitution, productivity and unemployment. Journal of Macroeconomics 30, 645666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klump, Rainer, McAdam, Peter, and Willman, Alpo (2012) The normalized CES production function: Theory and empirics. Journal of Economic Surveys 26, 769799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kmenta, Jan (1967) On estimation of the CES production function. International Economic Review 8, 180189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
León-Ledesma, Miguel A., McAdam, Peter, and Willman, Alpo (2010) Identifying the elasticity of substitution with biased technical change. American Economic Review 100, 13301357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
León-Ledesma, Miguel A., McAdam, Peter, and Willman, Alpo (2015) Production technology estimates and balanced growth. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 77, 4065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinsohn, James and Petrin, Amil (2003) Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies 70, 317341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Tailong, Pan, Shiyuan, and Zou, Heng-fu (2015) Directed technological change: A knowledge-based model. Macroeconomic Dynamics 19, 116143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Peter and Willman, Alpo (2013) Medium run redux. Macroeconomic Dynamics 17, 695727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, Alessio (2012) Biased technical change, intermediate goods, and total factor productivity. Macroeconomic Dynamics 16, 184203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberfield, Ezra and Raval, Devesh (2014) Micro Data and Macro Technology. NBER working paper 20452, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Olley, Steven G. and Pakes, Ariel (1996) The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64, 12631297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piketty, Thomas (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, Peter M. (1988) Root-n-consistent semiparametric regression. Econometrica 56, 931954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. (1965) A theory of induced innovation along Kennedy–Weizsacker lines. Review of Economics and Statistics 47, 343356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, Robert M. (1964) Capital, labor, and income in manufacturing. In National Bureau of Economic Research, The Behavior of Income Shares: Selected Theoretical and Empirical Issues, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 27, pp. 101142. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Theil, Henri (1957) Specification errors and the estimation of economic relationships. Revue de l'Institut International de Statistique 25, 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thursby, Jerry G. and Lovell, C.A. Knox (1978) An investigation of the Kmenta approximation to the CES function. International Economic Review 19, 363377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Andrew T. (2013) U.S. elasticities of substitution and factor augmentation at the industry level. Macroeconomic Dynamics 17, 861897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 162 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th November 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-57c975d4c7-k9cgn Total loading time: 0.379 Render date: 2020-11-25T21:17:54.512Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Wed Nov 25 2020 21:06:27 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": false, "relatedCommentaries": false, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

BIASED TECHNICAL CHANGE, SCALE, AND FACTOR SUBSTITUTION IN U.S. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

BIASED TECHNICAL CHANGE, SCALE, AND FACTOR SUBSTITUTION IN U.S. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

BIASED TECHNICAL CHANGE, SCALE, AND FACTOR SUBSTITUTION IN U.S. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *