Energy Efficiency

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 49–65 | Cite as

Capital-energy substitution in manufacturing for seven OECD countries: learning about potential effects of climate policy and peak oil

  • Giancarlo FioritoEmail author
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
Original Article


The simultaneous influence of increasing oil scarcity, greenhouse gas control and renewable energy targets will result in a future of sustained energy prices. Whether modern economies can find a smooth path away from fossil fuels is a fundamental socio-economic and political question, which according to standard economics depends to a large extent on the degree of substitution between energy and capital. We study this issue by modelling the manufacturing sector with a translog cost function in seven OECD countries using the EU-KLEMS database for the period 1970–2005. After a literature survey, different production structures accounting for input substitution, returns to scale and technical change are estimated, and substitution elasticities are derived. Our results indicate a general complementarity or weak substitution relationship between energy and capital, suggesting that an increase in energy price, e.g. due to climate policy or scarcer fossil fuels, will likely reduce capital inputs, which might lead to a lower output of manufacturing.


Cross-Price Elasticity Energy-capital substitution Translog cost function 


  1. Apostolakis, B. (1987). The role of energy in production functions for southern European economies. Energy, 12(7), 531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostolakis, B. (1990). Energy—capital substitutability/complementarity. The dichotomy. Energy Economics, 12, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B., & Solow, R. (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin, J. R. and Gu, W. (2007). Multifactor productivity in Canada: an evaluation of alternative methods of estimating capital services. The Canadian Productivity Review, 15-206-XIE, No. 009.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, C. F., & Linz, T. (2009). Evaluating concavity for production and cost functions. Stata Journal, 9(1), 161–165.Google Scholar
  6. Berndt, E. R. (1991). The practice of econometrics. Classic and contemporary. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Berndt, E. R., & Wood, D. O. (1975). Technology, prices, and the derived demand for energy. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 57(3), 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binswanger, H. (1973). A cost function approach to the measurement of elasticities of factor demand and elasticities of substitution, University of Minnesota. Staff Paper. 73-12.Google Scholar
  9. Broadstock, D. C., Hunt, L. C., & Sorrel, S. (2007). Review of evidence for the rebound effect. Technical report 3: elasticity of substitution studies. London: UK Energy Research Centre.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., & Lau, L. J. (1971). Conjugate duality and the transcendental logarithmic production function (abstract). Econometrica, 39(4), 255–256.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., & Lau, J. L. (1973). Transcendental logarithmic production frontiers. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chua, L. C., Kew, H., & Yong, J. (2005). Airline code-share alliances and costs: imposing concavity on translog cost function estimation. Review of Industrial Organization, 26, 461–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly, H. (1997a). Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics, 22, 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daly, H. (1997b). Reply to Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics, 22, 271–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, P. and Heal, G. (1974). The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources. The Review of Economic Studies, 41, Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resources, 3-28.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, G. C., & Shumway, C. R. (1996). To tell the truth about interpreting the Morishima elasticity of substitution. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diewert, W. E. (1974). Applications of duality theory. Ch. 3 in Frontiers in Quantitative Economics. Vol. II. M. D. Intriligator and D. A. Kendrick (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  18. EU KLEMS (2007). Growth and productivity accounts, Version 1.0, Part 1 Methodology, March 2007, Prepared by Marcel Timmer, Ton van Moergastel, Edwin Stuivenwold, Gerard Ypma (Groningen Growth and Development Centre) and Mary O’Mahoney and Mari Kangasniemi (National Institute of Economic and Social Research.Google Scholar
  19. Falk, M. and Koebel, B. (1999). Curvature conditions and substitution pattern among capital, energy, materials and heterogeneous labour, ZEW Discussion paper, vol. 99-06. ZEW, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  20. Field, B. C., & Grebenstein, C. (1980). Capital-energy substitution in U.S. manufacturing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 62(2), 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Friedrichs, J. (2013). The future is not what it used to be: climate change and energy scarcity. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Frondel, M. (2001). Empirical and theoretical contribution to substitution issues. PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  23. Frondel, M., & Schmidt, C. M. (2004). Facing the truth about separability nothing works without energy. Ecological Economics, 51, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuss, M. and Mc Fadden, D. Ed. (1978). Production economics: A dual approach to theory and applications. North Holland.Google Scholar
  25. Garofalo, G. A., & Malhotra, D. M. (1984). The impact of changes in input prices on net investment in U.S. manufacturing. Atlantic Economic Journal, 13, 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffin, J., & Gregory, P. (1976). An intercountry translog model of energy substitution responses. The American Economic Review, 66(5), 845–857.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G., & Balogh, S. B. (2014). EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy, 64, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heady, E., & Dillon, J. (1962). Agricultural production functions. Ames: Iowa University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hesse, D. M., & Tarkka, H. (1986). The demand for capital, labour and energy in European manufacturing industry before and after the oil price shocks. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 88, 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hicks, J. R. (1932). Theory of wages. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Hicks, J. R., & Allen, R. J. D. (1934). A reconsideration of the theory of value. Part II: a mathematical theory of individual demand functions. Economica. New Series, 1(2), 196–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Humphrey, T. M. (1997). Algebraic production functions and their uses before Cobb-Douglas. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly, 83(1), Winter.Google Scholar
  34. Hunt, C. L. (1986). Energy and capital: substitutes or complements? A note on the importance of testing for non-neutral technical progress. Applied Economics, 18, 729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerr, R. (2011). Peak oil production may already be here. Science. 25 March 2011. Vol. 331.Google Scholar
  36. Koetse, M. J., De Groot, H. L. F., & Florax, R. (2008). Capital-energy substitution and shifts in factor demand: a meta-analysis. Energy Economics, 30, 2236–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  38. Medina, J., & Vega-Cervera, J. A. (2001). Energy and the non-energy inputs substitution: evidence for Italy, Portugal and Spain. Applied Energy, 68, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, E. M. (1986). Cross-sectional and time-series biases in factor demand studies: explaining energy-capital complementarity. Southern Economic Journal, 52, 745–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moghimzadeh, M., & Kymn, K. O. (1986). Energy-capital and energy-labor: complementarity and substitutability. Atlantic Economic Journal, 13, 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy, D. J., & Hall, C. A. S. (2010). Year in review: EROI or energy return on (energy) invested. Annals New York Academy of Science, 1185, 102–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nerlove, M. (1963). Returns to scale in electricity supply. In C. F. Christ (Ed.), Measurement in Economics: studies in honor of Yehuda Grunfeld (pp. 167–198). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Norsworthy, J. R., & Malmquist, D. H. (1983). Input measurement and productivity growth in Japanese and U.S. manufacturing. The American Economic Review, 73, 947–67.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2011). Towards green growth. Paris: OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  45. Pindyck, R. S. (1979). Interfuel substitution and the industrial demand for energy: an international comparison. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 61(2), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robinson, J. V. (1933). The economics of imperfect competition. London. Macmillan. New York: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ryan, D. L., & Wales, T. J. (1998). A simple method for imposing local curvature in some flexible consumer-demand systems. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 16(3), 331–338.Google Scholar
  48. Ryan, D. L., & Wales, T. J. (2000). Imposing local concavity in the translog and generalized Leontief cost functions. Economic Letters, 66, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Solow, R. M. (1987). The capital-energy complementarity debate revisited. The American Economic Review, 77, 605–614.Google Scholar
  50. Solow, R. M. (1997). Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics, 22, 267–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorrell, S. (2008). Energy-capital substitution and the rebound effect, 7th BIEE Academic Conference, The New Energy challenge: Security and Sustainability, St. John’s College, Oxford, 24-25th Sep. 2008.Google Scholar
  52. Stern, D. I. (2007). In J. D. Erickson & J. M. Gowdy (Eds.), The elasticity of substitution, the capital-energy controversy, and sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. Stiglitz, J. (1974). Growth with exhaustible natural resources efficient and optimal growth Paths. Reviews of Economic Studies, 41, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stiglitz, J. (1997). Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics, 22, 269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uzawa, H. (1962). Production functions with constant elasticities of substitution. The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Welsch, H., & Ochsen, C. (2005). The determinants of aggregate energy use in West Germany: factor substitution, technological change, and trade. Energy Economics, 27(1), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wicksteed, P. H. (1894). An essay on the co-ordination of the laws of distribution. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giancarlo Fiorito
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ICREA, Barcelona, and Institute for Environmental Science and TechnologyUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business Administration and Institute for Environmental StudiesVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations