Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technical progress, factor substitutability and models of production: II

  • Published:
De Economist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This paper is the concluding installment of a series which surveys a number of fundamental production tenets. This examines and hence compares the properties of several production models which result from alternative pairings of the progress and substitutability assumptions discussed in part 1. Part I appeared in a recent issue ofDe Economist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A., ‘Stability, Marginal Products, Putty, and Clay,’ inEssays on the Theory of Optimal Economic Growth, K. Shell ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1967, pp. 281–94.

  2. Allen, R. G. D.,Mathematical Analysis for Economists, New York, 1938.

  3. Bardhan, P., ‘Equilibrium Growth in a Model with Economic Obsolescence of Machines,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXXIII (1969), pp. 312–23.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bliss, C., ‘On Putty-Clay,’Review of Economic Studies, XXXV (1968), pp. 105–32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Britto, R., ‘On Putty-Clay: A Comment,’Review of Economic Studies, XXXVI (1969), pp. 395–98.

    Google Scholar 

  6. ——, ‘Durability and Obsolescence in Putty-Clay Models,’International Economic Review, XI (1970), pp. 455–62.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cass, D., andJ. E. Stiglitz, ‘The Implications of Alternative Saving and Expectations Hypotheses for Choices of Technique and Patterns of Growth,’Journal of Political Economy, LXXVII (1969), pp. 586–627.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher, F. M., ‘Embodied Technical Change and the Existence of an Aggregate Capital Stock,’Review of Economic Studies, XXXII (1965), pp. 263–88.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ——, ‘The Existence of Aggregate Production Functions,’Econometrica, XXXVII (1969), pp. 553–77.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gapinski, J. H., ‘Substitution, Fixed Proportions, and Growth: A Comment,’ Discussion paper no. 61, Department of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo, July 1969. (Mimeographed.)

  11. ——, ‘Substitution, Fixed Proportions, and Growth: Comment,’International Economic Review, XII (1971), pp. 325–28.

    Google Scholar 

  12. ——, ‘Growth Parameters and Neoclassical Estimates of the Substitution Elasticity,’Southern Economic Journal, XXXVIII (1972), pp. 285–93.

    Google Scholar 

  13. ——, ‘Growth Parameters and Neoclassical Estimates: Effect of an Adaptive WageExpectation Scheme,’Southern Economic Journal, XXXIX (1973), pp. 431–33.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hamberg, D.,Models of Economic Growth, New York and London, 1971

  15. Hicks, J. R.,The Theory of Wages, New York, 1948. (Copyrighted 1932, the Macmillan Co.)

  16. Inada, K., ‘Economic Growth Under Neutral Technical Profires,’Econometrica], XXXII (1964), pp. 101–21.

    Google Scholar 

  17. ——, ’Economic Growth and Factor Substitution,’International Economic Review, V (1964), pp. 318–27.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Johansen, L., ‘Substitution Versus Fixed Production Coefficients in the Theory of Economic Growth: A Synthesis,’Econometrica, XXVII (1959), pp. 157–76.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kemp, M. C., E. Sheshinski, andP. C. Thanh, ‘Economic Growth and Factor Substitution,’International Economic Review, VIII (1967), pp. 243–51.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kemp, M. C., andP. C. Thanh, ‘On a Class of Growth Models,’Econometrica, XXXIV (1966), pp. 257–82.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kurz, M., ‘Substitution Versus Fixed Production Coefficients: A Comment,’Econometrica, XXXI (1963), pp. 209–17.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Levhari, D., ‘Extensions of Arrow's ‘Learning by Doing,’Review of Economic Studies, XXXIII (1966), pp. 117–31.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Levhari, D., andE. SHESHINSKI, ‘The Relation between the Rate of Return and the Rate of Technical Progress,’Review of Economic Studies, XXXVI (1969), pp. 363–79.

    Google Scholar 

  24. ——, ——, ‘The Factor Price Frontier with Embodied Technical Progress,’American Economic Review, LX (1970), pp. 807–13.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Matthews, R. C. O., ‘The New View of Investment’: Comment,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXVIII (1964), pp. 164–76.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Park, S. Y., ‘Substitution, Fixed Proportions, and Growth,’International Economic Review, IX (1968), pp. 307–14.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Phelps, E. S., ‘The New View of Investment: A Neoclassical Analysis,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXVI (1962), pp. 548–67.

    Google Scholar 

  28. ——, ‘Substitution, Fixed Proportions, Growth and Distribution,’International Economic Review, IV (1963), pp. 265–88.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Salter, W. E. G.,Productivity and Technical Change, Cambridge, 1966. (1st ed. 1960.)

  30. Sheshinski, E., ‘Balanced Growth and Stability in the Johansen Vintage Model,rsReview of Economic Studies, XXXIV (1967), pp. 239–48.

    Google Scholar 

  31. ——,‘Stability of Growth Equilibrium in a Neoclassical Vintage Model.’International Economic Review, X (1969), pp. 141–48.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Solow, R. M., ‘A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXX (1956), pp. 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  33. ——, ‘Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,’Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXIX (1957), pp. 312–20.

    Google Scholar 

  34. —, ‘Investment and Technical Progress,’ inMathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes eds., Stanford, 1960, pp. 89-104.

  35. ——, ‘Substitution and Fixed Proportions in the Theory of Capital,’Review of Economic Studies, XXIX (1962), pp. 207–18.

    Google Scholar 

  36. ——, ‘Heterogeneous Capital and Smooth Production Functions: An Experimental Study,’Econometrica, XXXI (1963), pp. 623–45.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Whitaker, J. K., ‘Vintage Capital Models and Econometric Production Functions,’Review of Economic Studies, XXXIII (1966), pp. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

    James H. Gapinski (Associate Professor of Economics)

Authors
  1. James H. Gapinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I again thank E. Ray Canterbery, Simon K. Kuipers, T. Krishma Kumar, and Th. van de Klundert for their comments. I also thank Chiu-Yeung Chan, Franklin M. Fisher, and William F. James for their help with a few specifies. The responsibility for errors is mine alone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gapinski, J.H. Technical progress, factor substitutability and models of production: II. De Economist 122, 521–543 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371996

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371996

Keywords

Search

Navigation