## Abstract

Hayek’s business cycle theory portrays monetary expansion and monetary contraction with counterintuitive asymmetry. On the one hand, it suggests that they both change relative prices and cause costly reallocations of production factors. At the same time, the theory predicts that while a monetary contraction causes the economic crisis, the monetary expansion comes with the boom. I argue that what I call intertemporal capital substitution in industries close to final consumption explains why there is a boom in spite of the costly reallocations. More specifically, monetary expansion only gradually increases the demand for nonspecific factors of production by industries that are temporally remote from final consumption. Responding to the expected higher cost of nonspecific factors, consumer-goods industries temporarily increase output and depreciate specific durable production factors faster than they planned.

### Similar content being viewed by others

## References

Bar-Ilan, A., & Strange, W. C. (1996). Investment lags.

*American Economic Review, 86*, 610–622.Basu, S. (1996). Procyclical productivity: increasing returns or cyclical utilization?

*Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111*, 719–751.Basu, S., & Fernald, J. (2001). Why is productivity procyclical? Why do we care? In C. R. Hulten, E. R. Dean, & M. J. Harper (Eds.),

*New developments in productivity analysis*(pp. 225–332). University of Chicago Press.Bernanke, B. S. (1983). Irreversibility, uncertainty, and cyclical investment.

*Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98*, 85–106.Bilo, S. (2015). Austrian calculus: interest rate and allocation of capital. Working paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2708877. Accessed 5 Jan 2016.

Cachanosky, N., & Salter, A. W. (2016). The view from Vienna: an analysis of the renewed interest in the Mises-Hayek theory of the business cycle.

*Review of Austrian Economics.*doi:10.1007/s11138-016-0340-5.Dixit, A. (1989). Entry and exit decisions under uncertainty.

*Journal of Political Economy, 97*, 620–638.Dixit, A. (1992). Investment and hysteresis.

*Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6*, 107–132.Friedman, M. (1968). The role of monetary policy.

*American Economic Review, 58*, 1–17.Garrison, R. W. (1984). Time and money: the universals of macroeconomic theorizing.

*Journal of Macroeconomics, 6*, 197–213.Garrison, R. W. (2001).

*Time and money: the macroeconomics of capital structure*. New York: Routledge.Garrison, R. W. (2004). Overconsumption and forced saving in Mises-Hayek theory of the business cycle.

*History of Political Economy, 36*, 323–349.Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., & Huffman, G. W. (1988). Investment, capacity utilization, and the real business cycle.

*American Economic Review, 78*, 402–417.Greenwood, J., Hercowitz, Z., & Krusell, P. (2000). The role of investment-specific technological change in the business cycle.

*European Economic Review, 44*, 91–115.Haberler, G. (1946).

*Prosperity and depression: a theoretical analysis of cyclical movements*(3rd ed.). Lake Success: United Nations.Hayek, F. A. (1937). Investment that raises the demand for capital.

*The Review of Economics and Statistics, 19*, 174–177.Hayek, F. A. (1967 [1935]).

*Prices and production*. New York: Augustus M. Kelly.Hummel, J. R. (1979). Problems with Austrian business cycle theory.

*Reason Papers, 5*, 41–53.Koppl, R. (2014).

*From crisis to confidence: macroeconomics after the crash*. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Krugman, P (2010) Martin and the Austrians. The conscience of a liberal. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/martin-and-the-austrians/. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.

Lucas Jr., R. E. (1972). Expectations and the neutrality of money.

*Journal of Economic Theory, 4*, 103–124.Majd, S., & Pindyck, R. S. (1987). Time to build, option value, and investment decisions.

*Journal of Financial Economics, 18*, 7–27.Pindyck, R. S. (1993). Investment of Uncertain Cost.

*Journal of Financial Economics, 34*, 53–76.Rebelo, S. (2005). Real business cycle models: past, present and future.

*The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107*, 217–238.Stock, H. J., & Watson, M. W. (1999). Business cycle fluctuations in U.S. Macroeconomic time series. In J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (Eds.),

*Handbook of Macroeconomics, 1*(pp. 3–64). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank to Harry David, Steven Horwitz, Pavel Kuchař, G.P. Manish, Caryn Werner, and participants of APEE 2015 conference for valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier draft of this paper. I am also thankful to Stephen Williamson, whose textbook inspired me to think of the tools that I used in the paper. I gratefully acknowledge the financial help that I received from Academic Support Committee at Allegheny College, and Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University while working on this project. I am responsible for all errors.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Appendix to “Intertemporal capital substitution and Hayekian booms”

### Appendix to “Intertemporal capital substitution and Hayekian booms”

This appendix is a formal companion to section 4 of the paper. It shows the circumstances under which an increase in the wage rate in the second period increases a firm’s capital utilization and demand for labor in the first period. It also shows how this change in the wage rate decreases the two variables in the second period. Lastly, it spells out the necessary conditions for the change in the real interest that are consistent with the results of my model.

This appendix has four sections. The first one overlaps with the discussion in the main paper so that it can be read as a stand-alone document. The second shows the equilibrium conditions for the allocations of capital and labor in the two periods. The third section concerns the equilibrium responses to the increase in the wage rate in the second period, which is the main driver of my model. The fourth section incorporates the decrease in the real interest rate and spells out the conditions under which the qualitative conclusions of my model still hold.

### 1.1 The underlying model

The firm in this two-period model maximizes the present value of its profits, π. Denoting Y as real output, w as the wage rate, L as the quantity of labor, and the subscripts 1 and 2 as the indicators of the respective two periods, one can say that

The firm’s production function does not change over the two periods, so that

where K measures the usage of durable capital and α + β < 1, which means that the returns to scale are diminishing. The firm allocates across the two periods a fixed amount of capital, the total quantity of which is standardized to unity. The corresponding production functions are then

Substitution of (Eqs. 17) and (18) into (Eq. 14) shows how the firm maximizes its profits:

### 1.2 The equilibrium allocations of production factors

I can turn now to the underlying question of the optimal allocation of factors across the two periods. The first-order condition for capital is

The first-order condition for the quantity of labor L_{1} is

And the first-order condition for the quantity of labor L_{2} is

I now combine the first-order conditions and substitute (Eqs. 24) and (27) into (21) to find out the optimal quantity of capital in each of the two periods.

### 1.3 Equilibrium responses of the firm to the increase in w_{2}

Assuming there is an increase in the real wage in the second period, which is one of the main shocks in my model, I want to find out what happens to the optimal quantity of capital K_{1}.

Because α + β < 1, one can say that

This means that the increase in the wage in the second period leads to an increase in the amount of capital employed in the first period and to a decrease in the amount of capital employed in the second period, or

The change in the wage rate also influences the employment of labor in each of the two periods. In the first period,

Since α-1 < 0, β > 0, and ∂K_{1}/∂w_{2} > 0, the right-hand side of (Eq. 42) is positive and the firm therefore increases the amount of labor in the first period.

I turn to the consequences of the change in the wage rate on the labor employed in the second period.

As α-1 < 0, the right-hand side is negative and the amount of labor employed in the second period decreases.

### 1.4 Equilibrium responses of the firm to the increase in w_{2} and the decrease in r

After discussing the consequences of the change in w_{2} on its own, I extend the analysis by the decrease in the real interest rate that I have to account for because I assume that the interest rate changes through the liquidity effect. I assume in the paper that the effect of the decrease in r countervails the effects of the increase in w_{2}; therefore, I have to spell out the conditions under which the effects of the change in w_{2} are stronger than those of the change in r so that the qualitative conclusions of my model hold.

First, I show that a decrease in r decreases K_{1}, by taking the first derivative with respect to (Eq. 38).

Since α + β < 1 and α < 1, one can say that

This implies that a decrease in the interest rate leads to a decrease in the amount of capital utilized in the first period.

Given the result, K_{1} is pushed in two opposite directions when w_{2} rises and r decreases. My model, where K_{1} increases, therefore rests on the assumption that

I will now show that it is also the case that when (Eq. 48) holds, the amount of labor hired increases in the first period in its response to the rise in w_{2} and the decrease in r, and thereby follows the prediction of my model. (Eq. 42) above shows that L_{1} is in a positive relationship with w_{2} and (Eq. 49) below shows the positive correlation with r.

The expression (Eq. 49) is positive because α-1 < 0, β > 0, and ∂K_{1}/∂*r* > 0. To find when L_{1} increases in the setting of my model, one has to find out when the following inequality holds.

I substitute (Eqs. 42) and (49) into (Eq. 50).

Since the expression in front of the squared bracket is positive, the amount of labor employed in the first period, L_{1}, then increases when

One can confirm that the necessary condition (Eq. 52) is identical to the necessary condition (Eq. 48).

In the last step of this appendix, I turn to L_{2} to find the conditions under which it behaves according to the model in the paper, that is, when L_{2} decreases with the rise in w_{2} and the decrease in r. To do this, I first show the negative relationship between the real interest rate r and L_{2}.

(Eq. 53) is negative because α-1 < 0 and ∂K_{1}/∂*r* > 0. Moving on to find out the assumptions under which L_{2} decreases when w_{2} rises and r declines, I look at the value of the total differential for L_{2}.

Substituting (Eqs. 43) and (53) into (Eq. 54), one gets

I now look at the segments of (Eq. 55) and determine whether they are positive or negative. Because α-1 < 0,

This means that for the inequality (Eq. 55) to hold, the remainder of the (Eq. 55) expression has to be positive. I also know that

and that

This means with the rise in w_{2} and decline in r, dL_{2} is negative and consistent with my model, when

where (Eq. 59) is a sufficient rather than a necessary condition. In other words,

Since

(Eq. 55) is already satisfied by the previous necessary condition stating that

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Bilo, S. Intertemporal capital substitution and Hayekian booms.
*Rev Austrian Econ* **31**, 277–300 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-017-0379-y

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-017-0379-y