A note on re-switching, the average period of production and the Austrian business-cycle theory


According to a new formulation, the average period of production is calculated by taking the shares of costs referable to each period out of the total amount of costs as weights. Once this notion had been introduced, its inverse relationship with the rate of interest prompted some scholars to believe that it could serve as a good measure of capital intensity, expecially in view of a possible resumption of the Austrian business-cycle theory. As will be shown, however, this new average period poses some problems. On the one hand, the inverse relationship mentioned above does not preclude the re-switching of production methods. On the other, if re-switching occurs, the most roundabout method may paradoxically be the one that gives the smallest net output per worker. This result can affect the revival of the Austrian business-cycle theory.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    An analysis of the different positions of the various authors lies beyond the aims of the present paper. Here we refer in general to the view of the rate of interest as the variable that brings households’ decisions about capital supply, in terms either of value or of ‘waiting’, into equilibrium with firms’ decisions about the employment needed to put optimal production plans into effect.

  2. 2.

    In Böhm-Bawerk’s words:

    The adoption of capitalist methods of production is followed by two consequences, equally characteristic and significant. One is an advantage, the other a disadvantage. The advantage […] consists in the greater technical productiveness of those methods. With an equal expenditure of the two originary productive forces (that is to say, labour and valuable natural powers) more or better goods can be produced by a wisely chosen capitalist process than could be by direct unassisted production. […]

    The disadvantage connected with the capitalist method of production is its sacrifice of time. The roundabout ways of capital are fruitful but long; they procure us more or better consumption goods, but only at a later period of time. (Böhm-Bawerk 1891, p. 82.)

  3. 3.

    While this is not the goal of the present paper, a couple of brief remarks can be made on this point. First, since capital is not a factor of production, it cannot have a real marginal product. Second, since the rate of interest is not the price for the use of capital, its equality with an alleged ‘marginal product of capital’ is essentially meaningless.

  4. 4.

    See Lewin and Cachanosky (2018a) for a reconstruction of the history of the concept of the average period of production.

  5. 5.

    For some critical assessments of these contributions, see Hagemann and Kurz (1976), Orosel (1979, 1990), Howard (1980) and Fratini (2013, 2014).

  6. 6.

    Similar claims can also be found in Cachanosky and Lewin (2016) and Braun (2017).

  7. 7.

    Cachanosky and Lewin have made a number of contributions on capital theory in recent years. An in-depth analysis of their standpoint goes far beyond the aims of this note, in which we will instead try to focus attention on this specific statement.

  8. 8.

    We discuss here a typical Austrian model in which output is obtained by the employment of labour at different dates. In this model, capital is the amount of value invested in order to pay wages in advance, before the output is obtained and sold.

  9. 9.

    Similar figures can be found, for example, in Jevons (1888, p. 229) and Wicksell (1934, pp. 152 and 159).

  10. 10.

    All the figures presented in the present paper are based on the following numerical example. Method A: a1 = 2; a2 = 7; a3 = 1. Method B: b1 = 8; b2 = 2; b3 = 2. Readers can use these coefficients to obtain the results discussed here. Similar examples can be found, for instance, in Samuelson (1966, p. 569), Harcourt (1972, pp. 151−52), Steedman (1972, p. 45) and Yager (1976, pp. 317–18).

  11. 11.

    As is known, ‘labour commanded’ is a measure of value adopted by Adam Smith. The value of a commodity in terms of labour commanded is the amount of labour that can be purchased with one unit of this commodity.

  12. 12.

    Since we are studying price-taker firms’ decisions, the rate of interest can be considered as an exogenous variable and we can give it arbitrary values.

  13. 13.

    In fact: \( d\left({p}_a/{p}_b\right)/ dR=\left[\left(d{p}_a/ dR\right){p}_b-\left(d{p}_b/ dR\right){p}_a\right]/{p}_b^2=\left({p}_a/{p}_b\right)\left({\Theta}_a-{\Theta}_b\right)/R \).

  14. 14.

    See, for instance, von Weizsäcker (1971, p. 65) and Malinvaud (2003, p. 518).

  15. 15.

    Similar reasoning and figure can be found in Sraffa (1960, p. 38).

  16. 16.

    Since in the present analysis, for the sake of simplicity, we can consider the participation rate as independent from the price system, the variations of the output per capita go in the same direction as the variations of the output per worker.

  17. 17.

    It can be incidentally stressed that, in Samuelson’s view, the possibility of an ‘unconventional relation’ between the rate of interest and the final output is ‘the single most surprising revelation from the re-switching discussion’ (1966, p. 577, footnote 6).

  18. 18.

    For an in-depth reconstruction of the working of the Austrian business-cycle theory and the Hayek-Keynes-Sraffa controversy on it, we can refer the reader to Kurz (2000, 2015).


  1. Bliss, C. J. (1975). Capital Theory and Distribution of Income. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1884). The ultimate standard of value. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 5, 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1891). The positive theory of capital. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braun, E. (2017). The theory of capital as a theory of capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(2), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Braun, E. (2018) Capital as in capitalism, or capital as in capital goods, or both? Review of Austrian Economics, forthcoming.

  6. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2014). Roundaboutness is not a mysterious concept: A financial application to capital-theory. Review of Political Economy, 26(4), 648–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2016). Financial foundations of Austrian business cycle theory. In S. Horwitz (Ed.), Studies in Austrian macroeconomics (advances in Austrian economics, vol. 20) (pp. 15–44). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fratini, S. M. (2013). Malinvaud on Wicksell’s legacy to capital theory: Some critical remarks. In E. S. Levrero, A. Palumbo, & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the reconstruction of economic theory (Vol. I). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fratini, S. M. (2014). The Hicks-Malinvaud average period of production and ‘marginal productivity’: A critical assessment. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21(1), 142–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagemann, H., & Kurz, H. D. (1976). The return of the same truncation period and reswitching of thechniques in neo-Austrian and more general models. Kyklos, 29, 678–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harcourt, G. C. (1972). Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hicks, J.R. (1946 [1939]), Value and Capital, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  13. Hicks, J. R. (1973). Capital and time. A neo-Austrian theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Howard, M. C. (1980). Austrian capital theory: An evaluation in terms of Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Metroeconomica, 32(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jevons, W. S. (1888). The theory of political economy. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kurz, H. D. (2000). The Hayek-Keynes-Sraffa controversy reconsidered. In H. D. Kurz (Ed.), Critical essays on Piero Sraffa’s legacy in economics (pp. 257–301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kurz, H. D. (2015). Capital theory, crises, and business cycles: The triangular debate between Hayek, Keynes, and Sraffa. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 4, 186–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewin, P., & Cachanosky, N. (2018a). The average period of production: The history and rehabilitation of an idea. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 40(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lewin, P., & Cachanosky, N. (2018b). Value and capital: Austrian capital theory, retrospect and prospect. Review of Austrian Economics, 31(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lewin, P., & Cachanosky, N. (2018c). Substance and semantics: The question of capital. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 150, 423–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Malinvaud, E. (1986). Reflecting on the theory of capital and growth. Oxford Economic Papers, 38(3), 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Malinvaud, E. (2003). The legacy of Knut Wicksell to capital theory. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105(4), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Orosel, G. O. (1979). A reformulation of the Austrian theory of capital and its application to the debate on reswitching and related paradoxa. Zeitschrift Für Nationalökonomie-Journal of Economics, 39(1/2), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Orosel, G. O. (1990). Period of production. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Capital theory (pp. 212–219). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Samuelson, P. A. (1966). A summing up. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(4), 568–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sargan, J. D. (1955). The period of production. Econometrica, 23(2), 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of commodities by means of commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Steedman, I. (1972). Jevons theory of capital and interest. The Machester School, 40, 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. von Weizsäcker, C. C. (1971). Steady State Capital Theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weizsäcker, C.C. von (1977), ‘Organic composition of capital and average period of production.’ Revue d’Economie Politique, 90: 198–231.

  31. Wicksell, K. (1934). Lectures on political economy (Vol. I). London: George Routledge & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yeager, L. B. (1976). Toward understanding some paradoxes in capital-theory. Economic Inquiry, 14(3), 313–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Thanks are due to C. Gehrke, G.C. Harcourt, H.D. Kurz and two anonymous referees for comments and suggestions. The usual caveat applies.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saverio M. Fratini.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fratini, S.M. A note on re-switching, the average period of production and the Austrian business-cycle theory. Rev Austrian Econ 32, 363–374 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-0432-0

Download citation


  • Average period of production
  • Degree of roundaboutness
  • Capital
  • Re-switching
  • Austrian business-cycle theory

JEL classification

  • B25
  • B53
  • D24
  • D33, E32