Robustness in Econometrics pp 89-98 | Cite as
How to Explain Ubiquity of Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) Production and Utility Functions Without Explicitly Postulating CES
Chapter
First Online:
Abstract
In many situations, the dependence of the production or utility on the corresponding factors is described by the CES (Constant Elasticity of Substitution) functions. These functions are usually explained by postulating two requirements: an economically reasonable postulate of homogeneity (that the formulas should not change if we change a measuring unit) and a less convincing CSE requirement. In this paper, we show that the CES requirement can be replaced by a more convincing requirement—that the combined effect of all the factors should not depend on the order in which we combine these factors.
Notes
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants HRD-0734825 and HRD-1242122 (Cyber-ShARE Center of Excellence) and DUE-0926721, and by an award “UTEP and Prudential Actuarial Science Academy and Pipeline Initiative” from Prudential Foundation.
References
- 1.Kurowicka D, Joe H (eds) (2010) Dependence modeling: Vine copula handbook. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
- 2.Aas K, Czado C, Frigessi A, Bakken H (2009) Pair-copula constructions of multiple dependence. Insurance Math Econ 44:82–198MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Aczeél J (1965) Quasigroup-net-nomograms. Adv Math 1:383–450MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Aczél J, Belousov VD, Hosszú M (1960) Generalized associativity and bisymmetry on quasigroups. Acta Math Acad Sci Hungar 11:127–136MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 5.Aczél J, Dhombres J (2008) Functional equations in several variables. Camridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Arrow KJ, Chenery HB, Minhas BS, Solow RM (1961) Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Rev Econ Stat 43(3):225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Baltas G (2001) Utility-consistent brand demand systems with endogeneous category consumption: principles and marketing applications. Decis Sci 32(3):399–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bedford T, Cooke RM (2001) Monte Carlo simulation of vine dependent random variables for applications in uncertainty analysis. In: Proceedings of European safety and reliability conference ESREL’2001, Turin, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- 9.Bedford T, Cooke RM (2002) Vines—a new graphical model for dependent random variables. Ann Stat 30(4):1031–1068MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.Buchanan BG, Shortliffe EH (1984) Rule based expert systems: the MYCIN experiments of the stanford heuristic programming project. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
- 11.Czado C (2010) Pair-copula constructions of multivariate copulas. In: Jaworski P (ed) Copula theory and its applications. Lecture notes in statistics, vol 198. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–109Google Scholar
- 12.Dixit A, Steiglitz J (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67(3):297–308Google Scholar
- 13.Fisman R, Jakiela P, Kariv S, Markovits D (2015) The distributional preferences of an elite. Science 349(6254):1300. Artile aab096Google Scholar
- 14.Joe H (2010) Dependence comparisons of Vine copulae with four or more variables. In: Kurowicka D, Joe H (eds) Dependence modeling: Vine copula handbook. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
- 15.Joe H, Hu T (1996) Multivariate distributions from mixtures of max-infinitely divisible distributions. J Multivar Anal 57(2):240–265MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 16.Joe H, Li H, Nikoloulopoulos AK (2010) Tail dependence functions and Vine copulas. J Multivar Anal 101:252–270MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 17.Jorgensen DW (2000) Econometrics. Economic modelling of producer behavior, vol 1. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 18.Klump R, McAadam P, Willaims A (2007) Factor substitution and factor augmenting technical progress in the US: a normalized supply-side system approach. Rev Econ Statisticsm 89(1):183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kurowicka D, Cooke RM (2006) Uncertainty analysis with high dimensional dependence modelling. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 20.Nelsen RB (1999) An introduction to copulas. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 21.Nikoloulopoulos AK (2012) Vine copulas with asymmetric tail dependence and applications to financial return data. Comput Stat Data Anal 56:3659–3673MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 22.Sklar A (1959) Fonctions de répartition á \(n\) dimensions et leurs marges. Publ Inst Statist Univ Paris 8:229–231MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 23.Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70:65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sriboonchitta S, Kosheleva O, Nguyen HT (2015) Why are Vine copulas so successful in econometrics? Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst (IJUFKS) 23(Suppl 1):133–142Google Scholar
- 25.Taylor MA (1972) The generalized equations of bisymmetry, associativity and transitivity on quasigroups. Can Math Bull 15:119–124MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 26.Taylor MA (1973) Certian functional equations on groupoids weaker than quasigroups. Aequationes Mathematicae 9:23–29MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 27.Taylor MA (1978) On the generalized equations of associativity and bisymmetry. Aequationes Mathematicae 17:154–163MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 28.Varian H (1992) Microeconometric analysis. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017