text new page (beta)
Spanish (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Permalink
JEL Classification: E1, E10, C22
Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
-
Cited by SciELO -
Access statistics
Related links
-
Similars in
SciELO
Share
Investigación económica
Print version ISSN 0185-1667
Inv. Econ vol.64 n.253 Ciudad de México Jul./Sep. 2005
Articles
La función de producción agregada en retrospectiva
The Agregate Production Function in Retrospective
* Pertenece al Economics and Research Department, Asian Development Bank Manila, Filipinas <jfelipe@adb.org>.
** Profesor del Downing College, Cambridge, Reino Unido <jslm2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>.
Este artículo ofrece un resumen actualizado de los argumentos teóricos que hace más de cuatro décadas cuestionaron el concepto de función de producción agregada. Tanto los debates de Cambridge-Cambridge como la literatura sobre agregación concluyeron que el concepto de función de producción agregada no fundamentos teóricos sólidos. Los defensores del concepto de función de producción aceptaron estos argumentos, pero señalaron que el tema era simplemente una cuestión empírica, en el sentido de que en tanto las estimaciones de funciones de producción dieran buenos resultados (por ejemplo, que las elasticidades estimadas del capital y el trabajo se aproximarán a las proporciones de los factores en el producto), seguían siendo útiles y no había por que dejar de utilizarlas. Este argumento, sin embargo, se encuentra con un problema insalvable: se demostró que el motivo por el cual las funciones de producción agregadas parecen dar buenos resultados cuando son estimadas econométricamente es que lo que hacen es simplemente reproducir la identidad contable según la cual el producto total es la suma de los salarios más los beneficios. Una serie de ejemplos muestran por qué y cómo ocurre esto. El artículo concluye que la función de producción agregada es una herramienta que debe ser abandonada en los análisis teóricos y empíricos del crecimiento. Modelos con otros fundamentos deben ser considerados.
This article offers an updated review of the theoretical arguments that over four decades ago questioned the notion of aggregate production function. One is the socalled Cambridge-Cambridge debates. The Other one is the literature on aggregation. Using different arguments, both reached the conclusion that the notion of an aggregate production function did not have solid theoretical foundations. Defenders of the concept of aggregate production function accepted the theoretical arguments. However, they argued that was essentially an empirical question, in the sense that as long as the production function yielded sensible results (e.g., that the elasticities estimated were close to the factor shares), then it was a useful tool and there was no reason to give it up. This argument, however, faces an unsurmountable difficulty. This is that it was also shown long ago that the reason why aggregate production functions.
Bibliografía
Arrow, K., H.B. Chenery, S. Minhas, y R.M. Solow,. “Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency”, Review of Economics and Statistics, XLIII, 1961, pp. 225-250. [ Links ]
Aschauer, D., “Is Public Expenditure Productive?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, marzo de 1989, pp. 177-200. [ Links ]
Bhaduri, Amit, “On the Significance of Recent Controversies on Capital Theory: A Marxian View”, The Economic Journal, vol. 79, núm. 315, septiembre de 1969, pp. 532-539. [ Links ]
Barro, Robert, “Notes on Growth Accounting”, Journal of Economic Growth, vol.64, núm. 2 junio de 1999, pp. 119-137. [ Links ]
Basu Susanto y J.G. Fernald, “Are Apparent Spillovers a Figment of Specification Error?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, núm. 36, 1995, pp. 165-188. [ Links ]
______, “Returns to Scale in U.S. Production: Estimates and Implications”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 105, núm. 2, 1997, pp. 249-283. [ Links ]
Blaug, Mark, The Methodology of Economics. Or How Economists Explain, Cambridge University Press, 2da. edición (reimpresión), 1993. [ Links ]
Blis, Christopher J., Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income, Amsterdam and New York, Elsevier North-Holland, 1975. [ Links ]
Cobb, C.W. y P.H. Douglas, “A Theory of Production”, American Economic Review, vol. 18, suplemento de marzo, Papers and Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, diciembre de 1928, pp. 139-165. [ Links ]
Cohen, Avi, y G. Harcourt, “Whatever Happened to the Capital Controversies?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, invierno de 2003, pp. 199-214. [ Links ]
Douglas, P.H., “The Cobb-Douglas Production Function Once Again: Its History, Its Testing, and Some Empirical Values”, Journal of Political Economy , octubre de 1976, pp. 903-915. [ Links ]
______, “Are There Laws of Production?”, American Economic Review, marzo de 1948, pp. 1-41. [ Links ]
Felipe, Jesús, “Endogenous Growth, Increasing Returns, and Externalities: An Alternative Interpretation of the Evidence”, Metroeconomica, vol. 52, núm. 4, noviembre de 2001a, pp. 391-427. [ Links ]
______, “Aggregate Production Functions and the Measurement of Infrastructure Productivity: A Reassessment”, Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 27, núm. 3, verano de 2001b, pp. 323-344. [ Links ]
______, “Total Factor Productivity Growth in East Asia: A Critical Survey”, The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 34, núm. 5, abril de 1999, pp. 1-41. [ Links ]
Felipe, Jesús y F. Gerard Adams, “ ‘A Theory of Production’. The Estimation of the Cobb-Douglas Function: A Retrospective View”, Forthcoming in theEastern Economic Journal , 2005. [ Links ]
Felipe, Jesús y Franklin M. Fisher, “Agregation in Production Function: What Applied economists Should Know”, Metroeconomica, vol. 54, núms. 2-3, mayo-septiembre de 2003, pp. 208-262. [ Links ]
Felipe, Jesús y Carsten Holz, “Why do Production Functions Work? Fisher’s Simulations, Shaikh’s Identity and Some New Results”, International Review of Applied Economics, julio de 2001, pp. 261-285. [ Links ]
Felipe, Jesús y J.S.L. McCombie, “How Sound are the Foundations of the Aggregate Production Function? An Overview”, Forthcoming in the Eastern Economic Journal , 2005a. [ Links ]
______, “Why are Some Countries Richer than Others? A Sceptical View of Mankiw-Romer-Weil’s Test of the Neoclassical Growth Model”, Forthcoming in Metroeconomica, 2005b. [ Links ]
______, “Is a Theory of Total Factor Productivity Really Neeed?”, Asian Development Bank (Manila, Filipinas) y University of Cambridge, Manuscrito, 2005c. [ Links ]
______, “Some Methodological Problems with the Neoclassical Analysis of the East Asian Economic Miracle”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, agosto de 2003, pp. 695-721. [ Links ]
______, “A Problem with Some Recent Estimations and Interpretations of the Markup in Manufacturing Industry”, International Review of Applied Economics, vol. 16, núm. 2, abril de 2002, pp. 187-215. [ Links ]
______, “The CES Production Function, the Accounting Identity and Occam’s Razor”, Applied Economics, agosto de 2001, pp. 1221-1232. [ Links ]
Ferguson, C.E., “Capital Theory up to Date: A Comment on Mrs Robinson’s Article”, Canadian Journal of Economics, mayo de 1971, pp. 250-254. [ Links ]
______, The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (edición revisada en 1972), 1969. [ Links ]
Fisher, Franklin, Aggregation. Aggregate Production Functions and Related Topics, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1993. [ Links ]
______, “Aggregation Problem”, en Millgate Eatwell y Newman (eds.), The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics, London and Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1987, pp. 53-55. [ Links ]
______, “Aggregate Production Functions and the Explanation of Wages: A Simulation Experiment”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 53, núm. 4, noviembre de 1971, pp. 305-325. [ Links ]
Garegnani, P., “Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37, 1970, pp. 407-436. [ Links ]
Hahn, Frank H., The Share of Wages in the National Income, Londres, Weindenfeld and Nicholson, 1972. [ Links ]
Hall, Robert, “The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry”, Journal of Political Economy , núm. 96, 1988, pp. 921-947. [ Links ]
Hsieh Chang-Tai, “What Explains the Industrial Revolution in East Asia? Evidence from Factor Markets”, American Economic Review , núm. 92 (3), 2002, pp. 502-526. [ Links ]
Intriligator, M.D., Econometric Models, Techniques and Applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1978. [ Links ]
Jorgenson, D.W., “Investment and Production: A Review”, en M.D. Intriligator y D.A. Kendrick, Frontiers of Quantitative Economics, vol. II, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1974. [ Links ]
Jorgenson, D.W. y K.Y. Yun, “Tax Policy and Capital Allocation”, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper núm. 1107, 1984. [ Links ]
Journal of Economic Perspectives, “Comments”, vol. 17, núm. 4, otoño de 2003, pp. 227-235. [ Links ]
Kim, J.I. y L. Lau, “The Sources of Economic Growth of the East Asian Newly Industrialized Countries”, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, vol. 8, 1994, pp. 235-271. [ Links ]
Kurz, Heinz (ed.), Critical Essays on Piero Sraffa’s Legacy in Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press , 2000. [ Links ]
Lavoie, Marc, Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Aldershot and Brookfiled, Edward Elgar, 1992. [ Links ]
Lucas, R.E., “Capacity, Overtime, and Empirical Production Functions”, American Economic Review . Papers and Proceedings, mayo de 1970, pp. 23-27. [ Links ]
Mankiw, G., D. Romer, D. Weil, “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 107, núm. 2, mayo de 1992, pp. 407-437. [ Links ]
McCombie, J.S.L., “The Solow Residual, Technical Change and Aggregate Production Functions”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, invierno de 2000-2001, pp. 267-297 (errata ibid. p. 544). [ Links ]
______, “The Regional Production and the Accounting Identity: A Problem of Interpretation”, Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 2000, pp. 133-155. [ Links ]
Pasinetti, L.L., “Critique of the Neoclassical Theory of Growth and Distribution”, Moneta e Credito, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, núm. 210, junio de 2000, pp. 187-232. [ Links ]
______, “The Structure of Long-Term Development: Concluding Comments”, in Pasinetti, L.L. y R.M. Solow (eds.), Economic Growth and the Structure of Long-Term Development, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1994. [ Links ]
Phelps Brown, E.H., “The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb-Douglas Function”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, noviembre de 1957, pp. 546-560. [ Links ]
Robinson, Joan, “The Measure of Capital: The End of the Controversy”, The Economic Journal , vol. 81, núm. 323, septiembre de 1971a, pp. 597-602. [ Links ]
______, “The Existence of Aggregate Production Functions: Comment”, Econometrica, vol. 39, núm. 2, marzo de 1971b, p. 405. [ Links ]
______, “Capital Theory Up to Date”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 3, núm. 2, mayo de 1970, pp. 309-317. [ Links ]
______, The Accumulation of Capital, London, Macmillan, 1956. [ Links ]
______, “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital- Reply”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 23, núm. 2, 1955-1956, p. 247. [ Links ]
______, “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 21, núm. 2, 1953-1954, pp. 81-106. [ Links ]
Samuelson, Paul., “A summing Up”, Quarterly Journal of Economics , vol. 80, núm. 4, 1966, pp. 568-583. [ Links ]
______, “Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 29, junio, 1961-1962, pp. 193-206. [ Links ]
Shaikh, A., “Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: Humbug II”, en E.J. Nell (ed.), Growth, Profits and Property, Essays in the Revival of Political Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press , 1980, pp. 80-95. [ Links ]
______, “Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function”, Review of Economics and Statistics, febrero de 1974, pp. 115-120. [ Links ]
Simon, H.A., “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations”, American Economic Review , núm. 69, 1979a, pp. 493-513. [ Links ]
______, “On Parsimonious Explanation of Production Relations”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, diciembre de 1979b, pp. 459-474. [ Links ]
Simon, H. A. y F.K. Levy, “A Note on the Cobb-Douglas Function”, Review of Economic Studies , junio de 1963, pp. 93-94. [ Links ]
Solow, Robert, “Growth Theory and After”, American Economic Review , junio de 1988, pp. 307-317. [ Links ]
______, “Review of Capital and Growth”, American Economic Review, vol. 56, núm. 5, diciembre de 1966, pp. 1257-1260. [ Links ]
______, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, Review of Economics and Statistics, agosto de 1957, pp. 312-320. [ Links ]
______, “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 70, 1956, pp. 65-94. [ Links ]
Stiglitz, J.E., “The Cambridge-Cambridge Controversy in the Theory of Capital: A View from New Heaven: A Review Article”, Journal of Political Economy , vol. 82, núm. 4, julio-agosto de 1974, pp. 893-903. [ Links ]
Sylos Labini, Paolo, “Why the Interpretation of the Cobb-Douglas Production Function Must be Radically Changed”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 6, 1995, pp. 485-504. [ Links ]
Temple, Jonathan, “The New Growth Evidence”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 37, marzo de 1999, pp. 112-156. [ Links ]
Young, Alwyn, “A Tale of Two Cities: factor accumulation and technical change in Hong Kong and Singapore”, National Bureau of Economics Research Macroeconomics Annual 1992, 1992, pp. 13-63. [ Links ]
______, “Lessons from the NICs: a contrarian view”, European Economic Review, vol. 38, 1994, pp. 964-973. [ Links ]
______, “The Tyranny of Numbers: confronting the statistical realities of the East Asian growth experience”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110, 1995, pp. 641-80. [ Links ]
Recibido: Mayo de 2004; Aprobado: Diciembre de 2004
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons
