Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function

Bronfenbrenner, Martin; Douglas, Paul H.

doi:10.1086/255468

Cited by 27 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the formal sector are in alignment with the findings of similar models in the literature. Bronfenbrenner and Douglas (1939) reports that various cross-section estimates of the Cobb–Douglas model that use firm-level data from the United States and Australia find that the coefficient of the log of labour input ranges from 0.65 to 0.75. In general, for most manufacturing firms, nearly three-quarters of the output of a firm can be attributed to labour.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several empirical studies were carried out in the late 1920s and 1930s to develop this method of statistical estimation of the relationship between inputs and output of a firm. One example is Bronfenbrenner and Douglas (1939). Subsequently several studies, such as Motohashi (2001), have used this empirical strategy to study the productivity of a firm.…”

Section: Econometric Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Higher Education, Vocational Training and Performance of Firms

Sangita¹

2021

Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to the debate on the efficacy of traditional forms of education versus vocational training. The effects of technical education (leading to an engineering degree or diploma) and vocational training in engineering on the performance of Indian firms are analysed using regression models based on the Cobb–Douglas production function, enhanced to incorporate education and training. Instrumental variable approach is used to establish the direction of causality. It is found that that when a larger share of workers in a particular sector has a college or university-level technical education or vocational education in technical fields, there is a positive impact on firm performance in those sectors. Further, higher education in a general field seems to consistently benefit the organised manufacturing sector, while some levels of school education appear to benefit the unorganised sectors. JEL codes: I-23; L-60; M-53

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Econometric Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher Education, Vocational Training and Performance of Firms

Sangita¹

2021

Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the probable elasticities of the marginal productivity curves of labor and capital", and the near equality of labor's share and the k coefficient was offered as evidence that regression had produced accurate estimates of these elasticities, thus assuming the validity of the marginal productivity theory and the presence of competition rather than testing for it. Bronfenbrenner and Douglas (1939) noted that because the product variable was monetary value added rather than physical marginal product, k would equal labor's share even if product markets were non-competitive, and only monopsonistic exploitation of labor would lead to a deviation of k from labor's share. In Gunn and Douglas (1941c, p. 127), however, more ambiguous language was used in describing what one learned from the comparison of k to labor's share, suggesting that not only was this equality implied by "pure" competition, but also implied competition in both product and factor markets.…”

Section: Douglas's Cross Section Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Bronfenbrenner and Douglas (1939), Bronfenbrenner argued that understanding the relationship between statistically estimated production functions and theoretical production function was essential to establishing the legitimacy of the former, and he presented a theoretical model intended to illustrate the connection between the two. Bronfenbrenner later refined this model in an exchange with Melvin Reder that introduced a new terminology for discussing the cross section Cobb-Douglas regression.…”

Section: Douglas's Cross Section Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Introduction of the Cobb-Douglas Regression and Its Adoption by Agricultural Economists

Biddle

2011

History of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first part of this essay reviews Paul Douglas's twenty-year research program of using the Cobb-Douglas function to statistically estimate relationships between inputs and outputs. Emphasis is placed on the evolution of Douglas's own conceptualization of the program, and also the variety of views that arose among economists as to the significance of Douglas's results and, more generally, the potential value of the type of work he was doing. The second part examines the work of a group of agricultural economists who successfully established the Cobb-Douglas regression as a research tool in their field. They saw the regression as a way to address long-standing questions specific to agricultural economics. As a result, their defense and development of the method, as well as the criticisms they attracted from their colleagues, while drawing on the earlier literature surrounding Douglas's work, had noticeably different emphases and helped establish the Cobb-Douglas regression as a general purpose empirical tool for economists.

show abstract

“…In part this is due to the fact that the model has been applied to many types of situations. Douglas and his co-workers applied it to a time series analysis of all manufacturing [6] and to cross-section data including all types of industry groups [3]. In agriculture the model has been applied to single enterprise August 1974 MULTICOLLINEARITY AND THE COBB-DOUGLAS FUNCTION / 557 farms, multiple-enterprise farms and to single enterprises found existing on multiple-enterprise farms [ 11, p. 220].…”

Section: Multicollinearity and The Assumptions Of The Economistmentioning

confidence: 99%