Tax Policy and Investment in Manufacturing, 1954-1966

Coen, Robert M.

doi:10.2307/2326230

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…capacity utilization) appears to be playing an instrumental role in affecting positively investment activity. Such a finding even though appears to be akin to these obtained by Coen (1969), Eisner and Nadiri (1968), Bean (1981) stands at stark contrast to that obtained by Baddeley (2003).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 78%

A Keynesian-Kaleckian model of investment determination: a panel data investigation

Alexiou

2010

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The undertaken study assesses the empirical merits of the Post Keynesian doctrine as this is reflected by both the Keynesian as well as the Kaleckian theoretical approaches to investment determination. A GMM panel data methodology provides the econometric platform upon which the respective models have been tested. Annual time series data has been used, spanning from 1970 to 2005, for the G7 economies.The generated evidence confirms previous analyses in so far as capacity utilization and profits assume a key role in the determination of investment.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 78%

A Keynesian-Kaleckian model of investment determination: a panel data investigation

Alexiou

2010

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using time-series data, Coen (1969), Eisner and Nadiri (1968), and Lucas (1969), for example, all estimate elasticities significantly less than 1.…”

Section: The Habakkuk Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 98%

Directed Technical Change

Acemoğlu

2001

501

713

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Following Hall and Jorgenson () and Coen (), a profit maximizing competitive firm invests in capital until the marginal product of capital is equal to the real user cost of capital,

{normalR normalU normalC}_{t} = \frac{P_{t}^{I}}{P_{t}^{Y}} ((), i_{t} + δ_{t} - π_{t}) \frac{(1 - τ_{t} z_{t})}{(1 - τ_{t})} .

…”

Section: Calculating Mfp Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity Growth in Goods and Services Across the Heterogeneous States of America

Chanda

Panda

2015

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we examine the importance of multifactor productivity (MFP) growth in goods and services for U.S. States during 1980–2007 by applying the dual growth accounting framework. We find that MFP growth was relatively high and converged in the goods sector, but was low and did not converge in services. Although low growth in MFP in services was due to declining real user cost, particularly in real estate services, the lack of convergence itself was due to variation in wage growth. We also document that while the gap between productivity and wage growth was higher in goods, the two series were more strongly correlated in services. Finally, states with higher initial human capital experienced higher growth in both sectors. (JEL O47, R11)

show abstract

Tax Policy and Investment in Manufacturing, 1954-1966

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

A Keynesian-Kaleckian model of investment determination: a panel data investigation

A Keynesian-Kaleckian model of investment determination: a panel data investigation

Directed Technical Change

Productivity Growth in Goods and Services Across the Heterogeneous States of America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About