IN THIS PAPER the reader will find a review of econometric studies of investment in fixed capital. A review of these studies through 1953 was given in 1957 by J. Meyer and E. Kuh [86], and a detailed review through 1960 was presented by R. Eisner and R. H. Strotz in 1963 [36]. In this review we concentrate on recent research on time series of investment expenditures for individual firms and industries. Our point of departure is the flexible accelerator model of investment originated by H. B. Chenery [13, 1952] and L. M. Koyck [74, 1954]. In this model attention is focused on the time structure of the investment process. The desired level of capital is determined by longrun considerations. Changes in desired capital are transformed into actual investment expenditures by a geometric distributed lag fuinction-the specification of desired capital has been the subject of a wide variety of alternative theories; the alternative theories do agree on the validity of the flexible accelerator mechanism. Denoting the actual level of capital by K and the desired level by K+, capital is adjusted toward its desired level by a constant proportion of the difference between desired and actual capital,

The pivotal role of earnings expectations in equity valuation and therefore in certain areas of business finance is widely recognized, yet there is little theoretical or empirical evidence as to the manner in which investors and other groups actually formulate their estimates of future earnings. The resulting necessity to utilize proxy or indirect measures of expected earnings specified largely according to the predispositions of the investigator has led to numerous difficulties in the testing of cost of capital propositions and models of equity valuation.1 This study is intended to supply a preliminary response to the question of how earnings expectations are determined by appraising the extrapolative component of a limited sample of short-term estimates of earnings per common share. More specifically, the issues are the extent to which the earnings estimates (1) are extrapolative in nature and (2) may be approximated by familiar, naive, extrapolative techniques. In this context, “extrapolative” simply means determined by application of a specified weighting scheme to prior observations in the time series.

Journal Article A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames Get access James W. Friedman James W. Friedman University of Rochester Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 1971, Pages 1–12, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296617 Published: 01 January 1971

Journal Article Clontarf Revisited Get access W. M. Gorman W. M. Gorman Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 1971, Page 116, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296629 Published: 01 January 1971

Journal Article The Existence and Persistence of Cycles in a Non-linear Model: Kaldor's 1940 Model Re-examined Get access W. W. Chang, W. W. Chang State University of New York at Buffalo Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar D. J. Smyth D. J. Smyth Claremont Graduate School Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 1971, Pages 37–44, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296620 Published: 01 January 1971

Depreciation, Replacement costs, Cost of Capital, Inflation

ECONOMETRIC studies of production at the aggregate and semiaggregate levels have concentrated largely on the relation between capital and labor inputs, on the one hand, and some measure of real gross value added on the other. Studies that have gone beyond this scope to include a larger number of inputs have been confined to a highly restrictive class of production functions. Input-output studies using fixed production coefficients and studies in the agricultural field using CobbDouglas functions fall within this category.' A growing number of important economic questions, however, cannot be answered within the traditional models, but require instead a framework that allows a richer specification of the substitution possibilities among factors of production. The question of whether there are differences in the extent of substitutability or complementarity between capital and different skill categories of labor, which has been considered by Bowles [4], Cook [6], and Griliches [8], is one example where a more general production model is required. In addition, it is likely that the estimation of production parameters, in particular the elasticity of substitution (ES) between capital and labor, is biased when factors other than capital and labor are ignored. This paper presents the results of an econometric investigation of these problems using time-series data for Swedish manufacturing for the period 1870-1950. Section II presents some simple evidence that shows the extent of variation in factor output ratios in the data. Variation in these ratios is not consistent with the conditions under which the use of a valueadded production function can be justified. Section III then presents a general production model that allows the measurement of the price responsiveness of factor utilization, and section IV discusses the results of estimating the model. Finally, in section V the results of the general model are compared with the results obtained using the alternative gross value added framework and using direct production functions.

Economic historians should thank Larry Neal for his careful revision of the United States railroad investment series for the period between 1897 and 1914 [5]. However, the second major part of his article concerning the determinants of investmenit behavior over this period suffers from deficiencies of interpretation and requires further analysis which is the object of this note. Neal's thesis is that financial models, incorporating interest rates and cash flow variables, better explain railroad investment expenditures over this period than crude acceleration type mechanisms. In fact, he argues the time period 1897 to 1914 logically can be divided into two periods at the year 1907. In the earlier period (1897-1907) Neal argues that both easy access to external funds and the better use of internal funds are the primary explanations for investment behavior, while this was not the case after 1907. This thesis directly contradicts the earlier discussion of railroad investment made by Jan Kmenta and Jeffrey Williamson (K-W) [4]. The K-XV hypothesis purports that external costs were not important during this period and some sort of acceleration mechanism can best explain investment behavior. It is demonstrated below that the dominant determinant of long run railroad investment behavior over this period is the acceleration principle as asserted by K-W but that outside (as opposed to Neal's inside) financial conditions (the demand for financial instruments) contributed to the cyclical fluctuations of investment expenditures in the period prior to 1907.

A recent article in this journal [1] described a model for the computation of taxadjusted true yields to maturity on discount bonds and explained the use of a computer routine implementing this model. Unfortunately, the translation of the computer program into equation form contained a number of notational errors. In addition, there was an equals sign missing from the third equation [1, page 267]. As a result, the reader, in attempting to implement the model as it was formulated in the original article, will probably fail.