The Puzzle of the Replacement Ratio in the Context of Renewal Theory

Bitros, George C. (2010): The Puzzle of the Replacement Ratio in the Context of Renewal Theory.

Abstract

The models Feldstein and Rothschild (1974) and Jorgenson (1974) adopted to highlight the nature of the replacement ratio were identical. Yet, even though the theorems they derived from them were complementary and reinforced each other, the authors reached diametrically opposite conclusions. Digging deeper into the controversy that erupted, it emerges that the staying power of the theorem, according to which replacement is a constant propor-tion of the outstanding capital stock, may be attributed to the following reasons. The discernible shift from realism to instrumentalism in the methodology of economics; Its operational advantages; The data that accumulated, thus facilitating research without having to compute capital stock series from scratch; The inertia of the status quo, which is sustained by the absence of a process to decide when a theorem is in conflict with experience and should be set aside, and lastly the lack of a model leading to a more useful theorem than the one un-der consideration. In this light it is concluded that the time has come for research efforts to be directed towards constructing and testing models in which the useful life of capital is deter-mined endogenously in the presence of embodied technological change.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Proportional replacement hypothesis, renewal theory, durability, aggregation
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E22 - Investment ; Capital ; Intangible Capital ; Capacity

References

1. Bitros, G. C., (2009a), “The Theorem of Proportionality in Mainstream Capital Theory: An Assessment of its Conceptual Foundations,” Athens University of Economics and Business, Department of Econom-ics, Discussion Paper No. 195.

2. ----------------, (2009b), “The Theorem of Proportionality in Mainstream Capital The-ory: An Assessment of its Applicability,” Athens University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper No. 196.

3. ---------------- (2009c) “Aggregation of Producer Durables with Exogenous Techno-logical Change and Endogenous Useful Lives,” Journal of Eco-nomic and Social Measurement, forthcoming.

4. ---------------, (2008), “Why the Structure of Capital and the Useful Lives of its Components Matter: A Test Based on a Model of Austrian Descent,” Review of Austrian Economics, 21, 301-328.

5. ----------------, (2005), “On the Optimal Lifetime of Assets,” Athens University of Economic and Business, Department of Economics, Discussion paper No. 170.

6. Brown, M. and Chang, W. W. (1976) “Capital Aggregation in a General Equilibrium Model of Production,” Econometrica, 44, 1179-1200.

7. Caldwell, B. J, (1982), Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Cen-tury, New York and London: Routledge.

8. Eisner, R. (1972) “Components of Capital Expenditures: Replacement and Moderni-zation Versus Expansion,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 54, 297-305.

9. Feldstein, M. S., (1972/1974), “Tax Incentives, Stabilization Policy, and The Proportional Replacement Hypothesis: Some Negative Conclusions,” Southern Economic Journal, 40, 544-552. This paper appeared under the same title in 1972 as Discussion Paper Number 249, Harvard Institute of Economic Research.

10. Feldstein, M. S. and Foot, D. K. (1971) “The Other Half of Gross Investment: Replacement and Modernization Expenditures”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 53, 49-58.

11. Feldstein, M. S. and Rothchild, M., (1972) “Towards an Economic Theory of Replacement Investment”, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Discus-sion Paper 249.

12. ---------------- (1974) “Towards an Economic Theory of Replacement Investment,” Econometrica, 42, 393-423.

13. Friedman, M., (1953), “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3-43.

14. Goldfarb, R. S., (1995), “If empirical work in economics is not severe testing, what is it? In I. Rima (ed.), Measurement, Quantification, and Economic Analysis, London: Routledge, 333-364.

15. -------------------, (1997), “Now you see it, now you don’t: emerging contrary results in economics,” Journal of Economic Methodology, 4, 221-244.

16. Haavelmo, T. (1960) A Study in the Theory of Investment, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

17. Hirschman, A., (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

18. Hotelling, H. (1925 “A General Mathematical Theory of Depreciation,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 20, 340-353.

19. Jorgenson, D. W. (1963) “Capital Theory and Investment Behavior,” American Eco-nomic Review, 52, 247-259.

20. ----------------- (1965) “Anticipations and Investment Behavior,” in The Brookings Quarterly Econometric Model of the United States Chicago: Rand McNally and Co, 35-92.

21. ----------------- (1974) “The Economic Theory of Replacement and Depreciation,” in W. Sellekaerts (ed.) Econometrics and Economic Theory: Essays in Honour of Jan Tinbergen, New York: International Arts and Sciences Press.

22. Klein, L. R. (1962) An Introduction to Econometrics, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

23. Koopmans, T. C., (1979), “Economics among the Sciences,” American Economic Review, 69, 1-13.

24. Kuhn, T., (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

25. Machlup, F., (1955), “The Problem of Verification in Economics.” Southern Economic Journal, 22, 1-21. Reprinted also in Bitros, G. C., (ed), Selected Economic Writings of Fritz Machlup, New York: New York University Press, 57-77.

26. ----------------, (1964), “Professor Samuelson on Theory and Realism,” American Eco-nomic Review, 54, 733-736.

27. Popper, K. R., (1935), Logik der Forschung, Vienna: Springer Verlag. Translated into English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hut-chinson, 1959.

28. Preinreich, G. A. D. (1940) “The Economic Life of Industrial Equipment”, Econometrica, Vol. 8, pp. 12-44.

29. Prucha, I., (1997), “Estimation of a variable rate of depreciation: A dummy variable approach,” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 8, 319-325.

30. Samuelson, P. A., (1963), “Problems of Methodology-Discussion” American Eco-nomic Review, Proceedings, 53, 235.

31. ----------------------, (1965), “Professor Samuelson on Theory and Realism: Reply,” American Economic Review, 55, 1164-1172.

32. Schumpeter, J. A., (1954), History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.

33. Smith, V. L. (1957) “Economic Equipment Policies: An Evaluation.” Management Science, 4, 20-37.

34. ----------------- (1961) Investment and Production: A Study in the Theory of the Capital-Using Enterprise, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

35. Solow, R. M., (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65-94.

36. Smith, V. L., (1957), “Economic Equipment Policies: An Evaluation.” Management Science, 4, 20-37.

37. -----------------, (1961) Investment and Production: A Study in the Theory of the Capital-Using Enterprise, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

38. Teixeira, O. B., (2007), “Great expectations, mixed results and resilient beliefs: The troubles of empirical research in economic controversies,” Journal of Economic Methodology, 14, 291-309.

39. Terborgh, G. (1949) Dynamic Equipment Policy, New York: McGraw-Hill.

40. Walker, F. V. (1968) “Determinants of Auto Scrappage,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 50, 503-506.

41. Wykoff, F. (1970) “Capital Depreciation in the Postwar Period: Automobiles,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 52, 168-72.

42. Zarembka, P. (1975) “Capital Heterogeneity, Aggregation, and the Two-Sector Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, 103-114.