Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:24:11.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investment behaviour in Europe : a comparative analysis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Michel Catinut ,
Richard Cawley ,
Fabienne Ilzkovitz ,
Alexander Italianer  and
Matthias Mors
Michel Catinut
Affiliation:
Commission of the European Communities
Richard Cawley
Affiliation:
Commission of the European Communities
Fabienne Ilzkovitz
Affiliation:
Commission of the European Communities
Alexander Italianer
Affiliation:
Commission of the European Communities
Matthias Mors
Affiliation:
Commission of the European Communities
Get access

Summary

The focus of this article is the comparison of the relative influence of different determinants of investment (demand, the relative price of capital and labour, and profit) for five large European countries and the United States. The investment equations are derived from production functions, either putty-putty or putty-clay, in the context of a disequilibrium model. The comparison of annual and quarterly estimates (after aggregation in a equivalent annual model) improves the evaluation of the precision of the parameter estimates.

In all these countries, in accordance with the accelerator effect, demand is the dominant influence in the short term, fading away in the medium term. In contrast, profit is not a predominant influence except in the medium term. Its role thus seems to result from the effect of expectations on investment profitability rather than from short run self-financing constraints. With respect to factor substitution, the analysis confirms that this is only weakly linked to changes in the relative price of capital and labour.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article a pour objet de comparer les influences relatives des différents déterminants de l’investissement (demande, prix relatifs capital-travail, profit) pour cinq grands pays européens et pour les Etats-Unis. Les équations d’investissement sont dérivées de fonctions de production, soit putty-putty, soit putty-clay, dans un cadre théorique de déséquilibre. La comparaison des estimations annuelles, d’une part, et trimestrielles, d’autre part, (après agrégation en un modèle annuel équivalent), permet de mieux appréhender la précision d’évaluation des paramètres.

Dans tous les pays, l’influence de la demande est prépondérante à court terme et s’estompe à moyen terme, conformément à l’effet d’accélérateur. En revanche, le profit ne devient prédominant qu’à moyen terme. Son rôle semble donc plutôt résulter de phénomènes d’anticipation sur la rentabilité des investissements que de contraintes d’autofinancement à court terme. Quant à la substitution entre facteurs de production, l’analyse confirme qu’elle n’est généralement que peu liée aux mouvements des prix relatifs capital-travail.

Keywords

122211522122211522
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , 1988 , pp. 277 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1988 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This paper is an abridged version of a larger report published by the Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, in European Economy n° 31 (March 1987) under the title « The determinants of investment ». This report, which contains a number of annexes with more detailed results, is available upon request from the authors.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Artus, P. and Muet, P.A. (1984), Un panorama des développements récents de l’économétrie de l’investissement, Revue économique, n° 5, pp. 791–830, September.Google Scholar
Brown, R., Durbin, J. and Evans, J. (1975), Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 37, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
Chow, G.C. (1960), Test of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions, Econometrica, Vol. 28, pp. 591–605.Google Scholar
Deleau, M. and Malgrange, P. (1980), L’agregation temporelle des modèles dynamiques linéaires, Annales de l’Insee, n° 37, pp. 3–22, January-March.Google Scholar
Fisher, F. (1970), Test of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions : an expository note, Econometrica, Vol. 38, pp. 361–366.Google Scholar
Goldfeld, S.M. and Quandt, R.E.(1983), The estimation of structural shifts by switching regressions,Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, pp. 475–485, October.Google Scholar
Hayashi, F. (1982), Tobin’s marginal q and average q : a neoclassical interpretation, Econometrica, Vol. 50, N° 1, pp. 213–224, January.Google Scholar
Hendry, D.F. (1980), Predictive failure and econometric modelling in macroeconomics : the transactions demand for money, Chapter 9 in Ormerod, P. (ed.), Economic Modelling, London, Heinermann.Google Scholar
Ilzkovitz, F. (1985), Les déterminants des investissements des entreprises en Belgique, Cahier économiques de Bruxelles, n° 108,4ème trimestre, pp. 488–545.Google Scholar
Lambert, J.P. (1986), Investment behaviour in a stochastic rationing context, working document.Google Scholar
Lambert, J.P. (1986), Endogenizing investment in disequilibrium models with applications on Belgian and French data, report to Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.Google Scholar
Mairesse, J. and Dormont, B. (1985), Labour and investment demand at the firm level : a comparison of French, German and US manufacturing, 1970–79, European Economic Review.Google Scholar
Malecot, J.F. and Hamon, J. (1986), Contraintes financières et demande d’investissement des entreprises, Revue économique, n° 5, pp. 885–923.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, E. (1983), Profitability and investment facing uncertain demand, Document de travail de l’Insee, n° 8303, 39 pp., April.Google Scholar
Muet, P.A. and Zagame, P. (1980), L’effet du taux d’intérêt sur l’investissement : un essai d’analyse par les modèles de contraintes, Economies et sociétés, Vol. 14, n° 2–3–4, February-March-April, pp. 483–524.Google Scholar
Poret, P. (1986), Econométrie de l’investissement et enquête de conjoncture, Economie et prévision, n° 74, fascicule 3.Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (1958), The estimation of the parameters of a linear regression system obeying two separate regimes, Journal of American Statistical Association, 53, pp. 873–880.Google Scholar
Quandt, R.E. (1960), Tests of the hypothesis that a linear regression system obeys two separate regimes, Journal of American Statistical Association, 55, pp. 324–330.Google Scholar
Annual Economic Review 1986–87, European Economy, N° 29, July 1986, Annual Economic Report 1986–87, European Economy, n° 30, November 1986.Google Scholar
Richard, J.R. (1978), Models with several regimes and changes in causal directions, Review of Economic Studies.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. (1969), A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol 1, n° 1, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, H. (1980), On the “ q ” theory of investment, The American Economic Review, Vol. 70, n° 4, September, pp. 739–743.Google Scholar