We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Between 1937 and 1943, Douglas and several younger coauthors developed an approach to estimating the Cobb–Douglas regression with cross section data, applying it to industry-level data from the US, Australia, and Canada. This research is described in detail. Over this period claims made by the Douglas team about the meaning of an estimated Cobb–Douglas regression and its relationship to neoclassical theory evolved and never really reached a settled state. During this period, Douglas and his coauthors also responded to Horst Mendershausen's forceful critique of Douglas's work with the regression. Mendershausen pointed to a number of problems in Douglas’s data and methods, concluding that his results did not represent a stable, causal relationship between inputs and output and that his regression method was an unreliable tool for estimation of a production function. Douglas and his associates developed detailed responses to Mendershausen’s critique, and after going back and forth with Mendershausen for a few years, Douglas essentially declared victory and moved on. This debate is analyzed, and possible reasons that Mendershausen’s criticisms did not have more influence are offered.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.